Dale Shipp (1:261/1466) wrote to Thom Lacosta at 00:46 on 08 Jun 2004:

 DS>   What was presented originally was a summary of changes, *AND* the
 DS>   complete wording for the section that was being changed, namely  
 DS> section 8.   We did not present sections 2 through 7 because it
 DS> seemed   a waste of bandwidth -- and since every one already had
 DS> copies of   them.

 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.

Dale, I agree with your assessment although I would have called the request
for the whole document a red herring.

Take care,

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