[Procedures] Decisions of Statecom June 29th 2008 that need to be addressed

[Merelice]

Jim,

My point included the fact that StateCom based its decision on what it
felt related to following (or failing to follow) appropriate GRP
processes. Dan did not present that context, thus contributing toward
divisiveness and not toward transparency or the kind of objectivity
this committee demands.

There are several definitions for moot: The one I meant, given that
Adcom had already dealt with the subject, was: "of little practical
value or meaning; hypothetical." That does not mean "trivial."

The meaning of excoriate:"to denounce or berate severely." If that is
what you think I did, then I can see we are off to a flying start! You
have felt quite free to express stronger views of my positions. I
would not have accused you of excoriating me.

Merelice


On 7/1/08, Jim Hammerman <jim_hammerman at terc.edu> wrote:
> Hi Merelice,
>  I imagine you're feeling frustrated if you had a lengthy discussion at
>  AdCom about whether this (and other?) decisions of the June 29 StateCom
>  were appropriate, thought they had been resolved, and now see them raised
>  again in a different context.
>
>  However, the same question was raised (by me) on the StateCom list before
>  the AdCom meeting, and as a member of the Procedures committee, I find
>  Dan's comments entirely appropriate--I guess the issue isn't "moot" (by
>  which I think you mean a trivial matter intended for debate purely for its
>  own sake). You don't need to excoriate Dan for bringing an appropriate
>  procedural concern to the Procedures committee. Perhaps your sense that it
>  had been resolved at AdCom doesn't match Dan's--if there had really been a
>  consensual resolution of the issue at AdCom, then whatever he posted here
>  would be consistent with that consensus.
>
>  Finally, I think there is clear value in not allowing StateCom to violate
>  its own rules about transparency in its decisions.
>  -Jim
>