RE: Final Interpretation for RI 137 - Rules governing binding sho uld be specifiable

["Daniel P. Faigin" <faigin@solarium.aero.org>]

I think the NIB (and before that, the IWG) experience is that public input is
invaluable, and all of the NIB actions have been done with public review. We
haven't always accepted the comments that have been made, but we have always
listened to them and debated them, and typically when we went a different
direction, explained the rationale behind our actions.

Often, this process has served to slow the forward progress of queue
entries. But it is better to attempt to get them right. But public review and
comment is critical. The readers of this forum often catch things that those
of us close to the entry do not see.

So, to the silent readers I say: BE SILENT NO MORE. Make more work for
me. Comment on drafts when they are proposed, whether your comments be yea or
nea. Your comments are important.

And I personally encourage the CCIMB to continue to use this form, or an
equivalent mailing list, to post announcements and drafts for a public
reivew. A mailing list is significantly better than a bulletin board system,
for it allows people to passively recieve the items, without having to
remember to check a website. Yes, you don't get the ability to do the fancy
graphics. But our focus must be getting the content correct. Substance, not
style.

Daniel