[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [ga] The North American DNSO BoD chair

Karl Auerbach wrote:
> I do, however, would think that having a clear "record" date 
> to establish
> the nominating/voting body would be a good thing.

The situation is even more complicated by the existence of several mailing
lists, managed by different organizations, that have been granted the same
status as "GA".

This is why I asked, before the nomination saga did begin, that only two
lists be taken into account: GA and DNSO-announce, with the additional
consideration that the overflowing of the mailbox could not have been taken
as an excuse for not joining DNSO-announce because:
- only the DNSO-Admin can post to this list
- there are very few messages posted

It was obvious to me (and probably to everybody, including who took the
decision to modify the San Jose statement) that the multiplicity of the
lists would have generated confusion and the usual witch hunt (from either