Dale Shipp wrote in a message to Thom Lacosta:

 -=> On 06-08-04  05:47,  Thom Lacosta <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Last P4 proposal <=-

 DS>   Eventually, primarily because of PK's insistence, the entire
 DS> proposed   document was presented , split over multiple messages. 
 DS> To this day, I   fail to see why that added anything to any RCs
 DS> ability to make a   decision on the proposed changes.   IMO, that
 DS> insistence was a noise   factor intended to disrupt the
 DS> proceedings.

 TL> Well, if Peter had not of insisted on a complete document, 
 TL> I would have...and before you try to blame me, as you just 
 TL> did Peter, I would have done so becuase that's what I 
 TL> believe Policy 4 mandates.

 DS>   And there we disagree -- I believe that policy 4 says that the
 DS> final   vote is on the entire document, but that the RCs could have
 DS> told the   IC that they were in favor of a referendum without
 DS> specifying the   document.    However, in the final analysis, it is
 DS> the interpretation   of the RCs that mattered on that point.

Yep...the RCs are the ones that set the pace.

 TL> I can tell you another thing....each and every time 
 TL> supporters or proposers of policy change take it upon 
 TL> themselves to accuse RCs of something negative in relation 
 TL> to the process, they loose a certain amount of credibility.

 DS>    And how about when the proposers accused the IC of something
 DS> negative    in the process, did we gain or lose credibility?  If
 DS> you might    recall, Ward had the final proposal for about a year
 DS> before he got    pushed into keeping his promise to present it to
 DS> the RCs for their    consideration.

I can't say...except that form my viewpoint, I don't your alignment with
Ward helped the proposal....other than turn out the RC's that feared his
retaliation.


cya,
thom
http://www.tlchost.net/echolist/ 
--- GEcho 1.20/Pro