Repost of response on Pab list

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Tue, May 26, 1998 at 12:05:28PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
> > At 08:37 AM 5/26/98 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > Kent, I don't think you've understood my message.
>
> Didn't like that rock, eh?

  The reverse is also true.  You didn't like the rock eh, Kent?

>
>
> > The Senate currently provides live coverage of their
> > proceedings (including their voting).  The public can
> > monitor these events, yet they have no way to send
> > messages to or disrupt the Senate while it is in
> > session.
> >
> > Why are you resisting this level of openness for PAB?
>
> 1) It's not necessary for any practical purpose.

  I whose opinion.  Yours maybe?  Naaahhhh!  Couldn't be, could it?
Has this been decided and voted on by PAB specifically?  If so, what
were
the results of that vote?

> 2) It would take work to do anything different.

  Well of course it would.  Nothing wrong with some good hare REAL work
is
there?

> 3) It's not what PAB voted to do.

  Ok, good answer.

> 4) I prefer having the delay, because it filters out useless
> interaction, like this thread has become.

  Ohhh!  YOU prefer.  We see now.   Thanks Kent.  This clears
it up very nicely.  Openness is not preferred, that is now very clear.
Thank
you.

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                 "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com                       the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com