DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] WLS input

Assembly, Thomas,

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 
proposal and 
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.

abel wisman

Abel Wisman
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 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 >>>