[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-c-1] submission from ["Siegfried Langenbach" <firstname.lastname@example.org>]
>From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <email@example.com>
>Organization: Computer Service Langenbach GmbH
>To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:31:49 +0100
>On 12 Jul 99, at 20:30, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>> On 12 July 1999, Kent Crispin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 08:46:03AM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>> >> On 12 July 1999, Kent Crispin <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >> >I think that, with a couple of exceptions, there is fairly strong
>> >> >consensus among those present on this list that new gTLDs are
>> >> >desirable.
>> >> Kent, I politely and respectfully request that you, and anyone else
>> >> with the urge to do so (e.g., members of the pDNC) refrain from making
>> >> statements about consensus existing for an issue until there is some
>> >> tangible evidence to support such a claim.
>> >I politely and respectfully decline. Statements and discussion
>> >about whether consensus exists are part and parcel of what we do.
>> In that case, you made a blanket statement about consensus existing,
>> I obviously feel it does not. I'm just asking that you refrain from
>> speaking for those who have not spoken. I don't believe there's
>> been enough discussion on this list to begin to make claims about
>> I will point out that in your desire to "get on with it", every time
>> yyou claim the existence of consensus where none is demonstrable, I
>> will challenge you on it. I'm all for getting some work done, but
>> I will not forsake fairness, openness, and accountability to achieve
>are you trying to confuse non english-natives?
>If somebody is not happy with an assumtion or a statement on the list he
>speak up on exactly that matter, thats all.
>Yes, that means if an idiot (I am not thinking of any of you !! ) makes an
>statement and nobody answers or rejects, it _could_ be treated as consensus.
>I do not see a value in general discussions about theoretical possibilities.
>Maybe creating another WG for discussing decision-making is what you wish?