[Mmwg] Re: final / revised

[David Allen]

Personally, I am appreciative of the care and effort Bill and Adam 
have put into detail at the last moment (and Robert among others, 
earlier).  (Particular thanks, Adam, for the thoughtful review of 
relations with the net community.)

Regarding transmission as mmwg or as identified members:

It seems there are two options.  1) Transmit with 
individuals/organizations signing on specifically; the text then 
reflects 'members of ...'  or 2) Transmit as 'mmwg.'  Then those who 
feel their views are not appropriately represented may disavow the 
statement, perhaps in private communication and so forth.

If my count is correct, an even dozen, beyond the supposedly 
quasi-neutral chairs, have taken the time to make at least some 
comment on substance, since deliberations began formally.  That was 
just one week ago (of course there - fortunately - was all the 
earlier buildup).  In the circumstances, a positive under-signing - 
by a decent number of participants - seems to me a good sight better 
foot forward, than perhaps specific disavowals of whatever character.

When there can be time for serious deliberation, when the full group 
have expressed their pros and cons, well considered with full 
opportunity for back and forth, then - for me - it makes sense to 
speak of consensus.  In the meantime, we can take the strongest step 
possible.  Down the road, we can look to strengthening the process, 
and with it perhaps developing mmwg into a strong and representative 
body with stature.

(The question of trust was raised.  On this cusp of just about to 
take steps, now is not the moment to go there.  Later, with 
appropriate mode.)

Also:  Without referring to the rest of the text - Bill's alternate, 
brief one-sentence Para 8 seems to me the best way forward on that 
question, if anything at all is included.

David