OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

[Jeanette Hofmann]

William Drake wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was
>> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't
>> find a definition of it in any of them.
> 
> McTim, Parminder, you are both right.  R&P is a broad and
> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the
> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support
> here.  The latter trumps the former, 

Why? Majority trumps reason?

so it should be included in the
> statement.

Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main 
session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as 
Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps 
more abstract wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot 
think of anything good at the moment but perhaps something such as 
'legal provisions' would work?

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
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t