> If we had all pinged to the pwg DL, there would have been a lot less mail than
> we've had about NYC, quorums, etc.
As an organization making decisions, the issue of "quorum" is always
relevant and important, NYC situation or not.
> Another approach would be like the one that Binnur used, which would be that
> we ping the PWG chair by a fixed date and the chair would kept the tally.
> Then about a week before the chair would send out the current list,
> including the non-respondents and get a few more.
Sending out a list just a week before the meeting is not usually enough
time for people to make a go/no-go decision, is it? Doesn't seem like it,
given typical corporate approval cycles, meeting schedules and commitments,
Hey, if you're into the PWG and what it's doing, then you should attend
if at all possible. It shouldn't matter who else is attending, should it?
(Unless, of course, a particular person was expected to give some sort of
presentation or whatever, and that's all you were interested in for that