[ncdnhc-discuss] Nomination to NC Structure TaskForce

[Jonathan Weinberg]

Alejandro --

	I'm afraid you misunderstood my post.  After Milton nominated Chun
for the NC Structure Task Force, there followed half-a-dozen posts in
which Dave Crocker suggested that Milton, in making this nomination, was
overstepping his role as an AdCom member, and he and Kathy Kleiman
exchanged messages on the proper role of the AdCom.  You participated in
this debate, stating in one of your own messages, "I beg to differ with
Kathy's memory; the AdCom is conceived much less for representation and
more for management of internal affairs."  In these exchanges, there was
little discussion of whether Chun would actually be a good representative.  
As a result, in my own message Sunday, I tried to explain that I was *not*
going to participate in the Crocker-Kleiman-Pisanty debate over the role
of the AdCom.  Instead, the point of my post was to return to the key
question before this body, a question that had (at the time I posted my
message Sunday) been addressed only by you and Milton: whether Chun would
be a good representative to the Structure TF.

	I hope that makes my views clear.  I confess that I am distressed
that, after misreading my post, you posted a message so cavalierly
insulting as the one below.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, Working Group C
Professor of Law, Wayne State University
weinberg at msen.com	



On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM wrote:
> Dear Jonathan,
> > this is not a nomination for the AdCom. Your point counts as "missed the
> playing field". "Relative newcomer" is - in my poor command of English as
> a second language - not a synonym for "careles reader" or "automatic
> response". Best luck next time!
> Yours,
> Alejandro Pisanty
> 
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> > 	I'm a relative newcomer to this constituency, so I can't speak to
> > the role of the AdCom.  But I think Chun would be an excellent
> > representative.
> >
> > Jon