Rahul Akolkar wrote: > On 6/10/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> <snip/> >> > >> > While it may make sense to say something along those lines in a larger >> > context, I do not believe this can be part of any central argument >> > towards the cause. >> > >> > If we're going to stand, we are going to do it on the basis of the >> > merit of our proposal and the community support for it, rather than >> > some sort of comparative analysis. >> That's not what I meant. If the objection is "this looks like an >> umbrella, and umbrellas are evil" it is fair and reasonable for us to >> ask what exactly is meant by an umbrella so that we can address the >> specific concerns directly. >> > <snip/> > > Agreed. > > Phil, are you going to fill in for Hen at the next board meeting? I > have no clue who attends board meetings (members? officers of the > foundation? -- we have a few members listed on the proposal). We need > someone to talk to this proposal when it is picked up at the next > meeting. Are you willing and able? I was not planning to attend the board mtg - I just volunteered to fill in by preparing the Jakarta report and submitting it on Hen's behalf. I don't think delegates / proxies are allowed at board mtgs. I am happy to do whatever I can to help make sure the proposal gets fairly reviewed, though.
It would seem a reasonable request to have one of the people on the proposal attend the meeting to represent Testing. Does anyone know how this kind of thing has been handled in the past at board meetings? Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
