<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [dow2tf] More calendaring
- To: "'Jordyn A. Buchanan'" <jbuchanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'2DOW2tf'" <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow2tf] More calendaring
- From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:30:45 -0500
- Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What exactly would be the point of requesting constituency statements before
any data has been collected? Won't the result be constituencies re-stating
their previous positions? Would this really advance the process of seeking
a solution? Perhaps Jordyn can explain the thinking behind this approach.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jbuchanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:22 PM
To: '2DOW2tf'
Subject: [dow2tf] More calendaring
Hi all:
Steve just reminded me that the joint task force chairs and Bruce have
also put together a proposed calendar, which is as follows:
Week of Jan. 20, 2004 — Request Constituency Statements on TF Work
Feb. 16, 2004 — Receive Constituency Statements
Feb. 25, 2004 — "Interim Report" reporting "Data" collected
March 3, 2004 — Task Force Workshops at Rome Meeting
April 9, 2004 — Preliminary Task Force Report
April 29, 2004 — Public Comment Period Closes
May 20, 2004 — Final Report Due
As you can see, this schedule is rather more aggressive than the one
that Thomas has circulated. There is actually quite a bit of inertia
behind the schedule above, so it may make sense to try to comply with
the above schedule, if we believe it to be practical. (I'll add the
caveat that it's fairly dependent on staff support.)
Jordyn
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|