Re: [wg-review] Two Questions for the NC Chair

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

Perhaps it is just a language problem but I see inconsitencies in the following
statment.

Philip Sheppard wrote:
<snip>

>
> But please dont think consultation stops here. The input of individuals who
> want to contribute further will be solicited soon as part of an outreach
> with an ambition to be wider than the motivated individuals who remain
> active of the WG review list.  It justs that for the moment,  the latest
> manifestation of the review process, this WG, is closing.

Speaking just on the issues of outreach, education and multilingualism there is
nothing in this statement that gives reason for closing the WG review list. The
preceeding section which I snipped did not address closing of any WG review.

The parades of supporters regarding outreach and multilingualism which appeared
in Melbourne will continue regardless of a drop dead date for action by the BoD.

Mr. Sheppards' logic as I recall it in Melbourne had to do with negative
critiqueing as opposed to positive suggestions. I thought he was very specific
that the time had closed to figure out what was wrong with the DNSO and start
working on how we can fix it.  Well that is exactly what our fine chair is
trying to accomplish.

The ending of a specific fact finding period by the BoD has absolutely nothing
to do with the ongoing efforts of this WG review in areas regarding the very
important issues referenced above.  In fact the most vocal comments regarding
this review process from the BoD were from Mr. Auerbach, wherein he made no
little mention of the fact that the original report was watered down and he
wished the final report would be more reflective of the views actually
expressed, this we are also tryin to achieve and requires ongoing attention.

Mr. Sheppard I respect your position and hardwork very much and simply ask if
you could supply us a logical reason to shut down the WG review - ever.  I know
that as a procedural matter, that acting as Chair it is a goal to have closure
and order on process, but adapting is not always a bad thing.

Actually I would invite you to submit some issues which should now be addressed
in light of our exhaustion of some of the issues assigned, for example it is an
overwhelming consensus that we must have aid in translations.  May I suggest a
more narrow issue to research and obtain data to be shared by all, on methods
and costing of translation. So that we can hopefully come to impliment a plan of
action which there is overwhelming consensus on.

Sincerely,

--
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