I feel very uncomfortable about the continuation of comments on David and on
Erminia when they are not here
We have list-owners. If we don't let them make decisions and move on, we are
going to be in a mess. We can lobby them. If they are acting in good faith,
or seem to be, I think that is best done b-c. If necessary, maybe f-c; but
only if absolutely necessary, unless it's general; but where there's any
ambiguity or doubt about an issue I think we should try to avoid criticism
of others who cannot answer
This is not a conversion to authority for its own sake. It's a desire for
efficiency and a desire that people can speak here with the confidence that
they will not be commented upon adversely when they are not in a position to
answer. *Constructive criticism of their published writing may be something
else...
When I come into this space, to me it's a bit like going to a reading or a
lecture. I not only expect it to be structured; I want it to be structured;
and without a constant debate on the rightness of what has been decided,
because such debates take *all the time. Someone needs to be ensuring that
the conditions exist for the main activity to happen - timeliness,
attention, relative silence etc
Chairing is a doubtful privilege. & chairing is ideally by consent. Here we
have Alison and Randolph. I think they're ok. I want to give them my vote. I
can't explain why because I really want us to STOP speaking about our absent
colleagues f-c.
Can we do that? Please?
L
|