[governance] communicating with our peers

[William Drake]

Hi Je,

Just a friendly observation from the peanut gallery.

On 2/7/08 1:32 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> What China and Russia both saw is that transparency and openness involve
> trade-offs. It can enhance the legitimacy of an organization but it can
> also render it dysfunctional. Such decisions need care. And I think its

In arguing that not much happens worth reporting and hence there's no issue
of inadequate reporting, you're citing an event that we didn't know about
that some of us find interesting.  Sort of demonstrates the opposing case,
no?

I didn't read Parminder as criticizing you and Adam personally or as
suggesting a conspiracy, per Wolfie.  I thought he was just saying it'd have
been good if the half dozen CS participants from or nominated by the IGC had
reported from time to time on relevant tidbits and trends, respecting
Chatham (e.g. with the above story being about countries A and B).  As
Jeremy noted, it wouldn't be hard for the group to define a procedure for
period schematic reporting.  Of course, this sort of presumes that the
members are representatives of/accountable to the IGC, which has been
disputed prior (and may indicate disagreement about the nature of the
nomination).

Personally I'm not particularly concerned to know all the details of a
conference program committee's discussions, but I'd have thought it would be
been fairly easy to satisfy the requests for something more that have been
made and remade for some time on the list.

Best,

Bill
 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance