From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 12:57:06 CST
On 30/11/2004 16:42, Peter Kirk wrote:
> ...
>
> ... I do wish to shed bad light on your decision on one particular
> item, because I consider that item to be technically incorrect. ...
I should have written:
> I do wish to shed bad light on the UTC's and WG2's decision on one
> particular item, because I consider that decision to be technically
> incorrect.
I didn't mean this to be ad hominem at all, or even ad comitetem or
whatever the Latin would be for "to the committee". Technical
disagreement on one item is not discredit. In general the UTC's and
WG2's work is excellent. But the point of ballotting processes and other
checks and balances is to further perfect their work by giving others
the chance to find and probe its weak points. Some of those weak points
have been highlighted by the negative votes on the WG2 amendment. I am
sure that the UTC and WG2 will take them into account and perfect their
work.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 13:09:18 CST