Hi,

There’s a number of things about this process that stink to me including the PEG’s selection of advisors to join the Coordination Group and the Board drafting the charter for both the Cross Community Group and Coordination Group (not sure how that second one happened), but I agree with Avri.

IMHO, the draft letter doesn’t present a very compelling reason to delay this process. If answers to questions not already provided by the announcement and FAQs are needed, then sure…, by all means the community should ask the questions, and board/staff should provide answers. But what does that have to do with when the process starts?

If there are more specific objections the community wants addressed before the process starts, then the letter should specifically say so. Otherwise, we should encourage the process to go ahead and get started, and like Avri said:

On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Otherwise I think we should get on with:
> 
> 1. signing up for the community group and starting to demand to see a
> draft charter we can mark up.
> 
> 2. figuring out who we want to represent NCSG on the coordination group.

I appreciate that there is considerable level of frustration amongst the SOs/ACs, but I can’t think of a reason why postponement with the intent of getting answers to as yet undefined questions will alleviate those concerns.

I’m not saying that there should be an urgency to start this very questionable (to say the least) process that supersedes every concern, but if we will ask for a delay, it should be for a better reason than the one provided. I don’t think this letter quite does that.

Thanks.

Amr