Means Nothing, Means Something

["Russell T. Church" <rchurch@frank.mtsu.edu>]

The idea that the areas should be described by some very specific topics 
is a pretty interesting one.  However, given the short time period in 
which the topic committee has to work I doubt that we could do a good job 
within the framework.  The National Tournament in San Diego was the first 
opportunity the topic committee had to meet.  We have until June 1 to get 
the topic list to Gary Larson for distribution to the membership.  Given 
our other responsibilities, I think the best we could do would be to 
provide the general areas.  We would not be able to do the research and 
produce topics with specific wordings within the time period available.  
The only way a committee could competently do this would be to start 
meeting immediately after the election.  That would require co-ordinating 
our travel schedules for at least one meeting if not two or three, doing 
the research and producing topics for three to five areas and only one 
area would be chosen.  Is this the best use of the topic committee's 
time?  Perhaps it is and I suppose anyone who wants to change to this 
system could work for it.  But we probably need to give this system a few 
more years to see how it works.

I do appreciate and enjoy almost all of the topic process reforms and 
topics suggested on the L.  I am sure they will continue to be offered.



Russ Church

---

• Prev by Date: Re: An Ethical Discussion
• Next by Date: Re: topics which 'mean-nothing'
• Prev by thread: "Means-Nothing" topics
• Next by thread: Re: topics which 'mean-nothing'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page