FW: One more thing...........

[Pat Gehrke <papacat@sierra.net>]

From: 	Isaac N West[SMTP:isaacw@ksu.edu]
>>
I proposed last year on the L that we do our topic process like NFL or 
(heaven forbid) the NDT where there are topic areas and then ONE 
resolution.  This would seem to eradicate all of the speculative 
discussion about topic ground that is going on now.  
Hope this generates as much discussion as the acutal topics themselves,
<<

If I understand right you're advocating what CEDA used to do, where we essentially vote for topics now instead of topic areas. I don't think that is a good idea for a few reasons:

I think that we need to be able to focus in and generate a set of resolutions after we have a definite area. Resolutions prior to area votes help to clarify the topic area, but the period between the area vote and resolution ballot being released is very important to focus maximum attention on topic wording.

Additionally, I think that having only one topic per area precludes 2 essential things:
1. Diversity of input and perspective on the meaning and scope of a topic area.
2. Compliance with the constitutional requirement not to release the topic until Aug 1.

Pat Gehrke
CSU Chico

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Slusher and Topic Wordings
• Next by Date: Issac West is pissed off too!
• Prev by thread: FW: SE Asia resolutions
• Next by thread: Evander Holyfield.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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