Re: [CNSIG-Council] Community Network Defnition - Re: [Decision] Tunapanda membership request

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi, 1) lack of participation: my general position/recommendation is that one should put the efforts on what he/she considers more attractive, keeping the participation open, but without worrying to much about if others join or not. Diversity is positive. I like to see people pushing CNsig. Many times I've relied on the existence of CNsig to support our arguments. The same way, I think the local initiatives are food for CNsig. In this specific case, you have you have followed the established procedures, which can be considered open, so nothing to object. If people stays quiet is not your fault (probably not theirs either because they are probably busy in other matters). But this does not mean that we do not appreciate what you are doing CNsig. 2) CNs definition: I would love to have one to because I think the term is being overused and might be even more in the future. But given the previous attempts and the diversity of approaches I'm afraid we won't be able to reach a common understanding. I dare say I particularly have a rather clear idea on the criteria for classifying initiatives the categories of "clearly yes", "maybe yes/maybe not" and "definitely not". But this is for my particular use and I would dare not impose these criteria to anybody. Main question: given the previous attempts, is worth to retake the discussion to come up with a definition? kind regards. On 8/8/18 17:36, panayotis antoniadis wrote: - -- Roger Baig Viñas Fundació Privada per a la Xarxa Oberta, Lliure i Neutral guifi.net