Fw: More On TAG/PAM/Interaction/Communication

["Mary McCaw" <marymccaw@mediaone.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary McCaw" <marymccaw@mediaone.net>
To: "Aga-Mcm@Thekrib.Com" <aga-mcm@thekrib.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:06 AM
Subject: Fw: More On TAG/PAM/Interaction/Communication


> This is my reply to Eric which I sent him last night and and cc.'d to the
> SC:
> > >
> > > This is a reply to a message from Mary, which bounced to me directly
as
> > > list maintainer.  I am replying to the points anyway.
> > >
> > > Mary writes today:
> > >
> > > "Kathy Olson called me last night, and I thought she made a good
> > > suggestion. She said that when Dave approches any of us about
something,
> > > we say, "I'll discuss it with the MC and get back to you."  The MC
> should
> > > then give him a date by which he can expect a decision since he gets
> antsy
> > > about deadlines."
> > >
> > > But if you read back through the mail on the 16th, you'll see this is
> > > EXACTLY what I did.  He asked about an article, and I layed out
exactly
> > > what our plans were for TAG, said "maybe we can come up with some kind
> of
> > > compromise, but I need to check with the Mary, James and the MC
first."
> > > There is NO AGREEMENT, and I have not written back to Dave since
Friday.
> > > I am now very antsy about getting back very soon.
> >
> > No, tha tisn't what you did.  You and Dave discussed a plan which you
then
> > brought back to the committee.  What I am saying is that you shouldn't
let
> > it go that far.  If he presents a plan say something to the effect that
> you
> > would rather not discuss the details, but will to talk to the MC first.
> > >
> > > Mary continues:
> > >
> > > "No, I don't really think that because of my feelings the AGA
shouldn't
> > > publicize the showcase in PAM. I will back down from my position on
the
> > > condition that we adopt Kathy suggestion as outlined above in dealing
> with
> > > Dave."
> > >
> > > So you are saying that it is OK to go forward and negotiate with Dave.
> I
> > > will ask the steering committee about this right now.  As far as I'm
> > > concerned, I did exactly what you are "stipulating" in your condition.
> >
> > I don't think you did.  When one develops a plan, this pushes things
along
> > one step farther.  The plan then takes on a life of its own.  Take a
step
> > back and consider your reaction.  You got upset because you said the
last
> > three ideas you had were shot down.  Then everybody else feels a certain
> > pressure to comply.  I am saying that you should stop Dave before it
gets
> to
> > the point where a plan is developed.  If you still don't understand, ask
> > Kathy.  She'll explain it to you.
> > >
> > > Because this is a very touchy issue, I am forwarding this to the
> steering
> > > committee to get a response and ruling to go ahead and negotiate with
> > > Dave.  Time is precious here.
> >
> > That's fine with me.  But I mean it about Dave.  In theMC, we say so
many
> > things that we don't follow through on.  We have all agreed that the MC
is
> > advisory and the SC makes the decisions, but sometimes we follow this,
and
> > sometimes we don't.  It seems to me that we are consistently
inconsistent.
> > I  want you to really hear what I am saying.  Sometime down the road I
> don't
> > want to get another MC communication where Dave has contacted you, you
and
> > he come up with a plan, you get all fired up about it, hoping for a
> positive
> > response, and then are upset because someone objects to your plan.  I am
> > saying ,"Take it to the MC before making a plan and beginning to
negotiate
> > with Dave."  I hope you now understand because I don't know how to be
any
> > clearer.
> >
> > Mary