Agree with Mihkel. Thanks Steve for putting up the core idea so we can
build on it.
I may be wrong but think it was not Steve's intent that the various
O-CREWS get written up in the constitution only that they get started at
the same time.
I do think we could get around one of the issues Mihkel points out about
our numbers in relationship to the numbers of O-CREWS suggested. We could
have an "Inactive List" apart from the "Active list" as suggestions for
later, potential members so we show them there's a place for them if they
I am concerned about the number "5" as the required number of interested
persons necessary to start one though. I mean if Steve was one person and I
was another and Mihkel or Fiona or Mary Ellen or Joe was a third, really
interested in a specific subject, wouldn't that be enough?
I mean why 5? Why not 3? I'm not sure of the criteria on this. Anyway, my
suggestion is 3 anyone say 2?
Basically I feel that any 1 with the need and the drive should be allowed
to petition for an O-CREW.
I am not sure about forcing anyone to join anything as a requesit to
membership right off the bat.
"You can drag a horse to water...." Some cats just like to sit on the
window ledge and watch a while. (ever see what happens when you throw one
How can we police actual participation? By lines of input to proceedings?
Can we rate on quality?
Why don't we say that to renew membership for the 2nd year it is preferred
that all persons join an O-Crew or committee? Create a culture by example
not by law.
If they haven't by then it might be safe to assume they won't renew, don't
I am not sure why the ethnological subjects are specified at this point,
listing one or two means we should list them all. And there are some
considerable number of potentials.
My specific subject area is intercultural communication but I don't see any
reason to separate it from, say French Literature or Journalism (not intent
to insult) because the subject content is not what I want to find or
discuss here-I have my own professional societies for that. I don't think
it requires any specific subject-dependant special functions in the way of
MOO tech to implement. I think fine art may need a special group due to
input and other issues and certainly the sciences/and certain maths and
primary vs post-secondary will have certain specific differences related to
delivery and participant interaction etc., etc. But I am not clear about
distinctions based on race, religion or ethnicity. Economic-relevant issues
-certainly but that's not geographical. Africa is no more pertinent than
certain geographies in North America.
Anyway, only an opinion -what say you all? (all 25?)
I think that some suitable way of saying "non-English"-based/ "non-Roman
character"-based systems focus should be included- as something like over
70% of the world studies in other than Roman-based alphabets.
Overall we've a great start on the home stretch thanks to Steve and others!
I've grown attached to Mihkel's closings
(he says yawning, not actually hoping for the mornin 'cause it's 2 am)
EDI Office <email@example.com>
long distance calling:
from outside Japan use (81-3)
from inside Japan use (03)
phone 3410-4491 24-hrs (voice/auto-paging)
fax: 3410-4082 "
pocket bell: 5890-5426 8am-8pm,Mon-Fri
EDI, #202, 3-31-16 Wakabayashi,
Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Gordon Jolley, home: 3410-3556