<html>
<body>
"...let's just go back to the drawing board and start over shall
we?"<br><br>
And if that message were being sent strongly by the CCWG chartering
organizations, then perhaps it is exactly what we should do.<br><br>
But the official voices of those organizations are not the ones that I am
largely hearing here.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 21/02/2016 11:07 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I agree completely with Eberhard
(except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he
is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to
now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.<br>
<br>
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will
push to reopen the following:<br>
<br>
1) Change from Single Member to Single
Designator<br>
2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold<br>
3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community
at all<br>
<br>
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board
gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the
timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall
we?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com">
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a> <br>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739</blockquote></body>
</html>