NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Non-Commercial User Constituency <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
NCUC position on LSE recommendations
From:
Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:02:55 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed; boundary="=__Part0D29A6FF.1__="
X-cc:
Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (600 bytes) , Copy of LSE-Review-clusters constituencies.xls (26 kB) 
This spreadsheet contains a list of different constituency positions on
the LSE report. 

Upon reading it I found that the NCUC positions expressed in the
document did not correspond to the positions we staked out in our
position paper on the LSE report. Sometimes they were the opposite of
what we wanted. 

So I went in and changed them to our positions correctly. Here is the
link where Robin developed our positions with input from this list:

http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0612&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&X=43DDB152BEE13F7C16&Y=mueller%40syr.edu&P=9482

I hope our Council members can correct this.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2