Janet Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> Last statement: As I said I feel that it is important that a there
> is a discussion, and a final decision. As it stands now with our a
> statement some, especially new members will continue to fill GML
> with their stories... We would simply have two groups, and much of
> the content would be crossed. Those of us here at the beginning
> know what SGML was intended to do, but in a month or two there will
> be new members.
Exactly!
>
> If the GML Charter going to change?
Exactly!
> Is it going to prohibit social
> exchange?
Exactly!
> Is the SGML Charter going to state that emergencies,
> technical, health, and breeding questions need to be directed to
> GML?
Who knows?
>
> I think that SGML could be a good thing and serve the community
> well.
I don't doubt that a second group might have value. And it would have
been nice to have discussed how things were to work before the
"experiment" took place.
> My only concern is how do we make the distinction clear
> between the two groups?
You and me!
> I don't want to belong to two lists that
> end up covering the same territory.
You and me!
> There does need to be some
> technical discussion of how and what should be done.
And wouldn't it have been nice if this had been allowed to happen?
>Right now
> there have only been a hand full that have expressed their
> opinions.
They probably feel there is not much point now the outcome has been
decided.
--
Julian
************************************************************************
* Jackie and Julian *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* National Gerbil Society *
* http://www.gerbils.co.uk/ *
************************************************************************
