-=> David Drummond wrote to Dan Clough <=-

 DD>>> What would the IC's role be?

 DC>> That is clearly defined in P4.

 DD>> Only if one has a copy to hand - or do you have the entire
 DD>> document memorised?

 DC> Your logic is quite flawed.  Whether one has a copy at hand or not
 DC> does not change the fact that the IC's role is clearly defined in
 DC> P4, which is what I said.

 DD> And if one does not have a copy to hand nor has the document
 DD> memorised then how does one know the documented role?

That's a seperate question that was not the topic of discussion.  
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, so I'll try to 
lay it out more simply for you:

What you claimed (right there above, since I didn't Bjorn-snip it 
out), is that the IC's role is only defined in P4 *IF* one has a copy
of P4 at hand.  That is false.  The IC's role is clearly defined 
in P4 *WHETHER* *OR* *NOT* you have a copy of P4 at hand.  See?

 DD> If a tree falls over in the forest and no-one witnesses it, did
 DD> it make a noise.

Irrelevant diversion attempt noted... the answer is "yes".

 DC> Read what somebody *SAYS*, not what you
 DC> think they said, or what helps you twist things up to make a
 DC> point.

 DD> You would well benefit from the same advice.

Could you please point out where I have mis-read what you've said?

 DC> Another clue that you missed was where Bjorn even stated where the
 DC> IC role is discussed in P4 (even though he got the section wrong).

 DD> Read it again = he did have it right.

Nope.  Section 8.1 that he references describes how a Policy 
change might be initiated.

The *ROLE* of the IC, which is what this whole thread is about 
(regardless of the diversion attempts), is described in Section 7.

You're welcome.



... If it weren't for Edison we'd be using computers by candlelight
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux