On 14 June 2013 14:40, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Ross Gardler > <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: >>... >> I propose we ensure that whatever we put before the board in July has >> an alternative course of action that does not disenfranchise the IPMC > > It is perfectly fine to disenfranchise the IPMC. It does not get a > blank pass. It must provide value. Competing ideas are allowed and > encouraged. The IPMC does not have a monopoly; it is subject to the > Board, which may decide other models may be workable; thus, the IPMC > needs to accept that fact.
Yep. I said *alternative* What I want to do here is provide a resolution and supporting materials for the pTLP concept. My concern is that if the board says no (and it might) we should have an alternative that will allow the IPMC to pull value from the pTLP idea. With these two things together the board can evaluate the merit of both competing ideas. What I do not want to happen is we put all this effort into proposing the pTLP idea, then have the board reject it and the Stratos project being a month behind as a result. Some aspects of the pTLP idea are dependent on the board saying yes. Ross > > Cheers, > -g > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
