We Discuss _Proposed_ methods.

[Steve Eppley]

>Steve E wrote:
-snip-
>> Rob's EM list was created more in response to the latter group's 
>> "decision" to split the ER list, and the SWC was invited to share 
>> the new list.
-snip-

Mike O replied:
-snip-
>The sw topic-range of the sw discussion was agreed-upon at the outset.
-snip-

I think there's a difference of interpretation.  Is Rob trying to 
expand the scope of EM or are you trying to narrow the scope?
I never thought the EM list was to be limited to SWC work, nor that
the only allowable sw discussion would be SWC work.  Do you have an
old quote that shows one of these limitations? 

Personally, though I can see merit in trying to focus for the moment
on making a decision to be relayed to ER (and in the longer term on
producing a good sw document), I'd prefer to tolerate other uses of
the EM channel and rely on the self-discipline of the members not to
let themselves get too distracted.  

And though it's not likely, I might see here an as yet unproposed
method that I'd deem worthy of proposing.  I don't think we want
to shut the door to future proposals while the movement is still
publicly uncommitted. 

You've voted and I've voted.  I got the impression that Kevin intends 
to vote.  Perhaps he and others will explain why they haven't yet 
voted (too many distractions? still making up their minds? etc.) 
or why they think they/we shouldn't vote.  I don't think anyone has 
objected to your proposal to write up the SWC's decision after a week 
elapses with no additional votes cast, so that gives people until 
about the end of Saturday (one week after my vote was cast, if I'm 
correct that mine was the last one cast) to cast votes or object to 
your proposal.  I'm willing to help write the summary message to ER.

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)