Happy that you agree that we are doing a good job.
As to finding another expert, I am quite happy with the one we have. Your
proposal that we say something along the lines you indicate is not
practical. For your information, you do work also in a non-observable way.
Why should your work be different ?
Nobody is proposing the Lebanese project
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen
A member of the langcomm is afraid that
publication of the contruibutions
may lead to the dismissal from the job. Given that this is expert help,
is sufficient reason to comply.
I think that it is possible to find a way to say your conclusions
publicly by saying "an expert from LangCom said that" or "during the
discussion we concluded this because of that". If it is not possible,
I am afraid that you should find another expert. You are not a
department of a commercial company, but a committee of an organization
and a community for whom transparency is a very important part of
NB There are good reasons for doing things in a
procedural way. The best
reason is that it gives predictability and it ensures that everyone is
treated equally. If you want to call this "bureacratic", that is fine.The
benefit is still there.
Good procedural way is better than chaotic one, of course. Bad
procedural work is worst than chaotic one. Try to make better
NB2 There is also nobody proposing this project.
foundation-l mailing list