On 3/6/13 10:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Not sure how anyone could have submitted a PIC much earlier, they were just invented.
While true, this overlooks the opportunity the applicant chose not to act upon -- that of forming even a nominal means to inform, and be advised by, a "community" of interest.
As I said, the main reason for NOT supporting the objections is that there is NO Community here making a claim to protection.
Yet the applicant asserts, through this PIC itself, the existence of a community, to which it now attempts to reconcile its prior unilateral interests, which is likely to include profit, and the multi-lateral insterests of a community in fact, which is likely to include public health. But stepping back, which tools made available through so much diligence, your own included, to At Large, do you now assert are not appropriate for At Large to use? However bad a decision the elected, and NOMCOM appointed, members of the At Large policy making body make, why is their decision made worse if they find a community exists, not necessarily contained in any of the documents submitted by private, for-profit applicants, nor necessarily contained in any documents created by any party other than the At Large policy making body, and exercise this particular form of process, created specifically for the At Large policy making body, and thereby inform the Board, consistent with the purpose of At Large as set forth in the ByLaws? Which fork is the salad fork? Which the desert fork? Eric Brunner-Williams