On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:32:40PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
>
>
> > You just invalidated your own argument about motivation. On the other
> > hand, Adam's point in fact makes a lot of sense. You (and Vany) are
> > proposing "alternates" or "assistants" who are to take on some of the
> > work that we elected the adcom for.
>
> Huh?
>
> Adcom members represent regions. there are 5 of them. Replacement candidates
> may help, and hey, did you notice that ANYONE can help?
Fine. Then there is no argument that being alternates will add
anything to the help.
> But officially,
> replacement candidates are not Adcom members and cannot replace their
> functions. Nor will they, under section F.
You said:
The person who is designated a replacement receives some official
recognition as a kind of officer in the constituency.
> Does the NCC has so many people willing to work for it that we have to
> ration and restrict those who can? Did something change while I was sleeping
> last night?
>
> I am puzzled by this debate. I don't think the whole issue is all that
> important,
I do think it is important.
> but the replacement proposal is clearly superior to the
> alternative,
Proof by repeated assertion -- how amusing :-). Sorry. It is not
clearly superior -- in fact, it simply doesn't solve the problem it
purports to solve.
> and the arguments against it are obviously straining to come up
> with increasingly lame excuses.
You certainly know how to sell a proposal, don't you :-)
> What is this debate really about? Will
> someone tell me?
The debate is about trying to come up with a decent interim charter, so
we can have a vote. Your proposal is obviously controversial; the whole
idea of alternates is obviously controversial, whether used for
seccession or for proxies. As Raul requested in his last message on the
topic, I put forth Nii's proposal as the last best attempt to move
forward; you seem deliberately intent on sabatoging that.
Let me review for you one of your own comments, on Feb 6 of this year:
Mr. Sadowsky has a point. I don't think Nii's suggestion is
"simpler" than the other proposal, but I do think we need to get
beyond this issue.
I'm willing to give up my opposition to that particular method if
Raul and Kathy agree.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Sadowsky"
> If all we can do is argue over issues of how
> we organize ourselves, then this organization isn't worth being a
> member of.
>
> One exxception: I do read and find sensible Kathy Kleiman's
> occasional posts. I'm glad that she's active in the group.
>
> Can we accept Nii's suggestion and get on with real life, please?
Later Raul and Kathy both agreed.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 12:15:44 PDT