Re[2]: [ga] Reply to William

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

I am guilty.
I seconded Joop for Danny and Patrick, from his report of Melbourne's 
meeting, from Danny's personnal effort at the WG-Review (before he became 
too complex for me to follow..), from Patrick's genuine and dedicated 
effort at the TLDA (against all my interests, so I though I was fair and 
not biased).
I apologize for that.

On 06:42 06/05/01, William X. Walsh said:
>If only we had had more worthy candidates to choose from.

This was Marilyn Cade's question: when a candidate removes himself should 
we not restart from scratch, since someone who did not want to oppose him 
might be his natural substitute. I suppose the vote would have been quite 
different with four candidates.

>Roberto, do you mind if we clone you?

I wish we could, as probably most of us. But we have Danny and Patrick.

As I suppose no one wants to give them away the GA; there are two 
solutions: either we filter them, the list monitors etc... and use the full 
GA ML only, or we try to help them becoming reasonable Chair and co-Chair 
.. them to tell us.

I obviously hate the way they chair today and the way they make us waste 
our time and to some extent (cf. my yesterday mail) our money. But I have a 
lot of respect for the working capacity and the dedication of those two. So 
I still believe they could do well with the GA and the NC. Danny should 
only accept he is not the GA byhimself and Patrick he is not the Police 
Officer on Duty of the GA/ML Brigade, and us all to help them. When you 
chair for the first time an ML and such an ML as the GA, you know folks, it 
is not that easy: you have a right to error. But we cannot afford they keep 
on an erroneous tack.

Am I wrong?

Jefsey

--
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