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
(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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html