[NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review

[Evan Leibovitch]

Bret Fausett wrote:
> I might try a different approach. Rather than tearing down the  
> Westlake report, why don't we list those principals we believe most  
> important for the ALAC going forward? Remember, this is a review of  
> the ALAC, not a review of the Westlake report, so we should talk about  
> how we want the ALAC to evolve. What do we want for staff support,  
> funding, representation on the Board and SOs?
>   

One does not negate the other. Right now that -- the report they have
paid for -- exists, is being discussed next week, and does damage to our
goals. They need to know that everything from the selection process to
the resulting conclusions were flawed; else how can they learn from
their mistakes?

Indicating to ALAC that we expect them to oppose the Westlake document
will not preclude -- in fact it requires -- us to produce an
alternative. If we're going to shoot the Westlake one down we certainly
do want to propose an alternative, and I would like us to engage in that
task. But that will take time. Right now we need a message for next
week's meeting at which the Westlake review is being discussed on
multiple occasions.

- Evan