[ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes

[Christopher Ambler]

>However, unlike ORSC, INTA has
>committed to working with DNSO.org to try to work on those
>differences.  Since DNSO.org is in *fact* an open organization, we
>will of course negotiate with them, and see if something can be
>worked out. 


This seems, to me, to suggest that if a group does not "negotiate"
with the dnso.org group, that group is by some reasoning bad.
That's an awfully self-important stance to take.

You want to work on differences? How about dnso.org adding
some fair hearing language to their next draft? I suspect that
would get you a lot of ORSC participation.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Christopher



__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________