:)

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