Message 00183 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00172 Message: 7/7 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[jox] Re: Consensus? 01 -

Hi Mathieu!

I'll do the work to reformat this mail once for a reply.

5 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
If for whatever reason these conditions cannot be met, then we
should in my view be coherent and reevaluate whether SC membership
is appropriate.

First I'd think if you make binding decisions / call for consensus
then you should document them on the website somewhere. At best you
add a link to the mail where the decision is made / consensus is

a-most current institutional affiliation (if relevant),
b-webpage / website "listing their writings and thoughts about the subject in which they are claiming expert status", and
c-research interests (to be added to their site page or popup and to help decide who gets to review what).

Second you are listing three points of which one seems to be optional
("if relevant"). If it is optional it's not a criterion obviously.

It would be useful if you could make clear what the real criterion is
you are proposing.

Third if the criteria you are thinking of is b), then it is a rather
loose criterion. What does it mean? Can I put links to any two of my
texts to a website and that's it? Can everyone do this?

Fourth I think we should look for a consensus which opens the door for
non-academics - in case criterion b) will be hardened that is. For
this aspect I think further dicsussion is needed. I'll write a
separate post with an idea on this.



Thread: joxT00172 Message: 7/7 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00183 [Homepage] [Navigation]