Re: [ifwp] Re: Why was Draft 7 of the application not posted to thediscuss list?

[Theresa Swinehart <TSWINEHART/0002131750@MCIMAIL.COM>]

Agree with Kent, as long as there is the caveat, we can start getting
additional input. Time is moving, no one will be 100% happy, and we
need wider participation in the discussion. 

Theresa

Date:     Fri Dec 11, 1998 11:08 am EST
Source-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:09:23 -0800
From:     Kent Crispin
          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
          MBX: kent@songbird.com
 
TO:       discuss
          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
          MBX: discuss@dnso.org
TO:       participants
          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
          MBX: participants@dnso.org
BCC:    * Theresa Swinehart / MCI ID: 213-1750
Subject:  Re: [ifwp] Re: Why was Draft 7 of the application not posted to 
the discuss list?
Message-Id: 98121116084633/INTERNETGWDN2IG
Source-Msg-Id: <19981211080923.B21804@songbird.com>
U-X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
U-Mail-Followup-To: discuss@dnso.org, participants@dnso.org
U-X-Disclaimer: Things are not as they seem
U-X-PGP-Key: http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
U-Precedence: bulk
 
On Fri, Dec 11, 1998 at 09:26:32AM -0500, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
> I would require a little more time please.
> 
> Should have comments in by the next 24 hours.
> 
> Bernard.

OK, I have heard from Bernard and Michael that they have comments on 
the draft.

I believe that should we publish the draft to the discuss list with the
caveat that these comments are coming, and that there may be some
changes as a result.  

Consider the following points:

- nobody is going to be completely happy with this draft (I certainly
am not);

- it is out for wider discussion in any case;

- we need a wider participation in that discussion;

- there is not another proposal on the table that needs a contrasting
view;

- it is quite possible that there will be significant changes no
matter what;

- some of the participants are distributing the draft to others
anyway;

- people on the discuss list only are quite eager to comment;

- the draft still has explicit holes in it;

- there are major questions  (like incorporation) that need to be 
discussed; 

- and TIME IS WASTING. 

Email is a wonderful medium, but it only works well if things can
proceed in parallel.  

It is clear that if we wait for comments from Michael and Bernard,
and then go through a period of discussion about them, that a week or
more will go by.  I don't think we can afford that.

Comments?


-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair             "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com               lonesome." -- Mark Twain