Including For-Profit and Public Agencies on WE +8
| Back to Suggestion Group |
Proposal:
The work toward a just and sustainable world means being inclusive. Responsible businesses and supportive government agencies bring key resources for making lasting change.
There are a number of groups that are organized as multi-stakeholder processes and find themselves limited by the currrent scope of WiserEarth.
We suggest we expand the scope of participants to include for profit organizations and public agencies.
We think this scope will give WiserEarth another unique characteristic. Of course, accountability, integrity and transparency are critical to maintaining trust and confidence in all participants and the claims being made.
I manage a non-profit, the Interra project, and we would be able to expand our use of WE open wiser. This is also true of the California Food System portal and a number of other groups.
We have the support for this suggestion by the people at NCI, we need your support by voting on it. What do you think?
~Jon Ramer (jonramer)
_________________________________
Here's a link to the original discussion thread around this topic on WiserEarth. Further discussion is carried out below in the comments section where you can add your thougths.
If you don't have time to read things through, you can comment on these emerging conclusions and follow up on action points from the discussions so far:
- conclusion 1
- conclusion 2
- action point 1
- action point 2
- open question/discussion 1
- open question/discussion 2
If you wish to stay updated on most recent edits and comments, add this page and linked pages (plans for implementation, questions, drafts) to your watchlist.
Comments (1 - 20 of 58)
|
Flag comment for removal angusparker 1 day ago
@Bowo: Great comments. I think these would be useful additions to the guidelines.
|
|
Perhaps we should include this mechanism of ensuring that people are people in either the community guidelines or the editorial policy. As soon as someone discover that user profile are used to represent an organization, he/she can report to WiserEarth admin for follow up action, which logically must be the deactivation of the user account if a real full name of a person is not supplied with the "organization" username.
The tricky bit would be the case where a real full name of a person is supplied with the "organization" username, as there has not been a formal rule (to my knowledge) of what username is allowed or not allowed within WiserEarth. This can be used by a member of that organization for it's own advantage, or be used by opponents of that organization to discredit the organization. And validating whether a person is a formal representative of an organization or not, will actually be difficult if not impossible. Thus, I suggest that we establish a rule stating that username can not be the name of an organization while still (naturally) allow users (real person) to say something about organizations they're affiliated with in their profile page. |
|
I totally agree with Honore and Angus. Organizations -- public, profit, or public -- will always exist in WE because some PERSON added them. By making sure that people are people we can trace back as to who added or edited any entry. In my opinion, whatever mechanism we have in place to question orgs should also question people that are not describing themselves as a person.
|
|
Angus has brought up the issue of users who have created accounts to represent their organizations - case in point, bluemoonaromatics. In circumstances like this, it's probably best to contact the user and let them know they should be creating an organization profile for their business, and to use their user account to represent themselves as an individual, rather than as their business. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
I'd like to summarize a couple ideas that have been talked about, through the WiserEarth partners meeting and discussions with community members:
The current thinking is that we would add to the type field "For-profit/Business" and "Government/ Public Agency". We would then also add in a certification field, allowing each organization to multi-select certifications that they have been awarded for their work. Initially, certifications was planned only for for-profits, but we realized that non-profits and government agencies can also have them too, so they'll now be a field that's selectable for all 3 types. To distinguish the 3 different types of organizations, color coding and a visual icon is needed. Color coding isn't enough, as it prevents color-impaired individuals from easily seeing the distinction, so a visual icon would help users quickly see the distinction. Angus has provided a book on symbology for us to consider. The initial list of certifications is limited to 40, though Peggy has already gathered over 180 possible choices. Coding it so that the selection process will be easy and not overwhelming will take some work. We'll also have to provide some process for users to recommend adding a certification to the list, since it's unlikely we'll encompass all of them. I'll be working with the development team to implement these ideas, which may include revamping our Add an organization pages to reflect the changes. Please feel free to continue the discussion here, as it's very much an ongoing process right now. |
|
Bowo thank you for your attempt at participation in the community. I do truly understand.
I appreciate the reminder Peggy. At the moment I do not think that NCI needs to be removed from the network. We did send them a message a month ago asking them to abide by our community guidelines. Our hope was to ensure that we would be able to contribute to a just decision making process that would result in a sustainable solution created by community; a process that would honor our community guidelines = http://www.wiserearth.org/article/e6d1e607f6e29b9f3bf253d61edd9c92 . We have heard back from them and it is unclear what their current intentions are. Their use of Orwellian language -- language that means the opposite of what it says -- with regard to this wiki, is simply unfortunate. They are obviously communicating in this style because they are in a weak/ vulnerable position and cannot clearly say what they mean. They intentionally framed this issue in a way that missed the point to mislead the community so that they would vote for something that is against their interests. We certainly do understand that funding and governing an online networking website like WiserEarth.org is a unique challenge. We don't take the banter/ disscusions on this site personally, and we certainly hope the NCI employees can understand that their privately funded internet technology is second in value to the community that it supports. Most of us no longer have the interest to pursue further negotiations with NCI with regard to this topic. That is truly unfortunate for all members of the social / environmental justice community whom are currently on this network, and heralds an ominous future for the world we all share. The implication for the future of this online networking resource is -- in a word -- immoral. We wish them -- the private funders and the employees -- the best with their website. We would like to gently mention that we hope they take the time to obtain proper legal consultation prior to any inclusion of for-profits. One of many excellent resources would be: http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717 This post is not inflammatory and should not be removed. It is absolutely consistent with the community guidelines. The relation of NCI to this wiki and our community is currently inconsistent with the community guidelines and is grounds for removal from our network. Specifically the potential for removal of the user privledges of Jon Ramer, Melinda Kramer, Peggy Duvette and Camilla Burg -- among others -- is something we will be carefully monitoring in the days ahead. Currently as a WiserEarth User I would not recomend that we ban these individuals. I believe they are just doing their job. |
|
|
Thank you for your understanding JT. Thank you Peggy and Camilla for amendments to the Term of Use and Community Guidelines, I think they're spot on and necessary for the growth of the site and community.
Looking forward to how the implementation of for-profit and public agencies inclusion will unfold. |
|
Thanks to your vote and the active discussions around this topic, the administrators of WiserEarth decided to start the implementation for the inclusion of responsible businesses and government agencies. We hope to have this implemented by mid August the latest. The directory will then include non profit, for profit and public agencies working towards social justice and environmental restoration. If you want details on the implementation, please contact Honore.
|
|
As an administrator, I would not recommend that we ban JTHESSERT.
JT we simply ask you to follow the community guidelines |
|
|
I got the request: will drop the topics related to Institutional Accountability and be sure to be polite etc.= but I think my below post is relevant, so please read and consider. peace |
|
|
I think this site is a great resource, and appreciate its availability: if NCI wants to at any time respectfully request I stop posting re Institutional Accountability/ Community Participation/ Community Resources -- I will certainly honor that request.
JON, Thanks for the reply. My confusion may be in part due to the fact that I am learning: the institutional accountability wiki was the first one I ever made; and am not clear on the specifics of the discussion that you and NCI have been having off-line. Bowo suggested for you to clarify the specifics and was ignored... My confusion may be due to the fact that I know Melinda is the WiserEarth.org / NCI communication person, and I am perceiving her comments to reflect the perspective of NCI; as no NCI wiserearth user made any effort to address any of the concerns / questions voiced, they all seemed to imply support for her comments. When you said you are open to discussion for a payment plan etc. , you also imply support for her idea coming to fruition -- from my perspective. ----- Jon wrote: “This suggestion was to add For Profit companies and Public Agencies to the community directory. Period. “ Jon also mentioned he wanted to decouple payment. I am going to take that at face-value= Jon, that does not seem clear to me: We pass your suggestion, my friend and I add our green business to the directory immediately: Than what happens? Can we develop a group etc. like an NGO currently can? Can we access all site features? Are their any restrictions on what we can do on WE? What prevents us from accessing the site like an NGO, what prevents us from doing what we want on WE? Where is this written/ stated? Who decides this? If we can’t do this now: will we be able to do it in the future? Will we have to pay? Who decides this? NCI, YOU……………. where do me and my friend get our say? That should be established before For-Profits are added right? Why can’t our business have rich functionality/ disk space the moment we open up the directory to For-Profits? Why can’t we start a group, develop a webpage complete with utube links, loud graphics etc., and send invite messages to all regional NGO’s that are currently on WiserEarth.org? It could be a private group. What will you do about it? Remove the group? On what grounds? What is the purpose for allowing For-Profits in the directory if they cannot access all WE features? Can they access all WE features for free under your plan? If we join the directory tomorrow—in two weeks will there be an understanding that we can access rich functionality/ obtain more disk space/ develop a group upon a payment plan with NCI? Who decides this? What is the payment plan? Whose money is it? Who decides how the money is spent? Concerns (previously stated, referred-to… and seemingly ignored… thanks for the time to read though them now…) BOWO: This also includes the way democracy has been so compromized by corporate and wealthy-people's financial contributions. The resulting effect is that not only people and planet have less and less say in how things go, both are increasingly becoming the tools of our own tools and institutions. … Financial contributions will eventually need to be made public--perhaps along side current type of contribution (edits, additions, comments) in the browse people page. Thus, the money people contribute will only be a part of the measure of their contribution. Even if someone donated a million dollars (amen...) that does not mean he/she can say and do whatever he wants in WiserEarth, but he/she will surely earn the respect of the community for the contribution. … This will ensure that transparency is maintained, integrity uncompromised, accountability upheld, and most importantly, power reside in the community of people and not in institutions. On the flip side, there will come the need for NCI to disclose the financial report in regard to the use of funding from the communiy (and perhaps also from the so called WiserEarth Partners). … Regarding JP's (JPMS) comment on this: "As long as there is a way to differentiate for profit and public agencies from the non-profit and non-public agencies, I think it makes sense to invite them in to the community. But there should also be a mechanism by which people who make it part of life to monitor organizations would be able to allert the WiserEarth community about some questionable organizations, since names don't always indicate what an organization is really about"
I was thinking of creating a "Public" and "Open" group called something like WiserEarth Plaza or WiserEarth Community Center, where all WiserEarthlings are encouraged or even obligated to join upon registration. This group should be created and administered by WiserEarth administrators and serve as a place where any community member can be in touch with the whole community for any needs (including event promotion, etc.). Group guidelines should be establish however to prevent misuse/abuse.
This group can also be used to facilitate JP's suggestion above and address part of Camilla's comment: "I like the idea of having 2 separate entities who would at the same time be connected. From a metaphorical perspective, we could compare it to a village. It would mean that there would be a village square (or commons) which would be fully inclusive and open to all who would like to meet there, but that there would be different families who live in different houses in the village (with different needs (and facilities) but who would have the ability to make the connections with everyone else and help to participate in and build the commons."
Anyone in support of this? JT: Bowo I am in complete support of that: runs parallel to my idea / Brad’s thought process of having a group established, where an NGO/ WiserEarth user could sponsor/ make a case for a prospective For-Profit prior to their inclusion… 4. On "vetting committee"/"filtering mechanism" to screen for-profits
Jerome (jerdanraf): "Some clear rules have to be defined in order not to list each and every company that think it deserves it. A multi stake holder vetting commitee could help."
Roger (): "My vote is to include the two new types of entities provided that we explicitly exclude any special payment by the new groups and that we do implement the filtering mechanism before the new groups are allowed in."
The first filter would be the content standards. The second one should be a collective monitoring effort by the entire community of users (especially those with editor and administrator privilege) and can be greatly facilitated by the formation of the forementioned WiserEarth Community Center group. JT = I have some concerns about the monitoring process currently; see institutional accountability issues etc. … BOWO: 7. Request to Jon
As a general guideline in posting suggestion in our WiserEarth suggestion group, we request that when possible, the poster of the suggestion spend some time to review the emerging discussion and summarize them in the about section so that both old-timers and new-comers to the discussion can have an idea of what have been discussed and what conclusions have been reached.
Can you kindly do this for us? (I've prepared the space and pointers above). I'd of course be happy to help summarize the discussion. But just to conform with the guideline first. Big thanks. JT= @Jon = please note that I found it kind of offensive – to be blunt -- that you ignored bowo, as I second the concerns he voiced/ and others voiced. It is all on this discussion, so is easy to find. I also find it offensive that you and Melinda ignored my comments/ questions on the implementation page. BOWO cont. This would be something that will provide valuable guidance on screening businesses that should be included in WiserEarth and address a part of Michael Spalding's (michael) reservations for not including for-profits (quoted at the bottom from the community discussion around this topic ).
As I alwas liked the concept of WiserEarth's sister sites: WiserBusiness and WiserGovernment (click here for a PDF overview), and how they will eventually coalesce with WiserEarth into personal, local and regional hubs, I thus support the inclusion of for-profits and gov. agencies here as you suggested. I also acknowledged how many projects to create positive change must be multi-stakeholders by necessity.
Before adding my vote, there are things that I think needs answers/clarifications:
Again, thank you for your thoughtful response Jon. I look forward too to our working together.
@JP
I think I'm in support of adding an indication of organization type, just to make things clearer. Perhaps a small icon somewhere in the organization's page? (which will also show up in "Organizations" listing within groups).
This is Michael's response to Duane on why he thought WiserEarth is not ready to include for-profits.
Hey Duane, -------- May we know more info other than the proposal and the community discussions linked above? Especially the ones in the WiserEarth Partners meeting(s)...
For practicality and eventuality reasons, I see no wrong in integrating WiserBusiness.org and WiserGovernment.org into WiserEarth. Provided that we install appropriate safety measures as probed in the questions page.
Info for readers of this page:
This is a short description of what constitutes WIserEarth Partners --> http://www.naturalcapital.org/wiserpartners.htm
Are there more info out there that the community should know about? Just to conform with WiserEarth's transparency principle which states that "WiserEarth is open to full public scrutiny".
JON WROTE: At the WiserEarth Partners meeting it was agreed that WiserEarth is open and the scope can be expanded to include for profit entities and government agencies.
JT= Jon, perhaps you can explain to us who a partner is etc.? Thanks. There are plenty of unanswered questions/ concerns here; that your plan / comments do not address. I do appreciate the time of yourself/ any NCI members who chose to try to address these issues. I realize there is a lot there. I just feel the system is real faulty: what is stopping me from getting a hundred people I know to jump on here and offer support for my wiserbusiness plan? Do you know what I mean? Would it get implemented? Your perspective: the NCI/ Interra Project network/ community is not necessarily consistent with the way everyone else is viewing this matter. I honestly have to go to work = this is not the type of work that I do (not meant in sarcasm: I truly need to go to work) = and I will not be able to get on a computer till Sunday at the earliest... So for the sake of respect I would request you do not implement this plan until I have an opportunity to further understand your process/ plans etc.
Because I am honestly still not clear on how your plan, when implemented = could evolve etc., and who decides... Thanks JT
|
|
|
I am trying to be clear. This suggestion was to add For Profit companies and Public Agencies to the community directory. Period.
I think we do need to take responsibility for WE sustaining itself, I don't think adding private and public organizations to the directory is the way to do that. That is why I am restating my suggestion and recommend we decouple dollars to WE from additions to the directory.
By identifying a sustainable subset within each of the three sectors -- public, private, and civil society -- I think I am addressing the concerns I am aware of about adding them to the directory. Are there other concerns about adding them to the directory that remain unaddressed?
|
|
|
Bowo: banning me from the site is not the solution; addressing the concerns is the solution. Jon just answered the question; he has support of WE regardless of inclusion of Melinda's payment plan.
My confusion stems from the fact that he wrote that he was against the payment plan, than yielded and said basic access could be free and more rich functionality/ disk space could come at a price...
To me the issues presented in this wiki are not clear right now. I think those are communication issues that need to be resolved, and are getting resolved as a product of my asking questions... My language seems confrontational because I have to keep asking the same thing over and over again to get an answer...
And BOWO: if you are critical and constructive: than why were your voiced concerns not addressed by Jon and NCI re this process, the partners etc.? Is your method of communicating effective?
I think Melinda's idea of making money off this is OK = I just want the specifics clarified and clearly communicated before any commitment is made for including For-Profits... I don't think that is unreasonable??
If the decision is to not charge them: which seems to be the current public opinion, than that should be voted on prior to implementation of Jon's Suggestion re including For Profits==
If we vote yes, I add my Green Business Y to the network tomorrow: invite them on to wiserearth = they try to use the site than run into Melinda's payment scheme... I think we need to just be specific about what is the plan, what we are voting on, what is being disscussed.
Peace |
|
|
@JT: As much as I appreciate your contributions so far, including the good parts of your comments and suggestions, and tried my best to have good faith in you and reason with you, you seem to have consistently failed in differentiating between being critical and constructive from becoming negative and confrontational.
@Everyone: As a community member, I hereby publicly request WiserEarth admins to ban JT from WiserEarth for his repetitive negative and confrontational comments (besides recent comments in this thread, there were also such in this one). I suggest giving him a second chance after three months period where if he promise not to repeat such comments, he can reclaim his username and contributions count (if technically possible) and proceed as usual.
@JT again: If my request is granted by the admins, I really hope when you return next time, you can continue being critical and constructive without being negative and confrontational.
@Everyone again:To be fair, if any other community member think I am writing comments in a similar manner as JT's, I stand ready to be banned from WiserEarth too. |
|
|
JT I may have confused you. I cannot speak for Melinda but I suspect she is concerned with making sure that WE can sustain itself. So she might of thought that we could charge businesses if we included them. I am not in favorf of this but have said that I am open to further conversation about it. I have not discussed or gained support for any economic activity with WE. The support I was referring to was the intention to include business and public agencies.
I agree with you that someone who cares enough, Melinda, you, et. al. should start a separate Wiki page suggestion to discuss ways to raise money for WE. My point is that it is a distinct suggestion. I don't know what the Melinda/Jon proposal is that you are referring to.
|
|
|
I reiterate: everything is connected/ interrelated.
I think your suggestion has obvious flaws.
JON RAMER wrote: I just want to keep the focus on this suggestion. I am open to delaing with any other issue, I am just advocating keeping these issues distinct.
Jon, than how come you are not making an effort to keep your suggestion distinct from Melinda's slipped-in $$ proposal which everyone objects to ... except NCI?
I would suggest that Melinda create her own wiki, with specifics for her plan etc. ?
I want to know: do you have support of NCI -- with the inclusion of the shady/ ambigous slipped-in payment option?
Or do you have support of NCI to expand the directory to include For-Profits and Gov entities philanthropically?
Ignoring the question/ the issue is inconsistent with the values of the community.
I think my plan is the solution that addresses the needs and concerns of all parties.
The Jon/ Melinda plan has obvious flaws, and the presentation of the suggestion frames the issue in a way that misses the point. They -- Jon and NCI -- seem to be unwilling to address this, which confirms my perception that this misleading presentation is intentional on their part.
If that is true -- I think that is wrong.
I would suggest that people look at this thing more closely, look at my plan, NCI's many institutional accountability issues ...
|
|
|
i think your suggestion has obvious flaws:
i think everything is connected: from my past post;
The Issue that everyone is concerned with is -- not the inclusion of For Profits -- but the payment specifics (whether or not they pay/ how they will pay etc.). This wiki focuses on the inclusion of For Profits, and seems to intentionally create a space for the payment specifics to exist in a vague and undefined way. That is not good.
the network has value : my impression is that NCI is going to take the value of the network and sell it in a plan consistent with Melinda's modifications of your proposal...
for personal gain:
NCI -- the fiction that is your fiscal agent (I am not trying to be impolite, just illustrate my perspective)-- will determine how that money is used, not the community.
It is the communities value that is getting sold: thus it is their money. They should have control over it.
If someone wrote a check to you and NCI decided to tell you what to do with the check what would you think? You should decide correct? It is your money.
I think it is the communities money. No wiseruser/ NGO got on this site with the idea that their value was going to be used/ sold by NCI for personal gain: we all got on this site because it is a great resource etc.
Lots of great arguments for not including businesses out there, or monitoring their entrance to this site.
I still feel my plan is the solution. It just needs to be looked at more carefully in relation to the concerns and needs of all parties.
|
|
|
A little more clarification on how I am proposing we do this is in order:
I propose we extend the field called "type" in the organizaton profile to include companies and public agencies. We can come up with some iconic, labeling, or visual cue to help identify the sustainable private and public sectors from civil society.
A directory is for description and discovery. We can extend the descriptions of organizations to include best practices as well as affiliations so a business can state that they are affiliated with Co-Op America, etc.
We can enhance the discovery tools so that a user can easily filter or include any of the types of organizations they are interested in.
Lets trust that by either editing those profiles or commenting on them we can tap the feedback from the community to advise us on when an organization ought to be removed.
I want to be sure to respect other perspectives. I just want to keep the focus on this suggestion. I am open to delaing with any other issue, I am just advocating keeping these issues distinct.
Could WiserEarth offer a certification service? Why not? Lets just treat is as a separate suggestion and discuss it there.
What are the other concerns about including for profits and pubic agencies that are not being addressed?
Also to clarify the NCI and Interra relationship; NCI is our fiscal agent, they are not a financial partner or supporter in any way in Interra. Interra is incorporated as a nonprofit but we are not a 501 C3. That is why NCI, who is a 501c3 is our fiscal agent. When someone donates to Interra they write the check to NCI who disburses Interra the proceeds. NCI has no interest in Interra and vice versa. Our views on WiserEarth are impartial. My interest is in making WE as useful as possible for us and everyone else who wants to use it and contribute to it. I appreciate your time and talent being put into WE to address or interconnectedness and the needs of the whole. Lets just get on with it!
|
|
|
and jon= I am not "getting on someones website" and accusing them of anything.... the system is open for disscusion and public scrutiny... that is what I am offering, I have added plenty of resources / orgs etc. been active in a productive way here...
my perspective is different than yours though. that doesn't make my perspective -- or the other wiserearth users who have brought up similar issues -- less valuable than your perspective, just because you feel that the issues are not relevant to your personally. or because they get in the way of your objective/ agenda.
I did not create the system: I just am trying to make it work.
shouldn't value issues with the current system be addressed before adding a change to the system -- that opens the system up to further ...
corruption of network
mis-alignment of values
... it is a murky world of for-profits... I just think your plan/ combined with melindas should be more defined/ modified: that is what i was trying to do with the wiserbusiness cert wiki.... and that is what i was hoping to do with this disscusion...
clearly trying to help; otherwise i would not have spent the time.
I think your plan needs to be improved/ clarified.
That is what I tried to do: see the wiserbusiness cert wiki.: a community owned/ community moderated filter process...
my question to you jon would be:
1.why would my idea not work for you...? (and Melinda: why would it not work for Melinda?)
2. and .... why would my idea not work for you ..... if you are willing to let Melinda's plan work for you?
THE POINT IS :
The Issue that everyone is concerned with is -- not the inclusion of For Profits -- but the payment specifics (whether or not they pay/ how they will pay etc.). This wiki focuses on the inclusion of For Profits, and seems to intentionally create a space for the payment specifics to exist in a vague and undefined way. That is not good.
That is my critical reading assessment of what is occuring here. Maybe it is a mistake: if that is the case we should cooperatively try to fix it... and come up with a clear proposal that addresses all the concerns that have been voiced thus far.
My creative analogy would be visually focusing on a lead cyclist who is taking the brunt of the wind, where the more lethal competitive cyclist is riding his wheel: drafting and unnoticed.
I want to get that lethal competitor who is drafting -- the payment specifics/ and potential for payment specifics to evolve etc -- under the microscope of public scrutiny and out in the open wind.
I think we need to separate the issues now and make it clear ... or adopt a plan like I mentioned in my WiserBusiness Cert Wiki. == for the sake of Values, not for $.
(And what about BOWO's concerns/ Michael's concerns...)
peace
|
|
|
Jon I wasn't trying to be impolite: yes I am interested because I care...
At the same time= the current ambigious presentation of this proposal and your/ and Melinda's refusal to address the voiced concerns... seems to be blatantly disrespectful from my perspective, and seems to discourage participation and undermine efforts toward building community.
I do appreciate your taking the time to reply now though...
I think we agree with each other with regard to including private and public sectors in the directory -- we both want to do it, the sooner the better -- however my perception is that we do not agree on how to do it.
You might not be paid by NCI, but NCI supports/ is a financial partner with the Interra Project right? Their is no accusation their: it is just an observation/ perception...
I am not accusing NCI of doing harm: I am communicating that it is the perception of myself - and others - that that organization is currently present on this site in a very influential way that is inconsistent with the community guidelines in many ways... to me and others that have also taken the time to care enough to voice their concerns: that is a significant problem... that should be addressed...
I don't think that they are bad people: but from my perspective -- there exists a misalignment of values; inconsistencies rampant...
Perhaps if someone could address/ explain the reason things are the way they are, and the reasons the inconsistencies are not getting addressed... I would understand and feel respected and part of the community (community guidelines).
The concerns are re your proposal are:
debasement of values
corruption of network
commercialization of site, (flow of $/ power through NCI furthers gap between NCI and community in terms of alignment of visions for wiserearth.)
unregulated / un monitored additions of businesses who should not belong here
furthers the on-site and real world gap between those in the loci of power, and those not
no payment plan / payment plan/ payment plan specifics should be established prior to any vote. current ambigous presentation is a big problem from my perspective: reaffirms my last posts comments with regard to consistencies/ inconsitencies with values.... I would redirect you to my last post....
|
