(no subject)

[owner-wgchairs@ietf.org]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:29:13 -0500
From: pregen@egenconsulting.com
To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>
Cc: owner-wgchairs@ietf.org, T.J. Kniveton <tj@kniveton.com>, wgchairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: "Stuckees?"
Sender: owner-wgchairs@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk


I like "core WG members" a lot.  That's kind of what we call ourselves
anyway.
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652



                      Margaret
                      Wasserman                To:       "T.J. Kniveton" <tj@kniveton.com>
                      <mrw@windriver.co        cc:       wgchairs@ietf.org
                      m>                       Subject:  Re: "Stuckees?"
                      Sent by:
                      owner-wgchairs@ie
                      tf.org


                      02/24/03 05:46 PM







How about "committed WG members"?  Or "core WG members"?  We
could encourage people to get a commitment of time from their
company before signing up.

Margaret


At 02:12 PM 2/24/2003 -0800, T.J. Kniveton wrote:
>What's up with this word? Can we use something that makes sense? It is not
>conjugated correctly anyway -- should be "stickees" or "stucks" /
"stuckeds."
>
>How about "avatars" or "task leaders" or something?
>
>-TJ