RE: [dow2tf] Revised draft
- To: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Revised draft
- From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 12:17:28 -0400
- Cc: "2DOW2tf" <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcRDPCB/jS05SNl9T7GQo82wIIWe4wAAI/KQ
- Thread-topic: [dow2tf] Revised draft
I believe that the circulated draft language of Sec. 1.4 mis-states the
substance of the recommendation in 3.5, so I recommend that we change
the summary to be consistent with the recommendation. This is not an
11th hour change to substance. As we have all agreed, the summary in
sec. 1.4 could not be completed until the recommendations themselves
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 12:12 PM
To: Jordyn A. Buchanan
Cc: Steve Metalitz; 2DOW2tf
Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft
On 2004-05-26 11:21:45 -0400, Jordyn Buchanan wrote:
> Steve: one thing I notice is that your proposed changes to the tiered
> access provision seems to make even further exploration dependent on
> resolving viability, financial feasability, etc.
> I'm not sure if that's the intent, but that's how it reads right now.
The change also moves the substance of the recommendation from "the
principle is accepted, subject to ..." to "the principle is accepted as
a topic for further exploration."
That's a significant change to the report's substance proposed at the
11th hour, and -- from my reading of what was discussed -- matches
neither the Task Force's discussions, nor the recommendations in section
3. I would recommend that this change
*not* be adopted in the final version of the TF's report.
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> At-Large Advisory