Re: [wg-review] Re: [council] Further Recommendation on DNSO Review Report version 1.0
thank you for letting me know about your comment, as I am drafting a version
of the Minutes to be submitted to Ken.
I shall change the wording accordingly to your message.
----- Original Message -----
From: YJ Park (MINC) <email@example.com>
To: Erica Roberts <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>;
<email@example.com>; 'Maca Jamin' <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: [council] Further Recommendation on DNSO Review
Report version 1.0
> Hello All,
> First, I want to withdraw my comment regarding the "Review TF report"
> which was made during Jan. 24's NC teleconference with sincere apology
> to Theresa, Chair of Review Task Force.
> [Maca, please withdraw this part from the NC teleconference minutes, too.]
> It is impossible for Review TF to come up with its interim report with
> another two days from now on. That should be posted in the name of
> an individual, Theresa Swinehart instead of Review TF's report which
> doesn't provide proper open and formal channel of discussion among
> the full members and exclude some member's comments upon her own
> decision rather than Review TF''s whole agreement.
> If we have only two days(one day, from now on though) until Review TF's
> interim report deadline, I should have been more cooperative as a member
> of Review TF rather than accuse anybody which is neither productive nor
> fair to Chair who has been working hard to come up with DNSO Review
> version 1.0 report as of Jan. 21.
> I admit I had been a bit emotional in the process of watching discussion
> getting heated. Theresa, please accept my apology and I will keep my
> word to be cooperative as a member of Review TF and get this group's
> mission done under very limted time frame and your guidance as a chair.
> Taking this opportunity, I want to appreciate Ken and NC members who
> have been patient and tried to accommodate to the requests and motions
> from WG-Review regarding "chair" and "its extended working days".
> Erica wrote:
> > I t might be helpful for us all if you could explain what you see as
> > role (and primary objectives) as the liaison Chair of the WG-Review.
> My role will be a "bridge" as what "liaison" implicates literally.
> if it is needed, I will deliver some concerns from WG-Review to the NC
> and vice versa.
> The contribution I wish I could do in this DNSO review process will be
> to make all the parties ready to listen to each other and meet somewhere
> inbetween and move forward under mutual agreement, if I can be mature
> enough to handle this.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html