What would/could such a committee actually do? Simon At 07:19 19/03/02 -0500, you wrote: >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. <<< Department of Economics, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK Tel: +44-(0)20-7882-5089 (direct) +44-(0)20-7882-5095/6 (Dept. Office) Fax: +44-(0)20-8983-3580
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST