6th June 2008, 02:07 PM
1Man,
With the greatest of respect, I believe some the recent complaints penned on this site against aspects of the IFA more than suggest impartiality or independence. For example, the issue of no upholding complaints without the agrieved being named. You yourself were shocked by these acts of impartiality.
There are many archaeological managers and consultants who contribute to this site and specifically the IFA debate and some do, such as yourself, argue for the Institute.
Having attended the last IFA conference, I cannot stress how unhappy I was to see the lack of attendance from the grass roots though I'm not criticising that element due to the price, accomodation and time of work which would be incurred. But the fact that the vast majority of the attendees were managerial staff and it is undeniable that those people who chair the commitees are from the higher places in archaeological organisations. How is that impartial to the industry when the majority of those who are employed are at the grass roots level?
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into that 'Its the best system we've got' philosophy.
S
With the greatest of respect, I believe some the recent complaints penned on this site against aspects of the IFA more than suggest impartiality or independence. For example, the issue of no upholding complaints without the agrieved being named. You yourself were shocked by these acts of impartiality.
Quote:quote:Now, I see lots of complaints about the IFA on BAJR, which is essentially a grass-roots forum. You don't see many posts that appear to come from unit management on BAJR, so it doesn't reflect their views.
There are many archaeological managers and consultants who contribute to this site and specifically the IFA debate and some do, such as yourself, argue for the Institute.
Having attended the last IFA conference, I cannot stress how unhappy I was to see the lack of attendance from the grass roots though I'm not criticising that element due to the price, accomodation and time of work which would be incurred. But the fact that the vast majority of the attendees were managerial staff and it is undeniable that those people who chair the commitees are from the higher places in archaeological organisations. How is that impartial to the industry when the majority of those who are employed are at the grass roots level?
Quote:quote:Sounds to me like an organisation that is acting in an impartial, independent way, and therefore sometimes p***ing off one side, and sometimes the other side.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into that 'Its the best system we've got' philosophy.
S