Re: Re: [nc-intake] Proposed NC agenda 24 January 2001

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

> I am personally against rehashing what was already said at our last 
> teleconference.  

It's not rehashing.

If there arte enough requests from people to extend its working days
it should be taken. Please, provide reason to dissolve active working 
group as soon as NC creates it. On the other hand, you don't push or
touch at all about Business Plan WG which has been exsting for more
than one and a half years.

> I would only like additional time allocated if new 
> developments or concerns have been raised and preferably would like 
> any such new items to be circulated to us by email beforehand.  

I hope to see this rule apply to every member of NC.
 
> I believe that there are other issues on our agenda that are equally 
> important that deserve our attention. Of course, if we find we have 
> extra time, then more time could be added to the discussion.  Philip, 
> perhaps the way to deal with this is to put this matter near the end 
> fo the agenda so we are certain to get to the other matters before 
> the call ends or people have to leave the call if it goes over.

And then we can allocate at least half vs half between Review TF(20 mins)
vs Review WG(20 mins). Plus, the Board has been waiting for more than
7 months for their decision. 

YJ
> 
> 
> ------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
> Originally From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> Subject: Re: [nc-intake] Proposed NC agenda 24 January 2001
> Date: 01/09/2001 04:00pm
> 
> 
> Hello Philip and Elisabeth,
> 
> > As usual, the NC intake committee recommends the enclosed agenda to 
> you.
> > Please let Elisabeth know by 10 January of any changes you would 
> like.
> 
> > 8. Review Process.
> >  - Preliminary report of NC Review Task Force (Theresa Swinehart) - 
> 30
> mins
> > -  Working Group - request for extension of deadline, clarification 
> of
> terms
> > of reference (YJ Park - 10 mins)
> 
> As usual, it is natural to have working group's report together with
> request.:-)
> Therefore, can you allocate time to this working group properly?
> 
> Thanks,
> YJ
> 
> 
>