Re: [wg-review] Re: [council] Further Recommendation on DNSO Review Report version 1.0

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

I'm not comfortable with trying to re-write history - the minutes should
represent what was said at the meeting.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maca Jamin" <Maca.Jamin@wanadoo.fr>
To: "YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>; "Erica Roberts"
<erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>;
<nc-review@dnso.org>
Cc: <council@dnso.org>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: [council] Further Recommendation on DNSO Review
Report version 1.0


> Hello YJ,
> thank you for letting me know about your comment, as I am drafting a
version
> of the Minutes to be submitted to Ken.
> I shall change the wording accordingly to your message.
>
> Best regards,
> Maca
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: YJ Park (MINC) <yjpark@minc.org>
> To: Erica Roberts <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>;
<Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>;
> <nc-review@dnso.org>; 'Maca Jamin' <maca.jamin@wanadoo.fr>
> Cc: <council@dnso.org>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: [council] Further Recommendation on DNSO
Review
> Report version 1.0
>
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> > First, I want to withdraw my comment regarding the "Review TF report"
> > which was made during Jan. 24's NC teleconference with sincere apology
> > to Theresa, Chair of Review Task Force.
> >
> > ===================================================
> > [Maca, please withdraw this part from the NC teleconference minutes,
too.]
> >
> >     It is impossible for Review TF to come up with its interim report
with
> >     another two days from now on. That should be posted in the name of
> >     an individual, Theresa Swinehart instead of Review TF's report which
> >     doesn't provide proper open and formal channel of discussion among
> >     the full members and exclude some member's comments upon her own
> >     decision rather than Review TF''s whole agreement.
> > ===================================================
> >
> > If we have only two days(one day, from now on though) until Review TF's
> > interim report deadline, I should have been more cooperative as a member
> > of Review TF rather than accuse anybody which is neither productive nor
> > fair to Chair who has been working hard to come up with DNSO Review
> > version 1.0 report as of Jan. 21.
> >
> > I admit I had been a bit emotional in the process of watching discussion
> > getting heated. Theresa, please accept my apology and I will keep my
> > word to be cooperative as a member of Review TF and get this group's
> > mission done under very limted time frame and your guidance as a chair.
> >
> > Taking this opportunity, I want to appreciate Ken and NC members who
> > have been patient and tried to accommodate to the requests and motions
> > from WG-Review regarding "chair" and "its extended working days".
> >
> > Erica wrote:
> >
> > > I t might be helpful for us all if you could explain what you see as
> your
> > > role (and primary objectives) as the liaison Chair of the WG-Review.
> >
> > My role will be a "bridge" as what "liaison" implicates literally.
> > Therefore,
> > if it is needed, I will deliver some concerns from WG-Review to the NC
> > and vice versa.
> >
> > The contribution I wish I could do in this DNSO review process will be
> > to make all the parties ready to listen to each other and meet somewhere
> > inbetween and move forward under mutual agreement, if I can be mature
> > enough to handle this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > YJ
> >
>


--
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