Re: [wg-review] WG Review and the future review process

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Philip Sheppard wrote:
> All individuals will many opportunities to contribute in many ways. If there
> was a little less paranoia about exclusion we could cut down on these
> e-mails by half!!

Philip, many of the WG members are indeed
concerned about exclusion.  The cancellation of
the public comment segment of the NC's meeting in
Melbourne is one very good example of why they are
concerned.  Will the NC hold an elongated public
comment section at the beginning of their session
at the next Meeting?  Frankly, I do not fault any
individuals or members of the public for their
"paranoia" over exclusion, the track record is
pretty clear in this regard.  I will not bandy
niceties and deflect the issues, instead, I wish
to bring them to the table to be recognized and
commented upon.  If some people don't like what
they hear/read, they can always speak up and make
themselves heard.  But, silence is tacit assent.  

As it stands, the WGr is on a course to produce
its proposal(s) for the BoD by April 16, 2001.  To
date, Jefsey's proposal seems quite popular
(objections to it have been rather vague and
unqualified), and there have been no substantive
comments made upon Darryl "Dassa" Lynch's
proposal.  My invitation to the NC to join in the
discussion stands, but I do not think that the WGr
should cease its deliberations over these matters
should they choose to abstain.  As I mentioned
above, silence is tacit assent.

As for cutting down on emails, I think the
diversionary conversation in the GA has nothing to
do with the WGr's work on its proposal(s) for the
BoD with respect to Resolution 01.28 & 01.29.  In
fact, I think the WGr could use a great deal more
email traffic at this crucial juncture.  Actually,
I am quite disappointed in many of the members who
are receiving these and other emails and have
suddenly been struck dumb.       
 
> The interim groups created in Melbourne will recommend terms of reference.
> The groups are small. They are is intended to be small to work quickly.
> Those terms of reference are expected to include ideas for outreach.
> Philip

Who are the members of the interim groups, and how
(and by whom) were they appointed?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Working Chair, WG Review
--
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