Re: San Francisco debate heating up

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Sat Mar 03 2007 - 23:31:18 CST

Greg,

[notice that I trimmed the post to this last part you wrote]

> This is a tough one. In the end, I think Alan made the right decision
> because the writing was on the wall that Arntz was backing off of
> disclosure. I think briging up McPherson actually helps OVC justify
> their position that we're "concerned"- I look at it as a way of
> saying "I'm being judiciously cautions regarding our optimism for the
> proposal because we've been through this before". I think that helps
> Alan make a strong statement without looking like the bad guy.
>
> One thing I have to consider at work whenever I need to call someone
> on the carpet: Do I cc: the group or not? If I feel I have an honest
> chance of correcting someone and garnering a change of opinion
> without responding to a larger group, I always do. However, if it's
> likely that person will shrug me off or not acknowledge the
> seriousness of the problem, I choose to cc: a group as Alan did. At
> that point, you are saying: "this is my position. I think that I have
> arrived at these conclusions factually and I invite anyone else to
> challenge my assumptions". It also shines some sunshine on the
> discussion. It means that person will be aware that there is a larger
> group with interest in solving that problem who expects a solid
> answer to the question.
> Unfortunately the personality of the person receiving the
> response is very important. For some people, being rebutted in a
> large group automatically results in clutching more tightly to their
> viewpoint. It's a face-saving maneuver. That's why deciding how to
> respond in these situations is important and difficult. Nonetheless,
> I think Alan did a good job on the response. I think that someone in
> Arntz's position is used to strong statements, and that can garner
> respect. I bet what he's NOT used to is receiving a carefully
> considered, technical response that shows a lot of thought and
> effort. Therefore, I remain hopeful that the communication was well
> received.
>
Anyone wanting to hear the next part of this chapter in the saga can come to
the SF Elections Commission meeting Wednesday evening 7:00 pm. It's not
exactly my favorite way to spend the evening, but I think I need to go to
this meeting. I don't plan to say anything, but if the subject comes up, I
guess I'd better be there. I did CC the Elections Commission as well as the
supes.

We'll get some indication of what Arntz is thinking.

Greg, I think you put it into words better than I could ever do. Yes, it
was a postion statement. There was no expectation of getting Arntz to
respond directly to my points. It's a way to move him with the tide.

I don't think Arntz is go high-strung or self righteous that he will have to
fight me. He has to move to Plan B or Plan C or whatever the next one is.

We'll find out Wednesday.

Alan D.

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sat Mar 31 23:17:04 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 23:17:09 CDT