I guess my main question is this: exactly what responsibilities and functions would this team have? Gary >===== Original Message From "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> ===== >Re Alfredo's [6764]: > >In principle, I am not opposed to the following (indeed if done >_well_ it would be a great benefit to both the list and myself) but >-- as they say -- "the devil is in the details". > >E.g. -- no offense intended to anyone in particular -- there are >some listmembers for whom it would be absolute hell to work >with on such a committee (and indeed would *greatly* raise my >stress level and time commitment). So, an absolute pre-requisite >for me is that whichever individuals are part of this committee are >easy to work with. I don't think that asking on-list for volunteers >will ensure this (or the following) result. Instead, I think it would >be better if individual listmembers (bearing the following paragraph >in mind) were asked. > >In general, I think the list would be best served -- *if* we decide to >go ahead with Alfredo's proposal -- by a *SMALL* group (a large >committee would be very stressful and a real killer) of people who >are respected by all and considered to be fair, who represent diverse >theoretical and political perspectives, and who come from various >parts of the world. A committee of 4-5 listmembers besides myself >should be large enough to be moderately representative but small >enough to be workable. I would anticipate, within this new structure, >remaining list coordinator for the foreseeable future. > >However, other than Alfredo, no one else has made their thoughts >known about his proposal and I would feel a lot better before going >ahead with this change if I knew that is what the rest of you want. > >In solidarity, Jerry > > > >>> Everyone knows that I admire and fully support Jerry's extraordinary work on OPE-L. Jerry has been carrying this heavy burden carefully and conscientiously for several years, and he deserves nothing but admiration for what he, and the list as a whole, have achieved, and will continue to achieve in the future. >However, recent events show that Jerry has been put in a disadvantaged and very exposed position, and this is both unfair and wrong. In order to fulfil his multiple tasks as list co-ordinator and mediator, Jerry has been put in the impossible position of having to relate to all of us, both simultaneously and separately, at different levels at the same time. This may be one of the main reasons why Jerry is vulnerable to disagreement - even at a personal level - with good friends and comrades, even with risk to his own health (as he explained in a recent >message). These are things that we can all live without, and Jerry neither needs nor deserves this type of aggravation. >I would like to make a proposal, which I will do in good faith - I will also withdraw this proposal should Jerry or others object. In these matters, consensus is the only way forward. I think that the list would benefit if Jerry selected, or if we somehow chose, a very small number of people to help Jerry, Allin and Rakesh with different aspects of the management of the list. >A measure of collective responsibility in day-to-day management would allow Jerry to maintain his involvement with the list while reducing the degree of his personal exposure, thus preserving his own work and life from any conflicts that may arise on OPE-L. >Having said this, I want to reiterate that I fully support and admire Jerry's work. Moreover, this proposal is not meant to exclude anyone from anything - the idea is, rather, to allow everyone to feel *included* while, at the same time, reducing Jerry's own exposure and eliminating the personal aspect of the disagreements that we have experienced recently. <<<
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST