[ga] RE: [gad] GA Consensus Creation for the KC situation

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Has anyone on the GA who is raising a concern about Kent stopped to ask what
his job is, and whom it impacts?  IF it is interfacing with the technical
community, what is the objection which is being raised? Has the technical
community objected to his technical credentials? If his job is something
else, who is most impacted? what is that sector's thoughts.

Just a thought. My own thought is: "Oh, good; thanks for the update. Now,
back to work."

:-)

-----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 1:20 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Consensus Creation for the KC situation


On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:56:08 -0600, k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)
wrote:

>Because I believe our opinion is valid and counts for something, I think we

>should agree to agree and disagree about this in a formal fashion; 
>therefore from the posts:
>
>DNSO GA consensus of Kent Crispin's appointment:

I do not think it helps the GA's credibility to start taking straw
polls on whether or not we like a particular technical staff
appointment.

There are more important issues out there.  Only around three GA
members have commented on the Structure Taskforce drafts!!  Again only
around three GA members have commented on the proposal to change the
term or grant a waiver for the NC Chair.  These are issues where we do
have some influence and or even a vote.  

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html