On 10/15/07, Lucy Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > >> And to unconfuse you, consensus was reached with you in 100% agreement > >> with myself, and Merit. > > Not on autoresponders, sorry, Marty - you can feel free to ask Betty if > > autoresponders were even discussed. > > > > This silliness is a direct result of not having documented minutes that > > agreed upon by those present. I apologise to -futures readership for > > having to wade through this and to clarify: Marty, me and Betty > > representing Merit (3 out of 5 voting MLC members) have met prior to the > > community meeting and have reached consensus on the proposed modified AUP, > > which was subsequently presented by Marty at the community meeting. This > > said AUP is now up for SC to be approved. > > URGH! This is why, in IETF land, decisions are discussed in meetings > but consensus is reached on a mailing list (where you have some hope > of a record). I'm confused now.
The last thing we need is IETF like processes. This is not the IETF. > "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to > scorn human actions, but to understand them" - Baruch Spinoza And not helpful. The community needs to make up their mind. -M<
