Re: [wg-review] Third Concern on DNSO Review Report version 1.0

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 05:04:00PM +0800, YJ Park (MINC) wrote:
> Here is my 3rd concern regarding "WG-Review"'s decision.
> 
> I have a strong objection to how you describe this working group.
> 
> I am repeating once again the working days for this working group.
> 
> 13 substantial working days for discussion and reach a consensus is
> n.o.n.s.e.n.s.e.....
> 
> 24 working days including public holidays and Saturdays and Sundays
> it's still i.m.p.o.s.s.i.b.l.e.......

The WG had followed the terms of reference given by the NC, which was 
to *collect input*, 24 days would have been fine -- please note that 
people did in fact get in comments

To be blunt, YJ, you have from the beginning ignored the terms of
reference that were approved for this WG, and instead you have
steadfastly followed your own agenda.  The results have been completely
predictable, and the WG (which *could* have been a means of collecting a
broad spectrum of input) has dwindled to a narrow group with a 
relatively cohesive set of ideas.  Now, of course, that narrow group 
can find its own consensus, but at the same time, the WG has lost any 
claim of broad representation.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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