I agree with Bill's comments below, sorry i won't be able to join in person, but will do so remotely! On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:13 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Rafik > > On Mar 20, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Rafik <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > To summarise the timeline: > > > I'm aware of all this > > You suggested in Sunday that NCSG send a statement about the announcement . > I welcomed the proposal and I asked you if you can volunteer. > > > At the same time I was doing 95 other things before rushing out of town, and > there was and is no reason to rush this before there's been a proper > collective discussion > > Milton drafted a statement and shared it with me, and so I sent it to the > NCSG list and the PC was cced. I thought that we can reach decision by the > middle of the week. > Several NCSG members supported the statement , same within the PC. > > > And many said nothing; again, I ask which PC members have endorsed, names > please. > > You made comment about the strategy and need to have a short version , I > replied to you and others , that amendments are welcome but there should be > clear wording. > People continued to send their support, and discussion continued in PC. The > process continued to get people feedback within the NCSG and PC lists, I am > not sure why you a stating that there is no real discussion with members. > > > I think more engaged discussion is required that "I support" and "looks > good". Consideration of argument, counter-arguments, etc. > > I didn't send the statement to get feedback as much as possible it how much > we can delay? > > > There will hopefully be a joint SO AC statement by Thursday and there's no > reason our parallel statement couldn't go out then, the world isn't waiting > with baited breath to hear from us. > > > My understanding is that you are not supporting to send now with the > current version but you didn't suggest specific wording , while most members > endorsed the statement. > > > Because I'm busy fik, running a conference today, retreat tomorrow, etc. > NCSG PC is Sunday and would provide an appropriate time for actual > interaction and probing, perhaps even taking into account strategic > considerations concerning what is going on the larger community etc. > > For the strategy , that is another matter and I am not sure that you were > clear about the reasons. > You are suggesting to delay the discussion to Singapore which may make the > statement ineffective and late? > > > Not remotely > > > For the cross community statement to be signed by "leaders", > > > That is not the idea. Every SO AC SG Con is going back to its people and > having internal discussions. We should start to do the same. > > I shared the first version in NCSG and PC list but there was no indication > of strong support for me to sign it as it is. Moreover several groups are > working in amendments and not all of them are shared yet. Maybe it will be > take over by the community to rewrite it and take ownership. > > > Let's take a breath and do this right with some idea of what's going on > around us, please. We can talk Sunday. > > Bill > > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > Le 20 Mar 2014 à 19:00, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> a écrit : > > 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. > > > > > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel