> I'm all for standing behind Jason, who I think should never have been
> removed as our DST in the first place. I hope we can hold off until
> his appeal goes through and he is reinstated. I really want us to
> vote that way. But if more people believe the threats and are afraid
> of losing VSSs--if more people feel that the best route is to
> "compromise"--then that's what the Domain should do. I do think that
> vote is worth having, though. And I don't think discussion over this
> bulletin board is sufficient.
Was the point of people voting for "none of the above" to hold off until Patton's appeal goes through and is reinstated? If so, why are we planning on something that may not happen? There is no gaurentee that he will be reinstated no matter how much some of us want him to be.
Or was the point to keep from having a DST in the hopes that it force higher-ups to continue to pay attention to us and our situation and that we support our DST's decision? Don't they know already from the amount of email sent that we support his decision? Patton's appeal has already been sent up, hasn't it? What more attention do we need to draw to it?
Was electing a DST such a horrible thing to do? Would you rather have an interim DST from elsewhere rather than a DST from here? Would you rather have none at all and have our domain continue sliding up whatever color chart there is?
Can't we have a DST and still make our displeasure at the actions of certain individuals known? Don't they know it already? At this point, who doesn't know it?
How is it a compromise to have a DST? Work needs done, someone needs to do it otherwise the Domain suffers. Aren't we the only ones to be hurt by this?
Is it an actual threat? Can we lose our VSSs?
So, when would be a good time for the next Domain meeting? Before next Requiem perhaps?
Joy Slater
US2002116951