On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think one key aspect will be that the
activity has to cover ground that the other activities not only aren't
covering, but can't easily expand to cover.
A lesson learned. But for all of us, the good thing is at least that
now there's a new chance to proceed properly. NMI had to discover
this piece of hubris for itself. (Of course it's not clear yet we will
proceed in a better way.)
Seth
Anyway, hope this helps.
Eliot
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I am a little confused by this proposal.
The statement of principles seems relatively unobjectionable. But
there seems to be rather less information on specific objectives and
virtually none on how those objectives would be achieved.
There is a proposal for a council but no information on how the
members are to be appointed or what the source or scope of their
authority will be.
There are three questions of power: How did you get it? Whose
interests do you serve when you use it? and How do we get rid of you?
I don't see answers to any of those questions in the documents
provided.