Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:56:07 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
:)
I'm thinking that supporting the letter while pursuing these options,
namely,
i) pushing for more GNSO reps on the board
ii) getting at least 4 votes on the NomCom for GNSO and less for ccNSO
iii) barring getting 4 votes on the nomcom, getting an automatic split
for GNSO's 3 votes
is the move more likely to help us achieve anything in i, ii, and iii.
But seriously Amr I would be happy with your way of doing if you'd act
otherwise. You've convinced me many times over that I'm happy following you.
Nicolas
On 17/12/2014 2:47 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> True, then we'd have a little (not much) to bargain with.
>>
>> Perhaps we should support the letter ;)
> Hahaha!! That’s precisely what I’m trying to avoid!! But I have initiated this discussion with the knowledge that I am in a minority opinion on this, and will grudgingly (just this once :)) respect the wishes of others.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
|
|
|