Below:
On 5/14/2013 6:04 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
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
Thanks Joe. I am glad we are on the same apage about the kind of
clarity of description needed in discusses. We may have different
experiences, but the vast majority of the discusses I have dealt with
have been sufficiently clear on the question of how to approach
resolving them. Sometimes an actual conversation with the AD has been
necessary to understand the issue and reach a practical point for
resolving it, but that is a communication style issue, not a discuss
substance issue.
Yours,
Joel
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