Re: Next step -- Deciding on output

>>>>> In article <20030205190853(dot)GA24855(at)christoph(dot)complete(dot)org>, John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org> writes:

> What I'm suggesting is that in our proposed
> motion/resolution/whatever, we leave off the WHEREAS part. I think
> that we do not need to be expressing a "sense of the membership"
> about background information, just getting it done. This also
> makes reforms easier to pass because disagreements on background
> information will not lead to blocking passage.

I might be missing something here. I could not care less
about the legalistic phraseology; but the important point is that the
first thing stated is the reason for the change, and then comes the
proposal; I would strongly recommend that we do not divorce the two.

Som if you are mewrely talking abuot psuedo legalese, fine,
but the underlying principle of keeping the reationale with the
proposed changes, I would tend to oppose separation.

manoj
--
It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three
benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never
to use either. Mark Twain
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta(at)acm(dot)org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C