Re: Revised draft

[Thomas Walker]

Please note an error I just noticed in line 1441 which should say 'even-aged silviculture may be appropriate' rather than 'uneven-aged would be appropriate.'

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Bill Logue <Bi...@loguegroup.com> wrote:

Dear AGS members,

 

As promised at the joint meeting, attached is a revised draft for review. The TSC is receiving this at the same time as AGS members. Please provide comments by close of the day on Sunday. I will pass them on to Tom Walker who will be collating comments. Any additional edits will be made and the draft will be posted for public comment at the end of next week. If you have comments please make them concise, and if possible in one email per person, or on behalf of several people if you wish. This should keep the number of emails to a manageable level. It also would be helpful to know what you do support in the draft.

 

Thank you,

 

Bill

--
Thomas Walker
P.O. Box 6308
12 Trapelo Road
Lincoln, MA 01773 USA

tel: 781.259.4490
mobile: 617.281.4152

[Joseph Zorzin]

I see that  Bill requests that comments be kept to one email per person. Though it's reasonable that people should have a single email summarizing their comments- their official commentary on the draft, it's also reasonable to carry on a discussion in these list serves before then- which may result in some of us having numerous comments on specific issues. As to keeping the number of emails to a manageable level- freedom of speech doesn't have any limits other than not yelling fire in a theatre. Nobody is being forced to read anything.

 

I think we should now have a full blast discussion of this draft- then summarize your individual comments later for the record.

Joe

---

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Forest Futures Technical Steering Committee" group.
To post to this group, send email to forest-futures-techni...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to forest-futures-technical-st...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/forest-futures-technical-steering-committee?hl=en.

[Bill Logue]

Joe,

 

It is a request to keep things manageable from an editing perspective. If people want to have a dialogue that it fine.  Just an attempt to keep things manageable from that perspective.

 

So I just ask that people clearly indicate that what they are sending are suggestions/comments and others not start a thread replying– given the hundreds of emails generated this will help a great deal. For those who can’t keep up with the volume it lets them prioritize what to read.

 

Bill

[Joseph Zorzin]

I can't speak for the others, but I haven't agreed to it. Tom and Lisa sort of do a "mind meld", I can only presume.

 

The final draft must make room for any dissenting opinion(s).

 

Joe

----- Original Message -----

From: Bill Logue

To: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:22 AM

Subject: RE: Revised draft

This draft incorporates changes based on the discussion at the 1/6/2010 meeting so they are seeing the revised language at the same time as AGS members they will be weighing in.

 

Bill

 

From: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forestfutur...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mandchurley
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:19 AM
To: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Revised draft

 

May I start by asking a question:   Is there a consensus of the 11 members of the TSC on this draft of recommendations?   Have all 11 members weighed in on it, or are they also going to comment and suggest changes?   Claudia

----- Original Message -----

From: Joseph Zorzin

To: ForestFutur...@googlegroups.com ; forest-futures-techni...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:06 AM

Subject: Re: Revised draft