Re: Attending meetings
Carl Malamud <malamud@csn.org> Mon, 30 November 1992 21:42 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16264; 30 Nov 92 16:42 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16253; 30 Nov 92 16:42 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15933; 30 Nov 92 16:43 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16241; 30 Nov 92 16:42 EST
Received: from teal.csn.org by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15887; 30 Nov 92 16:42 EST
Received: by teal.csn.org id AA16214 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US); Mon, 30 Nov 1992 14:42:47 -0700
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 14:42:47 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Carl Malamud <malamud@csn.org>
Message-Id: <199211302142.AA16214@teal.csn.org>
To: ole@csli.stanford.edu, poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Attending meetings
Ole - If I remember right, the sentiment was not for leaving out the "attended 2 meetings" but was more a reaction against *increasing* that number. I think 2 is a good middle number. (There was an equally strong sentiment that you need some understanding of the process before you start forming random IESGs). Carl
- Attending meetings Ole J. Jacobsen
- Re: Attending meetings Carl Malamud