On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think one key aspect will be that the > activity has to cover ground that the other activities not only aren't > covering, but can't easily expand to cover. A lesson learned. But for all of us, the good thing is at least that now there's a new chance to proceed properly. NMI had to discover this piece of hubris for itself. (Of course it's not clear yet we will proceed in a better way.) Seth > Anyway, hope this helps. > > Eliot > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> I am a little confused by this proposal. >> >> The statement of principles seems relatively unobjectionable. But >> there seems to be rather less information on specific objectives and >> virtually none on how those objectives would be achieved. >> >> There is a proposal for a council but no information on how the >> members are to be appointed or what the source or scope of their >> authority will be. >> >> There are three questions of power: How did you get it? Whose >> interests do you serve when you use it? and How do we get rid of you? >> I don't see answers to any of those questions in the documents >> provided. > > >