2009/10/1 William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>:
His assumption may have been unfounded, but it doesn't seem unreasonable.
This is probably one of those areas in which our communications gaps need the most fixing. Presuming that something *may* follow from something else isn't helpful to any of us, even if using what appears to be sound logic. Given the current state of NCUC-ALAC relations, one would think that fact-checking would be even more required, and assumptions less welcome, than ever. Of course, this works both ways. But we really need to lower the heat level a notch or two, and clarity is critical.
It was understood that the three appointee slots were more or less envisaged to be for people from the following categories:
Was that an explicit and published frame of reference, a hidden agenda extrapolated from private conversations, or simple wishful thinking? Use of passive grammar makes it unclear just who had this 'understanding'....
I agree with you that a consumers constituency should easily find common cause with others in the noncommercial world, assuming that it comprises noncommercial consumer groups and advocates for noncommercial interests. Other formulations would give rise to other trajectories.
Agreed. - Evan