>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.


Horacio, if that's what will happen then I have no problem.  But what
was suggested was:


At 12:24 PM -0400 8/18/04, Milton Mueller wrote:
>The EC will
>take the list of nominations and winnow it down to a list of 10.
>It will then publish the results for comment. If it seems accepted,
>then the list will be forwarded to Markus Kummer; if legitimate
>objections are made or omissions identified, we will try again.


I am asking that if there is "winnowing" it not take place in private
EC discussion.

However, what you propose is fine.



>  > 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.


Again, this would be fine.


>    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.


All meetings?  Then I am confused and apologise (I remember one chat
transcript, there might well have been more?)


>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.
>


Also very acceptable.

Thank you,

Adam



>*************************************************************
>* 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)          *
>*************************************************************