Thanks Don, and thank you again for all of your input. Some MSs
may need to spend some quality time working out the scope, number
and sequence of projects, well before starting any. Regards Jamie
Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY) wrote:
> We are not in much of a disagreement.
>
> I want to place the focus on supporting technical committees by member
> sections. That's why I believe it needs to be there and first in the list.
>
> Your proposal, along the lines of a C. or D. within the list is a very
> proper use of a member section and especially a member section steering
> committee. The definition of the initial portfolio of technical committees
> in their scope often is crucial to the success of such an effort. I did not
> mean at all to preclude that is an option. I just want to place it in the
> correct context.
>
> Regards, Don
>
>
Original Message-----
> From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007
>
> Hello all. I haven't been involved in the drafting of the
> proposed MS Policy, but I do read the threads * * * Binding each MS
> to too-tight an orbit around an existing TC may quash other worthy
> activities. * * *