Hi Nico,
My impression was that the lack of participation might be caused by the
fact that there were concerns raised during the actual voting procedure.
I proposed in a previous e-mail to separate the discussion on an
"application" from the actual voting process because someone might feel
reluctant to vote when there are "open issues" subject to more discussion.
Independent from this, I think that the discussion on the definition of
a CN would be very useful and I think that the linked document is a good
starting point.
Perhaps something to discuss in our next meeting?
Best,
Panos.
On 08.08.2018 17:30, Nicolás Echániz wrote:
On 07/18/2018 08:25 PM, Nicolás Echániz wrote:
Sol, should we extend this vote call for another
5 days or do you prefer
to open the discussion so we can better understand why there were so few
interventions?
Nothing prevents us from voting on this matter again once we clarify any
doubts that members may be having.
Hi all,
I'd want to ask this collective if you think the lack of participation
in this important decission was due to lack of clarity, on their end or
on ours.
On ours, I suspect that it maybe a good time to bring up again the
discussion around the definition of Community Networks.
AFAIK, the document where there has been more progress in this direction
is this one:
https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration
... discussed in the context of the DC3 (Dynamic Coalition on Community
Connectivity)
Are you all aware of this document? Would it be interesting to take this
as a starting point for a discussion within the CNSIG?
Cheers,
Nico
_______________________________________________
Council mailing list
Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council