Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I haven't been following this debate as closely as I should have, but two things jump out at me:

  • TBG said

    1. ET as blog.
    2. ET as think tank and policy influence putting out formal policy papers.
    3. ET as ideas lab.
    4. ET as commercial consultancy and job agency/network/cellular organism/etc.
    As I understand it the point of 1. is to become 2.

    That isn't my understanding at all: Melanchthon puts it well:
    I think ET is a unique place where a high-level collective debate can take place while being open to anyone who wants to participate.  It is a unique place for sharing information and knowledge and I have learnt a lot here. In fact, it is one of the best examples of collective intelligence-building I know. Participating in ET is an asset and I think we all benefit from the knowledge we've acquired through ET in our professional or broader social activities.

    ET is the manure in which other projects can take root and grow: those projects must not replace ET, in my view. The point of 1 is to be 1 and to enable 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

  • By the nature of ET, it would be undesirable to have an ET Thinklab or whatever which would be seen to be speaking for ET. It would taint the discussions and associate ET members with documents they might have deep disagreements with. I think that any projects coming from ET could be part of an ET Network (say) but shouldn't be branded as ET Anything directly. There's nothing to stop them using ET as a forum or building on ET debates but they'd be ET users, not representatives.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 04:23:19 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

A Tale of two Budgets

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 3

Sweden falls to the Nazis

by IdiotSavant - Sep 15

Focus on Josep

by Oui - Sep 24

Occasional Series