DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] WLS input

On 2002-01-18 05:58:20 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:

>He welcomed feedback from a proposed workgroup, though the voting 
>on that dissapeared for smoe reason, nontheless itis in my opinion
>a chance to at least be heard in this case, whether they will use 
>our opinion is ofcourse a totally different matter.

There was no vote which could have disappeared.  Also, I still do 
not see what benefite a discussion on a separate list would have 
over a discussion on this list.

However, may I suggest that you just go into document production 
mode yourself over the week-end, and try to write down a brief (one 
page) summary of what you believe to be the consensus of the GA on 
the WLS and secondary market topics?

You could submit this to the GA as a draft which can then go through 
some iterations of debate and consensus-finding.

I wish you much luck with this, and I'm really looking forward for 
your results.

(I tried last week and gave up - I was not able to find any 
substantial consensus beyond an apparently wide-spread perception 
that WLS is somehow "bad", and beyond some points about which 
consensus even included Chuck Gomes. In particular, I was not able 
to isolate a consistent set of requirements for a possible new 
process, which is what Rick Wesson requested. I then ended up with 
the conclusion that the best thing I could do would be to continue 
my general ga-summary series.)
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>