Re: Determining MW4D Core Values

Janusz wrote:

"My point is that whatever we say should/could be done today, will
still be doable in years to come, using yet-to-be invented technology"

Good clarification.  Thank you.

This is the point I was trying to make as well.  I do not see it being a
choice between a "vision" document or a "solutions/ recommendation"...The
most valuable solutions will not be constraining with regard to what
can/should happen in the future. I am only suggesting our language ought to
recognize this as a value.  Perhaps my suggested amendment is not the best
choice of words.

bill

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Janusz Lukasiak <janusz@eumx.net> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:07:19 -0700, Bill Gillis wrote
> >  The specific amendment I offer to the "Today's Technology" value:
> >
> > "While practical solutions and analysis should be grounded
> > within the technologies--hardware, software and connectivity-
> > -widely available to people in underserved communities today-
> > -they also should anticipate and not constrain future
> > technological advances which may be even more beneficial."
> > [...]
> > my point here is that in our quest to produce a "practical"
> > outcome, we should be careful our definitions to not
> > constrain our imagined future.
> Well, this really depends on whether we want to create a 'vision
> thingie' or a solution(s)/recommendation(s)/whatever realisable today.
>  Both are sensible and commendable, but not identical, goals.  I
> assume it's up to us to decide what we want to produce.
>
> My point is that whatever we say should/could be done today, will
> still be doable in years to come, using yet-to-be invented technology.
>
>
>
>