[at-l] ATC

[mathews at uga.edu (Doug Mathews)]

I have to respectfully disagree.  There would be no harm in actively 
requesting member input. For the most part, only those with a real interest 
or agenda would respond. Having a member organization that feels somewhat 
disenfranchised would appear to be be simply trying to use the members a 
source of revenue.  There are many members out her in cyber space who are 
equally qualified to offer input.  Of course, we need access to the 
information that the board does to operate on a level playing field. Its an 
old corporate trick to keep information close so that those with other 
ideas are blind sided and made to look a little less knowing to weaken 
their positions. On the other side of that coin, maybe the "opposition" 
might have come to the same conclusion or had a better idea if they had all 
the info to work with in the first place.

Mainframe


At 03:36 PM 5/28/2005, you wrote:
>Is it really beneficial to ATC to spend the time listening to
>the opinions of "ALL" the members? Do most members KNOW
>what is best for the AT in the long term? Could they even
>agree on it? We can't, so try getting 30,000 members to agree.
>It would be like a presidential election.... Pick a plan that
>most everyone can agree on, instead of one that is best.
>
>Then there are the real users of the AT (day use, vacationers,
>etc., numbering in the millions), who would probably like some
>sections of it paved for easier access.  Sometimes large quantities
>of input are a bad thing.  Maybe the consultant idea isn't so bad....
>YMMV
>
>hotdog