In the interests of transparency, here is an inquiry I also am sending directly to the Scientific Council by IM/notecard:
Ladies & Gentlemen: I note you have announced a meeting on 31 March at 4 am SLT (that is, 11h00 GMT, 04h00 in California and 12h00 in UK. The notice includes several items of interest to the Representative Assembly.
Meeting notice here: http://forums.slcds.info//viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1698
Time zones here: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/m ... 136&p6=259
I have three requests.
First, as a member of the RA, I am interested in your agenda assertion that at its last meeting the RA has in some unspecified way amended the Constitution. I suggest that, *depending* on the unspecified item asserted as a Constitutional amendment, there may be some risk of either bad communication here, or reasonable differences of opinion. I also think it would be instructive for me to hear your views in any case. Therefore, it's possible that I, or other members of the RA, or other interested citizens, may wish to attend your meeting -- but we could only assess that desire if we knew which provision is the topic of your proposed assessment. Would you please advise us what perceived Constitutional amendment is referenced in your agenda.
Second, as the interim LRA designated by the remainder of the RA, I am interested in your agenda action to review LRA succession. It seems to me that it's possible that the views of the RA members would be relevant to rational consideration of the matter -- government being, ideally, a cooperative and collegial enterprise -- and those views have not been sought by you so far as I know. Therefore, I wish to attend your meeting; and may wish to present views to you at an appropriate time; and would be greatly assisted by a clearer statement of the matters anticipated by your agenda item.
Finally, I note your choice of a meeting time of day. CDS government often, in my limited experience, tries to make its government transparent and accessible. Of course it's impossible to please everyone in global organizations. At a specific meeting, when you are reviewing matters of particular interest to the RA, whose time zones this term are known to cluster around Western Europe and Western North America, the selection of a time particularly bad for the majority of that group seems, well, uninviting. I note that the RA, over time, often has tried hard to keep its meetings accessible to various terrestrial geographic regions. I request clarification regarding the views of the SC regarding whether it believes it has a similar interest in promoting the observation of its meetings by those affected. If I'm simply wrong that the SC ought to take the views of nonmembers, or affected parties, into account, or that transparency issues are substantially different for the SC, then I welcome your correction.
Kind regards Jamie Palisades
