[ncdnhc-discuss] FYI

[KathrynKL at aol.com]

I support what Dany has written below.  It is fully consistent with the way 
the NCC has handled similar situations since its origin.   It would be fair 
to treat this situation in the same way we have treated others.  

I also support the per email limit because I believe that it is the only way 
to prevent a few people from monopolizing the conversation on this list.  We 
have already driven too many of our members off the list by the signal to 
noise ratio.  Let's do better.

regards, kathy
ACM-IGP

Dany vandrome at renater.fr wrote:


> Kent,
> Despite all rethoric to will have time to put on the list, I keep 
> challenging.
> I consider that you cannot be a voting member rep in the BC and also a
> voting member rep in the NCC without experiencing any conflict of
> interest. 
> Therefore, for the next vote (most probably for the MdR resolution
> approval), I will ask the AdCom to leave Potter Yachter with a
> non-voting status in the NCDNHC. You are still welcome to ask Potter
> Yachter to designate someone else to be its NCDNHC rep. In such case, I
> am sure you will be attentive that this new rep will have a real
> autonomy to vote!
> 
> Remark holds also for FRAX.
> 
> Dany
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20011125/7563bab9/attachment-0001.html>