At 07:22 AM 1/9/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>It is sadly true that people have fixated on the issue of "closed" vs
>"open" meetings/lists, and it has become a mantra for mindless
>criticism of people whose position you don't agree with. But the
>fact is that meetings and lists have many purposes besides public
>discussion. Sometimes they are narrowly focused on acomplishing some
>goal -- these are "working" meetings or lists. Working meetings and
>lists typically *should* be closed, because the primary goal is the
>job to be done, not public discussion. If you don't close them they
>get flooded with irrelevant side discussions, and nothing gets done.
Ever the optimist :-) I'd like to think some good came of this. Does
it make sense to you Kent that meeting that shape public policy
should be open to the public and other mettings that do not
have no great need to be ?
--
"To find out what your opponent is up to, look at what he
says about you" - unknown
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
