From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 2 14:07:25 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 09:50:28 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Fiacha replies to Alysoun: evaluation/feedback To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951102104514_10671756@emout04.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, > Greetings from Alysoun > > I'm not clear on Fiacha's difficulty. Was this directed to Galleron or on the > main idea? Regularizing the evaluation system should reduce, not encourage, > the possibility of vilification because it puts it out in the open and allows > the officer to respond (as opposed to the all too common practice of bending > the superior's ear informally). Part of the idea is focusing on the job not > the person--a complaint that the A&S officer is a mean authenticity witch > gets nowhere; a complaint that beginners get no help does. I have become convinced that the SCA mindset considers criticism to be bad and criticism of superiors to be abhorrent. I am sure that there are lots of people who are open to criticism and who would be happy to implement any scheme that got them critical feedback, but these are not the people we are trying to dislodge. We are trying to dislodge the people who are more concerned with using the status of their superior rank or office to maintain their self image than they are with fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of their rank or office. I cannot see this evaluation scheme working against such people and I can see these people hurting their critics. Thus I oppose the whole scheme. Give me a lever to pry these toads out of office without getting hurt. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 2 14:17:50 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 13:24:08 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: evaluation/feedback To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Siobhan... -- Justin >From: "Pat McGregor" >Subject: Re: Alysoun: evaluation/feedback >In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Nov 1995 10:45:16 EST." > <951102104514_10671756@emout04.mail.aol.com> >Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 08:09:52 -0800 Greetings from siobhan -- Alysoun wrote: >First for Fleig: the officers don't have to get together--the local group >does. It's called a business meeting and we have two a month anyway, which >I'm told is not unusual. So part of a already scheduled business meeting is >all we are talking about. If any groups are so with-it that they have >business meetings in persona, this should be no exception. It makes no >difference if someone says "You never answer my calls" or "I send messengers >to you who never return" the point is made. Many groups have weekly meetings in which business is discussed for a part (half an hour to an hour, usually), and then other things happen. Dancing, workshops, etc. I believe this is part of the "people of the word" versus "people of the book" schism: as far as I can tell, the "word" people think this is overkill since everyone will be at (some) event over the weekend. ;-) However, it seems to be the way that things are taught and new info happens in the "word" areas. I have missed it in the West. :-( >Feedback: It's not that the superior has pearls of wisdom to bestow as much >as proof that the report was read. I would like to think that many of the >higher officers actually can contribute--offer suggestions to help people in >the lower offices, share solutions across regions or groups, etc. If a >regional passes on a number of similar complaints, the superior should pay >close attention to the regional's comments: it makes a difference if the >regional just had a baby (good excuse) or thinks the complainers are just >crabby (bad excuse). In the first case, the superior encourages the regional >to explain the situation to the local groups and promise better response in >the future; in the second, the superior needs to work with the regional for >improvement or removal. In either case, a short note to the lower link is >appropriate, to let the people know that they have been heard. When I have been a regional officer I have sent back "newsletters" every time a report was required with summaries of non-confidential info from the folks reporting to me. Particularly good ideas were highlighted. It seemed like part of my job. Getting infformation to both ends of the chain. Plus, it helps educate the folks at the "low" end about different styles of working. Always a good thing. Remember that short story where being a classroom teacher was the _highest_ aspiration, and one had to take years of training and certification? I sometimes think our local group officerships should be the highest aspirations and things like Board and Corporate officership should be the starting point. (Caveat: Like Master de Corbie, I have a caveat. I've had a fever for several days: if this is completely incoherent, please ignore it.) siobhan ====================================================== Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor/ siobhan@lloyd.com House Northmark, Mountain's Gate, Cynagua, The West http://www.lloyd.com/~patmcg/sca.index.html From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 2 15:13:34 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 14:32:56 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun back to Flieg To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Why is it that the Blessed Isles are always located in the west? As far as a corporate "ruling" goes, it is a line (with room for attachments) on the Doomsday and a direction that officers are honor-bound to pass information relevant to that line to their superior who is honor-bound to read and send back a comment on it. It does say that the opportunity to make evaluation must be available, but if the group functions without business meetings I don't see that a meeting would have to be required. Now for all the rest of us who are stuck with a plethora of business meetings, this kind of thing is much more important, because we have allowed the "business" end of things a greater scope, which makes officers a force that cannot be ignored. I have in previous postings outlined numerous advantages which I think can accrue in those areas which need them with relative minor disruption in those areas which don't need them. Even in those areas where there is no problem with local or kingdom officers (and there cannot be many of these places), strengthening the chain is important to balance the board. It is like checking batteries--doing it daily would be ridiculous, never doing it means that the smoke detector won't work when you need it. People who think the Board has too much power aren't looking at all the options. I suspect that under David's plan, a board could exercise more power than is currently the case, but I will take that up later. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 2 19:18:38 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 17:42:00 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun back to Fiacha To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Boy, I hope we aren't in the same kingdom. The one thing this idea does is state that criticism is officially acceptable. That is at least a germ planted in the mindset you speak of. By sending the thing all the way up and all the way down, it should become more clear where the trouble is and it should provide a pincher effect on the problem. An officer can retaliate, of course. You can tighten the pincher. Now what if the chain is rotten all the way up? I have spent much of my life fighting institutional racism and working on things like rotten chains. I have found no easy fix. You have to hammer at it in every language the organization speaks, bring it home on every ideal it holds. You have to figure out what people are scared of and defeat those fears one by one. It takes time and dedication and a multifacet strategy. Now, to be dead honest, I don't see the SCA as being in the tight control of anybody, but I haven't seen other kingdoms. If there is a cadre running the show against the wishes of the people, you can do something. If there is a cadre running the show and the majority of the people aren't really aware of it, you can do something. If there is a cadre running the show and the people tend to support it, but the actions are in opposition to the ideals these same people espouse, you can do something. But, and this is stopper, if there is this cadre running the show and it is in accordance with the people, you don't stand a chance. Maybe the thing to do is to give me some examples of what is happening so I can get a better feel of what is wrong. If hypothetical examples won't do, e-mail me privately and we can bring back to the group the abstract version without naming names. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 2 21:08:29 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 16:55:08 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Fiacha to Alysoun, an example. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951102174130_11022611@emout06.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, Carole C. Roos wrote: > The one thing this idea does is state that criticism is officially > acceptable. That is at least a germ planted in the mindset you speak of. Criticism will dry up after the first retaliation. > By sending the thing all the way up and all the way down, it should become > more clear where the trouble is and it should provide a pincher effect on the > problem. An officer can retaliate, of course. You can tighten the pincher. I have reason to disbelieve. > Maybe the thing to do is to give me some examples of what is happening so I > can get a better feel of what is wrong. Suppose you have a shire seneschal who is a strong supporter of a politically active household (that is, they make efforts to be seen to be doing good things by the Crown and are not afraid to make extravagant claims that diminish the appearance of the works of other shire member who are not in the household). Suppose that it is long past time the shire became a Barony. Suppose that the seneschal supports the head of this active household for Baron. Suppose that the seneschal polls the shire for candidates for Baron and suppose that he does this in such a way that folk who are not fond of this head of household percieve the polling to be not only biased but flawed. The stage is set. Given the proposal, complainers would file a complaint so it went up the chain. What actually happened was the complainers wrote letters to all levels of the chain. Given the proposal, the word would come back down the chain that a problem has been seen to exist, do something about it. What actually happened was the Kingdom Seneschal wrote to the brach seneschal saying 'I see a problem. What are you going to do about it?' Given the proposal, we would hope that the seneschal would negotiate with the complainers to work things out. What actually happened was that the seneschal assumed that the complaints were attacks on his personal honor, and proceeded to complain to the politically active household and to the king about how evil the complainers were to attack him in this way. Being politically active, the household spread this view of the affair far and wide, carefully glossing over or misrepresenting all of the complaints that were founded in fact. The whole chain does not have to be rotten. All it takes is one officer who is immune to criticism and has friends or acquaintances near the top of the chain who can be persuaded that the complaints are erroneous. This whole proposal solves nothing. It does not work in the worst case and it is the worst case that I am most interested in seeing fixed. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 2 21:18:05 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 20:44:25 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: chairmanship? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L when's the election? isn't it supposed to be in the next couple of days? alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 2 23:16:44 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 22:45:07 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Serwyl: Feedback To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, The feedback question has certainly launched a flurry of email. I feel it's a bit of a tempest in a teapot though. Any system should allow for feedback, what is being suggested is simply formalizing a process (and not necessarily the only process). Some specific objections have arisen: 1. That such reports will increase the workload on a local group. I do not believe this is the case, particularly if it is only done on a yearly basis. Also, the populace is not required to participate, simply encouraged. An announcement that anyone wanting to add comments present them to the officer by a certain date would probably be sufficient. 2. That such feedback could be hurtful. This is certainly an issue, and the danger of deepening divisions in a group is one of the reasons I do not favor formal elections (especially as informal election processes abound already). However, I see the feedback being more useful further up the ladder, at the Kingdom level for example. I have seen several instances where feedback from local officers would have been good for their Kingdom superior (although criticizing a Kingdom officer can be a chancy business at times). Despite the danger, I still feel that feedback is a good idea. After all, we are already thinking about various ways to provide feedback to the Board and check on their progress. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 3 03:44:06 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 09:07:29 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: chairmanship? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >when's the election? isn't it supposed to be in the next couple of >days? > >alban Good question. At one stage we had three candidates: Alysoun, Tibor=20 and Corwyn. I received ten votes and four other messages related to=20 the voting. Alysoun withdrew as a candidate and Corwyn asked for a=20 postponement and a chance for people to know more about what they=20 were voting for. =20 Fiacha volunteered for the job: >Greetings from Fiacha, >While I am not certain that I will have the time to do the job as=20 >well as it needs to be done, I am willing to take on the role of=20 >Chairman for a while. If you elect me, I will implement the=20 >proposal I made earlier. > Fiacha This means, at this stage we know that Fiacha is a candidate.=20 How about Tibor? Corwyn? Anyone else? Fiacha, would you please re-post the proposal you mention? Any other candidates, please post your proposed job descriptions. =20 Do it NOW, so I can post a list of candidates & their proposals=20 Monday night local time (Monday morning to most of you people).=20 I'll be out of town November 12-19, so unless we can vote before=20 November 11, we'll have to drag it out for another week.=20 I'd say we need at least 25 votes to consider this thing valid.=20 I second Alysoun's proposal that everybody active here should get=20 in touch with some of the inactive people; I'll get hold of Frithiof=20 and Bertrik. =20 Let's please, please, get our act together. There's a bunch of=20 really good ideas being bounced about, and they deserve better than=20 the Rialto subsidiary we're turning into for lack of someone to keep=20 the discussion focused.=20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 3 10:08:18 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 931 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 09:34:51 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Alysoun back to Flieg Comments: cc: Steve Mesnick To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951102143256_96198112@mail02.mail.aol.com> from "Carole C. Roos" at Nov 2, 95 02:32:56 pm Alysoun wrote: Now for all the rest of us who are stuck with a plethora of business meetings, this kind of thing is much more important, because we have allowed the "business" end of things a greater scope, which makes officers a force that cannot be ignored. I have in previous postings outlined numerous advantages which I think can accrue in those areas which need them with relative minor disruption in those areas which don't need them. >From Silverwing's Laws (http://challenge.tiac.net/users/steffan/laws.html) 23. We can, therefore we do. We do, therefore we have always done. We have always done, therefore we must always do. We must always do, therefore an officer must oversee the doing. There is an officer, therefore we must report. We must report, else we will lose our tax status. [Baron Steffan ap Cennydd] (The Cascading Bureacracy Meme) Tibor (I steal when it suits me...) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 3 10:25:30 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 09:50:52 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun on Fiacha's example To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L No, the evaluation system would not directly help in that kind of situation, but it would work toward reducing the number of those situations. By emphasizing that officers serve the whole group, the evaluation system should work against factionalism. In other words, it will be most effective in preventing the rise of a politically active household in a group. So I see it as being of value for that. Overtime, it would work to establish a better mentality in the larger system which would eventually bring pressure to bear on those long-standing cases. As it is now, there is no way to prevent that seneschal or household from expanding--the seneschal could become a regional or even kingdom seneschal. Even in the case you describe, the evaluation system would have some value. As it is now, if the king and the kingdom seneschal disagreed about whether the group was ready for a barony, over the person for baron, or over the seneschal, it would come down to who likes who. The documentation from the evaluations would be a fact the kingdom seneschal could use. This allows the kingdom seneschal to point to a problem without having to take a side: look, they are deeply divided. Politics are complex and there is no one lever that will get rid of every problem. Sometimes for a specific situation people have to employ creative measures that cannot be institutionalized. Even if the evaluation system doesn't much help on the worst case, think whether there are enough cases where it would be useful to make recommending it worthwhile. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 3 11:16:34 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1409 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 10:33:54 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Alysoun back to Fiacha To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951102174130_11022611@emout06.mail.aol.com> from "Carole C. Roos" at Nov 2, 95 05:42:00 pm Alysoun wrote: Maybe the thing to do is to give me some examples of what is happening so I can get a better feel of what is wrong. If hypothetical examples won't do, e-mail me privately and we can bring back to the group the abstract version without naming names. Let's start with the big picture. I, and my friends and fellow travellers in my local area, want to play medieval re-creation together, and invite other fellow travellers in. And, we can do that pretty well. Why must I, need I, have superior officers for? Why should I report to them? Shouldn't they, if they exist at all, do things for me? >From that perspective, all this officer stuff is dead weight. Now consider another issue: what if this SCA demands we have officers and reports for things we don't do, nor desire to do? What's the appropriate response? Alysoun, you are demonstrating a mindset that is quite narrow, and therefore well focused. The bigger question shouldn't be just "how do we make the SCA machine bigger, better and faster" but "How should we assist the local people in doing what we do". The model you are adopting seems to be a corporate america one, not a grass roots one, and I think a grass roots organization is more like what we are. I think that's the root of the difference between yours and Fiacha's points of view. Or, if I have his wrong, the difference between yours and mine. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 3 11:33:51 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 5935 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 09:45:06 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Morgan: various commentary (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan > Most of these comments appear in reverse-chronoligical order, because that is > how messages are stacked in my in-box. This catches them from about Sunday > evening through Wednesday morning, and I am trying to be concise and pithy. > > > With respect to the separate-incorporation paperwork complaints, Catrin > suggested: > > >> So okay, don't make it an obligation, make it a right. In some places > >> (countries or states) incorporating separately is easy, cheap and > >> practical (or even necessary), in other places it's expensive and > >> messy. As long as the central Corp stays in the US, why not give > >> kingdoms the option of either letting "head office" do the admini- > >> stration for them, at a price, or starting their own thing. Being a > >> foreigner, I know nothing about the technicalities of it; is it legally > >> feasible, those of you who know? > > Feasible, but can be complicated. I think it is actually easier to be a > separate corporation because a lot of the paperwork IS going to be the same > whether you are separate or not, especially the tax/exchequer material, and then > you have autonomy. Most Kingdoms can shop around among the included states for > one with the lowest fees and least aggravation as far as incorporating (along > iwth D&O and other considerations). > > > I think Hossein and everybody on the "Stalinist" line needs a time-out. > Quit sucking up bandwidth on nonessentials. > > > On the feedback idea, I support what Alysoun said. To an extent, our (here in > Midrealm, YMMV) Domesday Report is a collective effort, but usually because the > seneschal collects report and puts them into a whole. Having the officers meet > would be a Good Thing. > > About reporting up: Many offices are required to make quarterly reports, or > only-as-needed (marshallate), the key exception being Chrniclers because the > newsletter is considered the report. (I have held enough offices to know this > VERY well.) Why are these reports not being considered in the scheme of > writing-up-and-back? I have gotten return feedback on some of my reports. Why > would people need to write additionally? Especially on a monthly basis; months > pass too fast, often nothing happens (I have done quarterly reports on a > postcard, saying "no change"), and people are not used to reporting as often. > > The no-confidence-vote and impeachment ideas for percentages sound good, but I > would want more than a simple majority. Say, 60% for no-confidence, 3/4 for > impeachment. Of course, under the current scheme, getting 51% would be possible > with only split votes, but we have to look to the Future. > > > Serwyl pointed out: "In fact, I believe there is an administrative policy > against publishing anything that would put the SCA in a bad light, which such > advertisements [impeachment] could be." Very true. This is what they used to > stop publication of information about The Troubles. It is also not unusual for > organizations to have this type of a rule, for publications which receive > funding or imprimatur from the organization itself. > > Offering dry facts can be done, and both sides can put in their information, > vetted and with, say, 100-word limits. Then people can vote. > > > I agree with Serwyl that using a gem society as a model is perhaps a poor > choice, but I understand that we each use a model with which we are familiar. > It is why I use the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, being familiar with their > corporate structure as well as having won my own badges. Perhaps we need to > agree on a type of group we wish to emulate (on CompuServe, since the SCA is in > the Living History Forum, we obtained considerable information about other > reenactors and their business workings) and look at their structure. > > > I think Alysoun's "pressure on the board" posting was badly mistitled but > otherwise I like it. > > > Justin's information about the Masons was interesting. I don't know how or if > it can apply to the SCA. Some groups, especially those based around the > military or educational institutions, have fairly fluid citizenry and people may > not be around to move up. Also, many of our offices don't flow one into > another. I have been in groups where there are deputies tothe major offices, > and where the same 2/3/4 people simply rotate through on a 1-2 year basis, but > those are rare. However, I strongly support the idea of having deputies. > > I disagree with Justin about giving The People the ability to override The Board > and Officers, unless the situations are restricted. Otherwise, what is the > pointof having a leadership when the people will ignore and override them at > every turn? Yes, there needs to be a checking mechanism, and I agree > wholeheartedly that having it against the action instead of the persons is less > offensive and more likely to be used. > > > Grimmund's information about Baronetcys and removal of officers is dead-on and > not just for the Midrealm. There are numerous other Palatine places, but I > think the idea as far as Board Members is a bad one. However, a cap on the time > an officer can sit can limit burnout and other nasty things, although there > should be a caveat for exchequer that the replacement MUST be reliable and have > a clew about completing all the reporting forms, four times a year. > > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 3 12:05:17 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 702 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 10:12:20 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Posting style To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511011115.GAA06426@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> from "Greg Rose" at Nov 1, 95 06:15:43 am Greg Rose said: > For someone who couldn't get his shit together to constructively > participate in the nominating commitee, and who has participated in allowing > this Council's discussions to become utterly bogged down in trivia, you > have a hell of a lot of gall to lecture me. You didn't respond to a single > salient point of my analysis of the SCA bureaucracy. How about keeping personal attacks out of the munge, huh? Terras -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 3 13:28:58 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 12:44:47 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Replying to Morgan: Masonic Officers; Referenda To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511031545.JAA49600@black.missouri.edu> (message from Joseph Heck on Fri, 3 Nov 1995 09:45:06 -0600) Morgan writes: >Justin's information about the Masons was interesting. I don't know how or if >it can apply to the SCA. Actually, neither do I. But Fiacha had mentioned the Masonic officer model as worth examining, so I figured I should clarify that model. (Being intimately acquainted with it by now.) >I disagree with Justin about giving The People the ability to override The Board >and Officers, unless the situations are restricted. Otherwise, what is the >point of having a leadership when the people will ignore and override them at >every turn? I just don't see that as likely. I mean, let's be real -- the primary characteristic of the collective mass of SCAdians, politically, is apathy. It is *very* hard to get many people roused; the past two years have demonstrated that vividly. So I'd say that so long as there is some modest barrier to entry for referenda (so that a lone nut or small isolated group can't try to override everything the Board does), they'll actually be fairly rare, and confined to those cases where the populace *does* actively grumble about Board actions. (Which, ignoring the past two years, seems to have historically been only once every year or two.) (And mind: even when a referendum *does* get called, it won't necessarily over-ride the Board. I expect that the Board would win a fair number of them; sometimes it's the complainers who are out-of-touch...) Yes, a naive implementation could be a real hindrance to getting business done. But I don't think we need to do this naively... Playing Devil's Advocate for a second: there is actually an argument against referenda, but it's not the one Morgan cites. The possible problem is that a Board that has these referenda hanging over its head will be afraid to do things that are necessary, but politically unpopular. Whether this is a problem or not depends on whether you believe that there exist any cases where the Board *must* act, over the protestations of the public. Personally, I suspect not, but the point could be argued... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Tradition is wonderful if it has a sound basis and still makes sense in current context. Traditionally, genocide has been a pretty common real-world response to having neighbors you don't like. Currently, though, it is pretty widely frowned upon." -- Grimmund Blackwing From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 3 16:19:51 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:30:15 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: To Tibor: Alysoun's view To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun Tibor wrote: "I, and my friends and fellow travellers in my local area, want to play medieval re-creation together, and invite other fellow travellers in. And, we can do that pretty well. Why must I, need I, have superior officers for? Why should I report to them? Shouldn't they, if they exist at all, do things for me?" The answer is that of course you can do this without officers and without the SCA. Nobody can patent medieval re-creation. >From the time I joined the Council I have been trying to get you all to look beyond the Corporation-Society dichotomy, because it is a false appraisal of the situation. If there were one "Society," the Board would be powerless any time it went against it. How in the heck can the Board enforce pay-for-play if the "Society" doesn't buy it? Call your event a demo. Don't check membership cards. There are not enough board members to stand at every troll in the Known World to see who's doing what. Kingdom seneschals and royalty don't have to put their necks on the block. Instead they can say, "The Board ruled thus and so and we are sure that this won't effect the *demos* in our Kingdom" or "In the true spirit of the SCA we expect all of people to do what they can to welcome all participants." This isn't what happened. WHY? Because the "Society" doesn't exist. We have a number of different societies jammed together under the Corporate logo. And for the most part they are more afraid of each other gaining power than they are of the central corporation. This gives us three options. We can work to come up with a more unified vision of what this thing is--to be a Society. We can evolve out into separate organizations--which is what probably would have happened if there had been no incorporation. Or we can struggle on under a single banner and look for ways to smooth the rough edges. Many of my suggestions have been toward the third, but I have also tried to provoke thought toward the first, as in the membership series, and have mentioned the second, which no one seems willing to consider. The third is the easiest to implement. Dividing the corporation into multiples can serve some administrative problems in some areas, but it is not going to address the root problem. The same dynamics are at work in the Council. Each of us is concerned about protecting our "society" and view the others as trying to push their "society" onto us. The result will be that the corporation will go its merry way. How bad that is will depend on which society you view it from. We can fool with each other for another year or we can think how to get out of this mess. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 3 17:36:55 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 13:13:18 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Fiacha for Chair - proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Fiacha, This is the relevant part of my proposal. It is what I will encourage should I be elected to the chair. I will also appoint a deputy to handle things when I am too busy to do it myself. Fiacha We are talking about too many things and we are allowing ourselves to get distracted before reaching closure on any of them. Thus I propose that we, possibly reinforced by our chair, restrict ourselves to three or four topics per week (one of which is always 'New Topics for Consideration'). At the end of the week we spend a day posting proposals about those topics and votes to either vote formally or to continue discussion for another week or to table the discussion until some other issue is resolved. We would need to discipline ourselves to keep our discussions on track and to not start discussions of topics in New Topics until after they made their way onto the list of topics for open discussion. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 3 18:07:38 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 17:29:24 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: To Tibor: Alysoun's view To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951103153014_97219112@emout04.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun argues that the Society/Corporation dichotomy is false, on the grounds that: >How in the heck can the Board enforce pay-for-play if the "Society" doesn't >buy it? Call your event a demo. Don't check membership cards. There are not >enough board members to stand at every troll in the Known World to see who's >doing what. Kingdom seneschals and royalty don't have to put their necks on >the block. Instead they can say, "The Board ruled thus and so and we are sure >that this won't effect the *demos* in our Kingdom" or "In the true spirit of >the SCA we expect all of people to do what they can to welcome all >participants." > >This isn't what happened. WHY? Excuse me, Alysoun, but you are *flatly* incorrect. Exactly what you describe *has* happened in the East; indeed, evading the NMS has developed into a fine black art in these parts. All the methods you describe, and many more, have been used on a regular basis. An interesting speculation: perhaps the dichotomy really does vary from Kingdom to Kingdom. In, eg, the Middle the Society and Corporation might really *be* essentially equivalent as Alysoun suggests, but it's quite clear that in the East they are not. (There are some who take the attitude that they are, but just as many who don't -- clearly they aren't *well*-associated, at the least.) If this speculation is true, then it is a strong argument for Cariadoc's proposal, so that Kingdoms that really want to be strongly ruled from the Corporation may do so, while those that don't want it need not... -- Justin Who has been to precious few events with gate fees in the past 18 months... Random Quote du Jour: "6) The day of your event has arrived, you arrive at the site to discover that the port-a-jon company you hired only delivered half of the privies that you requested. Do you: a) Announce that your event will recreate Lent, and everyone will fast over the weekend. b) Lace the drinking water with Kay-o-pectate. c) Charge on admission fee and rack up what profit you can." -- from the "AUTOCRAT ADAPTABILITY QUIZ" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 3 19:54:07 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 19:20:29 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Serwyl: Feedback To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Lady Karen Larsdottir in responding to my comments of the feedback suggestion: >1. That such reports will increase the workload on a local group. >It's paperwork. Another hoop to go through. Face it, with the amount of >activity that goes on in the College chapters I've been in -- all two of >them -- this is just another thing to sit in the "in box." And who are >you going to get to go *through* all this, anyway? It doesn't just >increase the workload on a local group, it's make-work for someone >farther up the ladder who probably should be worrying about bigger fish. First off, the amount of paperwork is minimal. If you want to comment, you do. The suggestion is just to make such feedback more common and acceptable (see my comments below). Also, as I stated, I see this as more useful when applied farther up the chain (such as between local officers and their Kingdom counterpart or between Kingdom and Corporate) >2. That such feedback could be hurtful. >Darn tootin' it's gonna be hurtful. Humble prediction from mere mortal: >you aren't going to see *good* evaluations from anyone. You *will* just >see complaints. You know what they say about no news being good news ... >Point of anecdote being: Under the system of "checks and balances" which >you propose, there is *nothing* that would prevent the exchequer from >writing a note to the Chain of Command saying something to the effect of >"Our seneschale Lady Karen would be so much nicer if she wasn't such a >bitch," and that single comment could shatter the leadership structure of >the fledgling College chapter. First off, I never called the feedback suggestion a system of "checks and balances". It is neither a complete system, nor is a 'check' on anyone. It is feedback. I would also point out that there is nothing to stop your exchequer from writing such a letter NOW. Feedback already exists in the system, but since the only time anyone is stirred to write is when they are upset, the only feedback we get now is of the Bad variety. At least with a scheduled feedback you have the option both for praise and for constructive criticism. As has been stated before, apathy tends to rule most situations in the Society. At least with some sort of structured feedback the mass of people, who we must assume are basically good intentioned, have a chance to speak. "Evil flourishes where good men do nothing". It sometimes seems that 'evil' always seem to know how to make their voices heard, while the 'good' often sit idle. With all this said, I think the issue of structured feedback is getting too emotional. I don't see it as being all that earth shattering a concept, but others do. Since it doesn't look like we are going to reach any agreement on this topic soon (if at all), I suggest we table it. I would much prefer concentrating on the no confidence/impeachment debate. And if we ever get back to debating local elections for officers, just remember that some of the same arguments that were applied to this topic apply equally well there. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Nov 4 10:01:19 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 09:30:45 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Serwyl: Feedback To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This is an aplogogy in relation to my last post. Lady Karen Larsdatter wrote her comments on the feedback proposal to me in a private email, which I responded to via the listserv. To be honest, I didn't even notice that this wasn't just another of the usual listserv messages (email is still a bit of a novelty to me). Lady Karen points out to me in a return post this morning that I cut out a large portion of her post in my reply. At the time, I assumed the rest of the GC had seen the original message and the sections I was replying on were the only ones I felt a need to comment on. Although she did not request it, I would like to apologize for any discomfort caused by seeing selected portions of a private message going out to the Council. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 5 01:01:25 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 00:24:35 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: TALLY ON VOTE RE: GC PROCEDURE/ORGANIZATION To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L After I posted this I accepted Joseph Hecks Gracious offer to tally the votes for me, but I later recieved a message informing me that he would be unable to do so BUT that Caitrin would do so...I emailed her a couple of days before the first and asked for a preliminary tally but recieved no response. were there any votes? is there a tally? do we have a quorum? At this point, if you voted for (or would vote for this measure> please E-mail me at arthur@cnj.digex.net: please include your vote in the subject line. If you DONT support this motion, please include a negative vote (as above) so I can have an idea as to a meaningful percentage of votes... The original proposal, which was seconded, thirded, and I believe fourthed is below. (hmm. now that I think about it thats five probable votes already...) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 19:58:22 -0400 (EDT) From: arthur dent To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Subject: MOTION: GC PROCEDURE/ORGANIZATION I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From November 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include a discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 3) determining the necessity for an 'officer' (Secretary, facilitator etc) and a means of Filling and vacating that office, as well as determining its scope of responsibility Arthur who is very rarely heard as a voice for order and homogeneous progress.... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 5 02:42:23 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: David Friedman Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 23:13:29 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Friedman Subject: Re: Alysoun: pressure on board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Greetings from Alysoun ... >This kind of strength isn't something we get by waving a pen over a piece of >paper. We can add a line to the Doomsday, or change a number in the bylaws, >but that won't do it. Support has to be built. For people to support their >great officers they have to feel that their officers support them, and really >care about the ideas and concerns coming from the local level. One way of encouraging such a situation might be to flip the authority structure. If the kingdom officer is "in charge of" the regional and the regional "in charge of" the local, the higher officer, under ordinary circumstances, does not obviously need the support of the lower--and is encouraged to believe that the local's opinion is of less weight than his own. But if the local officer is selected by the local group, and the regional either is selected by the locals or depends on their voluntary cooperation because he has no authority over them, and similarly from regional to kingdom, then each level depends all of the time on the willing cooperation of the level "below." In practice, this happens to some extent anyway--we are all volunteers, so an official has very limited ability to force "subordinates" to do something. But officially recognizing that the local is a servant of the local group and a regional the servant of the local officers and ... might move us closer to what Alysoun is describing. David/Cariadoc David Friedman ddfr@best.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 5 02:42:54 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: David Friedman Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 23:13:49 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Friedman Subject: Re: Morgan: Various Comments (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Morgan asks: > This could be VERY complicated. What if a group in the middle of the Midrealm > wanted to associate with Calontir, or The West? A number of years ago, >we found > that the Chicago area had the requisite population and number of peers to be a > principality -- could it have gone independent at that point, and what would > this do to the rest of the Midrealm? > I guess this concept is not as clear to me, and I would like to know what > restrictions, if any would be on the options. For example, a minimum time for > the change, so it's not something one Seneschal or Baronetcy does if >ticked off > at the particular rulers? Becoming independent and a group member of the SCA Inc. involves setting up the structure of the new group, getting approval from the Board that you are acceptable (i.e. within the landmarks), polling the membership, ... . I was thinking of it as something that would take a substantial while and be a permanent decision. If a local group really does not want to consider itself a part of its kingdom, I think it should be allowed not to be. Medieval political structures were patchworks, after all. I would prefer a situation where the easy and obvious choice is the present feudal structure, even if the mundane legal structure has shifted to an association, but where other options are available when necessary. David Friedman ddfr@best.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 5 02:44:16 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: David Friedman Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 23:13:54 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Friedman Subject: Cariadoc's Proposal Mk II (from Cariadoc) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I think I am now caught up, at least on everything related to my proposal. I have accordingly revised it, trying to take into account both suggestions for additional ways of using the idea of group members and the worries expressed by Finnvairr and others. I am putting this forth for additional comments, with the intention of probably asking for a vote in a week or so. In this version I have dropped all of the arguments in favor of the proposal, since you all read those last time around. I am leaving open lots of the details; if the proposal passes we might want to work out some of them before sending it to the Board, or we might simply leave them to the discretion of the Board. Incidentally, the bylaws of the SCA Inc. currently provide for group members, but not of the sort I am describing. Also incidentally, I am open to suggestions for better terms than "group member" and "Society Court of Appeals." --- Cariadoc's Plan: Mark II I. The SCA Inc. should restructure itself to permit both individual and group members. A. Group members might include legally independent Society subgroups such as an incorporated kingdom or barony, foreign corporations providing a legal umbrella abroad, non-geographical groups defined by interests, such as a group specializing in early period, and perhaps other categories as well. B. A group that wished to become a member of the SCA Inc. would submit its bylaws and other relevant information to the Board of the SCA Inc. for approval. Requirements for a group member would include: 1. Agreeing to abide by some minimal set of requirements defining "our game." 2. A structure providing for adequate control over the group by its members. 3. Some guarantee of a least a minimal degree of communication between its membership and the general membership of the Society, for example an agreement that every local group within it must have at least one member with a subscription to the Society wide publication (currently T.I.). 4. The group agreeing to abide by the judgements of the Society Court (see below). 5. In the case of a geographically defined group such as a kingdom, agreeing not to actively recruit outside of its geographical area. C. Financial Relations: 1. A group would be responsible for its own membership, fees, publications, etc. 2. It would pay a group membership fee of about a dollar a year per individual member. 3. Either the group would purchase T.I. subscriptions on behalf of members who wanted them, or the members would separately purchase subscriptions >from the SCA Inc. D. Creation of group members from existing subgroups: 1. A subgroup of the Society such as a kingdom could convert itself into a legally independent group member only by a vote of its membership. Such vote would be for a specific proposal establishing the structure of the new group. 2. When a subgroup became independent, the Corporation would transfer property of the subgroup to the new independent group (regalia etc.) if doing so was not in conflict with IRS regulations (i.e. if the new group was a 501(c)3 with compatible purposes, or the property had been expensed or fully depreciated). In other cases, the Corporation would lend or rent the property to the new group until the latter could arrange to purchase it at the lowest legally acceptable price. [note: Details of this paragraph should be confirmed with a qualified attorney] 3. The proposed structure of the new independent group should make some reasonable provision for allowing its subgroups (baronies of a kingdom that was incorporating, for example) to become legally independent either as group members of the SCA Inc. or as group members of the group member. II. The SCA Inc. should create a Society Court of Appeals. A. The court would have jurisdiction over: 1. Disputes between individual members and the Corporation. Such disputes would be appealed up the existing chain as they now are, but the final appeal would be to the court instead of the Board. 2. Disputes between individual members of a group member and the group member, to be handled as in IIA1 above. 3. Disputes between a group member and the SCA Incorporated. a. The Board of the SCA Inc. shall have full authority to make the initial decision as to whether a group is accepted for group membership, but ... b. Once a group is accepted, any decision to remove their group membership is appealable to the court. B. The membership of the court should be determined in some fashion giving individual members of the SCA Inc. and individual members of group members roughly similar authority over the selection. III. If at some future time the membership of the SCA Inc. gets the power to choose members of its Board of Directors, that power should be shared in some reasonable fashion with the membership of the Corporation's group members. David/Cariadoc David Friedman ddfr@best.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 5 10:42:55 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 10:13:44 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Cariadoc's proposal II To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This proposal has a lot of merit and would seem the most reasonable approach viewed from the worldwide perspective. We don't want to lose sight of the forest by quibbling over trees, but at the same time I need a better idea of what we are really talking about. >From the local group perspective the important features the kingdom provides are the newsletter and the awards. Because of this I don't worry about a group joining a distant kingdom--it just isn't practical to advertise an event in Indiana to an audience in California. But how is this going to work if a kingdom does not move to the group member status intact? That is, if there is a substantial minority who want to stay with SCAinc? If that minority is regional--a principality, say--it could probably function. But what if the minority was scattered geographically? They would have to organize to put out a newsletter--and get a king. The same consideration would relate to interest divisions--for example, are we are willing to have Medieval Midrealm with a heavy combat king and Renaissance Midrealm with a rapier king existing in the same geographical space? If so, how would this affect the functions of SCAinc as the umbrella organization? The Supreme Court idea may be more important in a transitional stage, than as something permanent. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 5 13:04:50 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 12:24:04 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Alysoun: pressure on board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: how about having regional officers selected by the local officers and national officers selected by regional officers? Its got elements of an electoral college, but one that at least knows what its voting about, and knows the pool of candidates by association. Its probably got potential for nasty politics, but then again what doesnt. on the other hand it accords the privilige of selecting higher offices to those willing to accept the responsiblity of running the lower offices, while allowing me to feel I've inderectly elected the higher offices through my vote in the local election. ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 5 14:24:26 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 13:45:55 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: PROPOSAL RE: GC ORG+CANDIDACY ANNOUNCEMENT To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Just so you understand the thinking behind the set of proposals I'm putting up for discussion, my basic rational is to create a 'virtual committee' with discrete 'virtual meetings' with familiar procedures adapted to the net and an adjournment so we can get and stay in sync and move forward. right now we are treating this GC 'thing' as one interminable meeting. where the floor is open to discussion of anything by anyone for as long as they have time to type. despite the high quality of inputs, especially in the last month, at the moment the GC has a lot in common with those meetings where you try to solve the problems of the world in a single sitting. There is no order, and there WONT be an adjournment. As a few brilliant and eloquent people who apparently DON'T have to be someplace tomorrow carry on, the rest just nod off or sneak out the door as interminable discussion ends in... nothing. and the last two people left at 4AM take their vote, Caffeine crisped and bleary eyed, and the whole thing is forgotten... Anybody who knows me will tell you I'm largely a chaotic kinda guy, and when nothing really HAD to get done, and when I had infinite time I sometimes enjoyed the lively intellectual and rhetorical exercise that kind of meeting provides BUT that's not where we happen to be... I'd be willing to fill the facilitator position if some reasonable means of limiting postings and establishing and sticking to an agenda ,(and voting procedures) can be agreed on.. Not neccesarily my proposals but something. I suspect everyone here is as or more familiar than I with having a job that comes with expectations but no means... ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the BOSTON area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 5 14:51:31 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 14:12:39 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION RE:GC PROCEDURE To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L PROPOSED FOR DISCUSSION: RE GC PROCEDURE: business cycle ARTHUR1105:BUSINESSCYCLE:V1.0 That each month be considered a new meeting. That the first week of each month be devoted exclusively to establishing attendance, an agenda, and drafting/accepting minutes. That the second week of each month be devoted exclusively to new business I.E. submission of new proposals and discussion thereof That third week of each month be devoted to old business, I.E. discussion of tabled motions That the fourth week of every month be devoted to VOTING and be treated as a recess except for voting purposes and for a second roll call. MECHANICS: A secretary to be elected specifically for the purpose of preparing and presenting minutes A facilitator to be elected specifically to establish the agenda and making the attempt to keep discussion related to the subject on the floor. A clerk to be elected specifically to tally the roll call and the votes. -------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPOSED FOR DISCUSSION: RE GC PROCEDURE: establishing a majority ARTHUR1105:MAJORITY:V1.0 That attendance for voting purposes be assessed by a weekly 'roll call' votes to be judged by a positive percentage matched against that roll call. example: if 20 GC members report in by roll call for a given week, then a vote of 11 in favor is a simple majority. -------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPOSED FOR DISCUSSION:RE GC PROCEDURE: limiting posting ARTHUR1105:LIMITPOSTING:V1.0 That each member of the GC be entitled to post no more than 33 lines of text message per day. Members may cede their allotment of space to other members (AUTHORS NOTE: I'm really looking for someone to amend this one. The "number of lines" limit expressed in pages or characters, or WHATEVER should come out to a total we can actually READ and which slows discussion down to the point where people who DON'T have time to post 3 or four times a day can still be an EFFECTIVE part of the discussion. we've probably lost a LOT of participation from GC members who barely have time to keep up with the barrage of mail they're READING, let alone making time to formulate some of their own. it feels something like being in a meeting where a couple of capable intelligent people are talking a mile a minute and the rest of us can either join in the babble or TRY to sort out all that's being said (but not both). this idea came primarily from watching c-span and realizing that the congressional system of time allotment is a useful one for limiting discussion. a formal means of ceding bandwidth would have to be invented.) ------------------------------------------------------ PROPOSED FOR DISCUSSION: RE GC PROCEDURE:Enforcing procedure ARTHUR1105:PROCEDUREENFORCEMENT:V1.0 That procedural violations be met with three warnings during a given month. following the third warning the member is to have their GC mailing list subscription suspended for one week. further suspensions occurring during three successive months to result in permanent suspension MECHANICS: a sergeant at arms to be elected specifically for the purpose of watching for violations and notifying violators. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 5 15:15:39 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: David Friedman Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 11:39:55 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Friedman Subject: Re: Alysoun: Cariadoc's proposal II To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alysoun asks: >But how is this going to work if a kingdom does not move to the group member >status intact? Under my proposal, an SCA subgroup, such as a kingdom, becomes independent or does not as a whole, by vote of its membership. If it does go independent, any of its subgroups that wish can then secede from it in order to become group members of the SCA Inc. I had not considered the possibility of a third step, by which a group member petitions to dissolve and turn back into a subgroup of the SCA Inc.--some mechanism for doing that should probably be included. I am assuming that individuals can be individual members of the SCA Inc. instead of being members of their local geographical group members if they want to. If a majority favors independence, the ones who not only oppose it but oppose it so strongly that they are unwilling to go along with it are likely to be a small minority. They may, if they wish, withdraw from the incorporated kingdom and become individual members of the SCA Inc. They would be free to offer their allegiance to the King of the incorporated kingdom if they wished, and he to accept it if he wished, even though they would be paying their dues to the SCA Inc. instead of the kingdom. In my experience, kings do not usually ask for proof of membership before accepting allegiance. Or they could offer their allegiance to anyone else who would have them. I've lived in one kingdom (for a while) while being in allegiance to another--while scouting out the East prior to Pennsic 1, for example. We might want to include in the common terms that group members agree to some minimal definition of "kingdom," such that a group agrees not to call itself a kingdom if it has fewer than 400 members, say. Or we might not--it is one of the points worth thinking about. >The same consideration would relate to interest divisions--for example, are >we are willing to have Medieval Midrealm with a heavy combat king and >Renaissance Midrealm with a rapier king existing in the same geographical >space? Personally, I see no problem with it. Medieval kingdoms were not all that geographical anyway--and the Society adds a layer of imaginary geography to that. But again, if most people think that is a problem, the "common rules of the game" might limit geographical titles to geographical groups. So we could have a non-geographical rapier company, or Elizabethan society, whose members were in allegiance to a variety of geographical kings. Again, I think it is a mistake to assume that the feudal structure and the mundane administrative function have to correspond perfectly. At present, after all, there are multiple Canadian corporations whose members are in allegiance to the same crown, along with Americans. David/Cariadoc David Friedman ddfr@best.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 5 23:05:18 1995 Return-Path: X-Sender: ddfr@best.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: David Friedman Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 19:32:06 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Friedman Subject: Re: Serwyl: Response to Cariadoc's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >As long as the >central Corp stays in the US, why not give kingdoms the option of either >letting "head office" do the administration for them, at a price, or starting >their own thing. ... >/Catrin That was a feature included in both versions of my proposal. In earlier discussions I referred to it as "the local option option." David/Cariadoc David Friedman ddfr@best.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 6 04:03:10 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Schuylab@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 03:22:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Eichling Von Amrun Subject: Mark II & various comments To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Eichling, I was skeptical that the switch from a weekly to an on line format would result in any visible alteration in the pace, quality, or coherency of the discussion. I see that I was 2/3rds wrong. Arthur: I would be glad to vote in favor of your suggested procedural/organizational measure being _one_ of the three or four topics of discussion during the stated time period (per Fiacha's proposal). We need the structure, but there is just too much that is productive going on at the moment to want to drop all of the other topics. Fleig: I agree with you (Oh no! I said it in public!). My experience with baronial-level officers is that they barely have enough time to complete their necessary tasks. Nonetheless, the discussion of the feedback mechanism has opened some tempting possibilities. What if it were begun as a separate sheet attached to the local group's reports, whenever those are traditionally made in that area? A preliminary missive could be sent to all of the areas, giving Roy Gathercoal's explanation of the "Monday papers", and delineating the purpose of the communication No one is required to add any comments or notations, but it is available for that purpose. After a year or so, an assessment can be made as to the usefulness of the technique, and how much effort should/should not be put into its maintenance.(Not all decisions have to be made right now!) Do you think the returns in communication would be worth the investment in effort? Does this modification of the method seem to you to avoid impeding the local officers or burdening them with excessive paperwork? Justin: The greatest relevancy of the Masonic system to us, potentially to the SCA, is that it maintains a strong ideological unity, irrespective of the 'mundane' organization. This is, to me, what makes Cariadoc's plan feasible. If there is anything more you can add to the broth >from your perspective in that organization, please speak on. Alysoun: Evidently your experience base is far different from mine-- I don't see a particular need to change the way officers are removed a kingdom level and below; I do see a need to implement _some_ way of removing a member of the BoD. The vote of confidence/no-confidence on a particular issue seems a bright and shining topic in its own right, but not one that should be confused with impeachment per se. (Incidentally, I think you are far too organized. In fact, I suspect you of having stolen my allotment of organization. I Know I had one...It was around here...somewhere.) Fiacha: You have my vote. Cariadoc: I like Mark II. Would you please address Techuba's fears that the handling of the individually incorporated sub-groups' financial situation would implicate the entire umbrella organization. (Since I have to take off my shoes to count above ten, I acknowledge myself easily confused on this matter.) Additionally, I would be disinclined to have a non-contiguous geographic entity within one kingdom owing allegiance to another. We had Turba, an Aten spin-off group, here in Caid for a while. The people who comprised it were mostly nice folk --they just wanted to continue to be Aten. They attracted certain troublesome elements and, over time, engendered a lot of ill-will among Caidans. I would suggest that the structure be limited to (1) individual members having general SCA membership within a sub-group (kingdom), (2) separate incorporation of a geographic sector belonging to a different mundane nation, but having allegiance to a single kingdom, and (3) possibly your specialty groups, with the proviso that they not usurp traditional geographically linked (kingdom, barony) titles or prerogatives. I think the operative word for any proposal concerning separate incorporation of portions of the SCA is "option". Several people have already opined that most groups will choose to stay with the corporation. I concur. One other topic it is essential to address, is the status of the individual subscriber/member. The discovery that I and all of my friends had spent decade(s) _not_ being a member of the SCA is one of the issues which sparked my interest in the Grand Council. Would an individual who had a separate membership with the SCA umbrella organization have a different status (legally) than one who was a member of a kingdom which belonged to the SCA? To All: I am still very new to this mode of communication. If I have made errors is protocol or custom, please advise me. Eichling From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 6 09:27:37 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 585 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 08:43:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: To Tibor: Alysoun's view To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9511032229.AA04196@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Nov 3, 95 05:29:24 pm Alysoun remarked on pay-to-play, and mentioned: How in the heck can the Board enforce pay-for-play if the "Society" doesn't buy it? Call your event a demo. Don't check membership cards. There are not enough board members to stand at every troll in the Known World to see who's doing what. Justin answered that pretty well, Alysoun, in that "all the world is not the Midrealm". But I'd point out that I've been to several events that have had Board members at them, that didn't charge the NMS, and I know of at least one event *autocrated* by a Director, that didn't. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 6 12:55:02 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 09:15:38 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: GC PROCEDURE/ORGANIZATION -- VOTE: NO Comments: To: arthur@cnj.digex.net To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Dear Arthur -- I vote no. I regard the current discussions going on as reasonable and do not feel that anything should come out of this council without concensus or alternates. I agree that we need a coordinator and have voted on that matter. Strict procedures will not serve us well in the long run. * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ================== Old Used Duke ================= [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 6 15:44:38 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:06:59 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: local officers and communication To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Justin (and Tibor) write: >I don't buy it, at least as a general mechanism. For the Seneschalate specifically, I *might* be willing to contemplate it; for most of the officers, though, I think the above comment is just false. >from Justin > [As a local officer] If you check the laws of Corpora, and the East, the truth is: I don't have to do a damn thing but exist, and buy a membership. >from Tibor I stick by my original. I dont buy the tone of Justin's post that seems to say that local officers are cruising along with no problems and that most of our problems is the fault of the Society or kingdom officers. There is much garbage that is allowed in our Society because local officers dont feel the need to seek out information, relay information to their kingdom officers and to their group, and to generally keep in touch. Many angry phone calls from some group member about how one kingdom officer or another is a stupid jerk end up with the embarrassed caller apologizing because he or she had assumed that the local officer had told the complete story. We get so little from many of our local officers because we expect so little. I, too am a local pursuivant. I consider it my duty to do more than simply fill out the required quarterly report: My duty is to promote heraldry in my local group. Now I dont see any way I can effectively do this if I dont have a clue as to what is happening in heraldry at the kingdom or society levels. Further, I frequently see occasions in which the various regional and kingdom heralds can be of real assistance to people in my group. I don't see how I could do my job well without regularly communicating with other heralds. Yet many local pursuivants are entirely satisfied with filling out the same piece of mostly worthless paper four times a year. Care to guess how many local pursuivants fail to remind the people in their group of upcoming increases in submission fees (as is happening in my kingdom)? When I was kingdom seneschal, I regularly fielded questions from some local seneschals that could have been answered by a simple reading of kingdom law, or that had already been addressed in a letter. But that is too much, apparently for some to expect. Other seneschals worked hard to serve their groups by staying on top of things, asking questions when they came up, letting other seneschals know about the needs of the people served by their branch and seeking out relevant information. Note that this has little to do with filling out the blanks on a standardized quarterly report form. As far as I can tell, the seneschal who did the job poorly was as likely to be rewarded as the one who excelled. In more than a few cases, the officer who was conscientiously working to make things better was less liked by the local group because the less-responsible officer simply said "it's just those screwballs at kingdom" instead of trying to explain the reasons for unpopular decisions. This behavior is encouraged in the SCA, at many levels. As to the pristine reporting of the marshallate, in two kingdoms, now, I have seen local marshals (the branch officer type) routinely lose or mess up authorization paperwork then blame it on the kingdom officer. Throughout the society we have local groups whose officers of the exchequer don't get around to balancing the checkbook until they absolutely have to at year-end time. This is one of the reasons for the new tougher branch financial policies. Now this is not to place all of the blame on local officers. We have our share of slackers at the kingdom (and society) level, too. Yet if you will note, the proposal generating this thread would require that regional, kingdom and society officers respond to these one-page notes. It would be real obvious who is and who is not getting around to finding time to fulfill their responsibilities as an officer. But to say that local officers don't need to bother putting effort into communicating with others is to validate this idea that they don't have to bother figuring out what is going on outside of their local group. This sells us short. And the idea that exchanging a handwritten piece of paper in an effort to foster better communication is some sort of ballooning hierarchy is at best, hyperbole. So I do think it is a reasonable thing to require that local officers hand write a less-than-one-page note monthly or bi-monthly or quarterly if it is done to improve communication among our officers. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 6 15:45:19 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:10:13 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Grabbing moral high ground? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hossein said: > Perhaps I never should have tried to explain my point; the advice of Matthew 7:6 seems more pertinent to these discussions by the minute. This is Jesus statement about throwing pearls before swine. Yet in this apparent haste to grab some sort of moral high ground, this apparently has fallen into one of the worst forms of proof-texting--taking a single verse or part of a verse of the Bible out of context to attempt to prove some point. It might be instructive to note that this reference is from a passage that includes statements such as: "do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also;" "And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also"; "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;" "Do not judge lest you be judged;" "however you want people to treat you, so treat them." I believe it is safe to say that given the context of this verse, it was never intended for use as an invective, and to draw it out of context as such is not consistent with principles of good hermeneutics. Electronic LISTSERV is a hard medium, prone to interpersonal slight and unintended meta-messages. Those who are more comfortable with this medium often develop a highly developed and precise notion of where the line is between inappropriate and appropriate insult. From the perspective of those of us who have been drawn (some kicking and screaming) to this medium, it appears as those some others can dish it out, but cant take it. Given this unfortunate state, and this inherent weakness in this medium, it would seem that we should all try to avoid the triggers that will likely set others off. I have reread this message before I posted it (and composed it at a different time) so if there is any slight read here, it is not intended. I am not trying to cast stones, but to help understand. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 6 15:51:39 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 15:12:35 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION RE:GC PROCEDURE To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For the reasons elegantly put by Flieg, I also vote "no." Hossein Ali Qomi (Greg Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 6 15:56:17 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:15:10 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: decision making in the branch To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor writes: Now for all the rest of us who are stuck with a plethora of business meetings, this kind of thing is much more important, because we have allowed the "business" end of things a greater scope, which makes officers a force that cannot be ignored. Later, Flieg comments on the virtues of just handling business informally. The usual alternative to having frequent meetings with officers is that the old guard simply informally takes care of all of the business stuff. This is the old and venerated way of doing things in the SCA and it stinks royally (pun intended). If the baron and baroness are making decisions around their kitchen table with their buds then how do we expect the new person, or even the experienced person who doesnt get along with the baron or baroness (and so is not invited to the kitchen) to have a reasonable say in things? The only course available is to make a public stink about things--to become a troublemaker. This is not a good thing, although it does make the job of deciding who are the good and bad people really very easy. . . Many old and traditional groups have had long standing simmering fights as a result of this informal taking care of business mentality. Many more just couldnt figure out why they could not keep bright and energetic people (since it could not possibly be the fault of the local power elite, it must be due to the presence of a Right-wing church in the community, or to the general stupidity of the people who live in the community, or because the King hasnt attended an event at this branch for many years, or because this one troublemaker keeps badmouthing the group or . .) I just dont see any of the federation proposals yet which offer any answer to this common problem short of telling people that if they are wronged, if they are unjustly shut out of the decision making process, if they are warned about becoming troublemakers the first time they ask a question about a done decision, that they should just keep walking--join another group (which could easily have the same or similar problem), just be a member of the kingdom and not be involved in a local group, or just leave the SCA altogether. I do not find these solutions satisfactory. This is not to say that we should be meeting all of the time to hash over every small problem. But the frequency and intensity of meetings should inversely vary with the level of trust within the group--the more I trust you, the less we have to meet. However, you should not be the person deciding how much I trust you. . . Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 6 16:06:38 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:27:09 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Reporting is a form of communication To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor writes: > I, and my friends and fellow travellers in my local area, want to play medieval re-creation together, and invite other fellow travellers in. And, we can do that pretty well. Why must I, need I, have superior officers for? Why should I report to them? Shouldn't they, if they exist at all, do things for me? You dont need the SCA at all for this. If all you want to do is get some of your friends together to do medieval recreation, you probably shouldnt be wasting your time serving others in the SCA. The SCA doesn't need to give permission to people to do medieval recreation. In fact, the SCA has systematically resisted efforts to make households and guilds part of the official structure, recognizing that it is a good thing for people to do things in different ways. The SCA does provide a much larger framework in which things can be done that extend far beyond the capabilities of a few friends meeting in someone's backyard. But in choosing to participate in the benefits of this larger framework, you are agreeing to contribute to it. It is no longer a matter of simply deciding how this group of people could best be served, the organization now attempts to meet needs of which this small group is unaware. Further, the emphasis of service is not on the local group, but on the member (for those who have lauded the idea that an individual might be able to join the society without joining a local group--that is the way it is now!) Branches, as well as kingdoms and the corporation exist to serve members, not the other way around. It is of critical import that those who are temporarily charged with administering some small aspect of the society (for nearly all of the society officers and board members are also from these small groups) remain sensitive to the needs of the entire membership. This can only happen through some sort of regular communication. We call one form of this communication "reporting." It is true that many of these reports are pretty much useless. It is also true that many of the regional, kingdom and society officers do not respond to the reports as they should. So why does it make sense to remove this last bit of regular communication rather than trying to make it more effective? One answer: This will create a federation of independent groups without having to get people to agree to this directly. After all, the communication level of the most completely tied-in group will now be encouraged to seek the level of the most communicatively isolated group. With less communication, there will be fewer ties, and even conscientious kingdom officers will grow hopelessly out of touch. Then it will be clear to everyone that kingdom officers have become simply a waste of time because they don't even know what is happening in the local groups; a self-fulfilling prophecy. No, we should be looking for ways to make reporting function more effectively, not for ways to gut it further. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 6 21:01:54 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 20:26:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Grabbing moral high ground? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Gareth writes: >Hossein said: > >> Perhaps I never should have tried to explain >my point; the advice of Matthew 7:6 seems more pertinent to these discussions >by the minute. > >This is Jesus statement about throwing pearls before swine. Yet in this >apparent haste to grab some sort of moral high ground, this apparently has >fallen into one of the worst forms of proof-texting--taking a single verse or >part of a verse of the Bible out of context to attempt to prove some point. Translating from the Vulgate, the passage to which I alluded (Matthew 7:6) reads: "Give not what is holy to dogs. Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them beneath their feet, and turning upon you, tear you asunder." It was a literary allusion, not an effort at Biblical exegesis. Not being a Christian, it wasn't particularly relevant to me or my point what the rest of the Sermon on the Mount said. It wasn't an effort to _prove_ any point, but rather to suggest exactly the nature of my frustration with the whole posting style discussion. I think it is relevant that yet again we have an accusation of seizing the moral high ground. I'm pondered long why this accusation is being made. I think it is a sign of just how threatened those who support the status quo are by any systematic critique of the current institutional structure of the SCA and the ideology which underlies it. If there is any seizing the moral high ground by pointing out how institutional structures facilitate and abet injustices, it is because concern for redressing injustices is intrinsically a higher moral position than one which dismisses the possibility or significance of injustices in the current structure of SCA governance. The moral high ground may be the only ground the reform movement has left. The monumental changes which were imposed by the Board on our Society -- pay-to-fight and pay-to-play -- have been rescinded only in part. The Board may have abandonned them as national policies, but by permitting kingdoms to impose them they remain an oppression on many of those who participate in our game. The massive increases in the SCA central budget, which many are wont to ascribe to Tony Provine, remain a part of the Board's budget. The centralist ideology remains dogma at the highest levels of our Society's governance. These changes were a repudiation of our Society's traditions -- a fair approach to the problem, given the widespread opposition to these policies, would have been to return policy to the status quo ante, to the position we were in _before_ these policies tore our Society asunder. Then an unbiased debate could have proceeded. That didn't happen -- we have much of the Society still under these noxious policies and the non-member surcharge to boot. Still no accountability, still no financial austerity -- these are the fruits of nearly two years of struggle. When I proposed that the GC ask the board to fully rescind the pay-to-fight and pay-to-play policies, the proposal was met with deafening silence. The centralists have control of the status quo and, if they can preserve it, the cause of reform is doomed. That is why they prefer to concentrate on style rather than substance. That is why fundamental opposition to the way things are currently run is characterized as some unfair attempt to seize the moral high ground. People criticize the citing of specific abuses as personal attacks. We are told that we are supposed to be calm and rational, as if nothing that has happened should engage our emotions as well as our reason. That is a recipe for complacency and the victory of the status quo. If words are emoptional charged, it is because their subjects are emotionally charged. If we cared nothing for the outcome of our deliberations, then we ought have no strong feelings to express. I have watched Flieg weep for what the Board did to the Society he loves, and I respected him deeply for it. Passion is a natural corollary to fundamental principles, to the things we deeply value. From the perspective of many, what has happened since October 1993 has been a repudiation of the fundamental values which drew us to the Society. It feels like something which I have loved for a quarter of a century has been stolen from me and those dear to me. I may seem disdainful of those who caution against my "rhetoric" or accuse me of "seizing the moral high ground." It is because I am -- I find worthy of disdain and repugnant the attitude that anyone ought to divorce the feelings of love for values long held and deeply cherished from a discussion of how we build institutions to either preserve or reject those values. For some this may be a dry task of tinkering with this or that aspect of the mechanism; it is not for me. For me it is a matter of saving what led me to the SCA in the first place or watching it perish. I cannot be dispassionate about that, and I would think myself a traitor to what is best in our Society if I aspired to such dispassion. Cold dispassion is the refuge of complacency. Some argue that discussions must never become "personal." This reminds me of the tag in _The Godfather_: "It's business, it's not personal." What could possibly be more personal than those things we regard as the core values of our Society? If we never criticize what others do (for some a cardinal sin to do in the SCA), how can we ever redress abuses? Actions must have consequences, and some of those consequences will be unpleasant. These matters are also personal in that each of us carries into these discussions the myriad of experiences which have made the SCA for us. Is it surprising that a former seneschal of the Midrealm, where bureaucracy is an absolute ruler, should support centralism and decry opposition as forbidden uncivility? No more so than that a former Ansteorran, from a place where opposition to the Board and the national bureaucracy is a deep-set aspect of the kingdom ethos, should say the things I do. Everything about this discussion is personal, and pretending otherwise is a way to disarm those who oppose the status quo. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 6 22:55:10 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 22:19:52 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: GC Procedure Vote: YES To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I vote yes on the procedural proposal. I think we are spinning our collective wheels and would like to see some more focus and structure. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 01:59:16 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 01:21:38 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: PRELIMINARY VOTE COUNT: (BE VERY AFRAID....) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L AYE:4 Arthur The Dented Janna Span/Caitrin Fiacha Chuck Heck/Serwyl NAY:2 Frederick of Holland Hossien the motion was posted on October 8th, seconded shortly thereafter, put up to vote before the 15th. 6 total votes. Maybe its just my proposal, but then again, maybe we have a problem we need to address here? Heres the original proposal but reality forces me to ammend it to "December 1 to December 31" and to close voting on the 28th of November. If you havent voted yet, please E-mail to arthur@cnj.digex.net EVEN if its to abstain so I and others can get a real picture of participation... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 19:58:22 -0400 (EDT) From: arthur dent To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Subject: MOTION: GC PROCEDURE/ORGANIZATION I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From November 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include a discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 3) determining the necessity for an 'officer' (Secretary, facilitator etc) and a means of Filling and vacating that office, as well as determining its scope of responsibility Arthur who is very rarely heard as a voice for order and homogeneous progress.... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 06:59:07 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: David Friedman Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:47:29 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Friedman Subject: Re: PRELIMINARY VOTE COUNT: (BE VERY AFRAID....) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I vote Nay on the motion posted October 8th. David/Cariadoc David Friedman ddfr@best.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 07:35:07 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: David Schroeder Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 06:59:11 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Schroeder Subject: Bertram's Vote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings, friends... I have been quiet of late due to increasing mundane commitments and increasing frustration with the (in)actions of the Grand Council and our apparent structural inability to accomplish much of anything except talk. I have been following the discussions, which seem to work much more like a typical newsgroup than like a working committee charged with an important task working under any sense of urgency. It was my suggestion to select a leader/facilitator for the group, made at the meeting at Pennsic. I also suggested breaking the group up into mandatory committees composed of teams small enough to actually work productively together. I believe that setting up such a structure and having the teams hammer things out and then present options they've determined to the entire Grand Council would be much more effective than the proposal currently on the floor at producing productive alternatives for the Society, therefore I vote "No." My best to all -- Bertram of Bearington From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 09:24:00 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 08:48:12 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: procedures To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I vote "yes" for working on procedures now. I like some parts of Arthur's most recent proposal (esp. minutes and summaries, end of the month clearance) and I like Bertram's committees and I like Fiacha's limited topics per week. Can we put these together somehow? Agenda setting: Part of our trouble is that we are working on different types of problems. Group A is concerned with the structural relation of corporation to kingdom and Group B is concerned with how things function from the individual up. Group B thinks that Group A is ignoring the "real" problem, Group A thinks that Group B is supporting centralization. Each group makes a little forward progress but is then blocked by the other group and we are not hearing from enough people to get beyond this. What can we do to sort this out? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 09:48:48 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 09:16:25 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: who'd like to be boss? Comments: cc: ghita , Lee Forgue , morrill , O'Leary , carolyn , William Colbert To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hello, I would like anyone of you who would like to fill the Job/task of Moderator of the Grand Council(MGC), to please email me, hopefully by thursday this week. Here's how "I" would like to have the GC work. EACH QUARTER: (for now let's say 1st Qua., 1996 ; Jan, FEB, March) 1st two weeks in JANuary: THe MGC would pick five topics (either from general concensus, directives >from the BOD, out of their own mind). Split the Committee into five committees, each taking a topic. 2nd two weeks in January, first three weeks in February,,the committees battle back and forth, find facts, find fiction, call each other,"My esteemed colleague" finally coming to a committee report: Last week in February, first two weeks in March, the reports are submitted to the entire GC for comment. Third and forth weeks in March, final reports are written and submitted to the MGC who then prepares the Final Quarterly report. The process starts all over again. - - - - - - - - - - - - Report form would be Uncle Edwards, "Tell it to me in one page" method, in the sense that the first page(s) of the \Final Report would have: THE GRAND COUNCIL REPORT FOR THIS HERE QUARTER Ignaz Summerville, MGC Dear BOD, THis month the GC has debated the following topics: 1) - SHould Edward be drawn and quartered? 2) - Who is a member? 3) - Possible Election processes forthe BOD 4) - Membership qualifications for Officers 5) - Possible legal recourse our Outsourcing Company . Page 2 - 6 would list each topic, solutions and recommnedations for action/non-action on each topic. THe rest of the report would have all the background info the GC would care to send. -------- Well? I Will be sending this to the BOD and will Bring it up in the COnferance Call on Wednesday. TO see if the rest of the BOD concurs. --------- It seems to me that a small group, doing legwork, would be far more efficient than a 40 headed hydra looking for the path. (Greg, if you don't agree, just say, "I don't agree, Ed", there's no need for a 40 page paper :-) -) -------- OK, folks, let's have some feedback. EDWARD -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Viscount Edward Zifran of Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 10:04:41 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 408 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 08:28:36 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: who'd like to be boss? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511071416.JAA24535@panix.com> from "E. F. MORRILL" at Nov 7, 95 09:16:25 am E. F. MORRILL said: > Well? Yeah, sounds good. I'd like to see some sort of voting/consensus - but that hasn't worked worth a damn anyway. Terras -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 10:30:48 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4903 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 09:46:38 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Angharad: Upward vs. Downward Responsibility To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >From Angharad. -- Tibor [I reformatted Gareth's quotations to make them fit within 80 columns] Forwarded message: Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 21:36:53 EST From: jtn@eng2.uconn.edu (Terry Nutter) Message-Id: <9511070236.AA02536@lurch> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Angharad: Upward vs. Downward Responsibility Greetings to the Grand Council, from Angharad ver' Rhuawn. Gareth writes: It is of critical import that those who are temporarily charged with administering some small aspect of the society (for nearly all of the society officers and board members are also from these small groups) remain sensitive to the needs of the entire membership. This can only happen through some sort of regular communication. We call one form of this communication "reporting." It is true that many of these reports are pretty much useless. It is also true that many of the regional, kingdom and society officers do not respond to the reports as they should. What I cannot for the life of me see, is how sending reports upward either establishes or maintains contact downward, or develops or maintains sensitivity to the needs of the membership. It seems to me that a lot of the discussion in this thread has centered on the need for _downward_ awareness and accountability, but has proposed mechanisms of _upward_ oversight. That is the normal bureaucrat's answer, not least because it promotes responsiveness to bureaucrats; but from any other point of view, it's an unnatural way to proceed; and its track record is far from encouraging. I think it's important to keep in mind that discipline from above -- which we have now -- has never been intrinsically related to sensitivity to the needs of those below, and may even act against it. If you answer primarily to your boss, you tend to concentrate on keeping your boss happy. The time you spend on that, tends often to be taken from the time you might otherwise be spending in learning to keep your _people_ happy. [Gareth continues] So why does it make sense to remove this last bit of regular communication rather than trying to make it more effective? One answer: This will create a federation of independent groups without having to get people to agree to this directly. After all, the communication level of the most completely tied-in group will now be encouraged to seek the level of the most communicatively isolated group. With less communication, there will be fewer ties, and even conscientious kingdom officers will grow hopelessly out of touch. Then it will be clear to everyone that kingdom officers have become simply a waste of time because they don't even know what is happening in the local groups; a self-fulfilling prophecy. I can't comment on the "federation of independent groups" remark, because I confess I can't make sense of it. But for the rest: speaking as a former kingdom officer, I found reports useless in staying in touch. The sorts of things even the best ones tell you, as a rule, reveal nothing about the sorts of things that actually matter. One event in a strange area of the kingdom did more, as a rule, to tell me what was going on, and what people wanted, than a hundred reports. Furthermore, if the reports are being used, as the earlier postings in this thread suggest, to provide me with information on the basis of which to support or discipline local officers, they are less likely than ever to keep me in touch with positive desires of the populace. What people need, after all, is not _limited_ to the removal of bad officers. Indeed, what people want often has nothing to do with what the officers are up to at all. But an "officer critique" is not likely to tell me anything that is not directly related to what the officer is actually doing. Nothing can replace personal contact -- at any level. Reports are one of the poorest replacements I can think of; almost anything, from phone calls to surrogate personal contact by deputies to (gack) holding meetings works better. If we want kingdom officers to stay in touch, we should make them go out and stay in touch. If we want officers to answer to the needs of the people, we should make them answer to the people -- _not_ to the bureaucracy; to the populace. Discipline from above cannot replace answerability below; any more than paper can replace human touch. A few people have suggested making officers answer _downward_. I strongly encourage you to look carefully at these suggestions. They certainly have potential problems built in, and they may not solve the problem; but they have the virtue, at least, of addressing it. Pushing the upward bureaucracy does not. -- Angharad/Terry From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 10:36:48 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 15:59:02 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: who'd like to be boss? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I would like anyone of you who would like to fill the Job/task of >Moderator of the Grand Council(MGC), to please email me, hopefully by >thursday this week. Arrrggghhh! Another GC organization proposal, pretty good in itself...=20 ...but: (I'm not sure I've got the chronology right) First, Fiacha presented an organization proposal, and it drowned in=20 sundry simultaneous debates. Then, Arthur presented an organization proposal, asked for a vote, and=20 nothing happened.=20 Then, Alysoun, Tibor and Corwyn said that they were willing to coordinate=20 this thing, and we started voting,=20 and nothing much happened,=20 except people asked for a postponement and more information. Then, Alysoun withdrew her candidature. Then, Fiacha volunteered for the job on his old proposal, and we were=20 maybe getting ready to start voting. Then, Arthur reminded us of his proposal, developed it, and asked for=20 a vote that he'd tally himself. And here's *one* *more* proposal and call for candidates.=20 Confused? I'm sure *I* am. Has the original chairman election collapsed totally, and are we voting=20 on Arthur's proposal instead?=20 That is: How does Fiacha's candidature relate to Arthur's proposal?=20 How do the two relate to Edward's proposal? (Sorry if I missed any other proposals around.) How about all you people with proposals talking to each other and=20 presenting something for everybody to vote on? =20 I'm still willing to tally votes - unless maybe everybody wants to count=20 his own, and then we can argue about what who voting on which proposal=20 actually meant... =20 /Catrin, frustrated Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 12:31:04 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 08:44:39 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: who'd like to be boss? Comments: cc: gendy@panix.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Tue, 7 Nov 1995 09:16:25 -0500, "E. F. MORRILL" writes: > Hello, > I would like anyone of you who would like to fill the Job/task of > Moderator of the Grand Council(MGC), to please email me, hopefully by > thursday this week. > > Here's how "I" would like to have the GC work. > > EACH QUARTER: > (for now let's say 1st Qua., 1996 ; Jan, FEB, March) > > 1st two weeks in JANuary: > > THe MGC would pick five topics (either from general concensus, directives > from the BOD, out of their own mind). This is the part I don't like. The MGC has control of the agenda, and if the MGC _has_ an "agenda", they can push it by this process. > > Split the Committee into five committees, each taking a topic. > [...trim a bit of detail...] On the other hand, I aprove of the report form.., though I would add to it slightly.... > > > THE GRAND COUNCIL REPORT FOR THIS HERE QUARTER > Ignaz Summerville, MGC > > Dear BOD, > > THis month the GC has debated the following topics: ^^^^^^ Quarter > 1) - SHould Edward be drawn and quartered? Result: undecided, continuing debate > 2) - Who is a member? Result: Two conflicting reports. Debate complete. > 3) - Possible Election processes forthe BOD Result: Two full proposals and major disagreement. Continued to next quarter. > 4) - Membership qualifications for Officers Result: Recommendation to drop membrship requirements. > 5) - Possible legal recourse our Outsourcing Company Result: Recommendation to sue the bastards. > > . > Page 2 - 6 would list each topic, solutions and recommnedations for > action/non-action on each topic. THe rest of the report would have all > the background info the GC would care to send. [...trimm..] > It seems to me that a small group, doing legwork, would be far more > efficient than a 40 headed hydra looking for the path. (Greg, if you > don't agree, just say, "I don't agree, Ed", there's no need for a 40 page > paper :-) -) > -------- > > OK, folks, let's have some feedback. You got it from me. I just don't want us to be so damned efficient that we get locked out of solutions that just needed a lot more talking to work them out. * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ================== Old Used Duke ================= [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 12:33:52 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:57:44 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: RE ARTHURS 10/08 proposal AND AMENDMENTS To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L AYE:5 --------------------------------- Arthur The Dented :11/06/95 Janna Span/Caitrin:11/06/95 Fiacha :11/06/95 Chuck Heck/Serwyl :11/06/95 Alyson/carol Roose:11/07/95 NAY:5 -------------------------------- Frederick of Holland:11/06/95 Hossien :11/06/95 Cariadoc/David :11/07/95 Sven Noren/Frithiof :11/07/95 Joseph Heck :11/07/95 ABSTAIN:0 -------------------------------- ?:1 ------------------------------- Bertram , I'm unclear as to which or what you are voting on. please read the below proposal and ammendments and re-cast your ballot with a reference to the specific proposal such as its date or quoting the first line ******************************************************* AMENDMENTS: Amendments ofNovember 7:(if youd like to ammend this let me know by private e-mail... I guess we're in the 'causcussing' stage where compromises are made on the floor during the vote so that SOMETHING passes..) Replace item 3 with: "3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance." to item 2 append "and dissenting positionsn(s)" replace item 3 with " etc) and a means of Filling and vacating that office, as well as Ammedmemts of November 6 "December 1 to December 31" and to close voting on the 28th of November. determining its scope of responsibility If you havent voted yet, please E-mail to arthur@cnj.digex.net EVEN if its to abstain so I and others can get a real picture of participation... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 19:58:22 -0400 (EDT) From: arthur dent Subject: MOTION: GC PROCEDURE/ORGANIZATION I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From November 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include a discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 3) determining the necessity for an 'officer' (Secretary, facilitator etc) and a means of Filling and vacating that office, as well as determining its scope of responsibility Arthur who is very rarely heard as a voice for order and homogeneous progress.... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 12:45:54 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 12:08:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: PRELIMINARY VOTE COUNT: (BE VERY AFRAID....) Comments: cc: Janna.Spanne@kansli.lth.se, gendy@panix.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Okay, to Arthur's proposal, I vote No. I too strongly support the idea of a subcommittee format as outlined by Edward, and at least one other posting. This was, I feel, the initial failure in the implimentation of the GC, which has only gotten worse. This shift to a list format is only partly responsible for the confusion that Janna comments on, and which I share. The rest would seem to be the lack of focus and participation which was occurring even before the switch in formats. For the record: 1. I'll be considered as a candidate for chairman of the subcommittee model. The one outlined by Edward seems a workable enough version. However, can this be declared by fiat ? 2.Is Fiacha still a candidate ? If so, which organizational plan is he supporting ? 3. Perhaps a more important question is this : is it time to run down the curtain on the GC ? Given the level of confusion (high), participation (low) and productive activity (low) I wonder if the GC has any point in remaining in existence ? Perhaps we should consider a vote of continuance be made in the near future. Specifically, that If a majority of the GC cannot vote "yes" to the GC continuing its mission, then it should end it's mission. This isn't a motion (yet) but a request for some discussion of this issue. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 16:29:38 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 616 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 15:41:07 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Proposal for Abstaining Votes (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron de Crecy, by Tibor Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 15:38:00 -0500 Message-ID: <951107153759_100390746@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Galleron: Proposal for Abstaining Votes Arthur has suggested that those abstaining from his 10/8 proposal do so by positive vote rather than by not voting. I think this would be a good idea for all future votes. It will help sort out the councilors that are indifferent or undecided on a proposal from those who are not participating. Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 16:30:41 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1592 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 15:50:13 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: PRELIMINARY VOTE COUNT: (BE VERY AFRAID....) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951107120821_15241416@emout04.mail.aol.com> from "Corwyn da Costa" at Nov 7, 95 12:08:23 pm Greetings from Tibor. I shall be re-examining Arthur's proposal, but if I recall my opinion of it accurately, I too shall vote no. It was well intentioned, but I think overall would be ineffective. Arthur, I shall send you my vote soon. Edward's proposal has merit, and I suspect that we will adopt it, modulo some tinkering. I too have queries about forced participation on sub-areas, and agenda setting. On the other hand, this listserv would not keep us from discussing whatever we wanted, even if it wasn't an agenda item. Candidacy. Fiacha and I discussed this in email. I believe that what we concluded was the he would be running for chairman, and I would be his fallback deputy and assistant. I believe that, given we all have real-world jobs that require our attentions, that a deputy would be ideal. Corwyn wrote: 3. Perhaps a more important question is this : is it time to run down the curtain on the GC ? Given the level of confusion (high), participation (low) and productive activity (low) I wonder if the GC has any point in remaining in existence ? I would not go so far, so fast, Corwyn. I agree: our participation level is abysmal, and many of our members may only be contributing in their hearts, if that much. I think flushing the whole opportunity to influence the Board, and the work that is progress, however, is baby and bathwater. Do you honestly feel that things are irretrievably bad? (Like the old joke. "When I'm optimistic, I believe this is the best of all possible worlds. When I am pessimistic, I fear that I am right.") Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 16:31:54 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1478 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 15:42:09 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Re: who'd like to be boss? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron, by Tibor Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 15:38:01 -0500 Message-ID: <951107153758_100390729@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Galleron: Re: who'd like to be boss? Galleron here. I think Edward's suggestion for a more structured procedure is a good one, and addresses a number of concerns raised by Fiacha, Bertram, and others. I would suggest some amendments and modifications. Flieg's suggested modification of the quarterly reports is a good one. His concern that the MGC would have too much control over the agenda is reasonable. I suggest: GC members dissatisfied with the agenda may seek to persuade the MGC by public or private posting. If still dissatisfied they may bring a motion to amend the agenda, which shall prevail by simple majority of those voting. The MGC will submit a preliminary agenda at the end of the first week of the quarter to allow time to tally votes for amendment of the agenda and organization of commitees by the end of the second week. As Alban suggested, the GC should have a vice-leader as a spare and back-up. And can they be called "Chair" and "Vice-Chair" instead of "Moderator of the Grand Council" and "Vice-MGC"? You will probably want to include some provision to remove the chair if necessary, probably by motion and by majority of votes cast. Will Mclean/Galleron de Cressy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 17:07:57 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4364 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:29:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: local officers and communication To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <795285.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> from "Roy Gathercoal" at Nov 6, 95 12:06:59 pm Greetings from Tibor. On the feedback issue, I think Gareth you are (with your careful digging) starting to get near the point of difference. When I cited my "required role": [As a local officer] If you check the laws of Corpora, and the East, the truth is: I don't have to do a damn thing but exist, and buy a membership. I thought I was making the point that the organization doesn't require much of me, and doesn't care if I do the job. Of course, my friends and compatriots in my local group expect more of me. (Of course, I try and provide it.) But the truth is, that I see you (and by extension, Alysoun) looking at the picture from a different angle that I think Justin and I are. I'm considering, as my touchstone, the local people and the services they desire and require. For example, my infamous local group has desired and required a weekly dance practice since before some of our current dancers were born. Therefore, it has one. Where does the corporation, it's structure, and a reporting requirement improve this service? My poorly phrased example was aimed at a similar question. My group demands more of me as an officer than the Corporation, and therefore it gets it. If it didn't get it, I'd be replaced. Or, just ignored. After all, there is no reason why someone else can't pick up slack they feel I might be letting go. (A real example: one of our more active heralds wanted there to be more banners and pageantry: therefore, there is a workshop tonightt on making banners and other pageantry materials. The good news is, since I am still doing what is expected of me, we are doing it together, at my home. But the example would apply even if I was a slothful officer.) My point being, that even if I were a do nothing place holder, the work can still get done. Just because I am the baronial pursuivant, doesn't mean that I have a monopoly on heraldic endeavors. With this sort of background thinking in mind, I read: I dont buy the tone of Justin's post that seems to say that local officers are cruising along with no problems and that most of our problems is the fault of the Society or kingdom officers. And I just don't see that as what Justin or I meant, nor how it should have been perceived. The vast and impressive amount of stuff that occurs within the organization occurs almost independent of the corporations assistance or infrastructure. Only combat activities, perhaps, are excepted. And even those are heavily influenced by work outside the structure. The re-creation and research takes place at the grass roots level. Given that, I want to know what the "superiors" can be doing for their local groups, not what some officer that is in a local group can do to report or serve their putative boss. And one of the problems I see, is that by building a heirarchy of authority, or re-inforcing it, we continue the illusion that only the proper officer ought to drive the work that needs to be done. They BECOME the bottleneck for information, they CAN become the problem. One of my local groups greatest strengths, is that we have always and actively encouraged the chaos that comes from letting any one do any thing, without officers. To steal from my friend Steffan again, one of our local maxims is: (http://www.tiac.net/users/steffan/laws.html) 8.If you say you're it, and no one else says they're it, and everyone thinks you're it, then you're it. (The Virtual Warrant Principle) You cited many interesting examples, of when being a local pursuivant required knowing about what other pursuivants and heralds were doing, or when lazy seneschals wouldn't do their homework. I don't see that we can beat human nature at its own game. I'd rather see a system where one can route around slothful officers, and not become reliant upon them. So I do think it is a reasonable thing to require that local officers hand write a less-than-one-page note monthly or bi-monthly or quarterly if it is done to improve communication among our officers. Perhaps you can see why I think that's the wrong approach. If we required a heirarchical system, and that was the proper solution, then and only then would such a potentially useful piece of paper be worthy of consideration. I've lived in other groups, with more conventional approaches. It didn't work nearly as well. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 17:26:54 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:41:13 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: ARTHUR's OCT 8th Motion: Confusion? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951107120821_15241416@emout04.mail.aol.com> The substance of the october 8th Motion is that we get our own house in order for a month. it doesnt tie to any particular organizations scheme, just that we discuss organization till we can agree on some procedures to decide when we've decided something... I apologize for muddying the waters with my later "PROPOSED FOR DISCUSSION" postings which are separate and were primarily thrown out to get us talking about how we DO want to be organized. The more recent "NO" votes have been coming in including the rational that they favor a vague idea re: sub commitees... Fine, lets talk about that then. lets take a month to get our house in order, agree on a process, get some record keeping going and define that "commitee" structure... who'll be on what, how will each commitee be separate from the GC, how we'll coordinate our work etc.) the october 8th proposal says nothing more than: "lets get ourselves organized before we try to solve the problems of the known world" When you consider how much MORE we might have had done by now if we'd done that first, the price of one month soley devoted to getting our stuff together cant seem that high. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 17:43:13 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:35:47 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: PRELIMINARY VOTE COUNT: Fiacha/Tibor slate To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511072050.PAA02589@abel.math.harvard.edu> Greetings from Fiacha, While I voted for Arthur's proposal and while I like Edwards proposal, I still prefer my own and would like to see some compromise reached. I also suspect that we need a second, fully moderated, mailing list to publish reports from subcommittee's, and proposal's that need formal votes. Even progress reports from the subcommittee's would be good. Finally, if anyone wants to vote for me but is put off by the thought of Tibor as Vice Chair, I'd like to hear from you. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 17:53:21 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: David Schroeder Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 17:18:04 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Schroeder Subject: Fwd: Leadership, organization and getting things done on the GC To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- From: "David W. James" Message-Id: <9511071707.ZM18041@zelazny.ops.aol.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 17:07:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: David Schroeder "Bertram's Vote" (Nov 7, 6:59am) References: <8kbocDK00iWXE107Rs@andrew.cmu.edu> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 26oct94 MediaMail) To: ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Leadership, organization and getting things done on the GC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Bertram, please post this to the list. Thanks. About a month ago I was exchanging email with a council member on the lack of direction and other matters. I wrote the following at the time, and it still seems appropriate: At this point the council suffers from the lack of an agenda, not the lack of a leader. Email can be a wonderful means of communication, but in this case there is not enough structure for it to work. I'd solve it by picking 5 names out of a hat and saying that they are this months agenda group. At the first of next month they will present to the council as a whole that months agenda. And then they pick 5 names out of the hat to do the same for the next month... And for that month one of the 5 (or the whole group) will work to make sure that the topic is discussed until either a consensus is reached or it is clear that none can be reached, at which time they will write up the conclusion reached. And then on to the next question... Everyone on the council is here because they volunteered; there should be no problem doing this if they were/are serious about working on the council (and if they aren't then they should resign and let someone in who is willing to do so.) Note that if you have an elected leader, they can impliment this structure... You don't need a leader, you need structure. A leader can impose or encourage a structure, but there are other forms that can be used, such as this one. Kwellend-Njal From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 7 22:48:26 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 22:10:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: ote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L my vote for arthur's proposal is "no"; what i suspect we need is a leader who's not afraid to suggest throwing out irrelevant messages, and some self-restraint to keep our comments confined to the topic at hand. (lord knows, i've thrown in the minimum daily requirement of extraneous comments, like this one.) alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 01:46:38 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 01:07:16 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: PRELIMINARY VOTE COUNT: (BE VERY AFRAID....) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from corwyn, somewhere on a metaphoric foreign sea Tibor (and myself) writes: ------------------------------------------------- Corwyn wrote: 3. Perhaps a more important question is this : is it time to run down the curtain on the GC ? Given the level of confusion (high), participation (low) and productive activity (low) I wonder if the GC has any point in remaining in existence ? I would not go so far, so fast, Corwyn. I agree: our participation level is abysmal, and many of our members may only be contributing in their hearts, if that much. I think flushing the whole opportunity to influence the Board, and the work that is progress, however, is baby and bathwater. Do you honestly feel that things are irretrievably bad? (Like the old joke. "When I'm optimistic, I believe this is the best of all possible worlds. When I am pessimistic, I fear that I am right.") ------------------------------------------------------------------ I'll hold off on commenting on whether I feel that things are irretrevably bad. What I do feel is that if the GC cannot even hold the interest of half of it's members, I have very grave doubts as to it's ability to hold the attention of the Board or the known world. Also, the effective size of the GC (at the moment) is such that it in no way can be considered to be representative of the society; and, more practically, we've lost a considerable amount of the skills and input the GC was meant to have. Given these issues, I feel that a "rump" GC is unlikely to be able to effectively influence the board. In short, to continue your metaphor, what if the bath is empty, the baby's in bed, and we're waiting around the tub with a bar of soap? Answer: it's time to turn out the lights and go home. So are we there ? Like I said, I'll hold off on giving my opinion. What I want is to raise the issue, and at least count how many different people shoot at it. So fire away..... Corwyn, coming up on deck, hoping that the guys who pull on the ropes and drive the boat are still aboard. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 01:47:58 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 01:13:40 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Galleron: Re: who'd like to be boss? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Will Mclean/Galleron de Cressy writes: ------------------------------------------------ As Alban suggested, the GC should have a vice-leader as a spare and back-up. And can they be called "Chair" and "Vice-Chair" instead of "Moderator of the Grand Council" and "Vice-MGC"? As ever, I would humbly suggest the title of "Exalted High Poobah of the Grand Council" and "pokey" or "sidekick" Its harder to abuse an absurd title. :) You will probably want to include some provision to remove the chair if necessary, probably by motion and by majority of votes cast. An excellent idea. Plus, I like the ideas for overturning the agenda. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 04:28:47 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:49:56 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: PRELIMINARY VOTE COUNT: Fiacha/Tibor slate To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >While I voted for Arthur's proposal and while I like Edwards proposal, I >still prefer my own and would like to see some compromise reached. So, how does your candidature relate to those proposals? I still think it=20 would be great if we had ONE proposal, or list, to vote on, no matter where= =20 we send the votes; something like: you can vote on X doing A, or Y doing B,= =20 or Z doing C, or abstain. Another option would be a compromise: people with= =20 proposals getting together and presenting one proposal that potential=20 candidates could endorse. =20 The current business of a bunch of disconnected proposals with a call for=20 votes appended to each seems to me pretty counter-productive. >... > >Finally, if anyone wants to vote for me but is put off by the thought of >Tibor as Vice Chair, I'd like to hear from you. In my book, the thought is encouraging, if anything.=20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 09:53:53 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1316 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:18:16 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Re: who'd like to be boss? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511072042.PAA02169@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Nov 7, 95 03:42:09 pm Greetings from Tibor. Galleron wrote a few good things, those I have deleted I agree with... In terms of agenda control, he said: GC members dissatisfied with the agenda may seek to persuade the MGC by public or private posting. If still dissatisfied they may bring a motion to amend the agenda, which shall prevail by simple majority of those voting. The MGC will submit a preliminary agenda at the end of the first week of the quarter to allow time to tally votes for amendment of the agenda and organization of commitees by the end of the second week. So long as forward progress is being made on the "work items" of the period, other conversations is quite fine. Since this a cooperative, and not coercive effort, I am not quite as afraid of the "agenda" as perhaps I should be. Would someone care to educate me as to why I should be more concerned? As Alban suggested, the GC should have a vice-leader as a spare and back-up. And can they be called "Chair" and "Vice-Chair" instead of "Moderator of the Grand Council" and "Vice-MGC"? Fiacha and I are "running" (if that's the term for such laid-back volunteerism) in just that format, after discussing it in email last week. He's the chair, I'm the vice-chair, or he's the MGC, I'm the immoderator.... (:-) Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 13:12:35 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:48:56 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: PRELIMINARY VOTE COUNT: (BE VERY AFRAID....) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >What I do feel is that if the GC cannot even hold the interest of half of >it's members, I have very grave doubts as to it's ability to hold the >attention of the Board or the known world. Oohh, er.. I am one of those inactive Council members. It's not because i'm not interested, it's just that the flood of postings since we went to a listserv format have been...overwhelming. I'm hard pressed to keep up with what's going on, to say nothing of posting something relevant and coherent myself. (I'm reading e-mail at my job, and the people around here actually expect me do put in a couple of hours for them also...) My favourite hobbyhorse, and main reason for wanting to be on the Grand Council, is allowing non-US groups to incorporate separately, or rather to acknowledge that they have done so. This was part of Cariadocs proposal a while ago, and of Gallerons (I think ?) proposal too. *) Problem is, I never realized that I was expected to vote on the proposals! I thought that they were posted as topics for discussion. Soon enough discussion petered out, and no real concensus was reached as far as I could tell. Could you please put "Call for votes" or something similar in the Subject: line on you postings, when you think a topic is ready for voting on? *) Reading the notes from the last meeting of the BoD, it seems that they are way ahead of us.... Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 14:33:40 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 6 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:23:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: I'm back To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I am back. A posting I just received suggests that voting is in progress. Could someone fill me in? Finnvarr stevem@einstein.unipissing.ca From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 16:20:32 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 15:33:27 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Morgan: various commentary (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 22:15:43 -0500 >From: spacey@major.cei.net (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: Morgan: various commentary (fwd) Noble Cousins! Lord Morgan wrote: >> I agree with Serwyl that using a gem society as a model is perhaps a poor >> choice, but I understand that we each use a model with which we are familiar. >> It is why I use the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, being familiar with their >> corporate structure as well as having won my own badges. Perhaps we need to >> agree on a type of group we wish to emulate (on CompuServe, since the >>SCA is in >> the Living History Forum, we obtained considerable information about other >> reenactors and their business workings) and look at their structure. As I see it, there are fundamental differences between what scouting is and what the society is and how they operate. While both have awards, scouting enforces strict uniformity of awards. This is fundamentally incompatible with recreating feudal society in which awards (to the extent that they existed) were local phenomena and were not at all orchestrated by a central administrative body. Another feature of the society is the extent to which all activities (including very large ones such as Pennsic and Estrella) grow out of local initiatives. These events were and are invented locally, organized locally, financed locally, etc. The closest thing that the society has to a Boy Scout Jamboree is the 30year celebration. The next closest thing are small obscure events such as the Known World Heraldic Symposium which is actually hosted by a local group in collaboration with the College of Arms. >> I disagree with Justin about giving The People the ability to override >>The Board >> and Officers, unless the situations are restricted. Otherwise, what is the >> pointof having a leadership when the people will ignore and override them at >> every turn? Yes, there needs to be a checking mechanism, and I agree >> wholeheartedly that having it against the action instead of the persons is >> offensive and more likely to be used. "offesnsive" how so? On the face of it, we are talking about the populist reforms of the late 19th century which instituted initiative, referendum and recall. Further, what is this "leadership" function of the Board of Directors? I will defer to Hosein on whether whe should discuss the so-called "leadership principle" in this vein. However, there is little need for the BoD to be engaged in leadership of any particular sort. The trustees of the American Mathematical Society do not serve in a "leadership" capacity. They serve the corporate, fiduciary and legal insterests of the AMS. Why should the board of SCA, Inc. be any different? Should we expect the BoD members to lead us in medieval research, armored combat, metal working, cooking, sewing or any of the myriad of other things that we do? It seems to me that they are there to maintain the health of the corporation which makes it easier for us to do these things collectively. Personally, if someone pops up with a directive from the BoD telling me to engage in some piece of research or to make a soiteltie for some purpose or other, I would treat the directive with the respect it deserves. Mainly none, unless it were accompanied with a tender letter and P.O. for my consulting rate. I know few (if any) in the society which engage in what we do simply because some corporate officer or other tells them that they have to do something or other. Yes, people who undertake offices agree to filing paperwork as part of that office. But, that is not the point. The paperwork does not in general fulfill ANY of the functions of the society. The paperwork (with a few exceptions such as the stuff generated by the marshalate and the college of arms) only fulfills a mundane buerocratic function. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 16:31:40 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 15:42:50 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION RE:GC PROCEDURE To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from arthur dent on Sun, 5 Nov 1995 14:12:39 -0500) While I am in favor of the motion that Arthur is collecting votes on (that we take a little time out and get our act together), I have some definite problems with some of his suggestions. A couple of specifics: >That each month be considered a new meeting. Not a terrible idea, but I suspect it's not going to work; it matches poorly with the realities of our medium. But it's a model worth thinking about... >That attendance for >voting purposes be assessed by a weekly 'roll call' Difficult. We read email at different times of the day or week -- I read only on weekdays, others are present mainly on weekends. Finding a useful timeframe for such a roll call will be hard... >That each member of the GC be entitled to post no more than 33 lines of >text message per day. I appreciate the sentiment, but no way. I'd far rather have a message that was long but clear than one that is overly concise. People should minimize their bandwidth use, but artificial limits are just going to hinder us, IMO... Overall, I think it's a bit *too* structured. It's clear that we need more structure than we have now, but we shouldn't overdo it... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "The SCA is a _game_! The purpose of the laws is make the rules for the game. The purpose of the rules is: (1) Make game safe, (2) Make game fun. If it doesn't either of those, _we don't need it as a law!_" -- Dagonell From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 16:32:05 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 15:37:32 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Morgan: Various Comments (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Siobhan... -- Justin >From: "Pat McGregor" >Subject: Re: Morgan: Various Comments (fwd) >In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 04 Nov 1995 23:13:49 PST." > >Date: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 10:34:39 -0800 In a previous message, David Friedman writes: >Morgan asks: > >> This could be VERY complicated. What if a group in the middle of the Midrea >lm >> wanted to associate with Calontir, or The West? A number of years ago, >>we found >> that the Chicago area had the requisite population and number of peers to be > a >> principality -- could it have gone independent at that point, and what would >> this do to the rest of the Midrealm? > > >Becoming independent and a group member of the SCA Inc. involves setting up >the structure of the new group, getting approval from the Board that you >are acceptable (i.e. within the landmarks), polling the membership, ... . >I was thinking of it as something that would take a substantial while and >be a permanent decision. > >If a local group really does not want to consider itself a part of its >kingdom, I think it should be allowed not to be. Medieval political >structures were patchworks, after all. I would prefer a situation where the >easy and obvious choice is the present feudal structure, even if the >mundane legal structure has shifted to an association, but where other >options are available when necessary. > This is not a terribly hypothetical situation: From our contacts in Michigan we hear that there is a rising principality movement in Michigan. I'm told by the regional seneschal that the Kingdom Seneschal opposes it with something approaching violence, because "It will split the kingdom." Obviously, no one within Michigan can play with anyone anywhere else if it became a principality. I do not know the state of the current Midrealm Seneschal's thinking on principalities, but the "traditional" attitude has been that Baronies are the first step to Principalities, which should only be undertaken if one wishes to break free and become a Kingdom of one's own. If Michigan decided it wanted to become a principality of, say, The West (hypothetical, of course), I can imagine the politics getting even stickier than they are today. While I like your proposal very much, Cariadoc, how would it handle such a beast? regards, siobhan ====================================================== Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor/ siobhan@lloyd.com House Northmark, Mountain's Gate, Cynagua, The West http://www.lloyd.com/~patmcg/sca.index.html From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 16:42:03 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 15:53:42 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: decision making in the branch To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Siobhan... -- Justin >From: "Pat McGregor" >Subject: Re: decision making in the branch >In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Nov 1995 12:15:10 PST." > <795429.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> >Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 08:12:09 -0800 Greetings from siobhan! My too-oft silent friend Gareth writes: >The usual alternative to having frequent meetings with officers is that the >old guard simply informally takes care of all of the business stuff. This is >the old and venerated way of doing things in the SCA and it stinks royally >(pun intended). If the baron and baroness are making decisions around their >kitchen table with their buds then how do we expect the new person, or even >the experienced person who doesnt get along with the baron or baroness (and so >is not invited to the kitchen) to have a reasonable say in things? The only >course available is to make a public stink about things--to become a >troublemaker. I have been a member of this sort of kaffe-klatch "cabal", if you will, and it made me distinctly uncomfortable. At the time, we were out to fix the ills of the group, with all the best intentions in the world. As I later looked at what had happened to the dynamics of the group, I was ashamed of my own participation (altho certainly the floor of that kitchen is paved with good intentions). I miss regular meetings in which people thrash out the issues and a decision is made. I'm not terribly particular about which method the group uses (altho I've seen perfectly good concensus ruling methods get so tied up in politics that it made me ill). But a group which meets often enough that the business section is short (I like the 15-minute kind, myself, and then on to workshops and dancing) gets a good feel for self-governance, if they are allowed to do so. >This is not a good thing, although it does make the job of deciding who are >the good and bad people really very easy. . . Many old and traditional groups >have had long standing simmering fights as a result of this informal taking >care of business mentality. I cannot agree more with Gareth here. And, of course, "good and Bad" are decided by the klatch, which makes defense or even discussion impossible, since the "evidence" is never presented to the accused. >I just dont see any of the federation proposals yet which offer any answer to >this common problem short of telling people that if they are wronged, if they >are unjustly shut out of the decision making process, if they are warned about >becoming troublemakers the first time they ask a question about a done >decision, that they should just keep walking--join another group (which could >easily have the same or similar problem), just be a member of the kingdom and >not be involved in a local group, or just leave the SCA altogether. I do not >find these solutions satisfactory. We must find a way to get people a grievance proposal. "monday papers" would do; reporting on your officers would do. I've liked the idea of locals selecting the upwards officers, instead of the other way. Let me give you an example. _Right now_ an old and ancient barony in a kingdom I won't name needs a new seneschal, and at the same time they are thinking of a new Baroness (the current Baron wants to add a Baroness). Since the Baron and the Old Seneschal are used to doing things around a kitchen table, they just made some choices and made an announcement. The Barony is now in ferment and chaos, with anger and fury mixed in. The Kingdom level can't even chime in straightforwardly, but is passing messages via other kitchen tables about "fixes" that people should put in. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. _had_ there been public discussion, _had_ there been "evaluations" or "quality feedback" or anything else about how unhappy the people were with New Seneschal in his/her previous office, Regional Seneschal would know that the sucessor announced by Old Seneschal might be a problem. The biggest problem here, as Gareth points out, is that Joella Newbie won't know she's walked into a nest of problems until she suddenly finds that she can't make any contribution to the local group, that she's suddenly a slug to the "old" crew, or worse, that she's being shunned. How will we take care of these things? I believe that the local group is, for most kingdoms, the cornerstone on which the kingdom is built. I have become more concerned (perhaps as a result of moving into a local group which is so far from the mainstream of any SCA culture I've yet lived in that I have trouble figuring out if it's the same game) about the necessity for making sure that the _local_ groups are federated to the landmarks. If so, the Kingdoms will take care of themselves, because in a great sense it is the local cultures which determine the culture of the Kingdom. regards, siobhan ====================================================== Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor/ siobhan@lloyd.com House Northmark, Mountain's Gate, Cynagua, The West http://www.lloyd.com/~patmcg/sca.index.html From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 16:56:32 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 15:54:43 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Re: who'd like to be boss? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron... -- Justin >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 10:39:11 -0500 >Subject: Re: Galleron: Re: who'd like to be boss? (fwd) Galleron here. Tibor, In a message dated 95-11-08 09:21:35 EST, you write: > Since this a cooperative, and not >coercive effort, I am not quite as afraid of the "agenda" as perhaps I >should be. Would someone care to educate me as to why I should be more >concerned? I agree that the agenda probably won't be a problem, in which case the mechanism for amending the agenda will never come into play. I just think it is wise to have a procedure in place just in case there is an issue. Flieg was concerned, and perhaps others are. You will want some time between setting the agenda and starting discussion in any case to divide up committee assignments, so it seems pretty harmless to me. Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 17:01:21 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1597 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:15:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Reporting is a form of communication To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <795454.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> from "Roy Gathercoal" at Nov 6, 95 12:27:09 pm Greetings from Tibor. I've read Gareth's response to one of my comments (on wanting to play medieval re-creation together, and the role of the Society in that) and I think we are, again, at cross purposes. But I think the center of that can be distilled down to one short quotation: The SCA does provide a much larger framework in which things can be done that extend far beyond the capabilities of a few friends meeting in someone's backyard. That is true, and that is why we bother. But, the question is, do we subvert our re-creations for the corporation, or do we subvert the corporation to the re-creations? Do we, as you implied, have to give back to the corporation, or improve its functioning? Or, do we take from it? Of course, the answer lies somewhere in between. But, when making my choices, my bias always extends toward the "service bureau" and "coordination center" and "resource provider" models. Now, I am sure you are asking "And what, pray tell, is the problem with more communication with all that? That ought to require more communication, not less." And the answer is, of course, "right you are". However... the model of communication that you are espousing, and which your proposal would make concrete, is a hierarchical one that dimishes the import of the individual grass roots re-creationist. And that, simply, is why I find it less relevant to what we want to do. My goal is not to improve the hierarchy: my goal is to provide the grass roots re-creationist with a universe of abilities, and the sense of validity that lets them use them. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 22:05:49 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 21:23:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Procedural Issues, Response to Solvieg To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, I'm having a bit of an information overload on the proposals out for discussion on GC organization. Too many messages, so little time... So whatever model we decide upon for our internal structure, I suggest that we fully outline the proposal when a vote is announced. A header such as "Proposal for Vote" would be helpful. We need to flag procedural messages and provide full information on what is being voted on as it's too easy to miss the proposal made a week or two before the actual vote is called. In that vein, is there any way we could get outlines of the current proposals on the table? I'm familiar with Arthur's but would appreciate seeing the proposals laid out together. On other issues, Solvieg writes: >... there is little need for the BoD to be >engaged in leadership of any particular sort. The trustees of the American >Mathematical Society do not serve in a "leadership" capacity. They serve >the corporate, fiduciary and legal insterests of the AMS. Why should the >board of SCA, Inc. be any different? Should we expect the BoD members to >lead us in medieval research, armored combat, metal working, cooking, sewing >or any of the myriad of other things that we do? It seems to me that they >are there to maintain the health of the corporation which makes it easier for >us to do these things collectively. Personally, if someone pops up with >a directive from the BoD telling me to engage in some piece of research or >to make a soiteltie for some purpose or other, I would treat the directive >with the respect it deserves. Mainly none, unless it were accompanied with >a tender letter and P.O. for my consulting rate. I read these statements with the feeling that there was something fundamentally wrong with them. I showed it to my wife, and she had a similar problem verbalizing the problem. First, you state 'there is no reason for the BOD to be engaged in leadership of any particular sort'. You don't identify what you mean by 'leadership'. It seems obvious from your later statement 'if someone pops up with a directive from the BOD telling me to engage in some piece of research...' that what you really mean by leadership is . In a way, the BOD does 'tell us what to do', but only in the broadest sense. Some of the legal and fudiciary functions of the Board impinge on the way we do business, not just with the marshallate, but also with treasurers, chirurgeons, seneschals and all their lesser officers (minister of children, equestrian affairs and so on). Sometimes, the BOD MUST make a policy decision that impinges upon the game, and I feel we need it for that. We cannot completely separate it from the game, as much as we might like to. The key is in appreciating the strengths and limitations of the Board structure. >I know few (if any) in the society which engage in what we do simply because >some corporate officer or other tells them that they have to do something or >other. Yes, people who undertake offices agree to filing paperwork as part >of that office. But, that is not the point. The paperwork does not in >general fulfill ANY of the functions of the society. The paperwork (with a >few >exceptions such as the stuff generated by the marshalate and the college of >arms) only fulfills a mundane buerocratic function. Of course we aren't here for the paperwork, and no one suggests we are. The fact remains that there is a certain amount of paperwork that helps the game run. It may not serve a function to the 'Society' as such but it's still needed for the administrative structure that underlies it. From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 8 22:16:32 1995 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 22:16:26 -0500 (EST) From: Lisa Steele To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Subject: Re: Morgan: various commentary (fwd) In-Reply-To: <9511082033.AA28567@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This message was originally submitted by lsteele@MHC.MTHOLYOKE.EDU to the SCAGC-L list at LISTSERV.AOL.COM. If you simply forward it back to the list, using a mail command that generates "Resent-" fields (ask your local user support or consult the documentation of your mail program if in doubt), it will be distributed and the explanations you are now reading will be removed automatically. If on the other hand you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will have to remove this paragraph manually. Finally, you should be able to contact the author of this message by using the normal "reply" function of your mail program. ----------------- Message requiring your approval (23 lines) ------------------ On Wed, 8 Nov 1995, Mark Waks wrote: > As I see it, there are fundamental differences between what scouting is and > what the society is and how they operate. While both have awards, scouting > enforces strict uniformity of awards. This is fundamentally incompatible > with recreating feudal society in which awards (to the extent that they > existed) were local phenomena and were not at all orchestrated by a central > administrative body. Another feature of the society is the extent to which I am not as familiar as I would like with the late period royal orders of knighthood like the Garter, Golden Fleece, St. Michael, etc., but were these not central (kindom wide) uniform awards? Would they not be the models for kingdom level (and perhaps society level) awards? For Laurels, we could take our cue from the Universities which had recognized standards created by charter (usually royal) and for cathedral universities by the Pope. That does level Pelicans, but we can likely use one of the two as a model. --Esclarmonde From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 10:53:35 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 12:39:58 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: RE ARTHURS 10/08 proposal AND AMENDMENTS y/n/a=7/7/1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L AYE:7 --------------------------------- Arthur The Dented :11/06/95 Janna Span/Caitrin:11/06/95 Fiacha :11/06/95 Chuck Heck/Serwyl :11/06/95 Alyson/carol Roose:11/07/95 Alban St Alban :11/09/95 Justin :11/09/95 NAY:7 -------------------------------- Frederick of Holland:11/06/95 Hossien :11/06/95 Cariadoc/David :11/07/95 Sven Noren/Frithiof :11/07/95 Joseph Heck :11/07/95 Corwyn :11/09/95 Tibor :11/09/95 ABSTAIN:1 -------------------------------- Proxy for Isabeau of the wild wood 11/09/95 ?:1 ------------------------------- Bertram , I'm unclear as to which or what you are voting on. please read the below proposal and ammendments and re-cast your ballot with a reference to the specific proposal such as its date or quoting the first line ******************************************************* AMENDMENTS: Amendments ofNovember 7:(if youd like to ammend this let me know by private e-mail... I guess we're in the 'causcussing' stage where compromises are made on the floor during the vote so that SOMETHING passes..) Replace item 3 with: "3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance." to item 2 append "and dissenting positionsn(s)" replace item 3 with " etc) and a means of Filling and vacating that office, as well as Ammedmemts of November 6 "December 1 to December 31" and to close voting on the 28th of November. determining its scope of responsibility If you havent voted yet, or if you wish to change your vote, please E-mail to arthur@cnj.digex.net EVEN if its to abstain so I and others can get a real picture of participation... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 19:58:22 -0400 (EDT) From: arthur dent Subject: MOTION: GC PROCEDURE/ORGANIZATION I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From November 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include a discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 3) determining the necessity for an 'officer' (Secretary, facilitator etc) and a means of Filling and vacating that office, as well as determining its scope of responsibility Arthur who is very rarely heard as a voice for order and homogeneous progress.... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 11:47:39 1995 Return-Path: References: Approved-By: David Schroeder Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 10:51:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Schroeder Subject: Re: RE ARTHURS 10/08 proposal AND AMENDMENTS y/n/a=7/7/1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Howdy -- I don't know if my message missed the list or what, but I also voted NAY. Thanks -- Bertram From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 12:00:35 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal Approved-By: Marci Haw Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 14:13:24 -0500 Reply-To: MarciH@medicine.dmed.iupui.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Marci Haw Organization: IU Department of Medicine Subject: TALLY ON VOTE RE: GC PROCEDURE/ORGANIZATION - FOR IT To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Put me down as a positive. John of Sternfeld From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 12:25:59 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 11:43:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: RE ARTHURS 10/08 proposal Yes=8 No=8 Abstain=2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L AYE:8 --------------------------------- Arthur The Dented :11/06/95 Janna Span/Caitrin:11/06/95 Fiacha :11/06/95 Chuck Heck/Serwyl :11/06/95 Alyson/carol Roose:11/07/95 Alban St Alban :11/09/95 Justin :11/09/95 Finvarr :11/11/95 NAY:8 -------------------------------- Frederick of Holland:11/06/95 Hossien :11/06/95 Cariadoc/David :11/07/95 Sven Noren/Frithiof :11/07/95 Joseph Heck :11/07/95 Corwyn :11/09/95 Tibor :11/09/95 Eichling :11/11/95 ABSTAIN:2 -------------------------------- Proxy for Isabeau of the wild wood:11/09/95 Magnus :11/11/95 ?:1 ------------------------------- Bertram , I'm unclear as to which or what you are voting on. please read the below proposal and ammendments and re-cast your ballot with a reference to the specific proposal such as its date or quoting the first line ******************************************************* If you havent voted yet, or if you wish to change your vote, please E-mail to arthur@cnj.digex.net EVEN if its to abstain so I and others can get a real picture of participation... If youd like to ammend this let me know by private e-mail... I guess we're in the 'causcussing' stage where compromises are made on the floor during the vote so that SOMETHING passes.. -----------------OCT 8 GC ORG PROPOSAL AS AMMENDED----------------------- I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From December 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 'and disenting positions' '3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance.' '4) that voting on this measure be closed on Noveber 28th and results be determined by a simple majority of votes recieved by that date' From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 12:52:39 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3788 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 08:20:04 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Morgan responds to Solveig and Siobhan (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke noted that Michigan is trying to go principality, and I > have heard the same about Illinois. (Technically, I live there, but spend my > Midrealm SCA time in Northshield, which just became a principality.) the same > argument about "Obviously, no one within Michigan can play with anyone anywhere > else if it became a principality" would apply to Illinois, as it was used in > opposition to Northshield for so long. > > I could almost see the Kingdom disintegrating into a set of independent > principalities, but I'm not a peer or anyone who really cares. It would be > interesting to see if the states become principalities of other Kingdoms if they > cannot be of the Midrealm; I doubt The West(tm), but I could (Pennisc politics > aside) see Michigan offering itself to The East. > > Solveig stated: "As I see it, there are fundamental differences between what > scouting is and what the society is and how they operate." I agree. But I was > using that as an example of a group that may be closer to the SCA as a business > model than the gem clubs. Note that it was as a BUSINESS, and not award or > celebratory, etc., model. > > I said "Yes, there needs to be a checking mechanism, and I agree wholeheartedly > that having it against the action instead of the persons is offensive and more > likely to be used." Solveig asked ""offesnsive" how so?" > > I think there should have been a "less" in front of the "offensive." I was > trying to convey the idea that people are more likely to oppose an offensive > action than they are a person. If the mechanism is designed to check actions, > you don;t have the problem of people arguing over whether a particular action is > sufficient to de-seat an otherwise acceptable person. > > Solveig opined: "However, there is little need for the BoD to be engaged in > leadership of any particular sort." My experience (again from the business > side) with corporations is that their Directors manage, they do not lead. Many > corporations have dual bodies, one that manages and the other that leads. > > Solveig asked, probably rhetorically: "Should we expect the BoD members to > lead us in medieval research, armored combat, metal working, cooking, sewing > or any of the myriad of other things that we do?" Well, it would be nice if > they set examples, but as I now sit on one Board, and one Assembly, and have sat > on Boards in the past, I know how much work they require. (Although I am > getting known for taking needlework to the all-day sessions.) I certainly would > not expect the Board to tell us what to do and how to do it. > > As I recall, I didn't push paperwork at all, and my arguments have been against > additional reporting. Very few of my SCA years have been spent without at least > one office, and I know well for all the ones I have held how much paper they > require or generate. I prefer less, not more, and better explanations. > > > ---= Morgan > > > PS: It may not be apparent online, but I am a woman, > not a man. Solveig is not the only one to make > this mistake, so I'm not pointing at her. But > if none of the GC members who know better will > issue a correction, I guess I've got to do it. > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 13:22:20 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 12:35:18 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: RE ARTHURS 10/08 proposal Yes=9 No=9 Abstain=2 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L AYE:9 --------------------------------- Arthur The Dented :11/06/95 Janna Span/Caitrin:11/06/95 Fiacha :11/06/95 Chuck Heck/Serwyl :11/06/95 Alyson/carol Roose:11/07/95 Alban St Alban :11/09/95 Justin :11/09/95 Finvarr :11/11/95 John of Sternfield:11/11/95 NAY:9 -------------------------------- Frederick of Holland:11/06/95 Hossien :11/06/95 Cariadoc/David :11/07/95 Sven Noren/Frithiof :11/07/95 Joseph Heck :11/07/95 Corwyn :11/09/95 Tibor :11/09/95 Eichling :11/11/95 Bertrum :11/11/95 ABSTAIN:2 -------------------------------- Proxy for Isabeau of the wild wood:11/09/95 Magnus :11/11/95 -----------------OCT 8 GC ORG PROPOSAL AS AMMENDED----------------------- I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From December 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 'and disenting positions' '3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance.' '4) that voting on this measure be closed on Noveber 28th and results be determined by a simple majority of votes recieved by that date' -------------------NOTES----------------------------------------------- If you havent voted yet, or if you wish to change your vote, please E-mail to arthur@cnj.digex.net EVEN if its to abstain so I and others can get a real picture of participation... If youd like to ammend this let me know by private e-mail... I guess we're in the 'causcussing' stage where compromises are made on the floor during the vote so that SOMETHING passes.. We now have 20 votes on a closely contested motion on the floor of the GC. I feel much better about this whole thing... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 16:18:59 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:42:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: RE ARTHURS 10/08 proposal: attempt to persuade... Comments: To: arthur@cnj.digex.net To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As things get simplified and clarified here i am now able to support the above proposal. I vote : YEA this multiple ammending of a motion during a vote was striking me odd, but the idea that we are caucusing on the issues does make sence to me now Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 18:44:29 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 350 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 16:38:55 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: RE ARTHURS 10/08 proposal: attempt to persuade... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951110154055_18623260@emout04.mail.aol.com> from "Magnus MagUire" at Nov 10, 95 03:42:37 pm Magnus wrote: this multiple ammending of a motion during a vote was striking me odd, but the idea that we are caucusing on the issues does make sence to me now Frankly, the notion is puzzling me. Shouldn't we get the motion together, and then vote? This "the motion you voted for has been changed, but your vote stands" stuff is wild. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 18:47:20 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1695 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 15:34:52 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: decision making in the branch To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <795429.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> from "Roy Gathercoal" at Nov 6, 95 12:15:10 pm Gareth wrote: The usual alternative to having frequent meetings with officers is that the old guard simply informally takes care of all of the business stuff. This is the old and venerated way of doing things in the SCA and it stinks royally (pun intended). If the baron and baroness are making decisions around their kitchen table with their buds then how do we expect the new person, or even the experienced person who doesnt get along with the baron or baroness (and so is not invited to the kitchen) to have a reasonable say in things? The only course available is to make a public stink about things--to become a troublemaker. Well, I'm not inclined to argue too much with the premise, that important decisions made in private closed groups are bad. But there are two axes of attack on the problem. One is, open up the decision-making process. That would be good. The other is, to make it clear that those decisions are not important ones. And, in fact, by reducing our demands on officers, and (stealing from private mail from Alysoun) taking a "Just Do It" stance to medieval re-creation instead of re-inforcing the hierarchy, would make it so. If I were seneschal of my local branch, I would do my darndest to make the overhead process unimportant. What really matters are the guild meetings, rehearsals, projects and shared results that come back to the main group. The rest is painful infrastructure, and we shouldn't confuse it with power or position, or status. We seem to return to this point over and over again. Gareth, you seem to want to adjust the path we are on, despite it's shortcomings, where folks like me want to change direction. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 19:30:49 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 03:04:38 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: PRELIMINARY VOTE COUNT: (BE VERY AFRAID....) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 95-11-08 01:26:01 EST, you write: >So are we there ? Like I said, I'll hold off on giving my opinion. What I >want is to raise the issue, and at least count how many different people >shoot at it. >So fire away.... I think that a weekly journal format is going to work better. I know it will for me. I've been keeping pretty current lately, but I've got messages from Pennsic that I think are sitting out there unread. This week I'm unsubscribing to Middlebridge just to make sure I don't skip over GC messages in trying to keep up. Moderator or Chair: We need one fast whatever our format. I'll abstain as to who, but hopefully the instatement of a chair can bring some order to our Chaos. We serve a good brainstorming and idea forming purpose. We also need to be able to comunicate that to the board. The chair is going to largely be responsible there. My quick 2 pence, Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 19:37:12 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 03:04:58 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: ARTHUR's OCT 8th Motion: Confusion? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 95-11-07 17:03:51 EST, you write: >the october 8th proposal says nothing more than: > >"lets get ourselves organized before we try to solve the problems of the >known world" For this motion I do vote: Yea. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 10 20:52:16 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 20:17:25 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: VOTE ON ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=10 No=9 Abstain=1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L AYE:10 --------------------------------- Arthur The Dented :11/06/95 Janna Span/Caitrin:11/06/95 Fiacha :11/06/95 Chuck Heck/Serwyl :11/06/95 Alyson/carol Roose:11/07/95 Alban St Alban :11/09/95 Justin :11/09/95 Finvarr :11/11/95 John of Sternfield:11/11/95 Magnus :11/11/95 NAY:9 -------------------------------- Frederick of Holland:11/06/95 Hossien :11/06/95 Cariadoc/David :11/07/95 Sven Noren/Frithiof :11/07/95 Joseph Heck :11/07/95 Corwyn :11/09/95 Tibor :11/09/95 Eichling :11/11/95 Bertrum :11/11/95 ABSTAIN:1 -------------------------------- Proxy for Isabeau of the wild wood:11/09/95 -----------------OCT 8 GC ORG PROPOSAL AS AMMENDED----------------------- I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From December 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 'and disenting positions' '3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance.' '4) that voting on this measure be closed on Noveber 28th and results be determined by a simple majority of votes recieved by that date' -------------------NOTES----------------------------------------------- If you havent voted yet, or if you wish to change your vote, please E-mail to arthur@cnj.digex.net EVEN if its to abstain so I and others can get a real picture of participation... If youd like to ammend this let me know by private e-mail... I guess we're in the 'caucussing' stage where compromises are made on the floor during the vote so that SOMETHING passes. Votes arent considered final till midnight on the 28th, so feel free to change yours by sending antother one. Such ammendments as there are have been to keep the motion current, both in date and with GC discussion, AND with the input and suggestions coming in with the votes. At this point I figure I'll post the tally every five votes,or every week, whichever is less until the 28th... I guess we now see HOW MANY are watching and how LONG it takes to run a vote with a reasonable turnout.. It seems a week is about right if you are willing to take a 50% turnout on a pretty basic simple motion... I think that this is about the simplest motion we can expect to see, so it may take longer for long and complex, far reaching motions, like for instance the cariadoc proposal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Nov 11 10:04:02 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 09:32:34 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: who'd like to be boss? Comments: To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31479.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> from "Flieg Hollander" at Nov 7, 95 08:44:39 am Flieg, Thank you for your notes. I guess I should have said that, "we need to talk about this more" is a viable option in any discussion." To the rest of the GC, I would like an answer on how you are going to be set-up, run, suggest, etc, for the January Board Meeting. My suggestions were just that..... suggestions. NOw, as you may or may not know, as of last Wednesday, I have become Chairman of the BOD and President of the SCA, INC.. I will not be keeping the GC ombudsmanship [...and a great cry went throughout the GC...:-)], after the January meeting. I would like to see through the getting a forum in place that will serve the purpose of the reasons for having a GC. YOurs, EDWARD Z -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Viscount Edward Zifran of Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Nov 11 11:12:40 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:51:24 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: RE ARTHURS 10/08 proposal: attempt to persuade... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Fri, 10 Nov 1995 16:38:55 -0500, Mark Schuldenfrei writes: > Magnus wrote: > this multiple ammending of a motion during a vote was striking me odd, > but the idea that we are caucusing on the issues does make sence to me > now > Frankly, the notion is puzzling me. Shouldn't we get the motion together, > and then vote? This "the motion you voted for has been changed, but your > vote stands" stuff is wild. > > Tibor > But that's not what it is -- arthur is advertising that you can change your vote if you want to. My personal feeling is that we may very well have discovered a method of doing what arthur wants to do (at least in part). * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ================== Old Used Duke ================= [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 12 08:00:29 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 13:24:02 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Unified Chair Ballot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In case someone wonders what's happened to the suggestion for a unified=20 ballot (chairman+organization proposal) that Galleron and I tried to put=20 forward a while back: Although Arthur's vote is getting us some valuable information, we still=20 need to find out what the NEYs mean: "no" to this specific detailed=20 proposal + "yes" to another one, or "no" to the whole idea, or... Also, there are people who have volunteered to do the job and who shouldn't= =20 be ignored.=20 Earlier this week, Galleron sent me a proposal that we could vote on,=20 including a chair+co-chair candidate and the organization model they were=20 endorsing. I asked him to send it to the people concerned for comments. I=20 got some, but still not enough that I feel I have the right to post a call= =20 for vote; also, with Arthur's vote running, it would probably just add to= =20 the confusion.=20 I'll be out of town this week; by then, we'll be past deadline for Arthur's= =20 vote and can continue this discussion.=20 /Catrin =20 Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 12 13:08:56 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 12:36:00 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Unified Chair Ballot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951112.132402.25623@macpost.lu.se> Yup and one of the really annoying things is that my 10/08 motion ISNT an organization proposal, it a 'lets get organized' and doesnt have ANYTHING to do with any specific plan... just that we get one. I only included the addtional parameters so we'd know we finsished with a functioning bootstrap system and knw when we were done... The reason that its annoying is that after the 11/05 'proposals for discussion' debacle I dont DARE post any new ideas until this vote thingy is out of the way... If we're planning on carrying multiple items on the floor and concurrent votes on those items, we're either goingto have to set up a really good flag system in the headers, or learn to read carefully... On Sun, 12 Nov 1995, Janna Spanne wrote: > In case someone wonders what's happened to the suggestion for a unified > ballot (chairman+organization proposal) that Galleron and I tried to put > forward a while back: > > Although Arthur's vote is getting us some valuable information, we still > need to find out what the NEYs mean: "no" to this specific detailed > proposal + "yes" to another one, or "no" to the whole idea, or... > > Also, there are people who have volunteered to do the job and who shouldn't > be ignored. > > Earlier this week, Galleron sent me a proposal that we could vote on, > including a chair+co-chair candidate and the organization model they were > endorsing. I asked him to send it to the people concerned for comments. I > got some, but still not enough that I feel I have the right to post a call > for vote; also, with Arthur's vote running, it would probably just add to > the confusion. > > I'll be out of town this week; by then, we'll be past deadline for Arthur's > vote and can continue this discussion. > > /Catrin > > Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 12 13:10:59 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 12:44:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Unified Chair Ballot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951112.132402.25623@macpost.lu.se> On Sun, 12 Nov 1995, Janna Spanne wrote: > In case someone wonders what's happened to the suggestion for a unified > ballot (chairman+organization proposal) that Galleron and I tried to put > forward a while back: > > Although Arthur's vote is getting us some valuable information, we still > need to find out what the NEYs mean: "no" to this specific detailed > proposal + "yes" to another one, or "no" to the whole idea, or... Um. its not an organization proposal, its a 'lets talk about organization' proposal... > > Also, there are people who have volunteered to do the job and who shouldn't > be ignored. > > Earlier this week, Galleron sent me a proposal that we could vote on, > including a chair+co-chair candidate and the organization model they were > endorsing. I asked him to send it to the people concerned for comments. who would that be? > got some, but still not enough that I feel I have the right to post a call > for vote; er at least as much as i had... all I had was four 'seconds' also, with Arthur's vote running, it would probably just add to > the confusion. Youre probably right here, but in any case my 10/08 motion is all about taking a month out to get this stuff staight anyway... > I'll be out of town this week; by then, we'll be past deadline for Arthur's > vote and can continue this discussion. votes are final on the 28th. > /Catrin > > Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se > Arthur From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 12 15:52:13 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 15:21:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Unified Chair Ballot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Arthur, My objection to your proposal was based on two points: (1) It shouldn't take us a month to get some organization now that people are generally convinced that we need some structure; (2) Discussion of issues other than organization shouldn't be suspended to give priority to organization of the GC (I should hope that we aren't so monomanaical that we can't do more than one thing at a time). Since we have some concrete organizational proposals already before us, why don't you withdraw the "let's get organized" vote (since it's clear that most of us agree that we need some structure) and we can start discussion and voting on concrete organizational proposals? Hossein/Greg From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Nov 12 17:01:55 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 15:01:53 -0700 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM From: outlaw@Rt66.com (Robert A. Goff) Subject: Biases This message was originally submitted by outlaw@RT66.COM to the SCAGC-L list at LISTSERV.AOL.COM. If you simply forward it back to the list, using a mail command that generates "Resent-" fields (ask your local user support or consult the documentation of your mail program if in doubt), it will be distributed and the explanations you are now reading will be removed automatically. If on the other hand you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will have to remove this paragraph manually. Finally, you should be able to contact the author of this message by using the normal "reply" function of your mail program. ----------------- Message requiring your approval (28 lines) ------------------ Unto the Honorable members of the Grand Council, from Lord Crimthann Dail Chais: May I be so bold as to point out that in the recent dicussion of procedure, protocol, and votes that six of your number were completely excluded by your procedure? The members receiving the transcription of this deliberation via postal mail do so at intervals of one week. Any cycle of discussion shorter than that period will prevent them from contributing. Perhaps 6 of 40 is an insignificant fraction. If so, perhaps the original number of the Council should have been 34 instead of 40. But perhaps their perspective is more valuable than their number suggests. I need hardly remind any of you that the people who are comfortable in an electronic medium and converse in it freely and regularly are an extremely small and select group of the population. They are hardly representative of larger groups who, by the majority, do not use electronic media. More importantly, they are usually unaware of the biases that separate them from the non-electronic majority. This latest example illustrates that that generalization does apply to this group. Your servant, Crimthann <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Goff, Head Scribe and Vellum Scraper, The Outlaw Press (505)266-3057 - outlaw@rt66.com - http://www.rt66.com/outlaw/ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 13 18:59:59 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 12:51:52 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Biases To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Crimthann (who, FYI, is the link to our postally-based members)... -- Justin >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 15:01:53 -0700 >From: outlaw@Rt66.com (Robert A. Goff) >Subject: Biases Unto the Honorable members of the Grand Council, from Lord Crimthann Dail Chais: May I be so bold as to point out that in the recent dicussion of procedure, protocol, and votes that six of your number were completely excluded by your procedure? The members receiving the transcription of this deliberation via postal mail do so at intervals of one week. Any cycle of discussion shorter than that period will prevent them from contributing. Perhaps 6 of 40 is an insignificant fraction. If so, perhaps the original number of the Council should have been 34 instead of 40. But perhaps their perspective is more valuable than their number suggests. I need hardly remind any of you that the people who are comfortable in an electronic medium and converse in it freely and regularly are an extremely small and select group of the population. They are hardly representative of larger groups who, by the majority, do not use electronic media. More importantly, they are usually unaware of the biases that separate them from the non-electronic majority. This latest example illustrates that that generalization does apply to this group. Your servant, Crimthann <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Goff, Head Scribe and Vellum Scraper, The Outlaw Press (505)266-3057 - outlaw@rt66.com - http://www.rt66.com/outlaw/ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 13 22:35:06 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 21:46:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Unified Chair Ballot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511122021.PAA21205@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> On Sun, 12 Nov 1995, Greg Rose wrote: > Arthur, > My objection to your proposal was based on two points: > (1) It shouldn't take us a month to get some organization now that > people are generally convinced that we need some structure; just getting a poll of what half the GC thinks on a single simple topic takes and entire week. and then there our ethereally impaired bretheren. It could easliy take a month, but, hey, if it takes less time then we'll have a procedure in place to get a decision to wrap it up and move on.... > (2) Discussion of issues other than organization shouldn't be > suspended to give priority to organization of the GC (I should hope that > we aren't so monomanaical that we can't do more than one thing at a time). So would I, but I've got unfortunate evidence to the contrary... on the other hand we dont have a method for defining/limiting an agenda yet, and its either wide open or one at a time until we do... > Since we have some concrete organizational proposals already before > us, why don't you withdraw the "let's get organized" vote (since it's > clear that most of us agree that we need some structure) and we can start > discussion and voting on concrete organizational proposals? Actually, I havent seen ANY including MY infamous and overdetailed 'strawman' posting that we're implementable systems. MOST of what I've seen fall under the 'how bout we do it this way idea' catagory which a long way from a defined system we can USE *NOW*. maybe I've missed something, hey, mayb I've missed ALOT (I hope so actually), could we have those re-posted, or is every bodye else waiting till the first to wade in on this one with there complete and useable system? > Hossein/Greg > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 13 22:45:16 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 21:55:09 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Biases(ref to GC postal members) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9511131751.AA06165@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Guilty EXCEPT A) getting an E-MAIL procedure that works is going to be tricky, getting one that functions over Net AND postal carrier is going to BIGTIME difficult.. thanks for reminding me though... B) I actually prefer a QUARTERLY cycle all the feed back I get says that even a MONTH is too long... I guess its going to take a while for people to realize that instant communication is different than instant agreement. I'll work toward the widest cycle I can.. but if it takes two weeks for a simple query (one out , one back) , ... ouch On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Mark Waks wrote: > Forwarded for Crimthann (who, FYI, is the link to our postally-based > members)... > > -- Justin > > >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 15:01:53 -0700 > >From: outlaw@Rt66.com (Robert A. Goff) > >Subject: Biases > > Unto the Honorable members of the Grand Council, from Lord Crimthann > Dail Chais: > > May I be so bold as to point out that in the recent dicussion of procedure, > protocol, and votes that six of your number were completely excluded by > your procedure? The members receiving the transcription of this > deliberation via postal mail do so at intervals of one week. Any cycle of > discussion shorter than that period will prevent them from contributing. > > Perhaps 6 of 40 is an insignificant fraction. If so, perhaps the original > number of the Council should have been 34 instead of 40. But perhaps their > perspective is more valuable than their number suggests. I need hardly > remind any of you that the people who are comfortable in an electronic > medium and converse in it freely and regularly are an extremely small and > select group of the population. They are hardly representative of larger > groups who, by the majority, do not use electronic media. More > importantly, they are usually unaware of the biases that separate them from > the non-electronic majority. This latest example illustrates that that > generalization does apply to this group. > > Your servant, > Crimthann > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Robert Goff, Head Scribe and Vellum Scraper, The Outlaw Press > (505)266-3057 - outlaw@rt66.com - http://www.rt66.com/outlaw/ > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 14 14:29:16 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:25:21 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Fiacha - Hiatus, Council Structure, Membership To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Greetings from Fiacha, I am changing employers and will be off the air until I get a new email connection. Hopefully, this will be fixed tomorrow. On council structure and organization. ===================================== As we have seen from Arthur pushing his vote, we need someone to push an issue through to closure. That someone needs to post reminders every day or every second day until the issue is resolved. We need this for every issue. I still feel that we need a weekly 'Agenda Day' to pick out the current hot topics and to keep us focused on how close each topic is to resolution. The way I see this working is that the Chairman opens Agenda Day by posting the current list of open issues, each with the previous status statement. He then posts his proposals for the new status statement for each issue. e.g. Outsourcing. Old Status - Tabled pending October Board Meeting Proposed New Status - Tabled pending RFP Landmarks Old Status - Tabled pending summary from Caitrin Proposed New Status - Open for discussion He then waits a day or so, reading proposals and counter proposals from the council members and finally posts the Agenda for the next period and the New Status for each issue. He will also post a list of Action Items if there are any. Action items will be either 'Write summary report on issue X', 'Write formal proposal for issue Y' or 'Collect votes on issue Z'. Either of the first two action items is an invitation for opponents to write dissenting opinion summaries and formal proposals. Thus, this structure requires a chairman that we do not have and one or two active vote collectors. It requires that the chair does some hard work every agenda day. It requires that the leading proponents of various issues be prepared to find someone to write coherent summaries and proposals. Second Class Members of the Council =================================== It seems apparent to me that the move to a mailing list allows those of us who are constantly online more opportunities to plead our cases. To suggest that there is a first class and a second class in terms of participation is an exageration. There is a scale of ability to participate. It is unfortunate that the 6 connected by USmail are at near the bottom of the scale and I am sure that it is frustrating to be one of those in that situation. However, there is nothing to suggest that the opinions of those isolated by slow communications are any less valued than those with ultra fast communications. The point is that anyone who has something germain to say and can express themselves clearly will generate an active discussion. There are clearly a few jobs on the council that require daily access (or better) but this is separate from the issue of including our quieter members in our discussions. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 14 15:54:32 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 15:25:44 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Fiacha - Hiatus, Council Structure, Membership To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:25:21 -0800) Fiacha proposes: >I still feel that we need a weekly 'Agenda Day' to pick out the current >hot topics and to keep us focused on how close each topic is to resolution. > >The way I see this working is that the Chairman opens Agenda Day by >posting the current list of open issues, each with the previous status >statement. He then posts his proposals for the new status statement for >each issue. Concise and to the point. I like it -- it deals with exactly our biggest problem (inability to focus) without too much slop or excessive structure. Sounds very plausible to me... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: How to Pronounce Tadhg's Name "Just remeber that it's pronounced "Tige" and that "h" in Irish typically means "backspace delete"." -- Tadhg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 14 21:35:21 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 20:57:39 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Unified Proposal on Procedure To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951114172723_106442588@mail06.mail.aol.com> from "WMclean290@aol.com" at Nov 14, 95 05:27:52 pm My purpose to the "proposal" I laid before you, was to hasten an effective use of this council, its administration and my time. Let me say, that I really don't care, whose plan is adopted. They all seem to have merit, but of course Mine would be ideal, with the addition of Fliegs comments (yes..."we need to talk more about this item" is a viable option for each sub-committee to put forth) because I know how it would work :-) BUT.... I really do need something in place by the January BOD meeting, so I can put you to work under any agreed upon parameters. (for those of you familiar with the Diskworld Series:) I WOULD HATE TO THINK I/WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO SAY "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS". (we return to our normally scheduled self, already in progress) I NEED you people......This council(committee) was set up to aid in the information gathering process needed to oversee this organisation. Granted this may be just my interp on it, but that's what I think you r committee should do. It appears that the arguement is still in Paris, deciding on the shape of the table. I suppose you can answer here or rant at me privately about the F**king Board butting in.....Just remember, IMHO, part of your job is to reccomend how to help the F**king Board to Butt out..... EDWARD -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Viscount Edward Zifran of Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL