vote on BWLG/GALA connection

[Trechter, Sara]

Does acknowledging a symbolic relationship (or even taking over the records)
of bwlg mean that we are 'merging' with them?  I don't think so.  Nor do I
think that it means that gala would inherit the philosophy or structure of
bwlg. These two possibilities would worry me a little because I would like
to see gala as something new that derived from as much input as possible.
Chris B. has asked why we don't just invite the bwlg people to join gala.
In effect, this has already been done when the bwlg people subscribed to
gala-l of their own accord.  The people who have been posting from the
inside about bwlg matters (Suzanne Wertheim and Natasha Warner;I know there
are others I'm missing?) have actually been with gala-l as individuals since
the beginning too.
	Under this reading (where bwlg will not be affecting gala decisions
except in that a few gala-l members have been in bwlg), I'm not so sure what
we would gain by formally inviting what's left of bwlg to join gala unless
it's a respectful acknowledgement of past work done well.   Please excuse my
parenthetical writing.

Sara

Dr. Sara Trechter
Asst. Professor Linguistics/English
CSU, Chico
Chico, CA 95929-0830
(530) 898-5447 (office)
(530) 898-4450 (fax)