[governance] communicating with our peers

[Jeanette Hofmann]

William Drake wrote:
> 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?

That event happened on a day when the MAG meeting was open. Parminder 
was there. You too as far as I remember. And I wouldn't have referred to 
  that event the way I did if hadn't been open.
> 
> I didn't read Parminder as criticizing you and Adam personally 

Yes, I know. Its never personally. Adam and I both just happen to be a 
bit paranoid.

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.

What Parminder said is that efforts of increasing transparency "has 
happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the
CS members in the MAG."

   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.

As I said before, I don't think there was any substantial issue we 
didn't report. If regular intervals of reporting are regarded as 
helpful, I think we are both willing to do it.
jeanette
> 
> 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