Re: [wg-review] IDNH/O versus @LARGE

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Other than the unnecessary personal dig.  I find this statement to be correct and necessary to be
said.  Based upon my memory and a short review, someone-somewhere-somehow slipped these two
together.  Within this working group they were not meant that way.

As for the protocol:  It should be insured that constituency groups not be diluted by forcing them
into the at large.  However it would appear that within the At Large, "groups" should be forming that
can organize and build coalitions capable of affecting BoDs.

Sincerely


Sotiropoulos wrote:

>
> This WG has not effectively sanctioned any correlation between the @Large and the IDNH/O!!!!!!!!!
> Any such revisionary activity is highly suspect and culpable.  Are you listening T. Swineheart?
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> --
> 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

--
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