RE: [wg-review] Clarifications requested

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 20:22 12/01/01, Marsh, Miles (Gene) said:
>Theresa,
>
>I do not understand your tone or approach here.  Many memebers of this 
>list have openly discussed the task at hand and the original deadline.  If 
>the intent is to shove something, anything through this WG regardless of 
>its value, then the January 15 deadline is fine.
>
>If on the other hand, there is a desire to obtain a well though approach 
>toward the issues, the reasonable request for additional time should be 
>considered.
>
>There is no confusion here.  There is not enough time, and we are asking 
>for more.  You have not answered the question.  Please try to be direct 
>this time.
>
>Gene...

Dear YJ Park,
1. I want to let you know that I 100% support Gene Marsh's very diplomatic 
message above.
2. I wish to confirm my trust in your Chairmaship under a durress we 
observed through certain mailing exchanges and which is certainly 
demotivating for us.
3. Should we miss time for a full report by Jan 15th, I would suggest we 
skipp the response to a Questionnaire which has been already responded in 
different ways for several months and which will probably be reviewed by 
the TF in a way we know from experience (the responses obtained by Creg 
Burton's Poll system will be anyway made public if I am right). We could 
this way  focus on the seconded motions and main points brought-up by this 
WG-Review.

Jefsey

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html