>Therefore I suggest that the individual section topics be consolidated, the noisy paragraphs mercilessly moved and linked to anciliary discussion topics, so that this living evolving message is unambiguous, and henceforth remains so.

I think that would be a big step in the right direction. I also think that when a broad consensus is reached as to the "letter's" content, that it be frozen as the letter to which people can affix their names. My name is my reputation and I can't comfortably attach it to something that anyone can change.

Note that this doesn't mean that I think the discussion should end at some point, just that, for people to agree to be signatories to something, they need to know what that something is.

>Arguably, actually sending the message in another medium conveys an illusiory sense of consensus, impact, and finality. Our mothers sent letters. Today we know that a great way to draw fire to a cause is to set up a website. A letter is a one-shot message. A letter writing campaign is a collection of one-shot messages. A well-publicised web page lives and broadcasts as long as broadly as necessary. A wiki page, the product of continuous broad peer review and input, is arguably much more powerful than a single page composed by a single activist, or a small group of activists.

Just had to comment on this. I'm involved in lots of things other than career stuff. I have found, repeatedly, that the most effective way I can get action on an issue is to write a clear, persuasive, letter. I've used this technique a number of times on issues where others were convinced nothing could change and, frequently been successful.

Tamar