Re: [emergency] Draft Reply To PPW Letter

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

Allen -

Even by your own logic... having admitted that the TC has yet to 
address what you call the "how" issue, how can you possibly claim 
that the TC believes one approach is "more friendly" than another? 
(And what does "more friendly" mean, anyway?)  It seems like we're 
getting way ahead of ourselves here.

More fundamentally, why send this letter at all?  Especially to a 
large membership organization like PPW, where it can be expected to 
have the practical effect of a public statement?  We're under no 
obligation to reply to the PPW letter at any particular time, or 
ever.  And we're certainly not required to do so in a way that would 
preempt or prejudice the TC's deliberations.

- Art

PS - Just a detail... but if I remember correctly, the TC adopted the 
current Committee Specification (as it was called at the time) not at 
the 7/15 meeting but a month later on the 8/12 conference call.