[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Jeanette Hofmann]

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.
I definitely disagree with your version.

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.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:
> 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'.
> 
> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>> Dear Lee,
>>
>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>> [...]
>>   
>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>     
>>
>>
>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>
>>   
____________________________________________________________
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