RE: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

To be not too facitious, the incumbent would be NSI, whom is also the
dominant player. However, one could argue that, in this context, the
incumbent is CORE.

As much as I agree with Werner, I think that we have no choice but to
design such a test bed. The process of building process/structures, for
the test bed, would be the vehicle of consensus here. Yes, this process
favors an incumbent, but we can't seem to make any sort of progress any
other way. Deadlock ALSO favors an incumbent. At least, with a test-bed
process, there is a light down the tunnel. It remains to be seen whether
or not it is an oncoming train.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross
> Wm. Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 2:50 PM
> To: werner@axone.ch
> Cc: Kevin J. Connolly; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...
>
>
> >
> >Only from experience did
> > I learn that paradoxically they serve inertia and the dominant
> > player.
> >
>
> Which is the heart of the matter if I interpret your comments
> correctly.
> But, in this case, who would be the incumbent and where is
> the inertia?
>
> -RWR
>