On Sun, 22 Aug 2004, Adam Peake wrote:

> With these names for the WGIG you are creating a new process, you
> offer no opportunity to discussion and when I as a member made
> requests about the process you throw up this irrelevance about the
> nominating committee, question why I am doing it (playing this
> "transparency" card), etc. I do not understand why the constituency
> would not embrace transparency.

   I do not understand why this would be considered as a new process.
Whenever we are asked to submit names of people we think are qualified,
we throw names into the list and debate their inclusion or exclusion. We
then arrive at a list where everyone is comfortable with.

> You are chair of the executive committee, you have suggested people,
> you have commented on their abilities and already stated bias.  Come
> on!

   But whether Milton has his own biases or not does not matter in
the selection process.  If someone feels strongly for or against
a particular name, then that someone should put forth the reasons
for those views.  In the end, everyone should just take those views
and come to a decision.

   The EC agreed to throw names into the list.  The fact that they
are being discussed here means that the EC is not submitting its own
private list but is trying to involve every member into the process.

   we have previously provided transcripts of all the EC meetings.
I don't see why the last meeting would be any different. My only
request is that we edit personal remarks and jokes  without any
relation to the agenda.


*************************************************************
* Horacio T. Cadiz    | Open Source. No Gates. No Windows.  *
* hcadiz AT ph.net    | It is Open. No Bill. It is Free.    *
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
*       Philippine Network Foundation, Inc (PHNET)          *
*************************************************************