>>> >>> This is FUD. No decisions are being made in private. >>> >> >> Isn't everything you disagree with? > > You are making assertions that aren't correct to cast doubt on > something. That's commonly known as FUD. >
I'm sorry, I hallucinated that we were having all of these discussions about the future of jakarta and how to best reorganize it on [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Which is IMHO, PRECISELY why it should take place here. Why should we >> describe it if when we can let it describe itself? > > Here I disagree with you, and what you are saying isn't FUD - it's just > that I disagree. See the difference? > I'm not sure you do. >> >>> The ironic thing is that the upshot of what we are discussing is how >>> to >>> make governance of Jakarta as inclusive as possible :) >>> >> >> Glad you caught that. > > The private list of any PMC has it's place. The specific problem we > are solving has to do with governance of Jakarta and how to bring as > much of the community as possible into that governance process to make > things as transparent and accountable as possible. Because there is > this specific problem, I think that the private list is fine venue for > the PMC to organize how it is going to approach the problem, especially > since it's clear that we want to bring this to general@ ASAP. > Ironic. > Ignoring this is convenient to support a position characterizing > Jakarta as not open, but ignores the facts of the matter, IMO. > Yeah right. I favor all of the present discussion on PMC@ take place here. No more secret discussions except when they MUST be secret... Openness isn't always convenient. -Andy > geir > > > -- > Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
