<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Jeanette<br>
<br>
The remark<br>
<br>
"I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that "JPA
should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
"<br>
<br>
was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement to it. See
the emails below.<br>
<br>
When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving more
definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I am not
trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do. <br>
<br>
As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up
here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's
Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4A276EF2.30708@wzb.eu" type="cite">Parminder, we
were so close to an agreement but now, for some reasons, you suggest to
marginalize those who don't agree with your position.
<br>
I definitely disagree with your version.
<br>
<br>
Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate in
this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more
consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than those
speaking up here.
<br>
<br>
jeanette
<br>
<br>
Parminder wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I would of course like it even better if all
of us can agree that "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a
transition'.
<br>
<br>
this language is even clearer and more powerful.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Afonso wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear Lee,
<br>
<br>
Lee W McKnight wrote:
<br>
[...]
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Seriously, in the next A or U there could
be a mandate for
<br>
participation in a transition process, with of course USG
<br>
noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
<br>
end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
<br>
what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
<br>
<br>
Lee
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
<br>
should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
<br>
what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
<br>
<br>
frt rgds
<br>
<br>
--c.a.
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>