DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Re: Observers at NC meetings


I completely understand your concerns.

Joe and Marilyn, I see your points.

Most importantly, I understand Philip's point regard the economic reality we
find ourselves facing with only 4 of 7 constituencies (albeit 1 forgiven
temporarily) being in arrears on the dues that support such expenses.

While nice, I do not think the NC can provide such niceties until the
delinquent constituencies that are able to do so, pay their current dues and
past arrearages.  Until then I think Philip's suggested compromises (Chair
being clearer in agenda and deferral) are our only solution.

J. Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cary Karp" <ck@nic.museum>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 11:26 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Observers at NC meetings

> My remarks triggered some unexpected responses. It's normally a good
> idea to assume personal responsibility for the misunderstanding of
> anything that one says. I'm certainly prepared to do so here but am
> afraid that, on careful rereading of my previous contribution, I can't
> see what might be causing any confusion. At the risk of being
> repetitive:
> I fully recognize the need for NC members to exercise autonomous
> judgement without referring anything and everything said during the
> course of the NC's deliberations back to their constituencies before
> taking decisive action. My intention was simply to suggest that
> benefit might be derived from reinstating a communication channel
> that had been abandoned solely for economic reasons (assuming that
> there was some constructive reason for having established that
> channel, in the first place). As an alternative, I wondered if the
> recent increase in the frequency of our meetings might be harnessed
> towards an end beyond the one initially envisioned.
> Lotsa question marks. No recommendations.
> /Cary

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>