🚀 go-pugleaf

 jonl@pro-smof.cts.com (Jon Lebkowsky) writes:

|> I don't think it is appropriate to interpret it as an insult.
|
>We didn't interpret the rejection itself as an insult.
>What was insulting was how the rejection was styled, at least by one
>member of the steering committee, who angrily implied that EFF-Austin
>was trying to gain advantage by offering to host the meeting. The
>language of that particular response was, forgive the understatement,
>tactless.

	was this message public?  If so, I haven't seen it.

	If it was private, then it is as improper to suggest "bad motives"
	in everyone who may be suggesting or supporting Atlanta as the
	meeting site, as it would be to suggest "an Austin power-play"
	just because someone here sounded as "that idea" might be a
	motivating factor...

	Calmer heads will prevail, I hope ...


PS: soooo...  is there a public forum where the pros-and-cons for the
    sites under consideration are (were?) discussed?

    All "meetings" of "public organizations" ought to be held "in public".
    Only EXTRAORDINARY circumstances should lead to sessions behind closed
    doors;  it IS acceptable to limit the right of the general public to
    speak during executive meetings, but any meetings behind closed doors,
    and you better show me "good reasons"...
-- 
  werner@cs.utexas.edu |  ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | werner@UTXVM.bitnet

              "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"