Julie Pash on fri 28 jan 00
When John said that his proposal was rejected because
"there would not be enough interest", it seemed strange
that the board would feel that way, especially with
support from Louis Katz and Ron Roy. I would have expected
them to say that there were too many good topics for the
break out groups this year, try again next year, or
something like that. I guess I was reacting to resistance
that I have encountered elsewhere, when attempting to address
You mentioned that the composition of the board changes
frequently. Good point. I guess that it doesn't matter what
the reason was....whether the subject was rejected because
it was too boring, or too controversial, or whatever.
Next year's board may have a different opinion, and I hope
that John resubmits his proposal, because I do know that there
is a lot of interest in this topic out there. After all,
the break out groups frequently have topics of narrow interest,
as it should be, so why not the subject of glaze stability?
I certainly did not mean to imply criticism of NCECA as a whole,
just of this particular decision. (I should have worded it
differently.) It is precisely because the conferences
are so successful, that having this topic on the agenda
is important. It would be nice to be able to say something like
this: "some people at NCECA put together some working guidelines
that we might want to implement while we are waiting for data to
accumulate and the results of research to be reported." It would
lend an air of legitimacy to the request.
Marcia and Linda,
thanks for your comments...it helps to know how the process works.
I agree with Vince, Mel, and others that NCECA is for both
potters and educators. I wanted to make the point that this topic
is important to both groups.
Julie in Southern California