1st July 2009, 09:57 PM
sorry about the rant with no end, but as we integrate intellectually into wider commuity groups we must re-affirm compatible and comparable standards, that we will accept as we integrate on a practical level.
we can impose a standard, by majority international practice, if we cannot agree locally.
if this occurs then who is desciding whose decisions and practice to compare and contrast against whom else?
we need a multifaced approach to this where people are going to get to consider these for themselves, but who are the players and whose high standards of acceptability are being explored in how many different areas of intellectual co-operation?
these may be early days, but one etruscan swallow, does not make a spring................
we are however working on an international forum and there are many partisipants.
we have the build up of a wonderful federation platform
we have independent organisations tackling these issues from different sides, tacks and perspectives, but we must make these issues visible if we are to aspire to transparency, if we wish for an increase in multivocality.
but i do wonder how much do we want to know, or should know without scuppering too many games, if it is potentially that important...........................?
what is important?
showing that we are transparent or making an actual difference?
depending on the voice of the federation, i would suggest to continue as we go but if there are no periods of enlightenment then, the projects loose integrity.
txt is
Mike