Dear John,
I was already expecting to get into real business when your last message confirmed to me again that my concerns about voting (and, in general: about the procedure of arriving at an agreement within the committee) were indeed well founded.
Although you were defending it, it is not good practice to choose a voting mechanism which, as I pointed out earlier, carries the chance of a single vote to be declared as unanimous. You still seem to wish to justify it by the necessity to keep to a timetable . By doing so, however, you accept as just a possible unilateral measure without considering its unwanted effect on a whole environment. This position is, in my view, hard to justify and, as a consequence, may eventually block future activity.
As for now, in my understanding, a chairman is primus inter pares, not less and not more, who is expected to moderate discussion and, by paving the way to a moderate discussion, facilitate agreement. In the least desirable case, however, functional inoperability may become apparent, as may be the case with the recent lack of activity within the committee.
In such a case, it is not productive to hint to a (theoretically) possible resignation in order to get everyone back on board or suggest someone to resign (as your words to Lisa Lena clearly implied). This is not the way understanding can be promoted. And building understanding is far more important for a whole future than to keep to a timetable. I see a traffic sign: "Construction ahead". A sign for every driver.
Laszlo
_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
Received on Wed Apr 13 2005 - 14:51:03 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Apr 13 2005 - 14:51:03 EDT