[discuss] What to do?

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

You just made a point thatis crucial, IMHO. We need a voting process, or
atleast an opinion polling mechanism.
Your pint, and Randy's, is to start on WG items. I disagree becasue the
WG items are improperly ordered/listed. One of the WGs deals with
process, this is IMHO improper. We should ALL work on process, it is the
only path towards buy-in. Besides, it is a TONNE of work and the more
hands the faster it gets done.

Selection list:

Process creation
WG detail items
(anyone want to add to tthis list?)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Cthulhu's Little Helper
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 1:20 PM
> To: rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Cc: Randy Bush; discuss@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San
> Jose - 062599
>
>
>
> On 28 June 1999, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
>
>
> >You know my disagreement by now, but I agree that matters of RRO
> >fine-points are out of band.
> >I suggest that we start drafting some process documents. I
> sent a coarse
> >list earlier.
>
>
> I apologize.  This probably isn't the proper forum for that
> sort of thing,
> and I won't bring it up again.  I would be interested in hearing what
> people think *is* the proper forum for it.  i would also ask
> that we at
> least try to temper our haste with a bit of reason every now
> and again.
>
> In the meantime, back to groups A-C.  Actually, could we discuss A-E?
> They're all supposed to report in 3 weeks, aren't they?
>
> --
>  Mark C. Langston
>