Jim Grisanzio wrote: > If it's not clear that a group should be a CG under the > current system, let's address /that/ issue now and not just make a group > into a CG only to have to change them in, say, six months, into > something that they may not want. Working in parallel is fine if a > group's request obviously fits the current system.
Absolutely +1 - I hope I didn't imply that we were throwing out the current rules and would approve CGs willy nilly, 'cuz that's just not the case. -John
