Re: [Minds-disaster] RE: [Minds-disaster] Stop

From: "Bart Busschots" <bart.busschots@e-merge.ie>
To: <se30012@cs.may.ie>; <minds-disaster@redbrick.dcu.ie>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 2:39 PM
Subject: [Minds-disaster] RE: [Minds-disaster] Stop

> At this point I feel the role of PRO needs to be cleared up in everyones
> head ... it is the job of the PRO to comunicate with the PUBLIC, that
large
> faceless body of students out there, and somehow convince them that MiNDS>
> is great and that they should be bending over backways to give us their
> pound!
I always thought the Public Relations Officer dealt with public relations,
and that extended beyond posters, and certainly beyond Fair's Day. I also
thought that "the public" was more than just students. Please explain why
this is not the case.

> This meeting with the CC is NOT about that at all, it is a policy
> meeting and without a shadow of a doubt the MOST IMPORTANT MEETING in
MiNDS>
> entire existence .... hence VP over PRO.
As I have said:
* It is a public relations exercise (with a particular subsection of the
public... college staff).
* The portfolio distinctions are lessened in importance because of how
critical this meeting is. For example, Des has been considered... but he's
the treasurer.

> OK I've already said that I feel the P & VP should go and also a tech
person,
> I would prefer Cian.
Ditto.

> I also feel that because MiNDS> has a larger role within the college an
> SU rep is waranted and I feel I know enough about MiNDS> CLubs & Socs in
> general and have a good reputation with the college so I feel I could do
> this well.
I still don't think that you're needed, or that you will be any better at
the meeting than Kevin or Des. Thank you for volunteering though.

I'd also like everyone to discuss this, as I think me and Bart are the only
two to actually say anything about the possibility of Bart's involvement.

> That sounds like a good Idea, we could also use ICQ chat.
My post in reply to the one you replied to (if you've gotten it yet)
describes why this is a bad idea.

Should this be called the Common Time scenario? The lack of a common
timeframe for interaction is the reason this is a bad idea. You'll only get
some of the group participating, not all.

David Barrett