|
Hi, Bob,
I know you want to move things along, but I feel
the need to voice a sentiment. If we continue negotiations, even if we can
say "no" to the proposed agreement, the longer we stay in the process, the
deeper in we get. Sometimes negotiations can take on a life of their
own, and a committee can end up adopting proposals which the committee as a
whole doesn't want. If we vote to continue discussion, and it passes, we
will giving Dave G. the message that we as an organization want PAM, and we want
an agreement to be reached. As I have voiced in the past, I have many
reasons for opposing PAM. My main reasons are as follows: (1)
I don't favor merging with another publication sight unseen: (2) There is a lack
of unity among the MC members about PAM; (3) I think we need to work
on what we're about before we can take on such a project; (4) We may be
getting in over our heads; (5) I would like to try to make TAG
better.
I would like to say more about points number 2,
3, and 4. On point number 2, let us say for the sake of
argument that PAM does pass and TAG folds. The lack of consensus about PAM
will find an outlet in other ways and will ultimately drag down the work of the
group. The lack of unity isn't going to go away! Points 3 and 4
are interrelated. Because PAM is a new magazine there are going to be all
kinds of things coming up that will need to be worked out. PAM problems
will become AGA problems. I'll wager that if PAM passes, PAM related
matters would take up a great deal of our on-line time which means that we would
have less time and energy to work on our own issues. Do we want to
continue having PAM on our plate to have to deal with? Personally, I would
like to move ahead and work on AGA concerns. Speaking to point number
3, is going with PAM in keeping with our goals as a hobbyist group? Why do
we need to be part of a slick magazine?
IMO the only good reason to continue negotiations
is if we really want PAM. If not, we'll be wasting our time and
energy.
Mary
|