I agree completely with Bruce's comment. This document represents a mammoth amount of volunteer work, shows that a lot of discussion and reseach went into it, and that decisions were not made frivolously. It is a thorough and well put together list, and the folks who worked on it ought to be commended for a job well done, rather than criticized on small details. No document is perfect, but this type of nitpicking is unnecessary and hurtful. Assuming that most of the detracters would not be willing or able to do any better, then constructive comments would be more in order. When an organization asks some members to be responsible for a task, it is appropriate, once the best possible people for the job are chosen, to then not micromanage how they do their work if we expect others to be willing to serve in the future. We are not speaking of a highpaying position here, as in industry, where one can expect and must usually accept that some supervisors try to control every aspect of one's work.
Well done, MOURC members! Personally, if I don't understand why some decision is made , I plan to email the committee or one of it's members and ask for an explanation. I'm sure you will be happy to comply. Jeanie > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected]=20 > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Fall > Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 5:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [mou] Checklist >=20 >=20 >=20 > Of the 30+ responses (direct and indirect) generated by last week=92s=20 > =93accidental? You've got to be kidding (long)=94 post, Peder = Svingen=92s=20 > (=93Documentation,=94 02/21) is the first and so far only one to = commend=20 > MOURC for this valuable, information-rich document and for the=20 > considerable effort the members spent in producing it. I=20 > would like to=20 > join Peder in offering acclamation for the Checklist. [Please note: I=20 > am a retired (2001) member of that committee and, like Peder, did not=20 > participate in its production.]=A0I=92m sure the 10-person = all-volunteer=20 > committee would appreciate hearing positive comments about the=20 > Checklist from others as well! Even those critical of MOURC=20 > are likely=20 > to refer to this Checklist frequently and benefit from the wealth of=20 > information in it, as will most other MOU members. Peder is certainly=20 > correct that the time spent in its production was substantial--at a=20 > minimum hundreds of person-hours (all voluntary). This is an=20 > important=20 > and well-done publication and should be recognized as such. >=20 >=20 > Bruce Fall > Minneapolis > Hennepin Co. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > mou-net mailing list > [email protected] > http://cbs.umn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mou-net >=20
