<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Phil Bondi is on that Committee and so are a number of names I've seen on this list.  Seems like an opportunity was missed.<div><br></div><div>Laura Olsen</div><div><br><div><div>On Jul 5, 2011, at 7:35 PM, J Patrick Draine wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">How about "Electronic Communications Committee" -- which already exists, but seems to have been bypassed.<div>Also, see page 301 of the Pre-Council Agenda for the executive Board. Board Project Chart > Charges of ECC > "Review current Bylaw and Board charges for the ECC and make recommendations for the future due to change in member software."</div> <div><br></div><div>Patrick Draine<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Laura Olsen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:laura-olsen@att.net">laura-olsen@att.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> Dear Mike, Phil, et al<br> <br> Don't you think it requires more than one "behind the scenes volunteer" to represent this list and the problems it's experiencing ?  Not only does that seem like a lot of extra work for 1 RVP, but the adage "2 heads is better than one" comes to mind.  Perhaps a group of Phil Bondi plus a few members of Pianotech would make a good committee to represent the users experience to Higher Logic (or whomever is the go between) .  That way the list would be well represented and aware of the progress and the hold ups.  Call it a committee, call it a focus group.  Call it whatever you like but it seems to me that it would go a long way toward better communication.<br> <font color="#888888"><br> Laura Olsen, RPT<br> <br> </font></blockquote></div><br></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>