Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Responses to POsting of Januray 24th

  • Subject: Responses to POsting of Januray 24th
  • From: "John D. Barnes" <[email protected]>
  • Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:01:52 -0500
DEar Colleagues;
     Many of you who have been used to using the sa-Scta listserver as a 
freewheeling enterprise over the past several years may be wondering why 
it has suddenly been changed to a moderated listserver. This is not 
because I am a "control freak." I wish that I did not have to do this, 
but I also feel that spurious messages (subscribing, leaving, etc) are 
distracting to our readership.

     I promise to forward valid postings without any editing. If I find 
it necessary to determine whether a posting is "on topic" I will 
communicate with the author(s).

-------------------- Digest of Messages received on 24 Jan 2000 
-------------------------

Subject:     RE: Request for Comments from Harry Brumberger
Date:        1/24/2000 11:07
Received:    1/24/2000 14:21
From:        Hart, Michael, [email protected]
To:          Myself@nist, [email protected]

John
A key issue which should be addressed this time around is the timing - 
link
it with the IUCr Congress or forever try for exceptional funding from 
them.
Michael

Subject:     SAS Conferences 
Date:        1/24/2000 12:37
Received:    1/24/2000 14:21
From:        Peter Laggner, [email protected]
To:          Myself@nist, [email protected]

On the suggestions by Harry Brumberger I want to make the following 
remarks: 

The SAS series should in my opinion remain a dynamic, evolutionary 
process. As such, it has to have elements of haphazard, difficulties and 
surprises. The key factor so far has always been a strong committment by 
a nucleus of colleagues, who rose dynamically at the respective, 
preceeding SAS conferences, defended their proposals, and won the ballot 
- even if this turned out to be difficult. 
I think this is the way, how the dynamics of evolution can best be 
maintained. They also have chosen their advisory boards, which are 
consequently changing all the time. The proposal of an International 
Conference Advisory Board has certainly its merits, but such bodies tend 
to act in rather conservative lines of thinking, particularly if they are 
constituted by a large ballott. Smaller communities, even if they are 
very active are at a disadvantage. 
As a first suggestion I would therefore propose to leave the general 
pattern of decision making for the choice of the respective next 
conference venue as it is. The only improvement I suggest to make 
concerns a generally known central mailbox, such as this present 
recipient list, for future proposals. 
Best regards, 
Peter Laggner

 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Prof. Dr. Peter Laggner
Institute of Biophysics and X-Ray Structure Research
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Steyrergasse 17
A-8010 GRAZ - Austria
Tel. +43 316 812003
Fax +43 316 812367 or 471859
e-mail [email protected]
http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ibr/   
  





Dr. John D. Barnes               email: [email protected]
Natl Inst of Stds and Tech       Voice: 301-975-6786
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8544        FAX: 301-975-4977
Gaithersburg, MD 20899             URL: http://www.nist.gov/sas
  or http://polymers.msel.nist.gov/staff/detail.cfm?SID=110