Thomas Roessler wrote:
If there's anything that this discussion shows, then it's a total lack of willingness to build a compromise solution in the face of differences of opinion,
Absolutely agree, was also one of my points in the original message. and some worrying lack of
neutrality on the staff side.
On this we disagree. Staff only intervened pointing out the decisions already taken in previous meetings, and acted thinking that a decision should be treated as a decision, and acted upon. However, maybe I missed something. If you have specific examples, please let me know, and I will be happy to stand corrected.
The fact that you have nothing better to do than pull the Jeff Williams card speaks more (and quite disappointingly so!) to your ability to be objective, show leadership, and respect different opinions, than it speaks to the RALO's functioning overall.
Wow! I might have hit a nerve. But again, it would help me to know specific cases in which I showed lack of objectivity or disrespect of opinions (as for leadership, I have pointed out multiple times that I am here as an European individual user, nothing more, nothing less, therefore I have no claim to any leadership role, quite the contrary, I am extremely happy to be able to express opinions freely). Probably we have a different view on what is an opinion, and what is an attempt to derail an established process. For instance, when Annette, former ALAC Chair, sends the message (attached for your reference), given also the tone of the message and the changed title my assessment is that she is not expressing an opinion, that I would respect, but attempts to force an action that differs from the already taken decisions. And I have very little respect for this.
(Though I'll admit that one conclusion that one might draw from this entire debacle is that the RALO structure as such is neither functional, nor robust. One of the underlying reasons for the hesitation to sign the MoU on FITUG's behalf is that I was struggling whether I should recommend returning the ALS accreditation right away.)
And how would things like extending MoU rights to those who do not assume MoU obligations, or enlarging the Board to whoever wants to join, make it more functional, or robust? Cheers, Roberto