Jo Walsh wrote:
dear all,
I updated http://publicgeodata.org/Open_Letter_Third_Reading - below
the text as it stands now. I'm concerned that the preamble is a bit
long - takes a while to get to the point. We should have an appendix
with Amendments 21 and 27 as well as the standard appendix with
references to the PIRA, KPMG, etc studies. I'd really like to have a
doublecheck that we're not missing anything from 2nd reading too.
Great work Jo. I've now taken a look at the letter and made some changes
-- all of style and none of substance. My one remaining suggestion is
that we might want to cut the (now) penultimate paragraph regarding
rejection. The letter is already pretty long and while I have nothing
against the point it takes us off in yet another direction, moreover it
doesn't seem to be something of immediate relevance compared to
determining what position they will take on am 21 and 27.
Other than that I think this is ready to go.
I'm also a bit concerned that this is heckling the council a bit much
- and that the last para should if possible outline a more
constructive 'technical' approach - but don't want to go on too long.
I think we should leave this out for the time being. We need to keep it
reasonably short.
Regards,
Rufus
[snip]
_______________________________________________
geo-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss
