Bob Short (1:134/11) wrote to Steven Horn at 11:17 on 16 Mar 2003:

 BS> It would seen as dead-ended as the proposal itself, by the looks of
 BS> things.  :(

I think we're talking about the same thing.  I've always thought that the
proposal was an amendment of a number of parts of Policy 4.07.

 BS> Personally, I have always though it incumbent upon the IC to press
 BS> the issue, and /require/ responses from the RC (once they were
 BS> informed of such a proposal).  If he has done so, he has failed to
 BS> relay results here (or elsewhere) AFAIK.

I think that we had an obligation to inform the IC.  However, once we had
done that, we could have sent netmail to each RC stating that we sent the
attached proposal to the IC and reminding them of their obligations under
existing policy. 


 BS> I've not been around lately, so can't coment on any current events,
 BS> but my understanding is that we're as far on this as when we first
 BS> started.  :(

We may be worse off because most participants have lost interest.

Take care,

Steven Horn (steven_a_horn{at}yahoo.ca)
Moderator, ALASKA_CHAT 
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+