Originally Posted by
tsquare
I don't think that would necessarily be not smart.. but I don't think it would serve any useful purpose.
I thank many here are hitting on something though. This will be the first contract that will be negotiated with as much internet communication available as there currently is. It might be that a more instantaneous form of communication i.e. a chat room type thing (or is that an old concept?) to discuss the pro and con of the TA would be preferable to a paper that is but one man's opinion. Interesting nonetheless...
I think there are guys that specialize in letting something pass, but not being on the record as being for it. This just gives them more of a platform. Either the MEC agrees to pass this on to ratify, or it doesn't. If it passes it on, it needs to do a paper such as Ferd suggested, which would serve the same purpose as a pro/con because it would give us something to chew on, EXCEPT it wouldn't let people take politically-motivated positions.
If I was trying my hand at populism, I would write the CON paper, arguing like crazy that we should have gotten MORE. That's amazingly simple to do. By keeping the inside politics inside, you avoid this.
I think we all agree we want peace and quiet, and no sell-job. Ferd gave a very elegant method for the MEC to give a post-action summary, after which they can then shut up and let us decide.