On 5/14/2013 3:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
It seems to me that if it is really a discussion, then there may be many possible things which could resolve it, and the AD raising the question may not know exactly what is feasible to clear it. Otherwise it is a demand, not a discussions. And in my experience while ADs can be pushy (like the rest of us), they are generally prepared to have discussion. Thus, I find your second item below to be inappropriate. At the same time, discussions do have to be resolvable. If there is no way to address it, then it is not a discuss. But "required to clar" is the wrong picture as far as I can tell.
Point taken - at least some indication on what is expected to be changed toward a path of resolution.
As you note, otherwise it's not a DISCUSS. Joe
Yours, Joel On 5/14/2013 5:12 PM, Joe Touch wrote:I am *not* suggesting getting rid of it. I *am* suggesting that it needs to be used only where necessary, and that 'necessary' ought to be clearly proved by: - citing the specific DISCUSS criteria involved - providing explicit information on what would be required to clear the DISCUSS