On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 08:32:30PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: > +1. And to throw in 2 more cents: I think it's safe to assume that the > prevention of OGB-Paralysis -- like what resulted from the inflexibility > demonstrated at today's meeting due to the invocation of a strict > intepretation of the letter of section 6.7 -- is a very strong and > universal desire. Therefore an agile resolution (read non-complex, > non-resource-intensive, and, perhaps, non-perfect resolution) to this issue > is called for.
Forgive me for being defensive, but I don't believe this interpretation is incorrect, nor that that it led to any form of paralysis. We'll be meeting next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel - only this time you and others will be able to listen in and perhaps even ask questions. If we'd gone ahead with our meeting, there would undoubtedly have been complaints that we're not sufficiently open; that's not a good way to start the year. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
