[governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x

[McTim]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Mc Tim, you could also do a third sheet and put the various technical
>>> folk
>>>  into PS, which is definitely where at least some of them belong. That
>>> would
>>>  give another and different skew.
>>
>> I can do that if you tell me which ones and why.
>
>
> Sunday, Nii?  Because they are businessmen...

Perhaps they are, I ONLY know them however in the context of CS
activities (AfNOG mainly).

>
> But it's a little meaningless to talk about specific names.

If we are going to say its slanted, then isn't it incumbent to say how
its slanted? If we say how its slanted, then don't we have to know who
is who?

I would rather not say anything about it at all if we aren't going to
be precise. It just seems whingy in the current formulation.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t