I have no objections to this suggestion but feel it will not be effective because
A) she will not reply
B) she can still cite the occasionally intemperate criticism in this giant thread but ignore all the well presented and researched argument in it!
If A): Please see the reply I gave in my last post. They really would have nobody to blame but themselves if the meeting draws the obvious conclusions I set out in my original suggestion.
B) Is sadly inevitable given what has gone before in this thread. My suggestion was aimed at focussing the debate on the facts of the case rather than all the emotion around it.
I carry no torch for Ms Curtis-Taylor, but some of the invective aimed at her and her supporters does IMHO go beyond the bounds of justifiable criticism. Undoubtedly her team will try to use that and the only way of addressing that is to keep the decision firmly based on the facts relating to what she did or didn’t do.