<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jean-Christophe Nothias <<a href="mailto:jeanchristophe.nothias@gmail.com" class="">jeanchristophe.nothias@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">But one question though: Bill, do you suggest that networks should participate in order for the organizers not to be free to compose the CC however they like? Is that the argument to join?</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">That’s ‘an' argument to join, whether it’s a sufficient ‘the’ is in the eye of the beholder. If one doesn’t care about having a platform where project proponents can find the kind of partners this might make available, or even thinks it’s a bad idea, then how the CC is composed is presumably irrelevant. I’d think people should only labor to agree on nominees if they believe the whole concept may be worth trying.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Cheers</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bill</div></body></html>