On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Alice Wiegand me.lyzzy@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Lodewijk,
On 16 March 2011 22:41, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi, FIrst of all, please - stop calling it "Erik's session" :) Sessions don't belong to people. Erik merely suggested it, he doesn't own the topic or anything, nor does he (imho) have a veto over it. (not because he's Erik, but that is a principle :P )
that was the reason for putting it into quotes. But: It is Erik who is preparig this session and who will make the introduction and setting up the things to discuss, isn't it? There will be nobody else jumping into this (speaking of experience).
Last friday we also discussed it, and asked Bence to try and fit the session in a wider context - I believe he would be trying to do that. But thanks for suggesting, it means that I clearly am not the only one to think of it :)
OK, I have to read the log ;)
I don't see problems with the two sessions being at the same moment btw. They involve different kind of people - GLAM is more practical, this is more discussion-like.
Indeed, but both may get high attraction (and I fear contrary to movemenet roles).
I wouldn't be too worried about this. Historically, chapters have been sending two representatives to the chapters meeting exactly for that reason, ie. being able to break into two different sessions where the need arises.
This said, I agree with you very much that this session needs to involve MR. Would it be possible, since we do have a topic "Accountability and legitimacy", to simply say that we'd also like to present the outcomes of our thoughts on the matter? I think it would make perfect sense as something we add to Erik's introduction. If nothing else, it might give some direction as to what has already been happening on this front.
Cheers,
Delphine