Re: [ga-rules] Busted

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Joanna:

I think there was a little Patrick Corliss humor there -- he busted himself
deliberately.  But no matter -- Harald has effectively expressed agreement
with what you and I were talking about, and if my 7 steps were folded into
your scheduling and time line scheme, there would be "system in the system"
a bit more than has been the case in the past.  And all without any actual
changes in any rules: the Chair would do exactly as it has been, but would
be presented with a much better layout of material on which to make a
decision to advance the steps, explain to the frantic that they are outside
the bounds, etc.

(We're not allowed to include attachments, are we? A flow chart could be
made within Corel and saved as a .gif file we could all look at.  I'm too
tied up to do it myself, and know little of Corel (I use a Turbocad version for
CAD drawings that can't make .gifs), but whoever has and knows Corel
and is following this whole bit could make one that would define with clarity
how the scheme works.)

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 6/27/01 3:20 PM, Patrick Corliss at patrick@quad.net.au wrote:
>
> > I agree with you William.  Here, here !!
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> > To: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
> > Cc: [ga-rules] <ga-rules@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:41 AM
> > Subject: Re[2]: [ga-rules] Re: Consensus
> >
> <snip>
>
> Well Patrick, if this isn't a "me too" post, I don't know what is, which is
> a classic, considering you just scolded Eric for the very same thing.
>
> As it happens, I find the "me too" posts, and the "not me too" posts very
> helpful to determine whether or not I'm on the right track, both on and
> offlist. Added to that, how can consensus possibly be determined if you
> discourage people voicing their support or disapproval.
>
> The following is not a personal attack, but an observation. Neither of you,
> WXW and Patrick, have posted anything that could remotely be called a
> substantive document to advance the work of the GA in recent memory, so your
> views that a "me too" post hinders the work of those that do carries very
> little weight with me.
>
> So far as I'm concerned, you have just confirmed what I suspected, that the
> work by Bill, Harald, myself and others on this list is actually making
> headway, requiring a distraction to hinder progress. Eric's an easy target.
>
> You are busted.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


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