On 26 Sep 02  00:20:00, Dale Shipp said the following to Bob Short:

DS>  MVDV> Just a small suggestion. Meybe you'd better not use 
DS>  MVDV> administartive aka's for that. They change you know...
 
DS>   I think that you ought to put the *C node number there as an
DS>   indication of *C support -- unless they object and want to claim that
DS>   they support the document as an individual only.

I'll address the others on this here too...

"Most" of those included had expressed permission or a desire to
have their admin nodes used.  Whether they intend to vote in like
support has little to do with their support for the creation of,
and/or contributions to the amendment.  :)

DS>   Also, there are other *Cs on the list for who you did not include
DS>   their admin number.

Except for a few that I may have miss the intentions of, I tried to use
non-admin numbers.  

DS>   It is worth pointing out that Renato is also an RC (who has a vote at
DS>   the next phase) as well as a ZC (who does not have a vote at the next
DS>   phase).

But does have on in the last....  ;-)

I'll note here also that it matters little to me whether peoples'
node numbers change before, during, or after this exercise.  It
will be the /names/ that we recall for posterity.  

As a side note, Ward has netmailed me with a heads-up on the status
of responding RC's in Z2.  Just /when/ he sent them is unclear to me,
since my uplink was down for 3 weeks, and I just picked up mail today.
As of his last message, some 50% or so have replied to his request for
link confirmation.  That number may be greater by this time.  :)

Ciao`

Bob

--- GEcho 1.00