I do not contend that new folks can't have good ideas, nor do I contend that addressing issues that have been addressed before is a bad idea. My point is that aperson who has not contributed before, is a questionable source. That does not mean that it could not ultimately be a good source, but I feel some one with established credibility is a better source. I guess I am more impressed with the views of the folks who have been doing the work, as to the ones who have been on the sideline.

Having said that, I again suggest that the goals suggested by you and by steve can be achieved with an informal group, a formal panel is not necessary in the context outlined. If the goal is to deal with major issues, then experience has its benefits.

I can understand how a person could have questions about the convention, I find it interesting that you have ideas on how it could be improved without ever having been to one. I'd welcome hearing the questions, and the suggestions- if you don't wish to do so here, email them to me. Any view expressed runs the risk of being challenged, and sadly, some may do so in an inappropriate manner, but you should feel free to speak up, regardless of the slings and arrows (hope Mike doesn't see that reference, he'll rag on me for referencing ol WillY). I assure you, the forum suggested by Steve will not be free of challenge regardless of what the outcome.