How many members GAC has on the coordination group (CG) is less 
important than GAC’s members of the CG correctly understanding their 
role and the CG’s coordination of submissions.

If GAC members think that more members mean more leverage on proposal 
content and wording they are missing the meaning of the group’s task.

GAC, and each stakeholder group, would be best served if its CG member 
keeps its stakeholder constituency fully apprised of the flow of 
suggestions coming in from the community, and the CG’s efforts at a 
synthesis. Then each stakeholder constituency’s internal dialogue can 
pursue consensus within itself with regard to what it feels should be in 
the transition process, note those areas where there is no consensus, 
and  feed that in as submissions to the coordination group.

It would be mistaken emphasis to focus on GC membership as a primary 
factor in shaping the transition proposal that comes back to the 
community. The focus should be on constituency dialogue and the flow of 
thoughtful submissions to the CG. The CG can then do its job of bringing 
forth a document with maximum consensus and a well delineated short list 
of remaining areas for resolution.

Sam L.