[governance] bureau

[Jeremy Malcolm]

Adam Peake wrote:
> That it had been discussed, agreed, supported at the first consultation, 
> was why Nitin and many others were surprised when you brought up the 
> issue again in Feb 2007.

With respect Adam, I'm not sure that that's fair.  The consultations 
have not been dialogues, they have in general been a succession of 
monologues, in which participants read out (for the most part) 
pre-prepared statements, without the opportunity for open discussion, 
and in response to which the Secretariat and Advisory Group pick out the 
parts that they agree with and discard the rest without explanation.

Although there were a number of statements that expressed disagreement 
with the notion of a bureau, it is a stretch to say that a decision was 
made, still less a binding one that would preclude Louis from raising 
the issue again now.  Nitin or others may indeed be surprised by it, but 
by the same token there are more than one or two decisions that he and 
the Advisory Group made that came as a surprise to many.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance