Re: [council] clarification of yesterdeays action regardingmotion made by Caroline

[Dany Vandromme <vandrome@renater.fr>]

>I just want to make it clear that my motion was not meant to be part of the
>DNSO Review process but simply to have YJ and whoever on the NC wanted to
>help look at the recent email she sent regarding NC committee formation and
>develop a proposal that we could all review.
>
>I thought I was clear, and I wish those that were confused had said
>something so we could have cleared it up on the spot.

-
Just for info, I attached my own transcript of the minutes I took, 
during the NC meeting. By no way, they can be considered as accurate 
as the scribe's work (nor be in competition with that), but I wanted 
to share them with you.

As far as I remember (also in the sense of my own transcript), the 
suggestion of Caroline for YJ to chair a WG, was not dedicated to an 
undefined (still to define) structure, but was referring to something 
known: a working group, in the DNSO sense.

I think we should really discuss a bit more on that issue. The range 
of discussion is from:
"task force of volunteer NC members to review YJ's recent email regarding
committee formation" Caroline dixit
and a full exercice DNSO working group.
Lower bound seems to me far from every NC member perception. We need 
to make a consensus on the final goal we want to achieve.

Regards

Dany

minutes-DNSO-14112000.doc

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER

Reseau National pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                   |  ENSAM
Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr |  FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------