Re: [ga] WLS input
On Friday 18 January 2002 11:29 am, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 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.
There was a "vote" going on, eitehr initiaed by Patrick or by Jeff,
Furthermore, it is not the question whether you can see the benefit, but if a
number of people on this GA list can see the benefit, juding by most
reactions and the ineptness in creating a consensus, which until now has been
shown here, I would say that a chair, whos firtst task it is to try and reach
a consensus, would encourage any initiative to reach such, or otherwise take
initiatives himself, instead of telling people it cna not be done.
Also a trial would not hurt the GA in any way as far as i can see.
> 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?
I fail to see when i was appointed chair, however i do notice consent on a
number of points, so reaching consensus on this one should not be the
hardest part of our lives.
> 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.
Your sarcasm fails, it is the task of the chair to seek consensus, or to hand
th GA the tools to find it, not mine, I am but a mere vote but if this is the
best you can do then in my opinion that is not enough.
> (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.)
Is this meant to be a statement of incapability ? I can hardly imagine, but
let's split the topic in two parts (based on Rick's e-mail) and try and reach
consensus on them one by one, it might help.
Part one, The position of the GA in reference to the VGRS / Snapnames
part 2. The GA's proposal for deletion problems
I am sure that a workgroup on delete could do more faster and bettert then
the full GA, who also have other post to consider and are limited to 5 posts
a day, but it is your opinion we should not have workgroups open or closed.
office +44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16
www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html