Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
If you have more questions (preferably open-ended
ones that promote
reasoned thought and discussion), you're welcome to ask them and I will
try to answer as I have time.
For my own part (not pretending to speak for anyone else) the question
I would most like to see answered by each of the board members is:
"What in the proposal of the exploratory body do you think was
for you the thing that made you support/demurr its implementation
by the board directly?"
For me, it was the fact that it sought to rely on the board's blessing
in order to organize and do its work, which I believe would defeat the
purpose. The essence of my opinion is what I wrote a little earlier in
response to Lodewijk:
"I think it likely that if the board creates a council, that will end up
defining its relationship to the community and the world at large, and
it will be perceived as a creature (literally, "thing created") of the
board. If so, it would lose nearly all the value hoped for in its
development."
Perhaps "create" was a poor choice of words to put in
the resolution,
and I would have been quite content had the Board substituted more
propitious terminology. Whatever becomes of such a Council it must be
prepared to work amicably with both the Board and the community. I
certainly do not envision a rogue organization that is constantly
butting heads with the Board.
An atmosphere based on the premise that community members have the
*right* to set up whatever organization they want, or on a Board that
dwelling upon its right not to pay attention to what the group says puts
too much emphasis on confrontation. Both of these premises may be
legally correct, but that does not make them constructive.
Somewhere between outright creation and insurgency there is bound to be
a balanced structure.
Ec