> The co-chairs of IDN have more than enough to do, with the limited means > they have, without attempting to also perform some opportunistic function > of the External Liaison, even at the request of document editors, who are > themselves no doubt acting in good faith. > > The statement "the wg need a statement from JET" is "true" if the WG chairs > find that rough consensus exists to require some statement.
Two clarification: 1. I never claim "the wg need a statement from JET" nor have said anything to that respect in my capacity as a co-chair. Please go back and read my mail (which I have clarify I have wrote as an "argumentive idiot" of the wg). 2. I am not performing any liaison activities as co-chair of IDN to JET or otherwise. This co-chair happened to be a member of JET too. It appears I have to repeat myself twice for every mail I send out, the second mail to to clarify in response to you twisting my words to mean more than what it say. IMHO, it is a waste of bandwidth which adds no further technical discussion to the group. Therefore, this shall be the last time I shall repeat myself. From now on, lack of clarification on my part to your interpretion of my mail does not indictate any agreement of my part on your interpretion. I hope others will do so likewise so we can all save more bandwidth to do more useful work. -James Seng
