Hi Bill,

There was a thread on the NCSG list with members supporting this statement before the PC ever agreed to endorse it. There is a google doc with the statement posted here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?pli=1.

If you have some misgivings, I don’t think it’s too late to bring them up here, or put comments in directly into the document. If I’m not mistaken, I don’t believe the statement has already been submitted.

What do you find disagreeable with it anyway? I’m curious.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 20, 2014, at 11:00 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> We have reached closure on the NCSG statement drafted by Milton. That IS the NCSG statement right now.
> 
> I’m having trouble with the process being followed.  Yesterday I expressed misgivings about the strategic advisability of saying all this now in the way it does and lack of real discussion with members.  I said I’ll roll with the majority, especially since I have no vote, but was hoping someone would at least address the points I was raising and explain the rationale.  But now we’ve reached closure already?
> 
> So could someone remind me, voting in the affirmative of saying this in this way now were which PC members, exactly?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:24 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Do you disagree with the stmt?
>> 
>> As I said on the list I’d have thought it more strategic to hold off on pushing the new principle until we get into discussions of how, as there is still a lot of discontent about whether in other silos and this ups the ante ex ante. And I’d have lost some of the tone that I know will be poorly received in some quarters, don’t see the value. But whatever, if everyone else thinks it’s good to do it this way, I don’t have the bandwidth to debate it, I’m flying today.  Anyway I’m just a constituency chair and have no vote on the PC.
>> 
>>> It that what you are saying.
>> 
>> I was addressing the procedural more than the substantive.
>>> 
>>> So, at the point that you see something as important, you want to take the decision away from the PC.
>> 
>> This of course is not what I’m saying.  I said it’d be nice to include the wider membership in the discussion before deciding.
> 
> 
> 
>