I realise that my posts above might well be seen by some as unsupportive of Eileen Holderman so I want to make it clear that I don't mean any of what I've said as taking sides against her. I really don't know what went on and I don't actually want to 'take sides' at all. I respect everyone on that committee very much, as I've said, and I'd need very clear evidence to conclude that anyone was in the wrong. I think they are a diverse group of people with diverse backgrounds and contexts and I think it's important for us that they all work together. So mainly, I just hope they work this out. Thinking about all this, I keep coming back to the thought that the real issue of the CFSAC recommendation(s) is the right starting point for making sense of all this. Because I absolutely agree that the CFSAC recommendation on the stakeholder workshop on case definition has not been achieved. That is quite clear from the text of the recommendation and the response, which I posted above. I have not seen the revised 'priority recommendations' list, and I have not seen whether it's stated there that this recommendation has been achieved. My opinion is clear that it has not been achieved. If we find any recommendations that have been removed, or have been marked as achieved when they have not been, then we should campaign for them to be reinstated. If (behind the scenes) that was what Eileen was arguing, and if the chair and deputy chair were arguing against that, and if that issue has somehow been closed down and the priority list has been 'fixed', then I absolutely support Eileen's position. But we need to confirm whether that really is the case first before making that argument.