John Plocher wrote: > Jim Grisanzio wrote: > >> If it's not clear that a group should be a CG under the >> current system, let's address /that/ issue now and not just make a group >> into a CG only to have to change them in, say, six months, into >> something that they may not want. Working in parallel is fine if a >> group's request obviously fits the current system. >> > > Absolutely +1 - I hope I didn't imply that we were throwing out the current > rules and would approve CGs willy nilly, 'cuz that's just not the case. >
Ok, that's fine. I'm clear now. Thanks. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
