[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Parminder]

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> sorry, I meant to reply to the first of your two emails, particularly to:
>
> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is 
> in favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to 
> Shiva's language)
>
> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
>
> I got the impression that you want to polarize instead of advancing 
> consensus. If I am wrong here, I apologize.
>
> In more general terms, we are moving in uncharted water here as 
> Wolfgang likes to put it. None of can know for sure what the right 
> strategy is under such circumstances. While we have similar goals, we 
> are all guessing how to best get there. I hope that we take each other 
> seriously so that we can respect when and where we come to different 
> conclusions.
>
> jeanette
>
Jeanette, thanks for clarifying.

I thought your reservations on ending the JPA was only about the vacuum 
it creates, and therefore I proposed a seperate line to take care of 
that consideration. In fact I heard no one on the list object to ending 
of JPA other than on the grounds of this 'technical aspect'. However 
this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is best 
to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for seeking 
extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.

As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is that 
at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views and/or 
action can be even more dangerous. (Having different views is a 
different matter altogether though). Just my view.

parminder


> Parminder wrote:
>> Jeanette
>>
>> The remark
>>
>> "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'. "
>>
>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
>> See the emails below.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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