A Request for transparency from FIRST

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

It appears that some have misunderstood my previous post.

It's not so much that anyone misunderstood. It's that we're having trouble understanding it at all. That's what the questions addressed to you were all about, so that we could find out more clearly what you were trying to say. The fact that you didn't answer any of them makes me wonder even more what you are trying to express.

You may take exception to a snippet here and snippet there, but if you consider it in total, I believe you will grasp my meaning – which was:

Transparency isn’t always necessary.
Transparency isn’t always possible.
The issues raised are best resolved between the ones who raised them and the management and board of directors.

This doesn't help me figure out what you want us to understand. In this particular case, do you think transparency is unnecessary? Do you think it is impossible? Do you believe that FIRST's goals are served better by not telling people their plans for the near future?

It serves no purpose to debate those issues here, where rumor will abound and there’s sure to be false assumptions as to how and why decisions have been made.

I still don't follow you. Which issues do you wish not to see debated? The letter has been sent. Any discussion here can't affect its content, and no such discussion was suggested. The only issue I see open at the moment is what point of view you're coming from, so that your comments can be interpreted in that context.