[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes



Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 07:27:59PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > >> In this case, since the DNSO.org is allowing INTA to determine the
> > bylaws,
> > >
> > >You are misinformed.
> > >
> > >[erroneous conclusions deleted]
> > >
> > >> This is exactly what is happening here.  One special interest group is
> > >> going to dictate the "rules"
> > >
> > >No, it's not.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, direct observation seems to be in contradiction from your
> > statements. On one side we have what can be read as drafted, an on
> > the other, we have Kent Crispin's word-for-it.
>
> This is not the first time that your "direct observation" has been in
> direct contradiction to the facts.  "Kent's word-for-it" and "what can
> be read as drafted" are in complete agreement.

  This statement of course, by Kent, is yet again and attempt to
misrepresent the FACTS that are already in plain evidence.  However
this has been the basic direction in which DNSO.ORG has been heading
from it's inception and seems to continue now.

>
>
> The *second* DNSO.org draft was posted *before* the INTA draft.  An
> intelligent person capable of reading can clearly see the influence
> of the DNSO.org work (in particular, the first draft) on the INTA
> draft.

  However the "Second" DNSO.ORG draft is not the one being discussed
in conjunction with the INTA's influence and reconstruction of DNSO.ORG's
DRAFT-7, which is the draft that is suppose to be being discussed at this
juncture.  Hence we have the old "Musical Drafts" game afoot yet again and
similar to the IANA and ICANN drafts game.

> But the INTA draft had no influence whatsoever on the
> DNSO.org draft -- the DNSO.org draft was complete before the content
> of the INTA draft was known.

  This may be true to the "Second" draft, but not DRAFT-7.  So here again we
see Kents and the DNSO.ORG's groups attempt to intentionally mislead.

>
>
> INTA put together a well thought out document that expresses their
> point of view, and made concrete organizational suggestions.  Many of
> those organizational suggestions are at odds with what I personally
> consider to be political reality, and there are other features that I
> consider simply undesirable.  I believe that my feelings are widely
> shared among DNSO.org participants.  However, unlike ORSC, INTA has
> committed to working with DNSO.org to try to work on those
> differences.

  Fine Kent, there is not problem with the INTA or any other group working
with any group, the problem is that they should do so openly and in a
transparent manner, which as we all know now due to the "Participants
List" fiasco of the DNSO.ORG, has not been occurring.

> Since DNSO.org is in *fact* an open organization, we
> will of course negotiate with them, and see if something can be
> worked out.

  THe DNSO.ORG has NEVER been an open or transparent organization
as it has incorporated CLOSED discussion lists such as the "Participants
List".

>
>
> kent
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                         "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                               lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature