>On Sun, 22 Aug 2004, Adam Peake wrote: > >> With these names for the WGIG you are creating a new process, you >> offer no opportunity to discussion and when I as a member made >> requests about the process you throw up this irrelevance about the >> nominating committee, question why I am doing it (playing this >> "transparency" card), etc. I do not understand why the constituency >> would not embrace transparency. > > I do not understand why this would be considered as a new process. >Whenever we are asked to submit names of people we think are qualified, >we throw names into the list and debate their inclusion or exclusion. We >then arrive at a list where everyone is comfortable with. Horacio, if that's what will happen then I have no problem. But what was suggested was: At 12:24 PM -0400 8/18/04, Milton Mueller wrote: >The EC will >take the list of nominations and winnow it down to a list of 10. >It will then publish the results for comment. If it seems accepted, >then the list will be forwarded to Markus Kummer; if legitimate >objections are made or omissions identified, we will try again. I am asking that if there is "winnowing" it not take place in private EC discussion. However, what you propose is fine. > > You are chair of the executive committee, you have suggested people, >> you have commented on their abilities and already stated bias. Come >> on! > > But whether Milton has his own biases or not does not matter in >the selection process. If someone feels strongly for or against >a particular name, then that someone should put forth the reasons >for those views. In the end, everyone should just take those views >and come to a decision. Again, this would be fine. > The EC agreed to throw names into the list. The fact that they >are being discussed here means that the EC is not submitting its own >private list but is trying to involve every member into the process. > > we have previously provided transcripts of all the EC meetings. All meetings? Then I am confused and apologise (I remember one chat transcript, there might well have been more?) >I don't see why the last meeting would be any different. My only >request is that we edit personal remarks and jokes without any >relation to the agenda. > Also very acceptable. Thank you, Adam >************************************************************* >* Horacio T. Cadiz | Open Source. No Gates. No Windows. * >* hcadiz AT ph.net | It is Open. No Bill. It is Free. * >*-----------------------------------------------------------* >* Philippine Network Foundation, Inc (PHNET) * >*************************************************************