PLEASE BEHAVE II (Was Re: [council] Procedures for working groups)

[bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)]

Hello;

First, I apologize to the other pNC members for taking up their time - and
bandwidth - with this response to Javier's comments about me (below).

I would prefer that this could merely be a personal conversation between
Javier and myself. But since - for the second time in a few days - Javier
has chosen to post his opinions and innuendos about me to the whole pNC, I
am once more put in the position of setting the record straight.

Please read my comments below.

At 06:07 PM 7/13/99 +0200, Javier wrote:
>
>I, a member of the late Committee F, still haven't seen Bill's document on
>working groups.

I have repeatedly posted a list of 19 "Starting Points," as the proposed
organizing principles for the WGs, to Javier and several others, *three
times* in the past four days. I have checked with every other person to
whom this document has been posted and each (including Amadeu) has
confirmed that they received *all three* of my emails, both the original
and the two re-sends. Only Javier is somehow unable to receive mail from
me. (The header, listing all the recipients, including Javier, and the
first few lines of the original email, dated July 10, are copied below)

>
>I have seen John's comments, though. 
>
>I have seen comments by Eva...

A brief reading of "John's comments" and "comments by Eva" reveals that
they are in fact now part of my document on working groups ... that is
exactly what both of them are "commenting on," and it is included in its
entirety in the document Javier had to have read in order to see their
"comments."

>
>I am relieved by the fact that this issue is now going to Committee D,
>which will work following real transparency rules.
>
>Javier

This sarcastic comment is rude, impolite and absolutely unnecessary. I hope
that the discussion on this list will stay on topic, and comments such as
this will stay in the "private and personal" mode, if they take place at all. 

I also hope others on this list agree with me on this important matter. As
far as I know, we are all working as volunteers, with a common goal, and
though we may not agree with each other's opinions, styles, or attitudes, I
believe we should at the very least treat each other with respect and
support, as we all travail to make this process work.

Again, apologies to the pNC for interrupting the flow of discussion with
this brief reaction. I hope it won't be necessary again.

Best wishes,

Bill Semich
APTLD/pNC

>
>
>
>
>Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:30:10 -0400
>To: Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>
>From: "J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <bill@mail.nic.nu>
>Subject: Starting point: DNSO WG Organizing Principles
>Cc: fay@ripe.net, javier@aui.es, drvcarrington@echelon.ca, eva@nic-se.se
>In-Reply-To: <3787C08A.14668B4C@nominalia.com>
>References: <3.0.5.32.19990707162324.030d0e40@199.103.152.12>
>
>
>Hello to all;
>
>I wish I could say I was further along than just having a preliminary list
of "organizing principles" as the basis for developing a set of overall WG
procedures, but I can't. 
>
>But as a staring point, I have drawn up, and Eva has added to, a list of
what we believe to be some important issues .....

<snip>
>