On 19 June 2012 17:01, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
As a member of both groups, i think we have to find a way to stop thinking the worst of each other.
I wouldn't still be liaison if I didn't see continuing value. There are certainly issues on which concrete co-ordination pays visible dividends. As a recent good example, I believe that we helped each other on the IOC/RedCross issue in San Jose. Efforts like that are ALWAYS worthwhile. And Robin has asked that the R3 document, IDNs and joint outreach are part of the joint agenda. These are all worthwhile issues and I can see at least two of them leading to constructive, valuable, identifiable outcomes. I'm just saying (and I think Darlene agreed) that we ought to actively avoid issues upon which we might agree, but that may not easily lead to real action. IMO digital archery is one of those issues, and thus should be lower on the joint priority list than others on which we can identify concrete followups. As it is, it is making my DID, aka MPD or DSM IV 300.14, flair.
Dare I ask? - Evan