Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules for WG membership
At 14:20 25/09/2002 -0400, Robert D. Love wrote:
>Tony, per your comment:
> > However, I think the other part of Bob's suggestion - of allowing voters
> > opt out of their balloting responsibilities on a ballot-by-ballot basis,
> > while maintaining their WG vote - is a bad idea. I think it is important
> > maintain the principle that voting members take part in the work of the WG
> > - the major thrust of which is (should be) developing standards. The
> > "respond to 2 out of the last 3 ballots" rule seems to me to keep a
> > reasonable balance here.
>It was never my intention to drop the requirement to respond to 2 out of the
>last 3 ballots.
My apologies - I obviously read more into your words than you had intended.