7/28/05

Back

On Thu, July 28, 2005 11:19 pm, Dan Murphy said:
> we let it be known that we will not allow ourselves to be pushed
> around by people flexing their "admin" muscle at us. we will let them
> know that we will not just go along with their plan in the end and eat
> whatever crap they try to force down our throats.

You didn't answer my question. What you mention is the intended result. It is neither a guaranteed result nor a goal. Now, we can argue semantics, but lets assume you get your message across. What steps towards your goal does it help you take? What is your goal in the first place? And most importantly how does this step obligate the opposing party to respond in a way that is to your liking?

All this does is project the message that we're stubborn and unwilling to work towards a mutually acceptable solution. Lets look at the larger scenario, and assume that Alex and Charles want to make this "go away".

Possible outcomes:

1. We become fed up and quit the org. We are gone. They win.
2. We elect a DST. The Council stops caring. They win.
3. We don't elect a DST, nor an appointee. The domain moves into black, bad stuff happens. They win.
4. We don't elect a DST, but accept an appointee. Domain isn't threatened, but we've lost control of it. We lose, therefore they win.
5. We stop caring. They win.
6. We elect a DST. Henry, Patton, and Strauss don't let go of the issue, and stay dogged in their pursut of the council. We might win, but that's a tossup.

Mike K
US2002022250

Back