Re to Mark: [WDDM] Results/Next Steps: Toward a WDDM Charter

["Filia den Hollander" <fkdh(at)xs4all.nl>]

Hello Mark and all,

Yes, I oppose to how my response has been summarized.
My response: Charter will de facto not work due to internet nature of
group. WDDM can function as a resource for information and feedback for
national/local initiatives.

Den Hollander



> Hi All,
>
> About a month ago (January 3 to be specific) I posted “Toward a WDDM
> Charter.” This was a series of questions which, if answered, allow for
> construction of a draft charter including procedures for discourse and
> adoption. The original posting is copied as an attachment.
>
> First of all I’d like to thank the respondents. Your serious review is
> reflected in your responses.
>
> There were a dozen responses. That’s not bad for a group of about 4
> dozen members. And it represents almost the entire cadre of members who
> ever speak out on the board. The following is a characterization of the
> answers:
>
> Positive
> Everingham - Supports a charter, supports options A, requests additional
> wording on dissent.
> Polak - Supports a charter, supports options A
> Jackson - Supports a charter, supports options A
> Eggum - Supports a charter, options 1C, 2B, 3B, 4A, 5B2, 6B, 7B
> Cardeiro - Supports a charter, options 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, 6A, 7A, 8A
> Antell - Supports a charter, supports options A
>
> Negative
> Becker - No need for a charter. Group can only function as a chat group
> VanHollander - No need for a charter. Group can only function as a chat
> group
> Rossin - No to the concept of a charter
>
> Other
> Ivanovna - Votes 'present'
> Clayson - ?
> Smith - Wants out
>
> Please get back to me if I’ve mischaracterized anyone’s response.
>
> It appears to me that there’s enough support to produce an actual draft
> for discussion, modification and adoption. I’ll do so by the end of the
> month.