Re: [wg-c] wg-c list management

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

[a lurker responds that lurking is good for him/her, and otherwise innocuous]

Your personal interests in list traffic can be met by using the archives.

When the Intellectual Property Constituency decided to attack the process
of WG-C, it was first asserted by Mike Heltzer that the co-chairs (then a
plural) had errored in finding that consensus existed. When in response a
vote was held, Rita Odin agrued that the construction of "majority" had to
take into account "abstentions". The point has been offered that only one
third of the eligible cast votes, as if that affected the validity of the
vote process itself.

I trust you see the problem, some people can't help but "write to" the peanut
gallery, which is a rhetorical nuisanse, but others can't help but appeal to
those very peanuts as proof of some process overturning rational. In a world
of reasonable people, this wouldn't be a problem, however the DNS Wars have
not brought out the best in all individuals, professional associations, or
corporate persons. 

We are hardly out of the fix/tilt/break/junk WG-C woods yet. Within days
the NC has to actually do something with what we've handed them.

Besides, WG-C isn't a spectator sport, if you don't have dirt undre your
nails you can't be said to be digging, and dig we must or let others dig.

Dustily,
Eric