From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 12:12:00 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 22 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 11:57:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Re Justin on recognition To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > I take it as given that someone, somewhere, has to decide whether a group >is playing the same *game* we are; if not, there's little point in having >cross-membership with them. Yes. >*That* decision ought to be taken by SCA-World (the game body). (Assuming >that the fully decentralized model isn't going to fly.) Yes. >Once that decision is made, then yes, I concur that the rest of the details >should be more or less entirely handled between the mundane bodies... I agree. Whether this is possible is a real question; but it is more or less the division of labor I had in mind. Otherwise you have the same people looking at budgets to fund services and ruling on game disputes: some overloaded Board somewhere. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 12:30:51 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 236 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:10:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Response to the Finnvarr plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I sent my proposal to Gareth, who eventually sent this back to me. The question that this raises, as in other of his posts when he was still a member, is whether it is possible to define core values of the SCA. I have my doubts. I think it is possible to define some core customs, which are loosely connected to core values, but don't determine them. Finnvarr >>>> Finnvarr, Thanks for the compliment. I am happy to respond to your proposal. I apologize for the delay (though it is a marvel that this technology has propelled us to a speed in which a response of 10 days is grounds for apology. . hardly enough time to think) >First, I propose that the Grand Council consider the issue of game regulation separately from corporate reorganization, and consider the former first. Perhaps this is a necessary distinction, but I fear it will end up suffering in the translation from paper to practice. I remain unconvinced that the truly significant issues facing us can be considered from either a strictly game- or modern- perspective. 1. Things like waivers, which might initially appear to be modern issues, quickly take on massive game implications when we start making decisions about who needs to sign which waiver (or even if Dukes need to sign waivers), whether some activity at which waivers are not signed is an official event and if not do the game rules apply, and what enforcement tools are available to whom (e.g. kingdom X officially reports that the waivers are being signed, but everyone who knows, knows that many events do not have signed waivers--who is to tell the Crown that they are lying?) I'm sure I don't need to belabor the point, but the shenanigans about the Crown's right to decide to fight the woods battle at Pennsic, over the safety objections of the earl marshals and chirurgeons of both the Middle and the East--fortunately, Palymar didn't end up firing his officers, as was formally and loudly requested by a clear majority of the other crowns in attendance--led me to understand just how linked the game and modern aspects must be. If we had a game which was clearly subordinate to the modern, then this would not be a concern. But we don't. And to assume that will be the decision that will emerge later is risky. In addition to the obvious legal risks to us all (the crown's right to rule just won't hold up as defense in modern judicial processes) I would offer two other risks that we face by separating the two (and thus not defining the relationship between them). 2. The modern side can end up molding the game side. It is usually the case that we find out what the law really says after it has been tested--and we test it by making the argument that our situation is like or unlike other already-tested situations. This leads to the well known tendency for lawyers and legal staffs to be conservative. Without a clear mechanism for balancing these forces, we will quickly be drawn into a situation in which either the game side is cowed into going along with a professionally neurotic legal staff or we have a "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer" scenario--much like the mandamus mess. In either case, the game side is going to lose, for even if it wins the battle, it will lose the war. Even though the litigious nature of society is a principally US phenomenon, it is quickly spreading to other societies. Further, if we are to consider ourselves an international movement, we will also need to take into account the processes that fulfill the functions of the US courts in other countries. These can range from "we have to say nice things about this government official or get shut down" to "these are community standards which are not written down but which we must follow anyway." In any of these cases, the modern side will be saying "your game is all nice and well and good, but you simply must do this or you will get shut down." Others will say "don't listen to them, you can do this without fear." Without someone or some process to adjudicate between these positions, the game part will be ruled by this argument, and will thus become subservient to it, though we may pretend otherwise. 3. Power is, well, powerful, and the desire for it drives much of human endeavor. By separating the modern and game aspects of our Society, without delimiting controls of each on the other, the way is clear for leaders from either side to attempt to dominate the other. I would note that this is not simply a possible outcome, but a likely outcome. I am generally an optimist about human nature (which is why I support consensus models so strongly) but I cannot stretch my optimism far enough to cover long term self-imposed restraint on so many players. Sooner or later, a group of Crowns (or whoever ends up running the game side) will say "we need to line those officers up and shoot them"--a direct quote from Steingrim, a well known Duke from An Tir, made publicly at a feast last month; or some group of officers will say "we have to put these Crowns into straitjackets in order to keep them from hurting themselves, and the rest of us." My recommendation would be to integrate the two more closely, rather than to segregate them, so that we all know who is responsible for adjudicating between the competing claims of the legal staffs and crowns. We need to know who will be listening to each side and deciding which risks are worth taking. We also need to know to whom these adjudicators will be accountable. One last, fairly minor point. I believe that it is the game side that will be the most complex, not the corporate side. The corporate side becomes complex when it has to accommodate the game side. If it does not have to accommodate the game, it will not be complex. The thing that people care about is line (i.e., in line/staff distinction). Accounting can go off and do whatever they want to do, unless and until it impacts on how I do what I do. When I have to start filling out more (or fewer, or different) forms, when I have to start doing things differently, when I have to pay attention to accounting, then I start to care what accounting does. If we start by saying that accounting just has to do the minimum necessary and that I can define what "necessary" means, then I won't care. > Second, I propose that a Council of the Current Middle Ages be formed, with the power of interpreting the basic rules which assure the unity of the Society across the Known World. Every Kingdom and every Principality (excluding Crown Principalities) shall have the right to name one representative, by a method to be established in the laws of that Kingdom or Principality. Kingdoms may not dictate the selection method to be used by their Principalities. Kingdoms and Principalities will be responsible for financing the participation of their representative, and for a share of common expenses. I like the addition of the principalities. It takes some of the sting out of the representation problem. I would be surprised, however, if this did not lead to the escalation of another set of problems--mainly, what is a principality. Now, for the first time, it will be in a kingdom's interest to see the creation of principalities for reasons not related to the good of the people of the principality. Yet the board has been loathe to really address the issue of principality, after its ancient attempts to impose a Mists model on the rest of us were (mostly) abandoned. Currently, the relationship between the crown and the coronet are murky at best. So the kingdom can't dictate to the principality how it selects its member. Any one of the number of Crowns who find themselves frequently answering accusations of abuse of power from the throne would not break a sweat beating this one. Currently, one reading of Corpora would say that the crown could suspend any principality officer by simply insisting on the right to sign warrants, and then not signing them. (Must be done each reign). Further, any crown could ban any fighter from a coronet tourney (in case some coronet felt up to facing down the crown) or for that matter, could banish a citizen, even a coronet. Now this is not to say that any crown (or clique of crowns) would ever stoop to get their own people on this larger body by rewarding or punishing the seven Middle Kingdom principalities (why not?) to secure an eight-person voting block, but the possibility must be acknowledged. Perhaps this eight person block would not be able to effectively block or promote action favorable to a particular political position, but we cant know that until we are certain of the means of polity of the body. Now writing in a unanimity or nothing policy, or even a consensus policy would diffuse this problem. But my experience on the GC has made it clear to me that many of the leaders in the SCA cannot bear to do without majority rule. I have little hope that the populace at large will be any more tolerant of ambiguity and caution in big decisions. There will be intense pressure to act quickly and decisively. This points to voting blocks and power politics. Wish it were not so. Fear it is to be. A second question would be whether this geographic representation would answer the needs for diversity. Would it be possible that the group of top candidates from each kingdom or principality would be more likely to resemble each other than the majority of the people of their kingdom or principality? Especially in a game that currently privileges one aspect of our recreation? What mechanism will look out for the concerns of those not represented? I would look at the constitution of the IAC (K?) as indicator. Is this group diverse in important ways because of its geographic diversity? (not necessarily a rhetorical question) Of course, if your goal is a conservative body. . . Another important issue, though related (to the control and number of principalities issue) is the question of constitution of the whole. Is Acre to be a member? Are kingdoms to be necessarily geographic? What if a group (such as Tuchux, or Horde) can produce enough memberships to qualify as a principality or even a kingdom? Will this body be the ones to decide whether someone should or should not count as a principality? If so, is there an appeal to anything other than a group appointed by this body? One could, of course, argue that the board has been the body of final appeal but as you know, the constitution of the board and its regard for historic practice has been a matter of great care. We have no such safeguards with a body whose members are selected independently of one another. > Third, the Council of the Current Middle Ages shall have the right and duty to name judges (or arbitrators) to hear appeals of banishment, abuse of royal authority, or other matters referred by the Kingdoms. Good addition. This does separate the behavior-adjudication from the policy-making functions and that has been one of the key weaknesses of the boards role. I would predict, however, that this will quickly become one of the most used bodies, as scores of old grievances will be dug out to see if this new body will give the same answer as the old one did. In short, I believe that what we need first and foremost is a board that sets long-range policy. We seem to continue to pretend that this is not important, or that we can reasonably expect that it will emerge as a result of many tiny decisions. This should be the first and foremost purpose of the central body. Not to make rules about how or whether one rule or another should be enacted. Not to decide whether Johnny or Jimmy struck the first blow. But to decide who we should be, what our driving values and principles should be. No one knows what the Society is anymore. Perhaps they never did. Or perhaps more precisely, everyone has a righteously individual vision and that is the way it has always been. There is no collective vision, no rhetorical center, no sense of central purpose. The fault lies entirely at the feet of the board of directors, for they have historically set up structures that ended up not allowing time to get around to what became the secondary issues of vision and purpose. We just cannot seem to get away from the belief that administration is something that anyone could do well. We seem to be saying any group of people selected for any reason could run the show as well as any group of trained people. Of course, we also fail to see the relevance of organizational vision. Unless we are able to face this reality, any structural change will be a band-aid. A board of directors selected for diversity and breadth of experience is an important thing--as long as the purpose of the board is to develop a vision for where the organization is going. In this situation the diversity of the board is an important strength. When such a board cannot discipline itself to stay out of administration, the weaknesses of each member will compound and become an insurmountable liability. I hope this has been helpful. I have decided to restrict my SCA involvement to the local level. I am the new Executive Director of the local Habitat for Humanity affiliate, am involved in forming a new Peace Center in Portland, and am expanding my organizational consulting responsibilities. I have given a great deal of time and energy to the SCA, and it appears to me that this contribution is yielding fewer and fewer fruits. I am, of course, still willing to consult with any who would ask. My heart, as well as my experience and training, is with those who struggle with organizational issues. But I don't feel the need to try and impose my views on others--and I have begun to feel more and more like that was my role. Thank you for asking for my opinion, friend. It is flattering to be asked. Please feel free to ask again. I will probably check into the discussions occasionally--out of curiosity if for no other reason. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 14:35:58 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 14:16:05 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Re Justin on recognition Comments: cc: fiacha@premier1.net To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Okay, so, given that today is the day for posting proposals for formal discussion, and starting voting, what exactly do we have ? I count Finvarr's plan, Fiacha's Ugly Compromise plan, and Galleron's world court. The Ugly Compromise was recently posted, but I'm not sure of where the world court or Finvarr's plan is now in terms of its authors amendements/revisions. Could updated versions of these be posted to clarify discussion and voting ? Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 16:20:36 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 4 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:17:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Corpora To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Is there a current on-line Corpora? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 16:42:00 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 16:21:54 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Response to the Finnvarr plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <317E7CF0@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:10:00 PDT) Finnvarr posted Gareth's reactions to his plan. Overall, I concur with Gareth's assessments; there are issues that will need to be dealt with. I don't think there's anything in the critique that is fatal to the concept, though. A few specific points: > [separate mundane from game issues] >Perhaps this is a necessary distinction, but I fear it will end up suffering >in the translation from paper to practice. I think we've already seen this demonstrated vividly. Personally, I consider this a goal, but recognize that we cannot fully achieve it. Call it a "direction", I suppose. >2. The modern side can end up molding the game side. It is usually the case >that we find out what the law really says after it has been tested--and we >test it by making the argument that our situation is like or unlike other >already-tested situations. This leads to the well known tendency for lawyers >and legal staffs to be conservative. Definitely correct, but I think this is a strength of the Finnvarr concept. Traditionally, we've had the mundane and game authority vested in the same people. The result of the above-described tendency is that the Board has been *enormously* legally conservative; in general, whenever any sort of legal consideration is raised, we've over-reacted (if we've noticed it at all). There's been no process to *balance* the legal/financial and game issues. By creating a separate body, whose remit is to argue for the game side, I think we create a situation that can allow a healthier balance. I would expect that, when a corporation (SCA-US or another) raises a mundane concern that affects the game side, that they would then enter into a bit of give-and-take with SCA-World, to decide how to address the issue. With people around to argue both sides, we at least have a *chance* for balance. However, Gareth is probably right that: >Without someone or some process to >adjudicate between these positions, the game part will be ruled by this >argument, and will thus become subservient to it, though we may pretend >otherwise. Or vice versa -- the game side will run roughshod over the mundane legal considerations. I think that some sort of interface between the corps and the game side *will* be needed, and will need some codification. However, I don't believe we need to (or indeed can) define that rigorously now; it'll take some experimentation to get it right. All I would say now is that the SCA-World should be directed, over its first couple of years, to clarify how it will deal with issues like this. >3. Power is, well, powerful, and the desire for it drives much of human >endeavor. By separating the modern and game aspects of our Society, without >delimiting controls of each on the other, the way is clear for leaders from >either side to attempt to dominate the other. Certainly true, but this doesn't mean they'll *succeed*. In general, I'd say that the clearer we can make the bailiwicks, the less likely this is to actually arise. This sort of power-grabbing happens worst when there are multiple bodies sharing largely the same jurisdiction. Another argument to separate the strands as thoroughly as is practical. >Another important issue, though related (to the control and number of >principalities issue) is the question of constitution of the whole. Is Acre >to be a member? Are kingdoms to be necessarily geographic? Etc. I agree that these are all important issues. However, I think they all affect *how* SCA-World would run, not *whether* it can. (That is, I think that, regardless of the answer to any of these questions, the model holds up.) Thus, I think they can be left for refinement later, possibly the SCA-World itself. Many of them can possibly change with time. >In short, I believe that what we need first and foremost is a board that sets >long-range policy. The Vision Thing. I confess, I'm not at all sure that it's entirely possible -- the past two years have taught me that the divisions in the SCA are astonishingly deep, and making substantive decisions is harder than anything I've ever imagined. But I agree that it would be worthwhile to try. This is, note, the one argument I've heard for making the "World Council", or some subcommittee, a continuing body. (However, most of this could easily happen through correspondence -- it doesn't necessarily require quarterly meetings.) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "If you meet the Buddha in talk.bizarre, flame him." -- John Woods From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 16:57:20 1996 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: 313 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 16:39:16 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Corpora To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <317E629F@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Apr 24, 96 10:17:00 am Is there a current on-line Corpora? No. There is an older one on Terras' site... I usually search for it from the Known World Page. It's supposed to go up on the www.sca.org page, which isn't up yet. I can email a copy of an old version, if you want one. Let me know. Tibor (schuldy@math.harvard.edu) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 17:58:53 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 16:40:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Creating corporations? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L A >As far as Europe goes, there is no need to *create* corporations, they >already *exist*. And yes, they are being financed by their members right >now. All we want is *recognition* of our existence! > > Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) > I hope you want more than that. SCA, Inc. has recognized that they exist...But what are they? Are they SCA?....some say NO. Are they playing the same game? I don't know... There is need of some rules for dealing with, recognizing as SCA and creating new Corps. YOU have some corps, but if every group in every country need a corp, and the Kingdoms all need corps, and each Country needs another corp, we are talking about many thousands of Dollars, Marks, Chronar, Pounds etc. All with no guarantee that they serve any good purpose. All with no guarantee that they are not hurting our purposes. We need a lot more done than acknowleging that some people, who might be SCA members have built new corporations. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 19:31:12 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:17:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Ladder of appeal. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L There are going to be some appeals clearly coming from the game side, and these should wind up on the World Council or it's court; there are others clearly mundane, winding up with the appropriate corporation(s) and its/their court. It seems the third area, mixed game/mundane appeals, that confuses things. Not having my brain fully in gear today, could y'all specify what such mixed appeals might be? And is there some reason why such mixed cases couldn't have mixed courts, with, oh, two candidates each from the appropriate game and mundane sides? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 19:36:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:19:38 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Creating corporations? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >From: "James D. McManus" >I have to say that at this point it is blatantly irresponsible for us to be >calling for the creation of a bunch of new corporations. Ah, heck. _I_ haven't been calling for a bunch of new corporations, at least immediately. We go with what's already set up - and if, and only if, at some point down the road there comes a need for one more new corporation, or several, then they get created. But for right now, we go with the status quo. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 20:03:24 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 160 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:49:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: Revised Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please forward to the GC Revised Proposal For a New International Structure for the Society I have revised this to reflect your comments. The changes are in publications, jurisdiction of the Council, and baronial size requirements. OUTLINE OF PROPOSAL World Council is set up, with reps chosen from each Kingdom and Principality, to interpret the common rules of the game we play, embodied in a document called the Great Charter. The Council controls a spartan SCA-World, which deals with worldwide issues, mostly by a advice and co-ordination. It recognizes as many Mundane Governing Bodies as are needed to meet legal requirements wherever the SCA operates. SCA,Inc.(US) becomes one of these, and ceases to control the others. The Council recognizes game groups that follow the charter. There would be certain advantages to having worldwide publications spun off into a separate organization. This need not be done immediately. In the interim, SCA-Milpitas could continue to produce TI and CA, and make them available to other SCA corps., at a cost intended to cover both direct costs and a proportionate share of publication overhead. Other SCA corps. would make their publications available on the same terms. WORLD COUNCIL Every Kingdom and Principality may choose one representative to the World Council, by any method agreeable to the members of the Kingdom or Principality. This body interprets the Great Charter, a document that defines the common rules of the game we play. By 2/3 vote, they may amend it, but wouldn't do so very often. The Charter would not be Corpora, but would define those elements that a Corpora must contain for the group that follows it to be part of the Society. For example, it would define Barons, but not say how they must be appointed. To quote Finnvarr, it need not concern itself with the minimum size of Shires. It would specify that SCA groups were not permitted to bring the whole Society into gross disrepute,. or cause injury to other SCA groups. (I only see this coming into play if Kingdom A gets so weird that Kingdom B has a hard time getting sites because of what people in their area have been hearing about "The SCA".) The Council would have the power to decide that a group was violating the Charter, and could no longer be recognized as part of the Society until it rectified the problem. This, and the threat to invoke it, would be the only binding control the Council would have over Society groups. In general, however, it would operate mostly by consent and moral force. In addition to the Charter, it would also produce guidelines, like model Corporas. "This is the suggested baseline, but you're not required to follow it" It would appoint a review panel to consider matters that come before it. In cases of major policy, the panel would submit its recommendation to the whole Council for consideration and approval. JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL I consider the following to legitimately fall into the Jurisdiction of the World Council, or a review committee it appoints: Interpretation of the Great Charter. Questions of conflict with and violations of the Charter. Recognition of SCA Corps. (Are their governing documents consistent with the Charter?) Recognition of Kingdoms and Principalities (Ditto) Matters affecting more than one SCA corp. Matters affecting the whole of the Society. SCA Corps. would have Jurisdiction as provided in their Corporas. They would hand on up questions that were, in their judgment, better decided by the World Council. Ideally, I would like to see Corporate Judicial review delegated to independent bodies at Kingdom or principality level, although probably with a right to appeal. I would also see a bill of rights for subjects written into the Great Charter. There are some bits in the Magna Carta that seem quite useful... If at all possible, I'd like to see detailed discussion of this part of the issue deferred, because I think it starts to shade into another, and non-trivial, topic. This may not be possible. SCA-WORLD.... ...would be controlled by the Council. It would be a pretty slim organization. I see it including: Laurel Sovereign of Arms, doing pretty much what he does now. Marshalate Advisor. Does NOT control a hierarchy. Does collect some data worldwide on how many fighters are getting injured and by what, as a guide to both the Council, the Kingdoms, and the Boards. As the name implies, his function is advisory. A&S Advisor. Primary function is to glom onto research, resources, and the like that are being produced anyplace in the Society and find them a wider audience. Also advises Council on Arts issues when required. You might also want Medical and Seneschal advisors, to co-ordinate sharing of knowledge in their fields, and to advise the Council. If we continue to have a Society College of Arms, it would seem best to have it answerable to the World Council. The other advisors are not absolutely essential, but I think they wouild be useful. If my Kingdom was considering, say, face thrusts, it would be convenient to have one person to go to to find what the experience elsewhere was... Other administration? Not much. Someone would have to keep track of contacts and addresses at the various SCA corps. I can't think of much else that would have to happen at the SCA-World level. MUNDANE GOVERNING BODIES Every SCA branch would be affiliated with a Mundane Governing Body, recognized by SCA-World and appropriate to its jurisdiction, to deal with mundane legal requirements. Such a body must agree not to violate the great charter. Kingdoms and Principalities may be affiliated with SCA, Inc.(US), as they are now. Or they might be affiliated with another national corp. (like Australia's). Or, for a Kingdom spanning several jurisdictions, a federation of corporations, or an umbrella corp. for several national/local corps. Mundane Governing Bodies associated with Kingdoms and Principalities would be alike in their relation to the World body. Each would have its own corpora, consistent with the Charter but otherwise varying according to the requirements of each jurisdiction and the preferences of each group. In my opinion, local SCA corporation should at the very least have control over the appointment, removal, and replacement of Treasurers, Seneschals, Marshals, and Chirurgeons within their jurisdiction, since these officers can impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. I also believe that this should become de-facto Board policy as soon as possible. MEMBERSHIP For purposes of satisfying the number of subscribing members required for Principality, and Kingdom status, "Subscribing Members" are defined as natural persons maintaining an address within the branch that subscribes to the appropriate Kingdom or Principality newsletter. If the minimum size of Baronies was specified by the charter, they would also use this definition. Individual Mundane Governing Bodies may, within the limits of the Charter, have other categories of membership, and may set membership requirements to take part in their activities or hold office. AN EXAMPLE To see how this would work, imagine how the Canadian Principality of Ealdormere would operate under this arrangement. Its inhabitants might continue to be members of SCA, Inc., (US) as they are now. Or they might be members of a Canadian Principality level corp. that pays to produce and deliver a Principality newsletter, and buys TI from SCA Publications. Or you might have some of each. Now, Ealdormere's Corpora might be a clone of that of SCA-US. Or it might be as different as the Charter allows. Or Ealdormere might choose to remain affiliated with the+ US Corp. and follow its Corpora. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 21:45:52 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 29 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 21:30:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: My proposal as amended To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The proposal has hardly been amended at all, though I see a great deal of overlap between mine and Galleron's. I put in the phrase "demonstrably acceptable to the people of that Kingdom or Principality" in point two. >>> First, I propose that the Grand Council consider the issue of game regulation separately from corporate reorganization, and consider the former first. Second, I propose that a Council of the Current Middle Ages be formed, with the power of interpreting the basic rules which assure the unity of the Society across the Known World. Every Kingdom and every Principality (excluding Crown Principalities) shall have the right to name one representative, by a method demonstrably acceptable to the people of that Kingdom or Principality. Kingdoms may not dictate the selection method to be used by their Principalities. Kingdoms and Principalities will be responsible for financing the participation of their representative, and for a share of common expenses. Third, the Council of the Current Middle Ages shall have the right and duty to name judges (or arbitrators) to hear appeals of banishment, abuse of royal authority, or other matters referred by the Kingdoms. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 22:34:41 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 36 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 14:50:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Canadian Info To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Magnus, I wish I were in Canada now, or at least close to home so I can easily answer the questions you asked Tabatha. I'm a Chartered Accountant and looked into some of these questions ages ago (Back when I was exchequer for the Montreal group). Basically (going from memory), there is an obligation to pay taxes on monies earned in Canada. Where I'm a little unsure is what recognition Canada gives to US non-profits. What it really comes down to is what the likelyhood of Revenue Canada (and the various provincial revenue services) doing anything. Filing a Federal return for the SCA in Canada for interest income would be no big deal. The problem might be for all the event fees charged which probably are subject to Canada's Value Added Tax (GST). However, all this talk about foreign laws is a distraction. I'm not aware of any state entertainment or sales tax being paid for site or feast fees within the US. The big arguement is that we (meaning the US) don't know foreign laws well. I don't think that we even know US laws all that well. If I were to set up several corporations, I would set up one for the US and one for Canada. The US corp would receive all membership monies and handle subscriptions. The Canadian corp would exist to report event income and interest income. This model could be repeated for other countries where it was needed. As for the purchase of real estate or other area specific activities, under fund accounting (which is the GAAP method for most non-profits) it is possible to set up restricted funds for uses such as purchasing a club house. I see no reason why you wouldn't want SCA, Inc. to own something. Property taxes and insurance may be an issue, but these are not that difficult to deal with. Why have tons of small corporations with their reporting needs and administrative burdens when one would do. regards, Michael G. Potter Sir Myrdin the Just From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 24 22:55:57 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 22:41:37 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L No, no Justin, We don't disagree. The World Council recognizes who is playing the game. The corp to corp thing is to settle right off the bat the awkward situation for non-US groups who in fact are in the SCA now and are in SCA inc now because there is no other way to be in SCA. It is so simple-minded that I can't blame you for being skeptical. Detaching SCAinc, esp. the board, from the game is not going to be easy. I will remind you that we are talking about a body that complains of being overworked when they and they alone can adjust their workload. I do not want non-US players to have to wait for the whole package to become a reality before they get some help on the technical/legal/corporate issues. (They will have to wait on the game issues until there is World Council--so will we all). Corwyn is calling for proposals. I hereby offer one. It is on the question of membership of non-US groups and it is addressed to corporate matters. SCA World/World Council/ and how to detach the game will require much more discussion. Proposal: SCAinc will state a policy acknowledging that it promotes and supports SCA activities around the world but does not need to assume responsibility for non-US groups. [Note that it still can assume that responsibility--nobody gets the rug pulled out from under them] SCAinc will, in cooperation with the non-US national or regional group, assess its strengths, needs, and corporate concerns to determine on a case-by-case basis the best way for that group to proceed to faciliate corporate matters and support the smooth continuance of the medieval structure [i.e., the game]. If and when there is a domestic corporation capable of assuming responsibility in that national or regional context, SCAinc is empowered to recognize membership in the SCA through that corporation. SCAinc will alter the relevant section of the by-laws to allow for variation in the definition of foreign membership. ---- I am not pretending to couch this in legalese or to advise SCAinc on the details of the business arrangements. Pure and simple, the proposal says that SCAinc has permission to outsource non-US group member services to a domestic corporation when that is the most sensible course for all concerned. I could suggest any number of reasons why recognizing domestic corporations for non-US groups would be in the best interest of SCAinc and far more convenient for non-US players. I can also offer a number of cautions that must be considered. I won't repeat them here. You wouldn't think that anything so obvious would need to be a formal proposal. Now, while this proposal is very limited--concentrating on such problems as individual money orders--it does serve as one small step toward the other project. Will the Board acknowledge the existence of SCA activities outside of its direct responsibility? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 04:18:38 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:52:14 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Finnvarr: How Many Corporations? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Magnus wrote (about separate incorporations): >This is a common understanding, and it MAY even be true. But I haven't seen it. >What needed to be done that a US Corporation could not do? This is the Opening a swedish postal giro account, and being able to rent communal halls at a VERY reasonable price, for example. SCA,Inc., could not do that, because it was not then and is not now a swedish non profit unincorporated organization. SCA,Inc., could possibly register as a foreign corporation, but that takes quite a lot of paperwork. Also, it would not conferre tax-exempt status. To exemplify with a couple of US corporations: Coca-Cola corp. does no business in Sweden. They license the production and marketing of their drinks to a swedish brewery. IBM computers are sold by IBM Svenska AB, a swedish company. Finnvarr (I think) wrote: >>And I respond that something like a dozen corporations *already exist.* They >>What do you want to do with them, Magnus? >>Leave them in existence, supposing that the local people have some idea of >>local legal requirements? > > If they are needed or useful and do not deteriorate the uniformity of the >game and the legal requirements that the SCA, Inc is under, then keep them. OK, here in Sweden we have had a separate mundane org for about ten years now. We still play by the same rules as the rest of the SCA. May we continue to do that? (To be honest, Nordmark did split because some wanted an exeption to the existing SCA game rules. Some other people wanted to keep as close ties as possible to the SCA in the rest of the world. We now have two organizations, the crown principality Nordmark and the kingdom Nordrike. Nordrike follows SCA rules for combat, and for some other stuff, but does not pretend to be the SCA. It works for us.) >> Then the relationship between them and the SCA, >>Inc. must be worked out. > >Absolutly! How about: Recognized as equal partners doing the same game in different countries and jurisdictions? No extra costs for SCA,Inc., maybe even less paperwork for the Board, and we "furriners" would not have to pay double memberships. >Which model WORKS and minimizes rebellion and conflict? See above. >>The reason I came up with my non-corporate model of regulating the basic >>rules of the game was to deal with this reality. > >And this may well work, but only within a corporate context, SCA, Inc or >otherwise. Excuse a non-legal eagle, but a non-corporate model that only works within a corporate context...? Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 14:54:50 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:33:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Internationization Summary Comments: To: James Prescott To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 04:30 PM 4/19/96 -0600, you wrote: > >Please forward this to the GC list if you feel that it is >relevant to the current discussion. > >On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, James D. McManus wrote: > >> >Setting up a Swedish corporation of the SKA Nordmark kind doesn't cost >> >money. It's actually benefical for tax purposes, so it'd save money. >> > >> I live in the US, and the idea that you can set up a corporation,(especially >> one that works) for FREE is very Foreign to me. (Can this really be done >> there? Who creates and registers it?)...M > >Alberta cost of non-profit society incorporation is $50 (Canadian) >to the provincial government, plus under $40 (Canadian) to a private >company for a name search, plus a bit of photocopying and postage. >About $65 (US). It takes about an hour, plus whatever time you spend >agonizing over your Name and your Objectives and your Bylaws (the Kit >contains a checklist of Objectives and a plain-jane set of Bylaws). > >It used to be *much* cheaper (about $20 for everything??) before >our provincial government started privatizing and raising the cost >of all of their services. > >Technically it also saves tax money by making the non-profit status >legal, but the raw truth is that all of the Canadian un-incorporated >groups in the Society merely fail to inform the tax authorities of >their existence, and the tax authorities don't mind as long as you >are small, and so the actual tax money saved is theoretical only. > >All my best, >Thorvald Grimsson/James Prescott (james@nucleus.com) (PGP 2.6.2 user) > I think I see part of the difference in perceived costs. In Minnesota it only costs $135.00 and a one page Articles of Incorporation to file a new Corp with the State of MN. This doesn't mean you really have a corporation, it only means you have a piece of paper that says you have a corporation. Without good legal advice and drafting of Bylaws that work and apply to your corp, you have nothing. And even with all the right pieces of paper, if you don't act like a corporation you won't be treated like a corporation. Enough Corp stuff for now (I hope). We can focus on the Current proposals. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 14:56:12 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:33:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Return-Path: Christer.Romson@abc.se >From: Christer.Romson@abc.se (Christer Romson) >To: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Re: Internationization Summary >Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 18:10:40 +0100 >Reply-To: Christer.Romson@abc.se >Lines: 26 > >Lindorm: >> Setting up a Swedish corporation of the SKA Nordmark kind doesn't cost >> money. > >Magnus: >> I live in the US, and the idea that you can set up a corporation, >> for FREE is very Foreign to me. Who creates and registers it? > >I'm not a lawyer, but the following is my understanding of Swedish >non profit organizatoins: > >It can be done. You have to pay a one time fee to get it registered, >but they can function quite leagally without being registered. If >you don't register, it will be (can eventually be) up to a court >to decide if something is a corporation or not. SKA Nordmark's registered, >but I don't think any of the canton-corporations are. I'll try to >remember to call the Lanstyrelsen and find out what it costs. > >The above only applies to non profit corporations. > > Lindorm > >Magnus, it's okay to forward this to the GC. > > > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 14:57:50 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <960424224136_477712757@emout07.mail.aol.com> with last message <960424224136_477712757@emout07.mail.aol.com> Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 10:01:18 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Alysoun's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960424224136_477712757@emout07.mail.aol.com> Yes to Alysouns porposal -Modius modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 15:43:13 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:21:07 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <317EE899@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:49:00 PDT) A few comments on Galleron's current proposal... Overall, I think it's annealing well. I've been mulling it over a little more carefully, and am generally liking it. It's a little informal, but that's actually okay for the level we're dealing at now; it's almost certainly better that we *not* try to work out every little detail now, just the overall framework. One definite strength: I don't believe it requires sudden, wrenching changes. I suspect that the Society would spend much of a year defining the World Council more rigorously, electing its members, then gradually shifting the appropriate responsibilities to it. Most members would see little direct change, but the burden at the top would gradually get more sensible. >In addition to the Charter, it would also produce guidelines, like model >Corporas. "This is the suggested baseline, but you're not required to follow >it" I would take out the "model Corporas" phrase. The Council already has the Charter. I suspect (from my Masonic experience) that these "model Corporas" could easily turn into wink-and-nod requirements, causing an undesireable degree of homogeneity. (Of course, I believe that the diversity of the SCA is one of its greatest strengths, so take this with what grain of salt you deem necessary.) That which we *really* think should be common goes in the Charter; the rest, I believe, can be left to custom... >I would also see a bill of rights for subjects written into >the Great Charter. There are some bits in the Magna Carta that seem quite >useful... Very interesting idea; very big can of worms. I agree that this needs to be deferred for now, although I also agree that it should be explored at some point... I'm going to try to put this proposal up on the GC Home Page some time today, since (as Corwyn says) we're approaching the put-up-or-shut-up point. Anyone else who has what they consider a real proposal for consideration and voting, please repost it. Finnvarr, are you considering your proposal separate, or are you folding it into Galleron's? (I could see either; I don't know what your druthers are.) Oh, and BTW -- anyone know if there's any fact to the rumor that Bearkiller has been named as the new SocSen? I read that from a thirdhand source yesterday, and was mildly surprised. (Given John's professed level of burnout; SocSen isn't a big step down from Board workload, I believe...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Vhat? You didn't know know I was Jewish? And Gypsy? And Rumanian? And German French, Scottish... the women in my family never saw invading armies - Just Fresh Blood." -- Donna Barr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 16:08:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:41:43 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Ugly Compromise Proposal from Fiacha (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded with comments, Fiacha. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 15:41:49 -0400 > From: WMclean290@aol.com > To: fiacha@premier1.net > Subject: Re: Ugly Compromise Proposal from Fiacha > > OK, suppose that under the Fiacha plan Lothac is affiliated with OziBod and > registered with the Milpitas Treasurer. Later it grows to Kingdom size. > > Does it follow US Corpora or write its own? The OziBodshould only concern itself with facilitating events. If it writes its own corpora, it is playing ist own game and one wonders why it will bother underwriting the world organization. > If the King of Lothac misbehaves, threatening the integrity of the > Australian Corp., does anyone in Australia have authority to reign him > in? If not, why not? (Suppose that he has been cunning enough to buy > his membership from Milpitas, so they can't even revoke that) I would suggest that if there is a mundane basis for denying someone admission to a Society event, then the local corporation should do the denying.. If, on the other hand, it is a game issue the board of the SCA Inc. should impose sanctions (either directly or via a World Council that it has given the necessary power to) against either the man or the Kingdom. Naturally, the sanctions will fail if the King has the support of his populace, but this is no different from the current situation in the US. We cannot coerce a King who is supported by his Kingdom. We are not, in general, willing to cut off any large chunk of the society. > Galleron Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 16:08:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: ghita@Mercury.mcs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Susan Earley Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:40:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Susan Earley Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Response to the Finnvarr plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9604242021.AA04819@dsd.camb.inmet.com> On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Mark Waks wrote: > >In short, I believe that what we need first and foremost is a board that sets > >long-range policy. > > The Vision Thing. I confess, I'm not at all sure that it's entirely > possible -- the past two years have taught me that the divisions in > the SCA are astonishingly deep, and making substantive decisions is > harder than anything I've ever imagined. But I agree that it would be > worthwhile to try. This is, note, the one argument I've heard for > making the "World Council", or some subcommittee, a continuing > body. (However, most of this could easily happen through > correspondence -- it doesn't necessarily require quarterly meetings.) > I've already requested in the Budget Statement commentary from the populace regarding what we should be doing over the next 5 years. My first goal is to have a 5 year budget by the end of this year. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maestra Margherita Alessia, called Ghita Member # 32315 Susan Earley Shire of Rokkehealdan [SW Chicago Suburbs] ghita@mcs.net Brookfield, IL "Not a Duchess, but I play one on TV" Director, SCA, Inc. Purpure, a sword palewise or between two winged cats rampant combatant, that to dexter Argent, that to sinister Or. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 17:01:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 15:26:48 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Response to the Finnvarr plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I've already requested in the Budget Statement commentary from the >populace regarding what we should be doing over the next 5 years. My >first goal is to have a 5 year budget by the end of this year. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Good idea, but if anything substantive is accomplished here, a 5 year or even 3 year bufget should be obsolete. Fortunately, all of it's component pieces should be very illuminating. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 18:44:19 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 81 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:48:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Your CCMA proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Gwydion by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Excellent proposal, Finnvarr. I'm glad to see the word "corporation" completely absent. I think people on the GC have forgotten that SCA Inc. exists *only* to help SCA players to implement the game in the US, namely to provide liability insurance to make it easier to rent sites, etc. I do not see the need for "membership" at all when considering the rules of the game. If you live in a country where there is no need for a local corp, membership dues, or waivers, and everyone simply follows the rules of "the game", cool! If you travel to a country where membership is required for insurance purposes and a simple waiver isn't good enough, I would hope that the local corp would allow folx to purchase "membership for the day" at a reasonable rate ($1?). This is how many UK reenactment groups handle visitors/guests who do not have a membership but want to participate in one of their shows. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that some country somewhere in the world may require a full $50 membership to play whether it's just once or every day of the year. That's life. We can't make that sort of thing fair globally. The rules of the game need only cover things that are important across all Kingdom boundaries: *Central Scope/Focus of Activity : Pre-17th C. Western Europe *Peerages : Sovereign, Consort, Chiv, Laurel, Pelican *Kingdom Status : All kingdoms are peers and are mutually recognized. *Combat/Fencing Conventions That's it, really. What actually makes a kingdom a kingdom is a bit harder for me to define. I'm not sure I like a hard and fast number of members, especially since I don't see a need for membership. Perhaps the ability to send someone to the CCMA and implement the rules of the game over a particular geographic area that meets local and national laws? Whether or not the implementation requires a corp is not material. How a kingdom is broken down should be up to that kingdom. (This is why Barons and such were left out of my list of Titles/Rank.) Perhaps a kingdom wants to accurately recreate the structure used by 10th C. Iceland? Why not? Why do they *have* to have Principalities, Baronies, Shires, etc.? The method of selecting a King should be left up to that kingdom, although I'm in favor of possibly requiring that method to include the realm of martial arts, whether it be rattan combat, fencing, archery, or thrown weapons. Whether or not dues-paying membership is required or a waiver is signed should be up to that kingdom/local corp/mundane law. It has no part in the game. Other rules such as whether or not gunpowder is allowed should be up to that kingdom/local corp/mundane law... there should not be a world-wide game ban simply because the US cannot deal with it. That's silly. The College of Heralds is its own entity. And frankly, I forsee a 2nd entity rising in the future to break the monopoly. While I'm advocating much more local control, I think there is enough tradition that very few kingdoms will decide to radically change the game they are currently playing. If there is a corporation at all, it is the corporation's responsibility to implmement the rules of the game; the game should not be a slave to any corporation. Also note that I have not specified that the corps need be non-profit. The US corp has decided to go non-profit for many reasons, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world has to. (Or, if someone wants to deal with the hassle, I don't see why someone can't start a for-profit corp in the US that otherwise implements the rules of the game.) Thank you for listening to my rambling, Gwydion From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 18:53:11 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 75 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:55:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Formal Proposals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Duke Finvar! I'd like to play the propsal game as well, so this is what I came up with. Strawman Proposal: ----------------- The World Wide Society for Creative Anachronism would be organized as follows: 1) A World Council. The council would have representatives from kingdom size territorial groups on the recreation side of things. These could be either kindoms or principalities, but not crown principalities and a kindom would loose its representative if the populace not separately represented fell below the population level for a kingdom. The World Council would have formal control over the medieval recreation including an Formal Definitions or "Landmarks" thereof and including any Corpora of universal society law. The World Council would be primarily responsible for sanctioning or removing sanction from independent groups. Appointment of representatives to the World Council would be by a means selected by each of the constitutents subject to approval of that method by the World Council. In general, the method for selecting representatives would not be allowed to change very often. Any action taken by the World Council would require a 60% super- majority. 2) A World Court. It would hear cases involving appeal of game definition and review universal banishments and questions of abuse of power, but not necessarily act upon them. They would not review level 2 banishments. Review of such would have to be provided by "lower level" courts of review. The World Court of nine justices would be appointed by the World Council with judges appointed for staggered three year terms. The chief justice would be elected from amoung the senior justices by the court itself and would empannel and schedule review for cases refered by the ombudsmen. 3) A World Service Corporation. If such a corporation were to exist, it would produce publications and other services which the member organizations could subscribe to on an individual basis. Subscrition to journals, participation in event insurance programs, etc. admisitered by SCA-World, Inc. would not be required of member groups which had their own coporation. The World Service Corporation would also support international service organizations within the society such as the College of Arms. The seven man board of directors of a possible SCA-World, Inc. would be appointed by the World Council. 4) The World Council should appoint an executive who would be an exofficio member of the board of directors of any SCA-World, Inc. who would be responsible for being a contact person for the World Council. 5) The World Court should appoint, from amoung its own numbers ombudsmen for the various constituent groups, service organizations and activity centers to screen appeals. 6) Other corporations would exist to support local activities of the society as required by local law and common practice. Such corporations could aquire corporate membership in the international service organization provided that they demonstrate that they support the goals of the society. 7) Society events and activities would be officially sponsored by a member corporation or an appendant corporation of a member corporation either by itself or in affiliation with a governmental agency or a recognized non-governmental organization devoted to eductational, artistic or cultural activities . Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 19:01:55 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 4 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:45:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: My proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I think that my proposal should be listed separately from Galleron's. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 19:15:51 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 23 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:12:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Finnvarr: My proposal as amended To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Hrolf by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi, You wrote: >Third, the Council of the Current Middle Ages shall have the right and duty >to name judges (or arbitrators) to hear appeals of banishment, abuse of royal >authority, or other matters referred by the Kingdoms. Appeals from Kingdoms only works if the Kingdom has the power to issue third level banishments etc. I suspect that as national corporations spread this act of third level banishment will be reserved to them (it is in Lochac already). They will almost certainly act on the advice of the Crown or Coronet, but for good mundane legal reasons the mundane body will have to be the final arbiter. This, of course, does not preclude appeal to a higher level (World) mundane body if this is specifically written into the constitution of the national corporation. Indeed, I would like to see this being done. Hrolf Herjolfssen From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 19:16:15 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 32 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:11:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Creating corporations? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Hrolf by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi, Please relay this: "James D. McManus" wrote: > >>I have to say that at this point it is blatantly irresponsible for us to be >>calling for the creation of a bunch of new corporations. One model proposed >>would waste something like $75,000.00 dollars to create a bunch of >>unnecessary corporations around the US, Europe etc. (50 states, SCA-world, >>one for each Kingdom, one for each Country in Europe) The annual maintainace >>cost of these corps cannot even be estimated at this point accept that it >>would be thousands of dollars a year. Frithiof replied: >As far as Europe goes, there is no need to *create* corporations, they >already *exist*. And yes, they are being financed by their members right >now. All we want is *recognition* of our existence! Likewise, in Lochac the Corporation exists already. What the US members do is their business, but we only need a world body, set up in a tax-friendly country and this is very little expense overall. Hrolf Herjolfssen, Ynys Fawr Lochac From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 19:35:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:29:13 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960424224136_477712757@emout07.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes: >Detaching SCAinc, esp. the board, from the game is not going to be easy. Oh, certainly true. As I mentioned elsewhere, I fully expect the process to take at least a year, maybe longer to finish untangling the threads. We need to recognize that a "big-bang" approach isn't going to fly here... Following is a proposal, concluding: >Will the Board acknowledge the existence of SCA activities outside >of its direct responsibility? Actually, my one real concern about this proposal is that I think it's largely redundant -- I believe the Board is at least *starting* to do most of what you suggest here. I'm not hip to all the details right now, but I've gotten the impression that the current Board has recognized the problem, and has been working on smoothing it out as best they can, in just the kind of case-by-case way you suggest. That's the main reason I haven't been worrying about these medium-term concerns, and have been concentrating on getting the long-term structure right... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Y is for Yggdrasil. The legendary Nordic Ash Tree with its 3 roots extending into the lands of mortals, of giants, and Niflheim, the land of mist, grows in Wisconsin. Legend has it that when the tree falls, the universe will fall. Next Wednesday, the State Highway Commision comes through that empty pasture with a freeway..." -- from "The Chocolate Alphabet" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 20:20:59 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:19:13 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Ladder of appeal. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I3XIOEBVRQ99I54F@delphi.com> (ALBAN@DELPHI.COM) Alban asks: >It seems the third area, mixed game/mundane appeals, that confuses >things. Not having my brain fully in gear today, could y'all specify >what such mixed appeals might be? Easy enough. The Kingdom of Narnia passes a law that someone claims violates mundane law in their jurisdiction. (This isn't always cut and dried; I've seen cases come before the Board where the mundane law simply wasn't clear.) The *problem* is mundane, but the *solution* is in-game. If the Kingdom tried to press the point, it clearly involves both sides. There are probably even better examples. I don't think this is going to be the common case, but it's guaranteed to arise... >And is there some reason why >such mixed cases couldn't have mixed courts, with, oh, two candidates >each from the appropriate game and mundane sides? No; the point is simply that we need to be prepared for this eventuality to arise. I'm sure we *can* deal with it without excessive complication... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "(WHAT IF The Batman(tm) had become... A Psychiatrist? "A treatise on the collective unconscious crashes through the window! 'I shall become... a Jungian!'")" -- Moriarty From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 21:01:11 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:41:43 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Ugly Compromise Proposal from Fiacha (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded with comments, Fiacha. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 15:41:49 -0400 > From: WMclean290@aol.com > To: fiacha@premier1.net > Subject: Re: Ugly Compromise Proposal from Fiacha > > OK, suppose that under the Fiacha plan Lothac is affiliated with OziBod and > registered with the Milpitas Treasurer. Later it grows to Kingdom size. > > Does it follow US Corpora or write its own? The OziBodshould only concern itself with facilitating events. If it writes its own corpora, it is playing ist own game and one wonders why it will bother underwriting the world organization. > If the King of Lothac misbehaves, threatening the integrity of the > Australian Corp., does anyone in Australia have authority to reign him > in? If not, why not? (Suppose that he has been cunning enough to buy > his membership from Milpitas, so they can't even revoke that) I would suggest that if there is a mundane basis for denying someone admission to a Society event, then the local corporation should do the denying.. If, on the other hand, it is a game issue the board of the SCA Inc. should impose sanctions (either directly or via a World Council that it has given the necessary power to) against either the man or the Kingdom. Naturally, the sanctions will fail if the King has the support of his populace, but this is no different from the current situation in the US. We cannot coerce a King who is supported by his Kingdom. We are not, in general, willing to cut off any large chunk of the society. > Galleron Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 21:28:03 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 8 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:16:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Solveig's Strawman Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Hrolf by Finnvarr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In case needed, I like this as a good place to work from. it makes sense. Hrolf From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 21:42:03 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:29:43 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: FWD: Alysoun's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron wrote me the following, I add my reply at the end: Greetings. Do I correctly assume that your proposal is meant as an interim one, not intended to exclude going to some sort of World Council later? If so, it might be a good idea to make that explicit in the body of the proposal. Could I suggest, considering the board's workload and all-US composition, that the board appoint a committee, including one European and one Canadian, to make the evaluations and make recommendations of approval to the board? Galleron Well, I'm not sure. For anything to be interim, there has to be something following it. It does not preclude a World Council (so we hope it is interim), but it could stand alone or for a very long interval. If the Board doesn't appoint a committee to handle this, they are beyond hope. I think the nationality of the committee members is not nearly as important as the expertise they have and if the Society cannot provide enough sufficiently knowledgeable people SCAinc ought to search outside. (There is entirely too much hearsay and guesswork going on.) Note that the group being evaluated participates -- they too need to come up with people knowledgeable about corporate structures both domestically and in international arrangements. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 21:45:27 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 17 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:33:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Solveig's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Mostly clear, but I don't understand this section: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5) The World Court should appoint, from amoung its own numbers ombudsmen for the various constituent groups, service organizations and activity centers to screen appeals. Not only do I not understand the point of this, but it strikes me as having the potential to make the World Court into an administrative Board. Also, specifying (in another section) the ability to emend the Landmarks by a 60% vote of kingdoms and principalities makes me uneasy. Currently, Calontir has no fencing. If a world body of any sort decides there must be a fencing peerage, then what? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 21:50:47 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:38:34 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: First of Three To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L On my proposal: Justin, I do think that the Board is doing this--or at least the pre-negotiations. On the other hand, it's important to line up the steps and take things in order. It doesn't hurt to send them a proposal like this. (I still think we should send them an official hurray for getting a web-page, too.) There are a number of matters spinning over and over in my mind: How can there be a world association until we have world partners? If there is an interkingdom association--and kingdoms are branches of SCAinc--what we have is an internal association. If that association incorporates, who incorporates it? SCAinc? Since SCAinc has defined itself as the SCA, would it suddenly turn over its greatest responsibilities to a new, unproven, and independent organization/corp? Would I want it to? Seems kinda irresponsible. >From this line of thought, I offer a back-up proposal. Go with Galleron's or Finnvarr's, but if the Board doesn't accept it, then try this: Back-up Proposal: Take the Interkingdom Council or a body like it and expand it to include principalities. Transfer game powers to it in stages. At the same time build up communication and co-ordination links. (These have to hold between the Game Council and the corporation(s), the Game Council and the kingdoms, the kingdoms and the corporations). Evaluate each stage, making adjustments as needed. I'm presupposing that non-US groups will continue to grow, there will be an increasing number of non-US kingdoms, and that various forms of corp to corp recognition will have been developed. The Game Council becomes the World Council. Corollary Proposal If the Grand Council can see fit to agree on a maximal view of SCAinc, it should suggest a list of duties to that corporation to improve our interface with the real world. As the board shifts game considerations to the new body (whichever one), it can begin to accept these new responsibilities. This is important. I doubt that many people volunteer for the board to count our beans. If the game powers do not rest with the board, think about the nature of that volunteer pool. We very much need people who are comfortable and competent on the real world stage, but not *just* corporate management types. This kind of interface needs to be in the corporate body, not in the game body (it's the real life side). From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 21:52:19 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:38:40 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Second of three To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I was thinking about Gareth's posting from Finnvarr and I got my membership renewal packet. It looks fairly impressive. I'm told: "The Society serves as a network for people who share an interest in the culture and technology of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and a contact point for museums and others all over the world who are looking for assistance in the Society's field." That field would be rattan and duct tape weapons? Or is there actually some way SCAinc could put an outside group in touch with a person who has reliable expertise on some particular facet? If so, it would be nice if they shared that with the other members. I also note that the Compleat Anachronist has been busy. 1994-95 publications include: A'inen: Oriental Mirror Armour; Vestarios: Clothing of the Eastern Roman Empire; Non-Eurpoean Games Contemporary with the Medieval Period of European Civilizations; and Things to Wear, Clothing of the Heian Period Japan: Japanese Clothes for Men and Women. I am sure these are excellent booklets and I personally have nothing against a pluralistic view (In fact the idea of insisting that SCA Japan has to play in Western Europe bothers me a good deal.) BUT. . . Does this seem strange to anybody else? Wouldn't you think that if SCAinc wanted to define the geographic region of play as western Europe it wouldn't publish how-to booklets on other regions? I have to wonder why I'm spending mental energy worrying about how to recognize the game worldwide. Can we co-ordinate SKA and SCA? Why bother? SCAinc can't co-ordinate with itself. I guess I'll renew my membership--what if the Cloisters calls? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 25 21:53:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:38:45 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Third of three To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L You know you are burnt out when. . . I apologize about fading right now when such big topics are churning around. This has sneaked up on me and it wasn't until going through the membership packet that it really hit. I realized how tired I am--if not of the SCA, at least of its own peculiar brand of insanity. I know from long experience that when volunteers continue past this point, they do more damage than good. I am losing patience, becoming cynical, and darned close to picking a fight with some of our followers. Rather than making a contribution, I will become a liability. You all have enough work without that. No doubt that if I can get Alysoun back to the 13th-century, we will remember how much fun this thing is. I am very thankful to have had the opportunity to meet you all and to hear the different views. I look forward to seeing you personally at some future event. May the Council work well and wisely; may each of you grow in health and wisdom and riches. Alysoun From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 26 01:41:12 1996 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: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:28:58 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Various comments To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Miscellaneous answers to miscellaneous questions: Gareth wondered about whether geographic representation "would answer the needs for diversity". This was one reason why I suggested functional representation. Gareth brought up the great households (e.g., the Dark Horde), and other recreation groups (e.g., Acre). I would imagine that, yes, the World Council would be the body to decide whether or not they'd be "members". I would, however, like to note that it may be possible to have loose affiliations with groups like Acre on the order of they can play their way for their events, but if they show up at ours, they should play our way, and ditto reciprocally. Dark Horde representation? Hmmm, the World Council would be free to amend its rules and voting privileges to include non-territorial groups; this comes under my "let's set it up minimally now and let the Council change itself in the future" suggestion. Solveig's Strawman Proposal: 1 (World Council), 2 (World Court) are okay; 3 (World Services Corp) sounds like SCA (US) Inc. gone global. Having one source for journals and subscription things is okay, but event insurance and other things vary so much from country to country that having such a thing under one corporate umbrella makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. This is, indeed, why Sweden, Canadian provinces, Australia, etc. have gone corporate on their own. On the whole, this isn't too different from other proposals on the table. Mundane/game interface: People worry that one will run roughshod over t'other. I think this worry may be a trifle overblown. It's not like there's going to be _no_ communication between the two. The World Council will have technical mundane advice available from a council of seneschals, or some such; or could have a representative available on call from the corporations. And the corporations, presumably, will have lots of game players on _their_ boards. Mind you, I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about; I'm just suggesting such worries are not major. At least not yet. Galleron's modified proposal: I like, on the whole. I am not clear what difference there is between the World Council and SCA-World? Is the WC the control, and SCA-W what's being controlled? The WC the rule book, and SCA-W what's going on? >You might also want Medical and Seneschal advisors... Very definitely *YES* on the seneschal advisor, to keep a link to mundane concerns, a probable yes on medical advisor, with similar duties to the marshallate in re collecting accident reports and such. Different countries do, however, have different licensing requirements, and different rules and regs about things like Good Samaritan laws, so I'm not sure how useful a medical advisor would be overall since he/she might lack worldwide knowledge. Fiacha's Proposal: A definite, absolute, no-way no-how No! Alban, whipporwill's bane, and who worries that, now that he's caught up, he will all of a sudden be inundated all over again PS - By the way, Edward? You think any of this would make the Board twitch in a major way? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 26 09:21:24 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:55:37 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Creating corporations? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Magnus responded to my response.... >>As far as Europe goes, there is no need to *create* corporations, they >>already *exist*. And yes, they are being financed by their members right >>now. All we want is *recognition* of our existence! >> >> Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) >> >I hope you want more than that. SCA, Inc. has recognized that they >exist...But what are they? Ok, I should have made myself more clear: Recognition that SKA-Nordmark is to the SCA group Nordmark, what SCA,Inc., is (or tries to be) to all SCA groups everywhere. Is that clearer? Well, maybe not... *sigh* > >Are they SCA?....some say NO. >Are they playing the same game? I don't know... Depends on how you define SCA. If SCA = SCA,Inc. then obviously no. If SCA = the people who play by this set of rules, then just as obviously yes. Why? Because Nordmark was started by people from Sweden, who had no direct contact with SCAdians in US. Everything was done by the books; specifically the Known World Handbook and the Organizational Handbook. When the OH specified some thing that did not work in Sweden, we did somthing that did work, and told the BoD about it. So far, that has not been a major problem. >There is need of some rules for dealing with, recognizing as SCA and >creating new Corps. Yes. > >YOU have some corps, but if every group in every country need a corp, and >the Kingdoms all need corps, and each Country needs another corp, we are >talking about many thousands of Dollars, Marks, Chronar, Pounds etc. Those groups that need corporations already have them. > >All with no guarantee that they serve any good purpose. If they did not serve any good purpose, who would pay money to run it? They would die by themselves. >All with no guarantee that they are not hurting our purposes. Goes for the existing corp, too. Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 26 09:21:29 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 70 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:11:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Solveig's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Duke Finvarr! To answere your questions. >5) The World Court should appoint, from amoung its own numbers ombudsmen for > the various constituent groups, service organizations and activity centers > to screen appeals. > >Not only do I not understand the point of this, but it strikes me as having >the potential to make the World Court into an administrative Board. The ombudsmen are not intended to be administrators, they are intended to be appeals clerks. They would be people from outside of the kingdom who would be assigned to review petitions arriving from that kingdom. It is simply a continuation of the present Ombudsman system. >Also, specifying (in another section) the ability to emend the Landmarks by a >60% vote of kingdoms and principalities makes me uneasy. I put it at 60% because I think that a supermajority is necessary, but that 60% is probably good enough. Note just how much trouble the U.S. congress has working up 60% majorities for just about anything in just about any year. There are several different approaches to these things: simple majorities, unanymnity, and super-majorities. I think that simple majorities are obviously unstable and the unanymnity gives too much power to an individual member. (Note. The minister of the army and the minister of the navy each had the power to individually bring down the Japanese government under the Meiji consitution. The result was that the military ministers controlled the government. This helped bring about the Pacific War.) >Currently, Calontir has no fencing. If a world body of any sort decides >there must be a fencing peerage, then what? To date, no world body has forced any of the kingdoms to induct anyone into a peerage order. The BoD has compelled a kingdom to grant county title, but that is about it. Essentially, the situation with a world body creating a fencing peerage is about the same as the current BoD creating a fencing peerage. Personally, I would like to see the title of Marquis adopted as a means for confering peerage upon people in the various peerage orders. The kingdoms would then have the right to charter orders of peers as they see fit. The existing peerage orders would remain, but would not be required of any particular kingdom. Baron Schmuel ben Yitzak raised the problem of the titles for the heirs of principalities. I think that the heirs of principalities should be given subordinate titles of estate and that the same should be adopted for kingdoms replacing "prince" as the primary indicator of the heir. Thus, the heir of the East Kingdom might be known as the Duke of Ostgardr and the heir of AEthelmaerc might be known as the Count of Eastmere. These titles would be given at the crown tournament and would be retained until the next crown tournament. This would better follow historical practice than our current system. Now all of that is off in the "how the game is played" discussion which should be put off for a while. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 26 09:25:21 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 38 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:12:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: ratification of "landmarks" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Duke Finvarr! Actually, I am one of those people who was tarred a few months back for having the audacity for suggesting that there were discoverable eternal landmarks which would not change. I still think that they probably exist, but that they are not quite so simple as simply reciting Corpora or stuff in the Knowne Worlde Handbook or simply pointing at how things are now. Regardless, how about having a two tier approach to things .. This has been talked about. Corpora would require 60% of the World Council to change while Landmarks would require say 80% of the World Council and rattification by 60% of the kingdoms in order to change. (NOTE. Landmarks are very very basic ... they don't even include things like specific titles and stuff like that. At least no specific awards or titles made it into any of the more or less popular landmark proposals that went through the two working groups. Please remember that the landmarks discussion proper is still on the agenda and will be quite arduous when it comes up.) Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar --- Please consider posting this note to the mailing list. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 26 09:38:45 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <317FCAE5@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> with last message <317FCAE5@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:29:01 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Formal Proposals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <317FCAE5@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> No to the strawman proposal as written. Could we tone down the the size of the t structures? What are the logistics. Can they meet via e-mail etc. The size may need to be reduced Yes to Carole's Backup proposal!!!!! I mentioned this concept a LONG time ago. -Modius modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 26 11:19:29 1996 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: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:03:08 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Solveig's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3180F5C9@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Apr 26, 96 09:11:00 am Finnvarr wrote in response to Solveig Throndardottir's questions, most of which have been deleted: > To date, no world body has forced any of the kingdoms to induct anyone into > a peerage order. The BoD has compelled a kingdom to grant county title, but > that is about it. Just as a matter of small clearing up, the BOD, after final deliberation, ruled that the Crown could not "withhold" the County Ranks, as these Ranks are "assumed" at the end of the first completed reign. The Crown is under no obligation to Make-a-big-hoopla-carry-them-in-on-a-litter, but those who have ruled have the title when they step down. The BOD actually overturn itself, in January on this matter after it had ruled that the Crown had to announce the the "fact". Yours, EDWARD Z -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Landgraf Edward Zifran von Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 26 15:07:49 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 18 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:52:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: Alysoun's Back-up Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr Alysoun writes: >Back-up Proposal: >Take the Interkingdom Council or a body like it and expand it to include >principalities. Transfer game powers to it in stages. If an expanded Interkingdom Council is ever to fulfil the role of guardian of the game, the Society will have to ditch the idea that it *must* be chosen by the royalty. The recent banishment proposal that came out of the IKAC showed a distinct monarchist tilt. This is unsurprising, considering the selection process, but suggests that other methods of selection must be possible if that body is to serve a broader role. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 26 15:08:06 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:53:25 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: ratification of "landmarks" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3180F63D@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:12:00 PDT) Solveig wrote: >while Landmarks would require say 80% of the World Council and >rattification by 60% of the kingdoms in order to change. 'Scuse me, but as the person who started the whole Landmarks discussion in the first place -- no. "Landmarks", *by definition*, don't change; they're the definition of the club. This is why Galleron changed his proposal to have a "Charter" instead, which is really what you're talking about here. It's fulfilling a similar *purpose* to Landmarks organizationally, but it is *not* a set of Landmarks; it *is* something changeable. Please, if we're going to use the Masonic terminology, we should use the same meanings. If we mean something different, we should *call* it something different. What you're describing here are *not* Landmarks, and using that term is only going to introduce confusion. -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "The King is elected thru the process of a bunch of people hitting each other with pieces of porch furniture. (see "Fighting In The SCA.") This seems to be as good a basis for self-government as any." -- From "Lice in the SCA" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 26 15:16:29 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:02:00 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: First of Three To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960425213833_478485537@emout16.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Regarding Alysoun's "Backup Proposal": >Take the Interkingdom Council or a body like it and expand it to include >principalities. Transfer game powers to it in stages. I'm not implacably opposed to this, but I'm a bit concerned. I have a suspicion that, going quite this quietly, no one's going to notice the thing until it's taken on all it's powers, and then it's going to take people hideously by surprise, and cause some strife. I'm not certain of this, but it's my intuition, based on the dynamics I've seen in the Society. On the other hand, although I don't like it as much as Galleron's or Finnvarr's proposals, it clearly *is* better than the status quo. So I think Alysoun presents it in just the right light: a possible compromise, if the other proposals don't fly for some reason. On the other other hand: >If the Grand Council can see fit to agree on a maximal view of SCAinc, it >should suggest a list of duties to that corporation to improve our interface >with the real world. Actually, I will say that I disagree with this one. My experience has consistently been that the SCA, Inc has done a fairly crappy job of interface, and I'm unconvinced that it's ever going to do a good one. That being the case, I really am genuinely willing to leave the interface to less formal means, which in my experience often work better (if less consistently). Or, in other words, I'd make the opposite change, and have the SCA, Inc stop *claiming* to be doing all this interface work that it doesn't do. (I really am appalled by that blurb from the membership packet -- it sounds just like the stuff our marketing guys say...) -- Justin Resident Corporate Minimalist Random Quote du Jour: "I am truly blessed to have so powerful a champion as the learned and well-beloved Crescent Principal Herald! Heralds shall proclaim his triumphs and troubadors sing his virtues! Beautiful ladies shall swoon as he approaches, great men avert their faces; his is the strength of ten and the very air cries out that he has been here! None shall dare to stand beside him, for fear of comparison! Even his discarded garments shall be specially treated, for his essense shall pervade them forever!!" -- Arval Benicoeur, who doesn't believe in double-meanings From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 26 15:39:49 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:17:38 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Administrivia and an observation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Kwellend; my fairly serious comments follow, at the bottom... -- Justin >From: "David W. James" >Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:22:17 -0400 >Subject: Administrivia and an observation Below you'll find a quick and dirty count of people who have posted to the list since the end of Feb with a count of how many messages they have posted since then, and an additional entry for the number of postings that included the string "Forwarded for Galleron" at the beginning of a line (indicating that it was an original, rather than quoted.) Posters who I know not to be a member of the Council are listed with *'s. Folks, you've got two significant contributors to this list who really should be given posting priviledges, Galleron and Solvieg. The decision a few months ago not to replace the people who left should be examined again; I know it significantly discouraged me, and tainted the councils actions in my view. These two folks are doing more work than most (how many proposals has Galleron put forward?) Recognize their contribution. I will be away from my office for several days starting Sunday, Apr 28. I will still be reading mail at my vnend@aol.com address, and will be able to take some actions from there, but major changes will probably have to wait until I get back late next week. David W. James SCAGC-L List Administrator 99 Mark Waks 81 Steve Muhlberger 58 "James D. McManus" 40 "Alban St. Albans" 38 Nigel Haslock 34 "Carole C. Roos" 33 Mark Schuldenfrei 18 Erik Langhans * 18 Forwarded for Galleron (from various, so not additional to total.) 16 arthur dent 16 Sven Noren 15 Corwyn da Costa 13 WMclean290@aol.com 13 Flieg Hollander 10 Roy Gathercoal * 10 nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) 9 "Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot)" 8 "Janna G. Spanne" 6 Greg Rose 6 "Potter, Michael" 5 Chuck Hack * 5 "E. F. MORRILL" 3 "Mike.Andrews" * 2 Susan Earley 2 Guy Cox 1 Serwyl@aol.com 1 Richard Lesze 1 Joseph Heck 1 Eichling Von Amrun 1 David Schroeder 1 Christer.Romson@abc.se (Christer Romson) 1 Brendt Hess 1 "Root, Grant G. (ASC/SMOC)" 1 "Gregory D. Dearborn" -------------------------------------------------------- Justin here again. On the one hand, I think Kwellend's right, that Galleron and Solveig have been de facto members of the Council for some time. On the other, I specifically do *not* want to deal with this right now, for purely practical reasons. We're making progress at the moment (strange though it may seem), and I want to avoid derailing that with another internal argument now. I want to finish the current debate and vote before moving on this. (No insult intended, folks -- it's just clear that every time we try to deal with internal organization, the discussion on the floor gets completely side-tracked.) At that point, frankly, I think we need a serious assessment of whether to keep the GC going. We are down to around a dozen genuinely active members right now, which I think is really too few. (Losing Alysoun hurts, but I can't blame her -- it's been long, hard work.) Either we need a restructure (which means working with the Board to clear some deadwood, and bringing in some new members, or conceivably officially acknowledging that we are still legitimate with that small a group), or declare that the GC has gone as far as it's going to, and disband. If we can manage to get one good, solid restructuring proposal out the door first, I could disband with at least the comfort that we got *something* constructive done here. Something to chew on, for sometime in May or June. But please, let's *not* get into massive internal argument (again) right now. Let's finish actually getting something done, instead... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Fuzzy logic came, as you would expect, out of the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1960s." -- The Economist From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 26 20:36:43 1996 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: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:23:38 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: solveig, cont'd To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L From: IN%"bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu" 26-APR-1996 02:51:20.90 To: IN%"ALBAN@delphi.com" CC: Subj: SCA-World, Inc. Return-path: Received: from comoro.yorku.ca ([s/IBfkK1+KuvfpSbIqrkjt3igNhFfF3S]@comoro.yorku.ca) by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01I3ZCWTFRDC967EI1@delphi.com> for ALBAN@delphi.com; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 02:51:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pascal.math.yorku.ca (pascal.math.yorku.ca [130.63.214.141]) by comoro.yorku.ca (8.6.12/8.6.11) with ESMTP id CAA36310 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 02:51:13 -0400 Received: from [130.63.122.99] (joe08.slip.yorku.ca [130.63.122.99]) by pascal.math.yorku.ca (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA03354 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 02:51:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 03:13:53 -0500 From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: SCA-World, Inc. To: ALBAN@delphi.com (Lord Alban St. Alban) Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Lord Alban! Please post this as you asked about the SCA-World, Inc. component of my strawman. ---- Noble Cousins! I am not advocating creation of SCA-World, Inc. I was deliberately tentative in my language about whether or not it would exist. However, I believe that whether or not SCA-World, Inc. should exist or not should be determined as a purely technical legal issue after the overal structure is decided upon. What I did do was paint in how I envisioned an SCA-World fitting in SHOULD it be determined to be a necessity. For the moment, I am advocating that such a corporation not be formed. However, I am very ambivalent in this postion. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Apr 27 01:20:59 1996 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: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 01:08:25 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: forwarded for solveig To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L You know, I think we are close to a consensus on major items here; anyone want to gather ye rosebuds and come up with a unified whole, so we can start worrying about details? And on a related note, here's something from Solveig: Forwarded from Solveig: Noble Cousins! There are precisely two reasons that I can think of for an international corporation. 1) It might be desireable to "spin-off" things like the College of Arms and similar entities into a single non-territorial corporation. 2) It might be able to provide services for areas which are too small or too new to provide corporate services for themselves. (This second argument is rather weak as the same effect can be achieved through fostering arrangements in parallel with the medieval fostering arrangements. Further, the "services" which a foreign corporation can provide are inherently limitted and may consist of little more than publications and a central mailing address.) Again, the existence or non-existence of an international corporation is not at all central to my proposal. I believe that this is a technical issue which is best resolved after an overal structure is decided upon. Again, I do not believe that a single universal international corporation which owns all the cookies is in our future. It certainly does not exist at the moment as is easily demonstrated by pointing to Lochac, etc. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Apr 28 20:16:21 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <9604261917.AA23828@dsd.camb.inmet.com> with last message <9604261917.AA23828@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:36:42 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Administrivia and an observation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9604261917.AA23828@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Why can't we ask the Bod for a dispensation and allow Galleron and Solveig to become members of the GC (assuming that G. and S. want to become members) -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 29 12:42:56 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 12:31:25 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Artos: Change of address To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Artos. I will try to write him a brief summary of what we've been discussing... -- Justin >Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:38:09 +1000 (EST) >From: Richard Lesze >Subject: Artos: Change of address Greetings from Artos. Please note my new address (below). After taking holidays for the two weeks around Easter, I returned to work to find that my position had been made redundant in my absence, hence the change in email address. Messages sent to my old address (lesze_richard@tandem.com) may or may not bounce (depending on how the internet gateway feels at the time), and in any case won't get to me. I therefore haven't been receiving mail from this list for the last calendar month. Could someone please adjust my address in the appropriate list and send me a synopsis of the last month's discussion? Thank you (in anticipation) Artos. --------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 29 12:46:07 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 12:30:17 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Galleron: Administrivia To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron... -- Justin >Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:45:56 -0400 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Galleron: Administrivia Justin, you write: "On the one hand, I think Kwellend's right, that Galleron and Solveig have been de facto members of the Council for some time." "On the other, I specifically do *not* want to deal with this right now, for purely practical reasons. We're making progress at the moment (strange though it may seem), and I want to avoid derailing that with another internal argument now. I want to finish the current debate and vote before moving on this. (No insult intended, folks -- it's just clear that every time we try to deal with internal organization, the discussion on the floor gets completely side-tracked.)" For the record, I agree entirely. I also think Fiacha made the right call when he decided to table the issue of new Councilors a while back. The Council needs to make progress more than it needs new Councilors at this instant. I've never had trouble getting my stuff posted or listened to. When and if the Council considers new members, I hope it will put Morgan on the list too. She's been quite lately, but has contributed a lot. Galleron (Not that I wouldn't mind the recognition, the power, the prestige, the nifty GC regalia....) :-) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 29 13:19:52 1996 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: 190 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:02:23 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Administrivia To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9604291630.AA04118@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Apr 29, 96 12:30:17 pm (Not that I wouldn't mind the recognition, the power, the prestige, the nifty GC regalia....) :-) Been there, done that, there is no t-shirt. (:-) Tibor (silently reading, lately.) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 29 14:12:03 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 6 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:56:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Nifty regalia? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L You mean we don't get any nifty regalia? F. (Still waiting for my BoD nifty regalia to show up.) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 29 22:23:05 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 22:07:00 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Nifty regalia? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I think I'll hold off on ordering my nifty regalia until I see how good a job we've done..... Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 30 11:33:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 11:11:29 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Divine Right of Kings and SCA-World To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:25:46 -0500 >From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Divine Right of Kings and SCA-World Noble Cousins! Recently, a gentle wrote to me about the "King's Word is Law" approach to our collective recreation. I wish to clarify that nothing in my proposals is in any way intended to compromise this being the chosen mode of kingship in any particular constituent kingdom. What I am strongly urging though is that there be a localized oversight mechanism. This can be either on the medieval side or on the mundane side of things. But, it must exist and it must be localized. Multiple current and past BoD members have told us that a large part of the BoD's time is spent curbing royal excesses of various sorts and dealing with problems arising in part with mistakes or other detrimental or even illegal acts of our royalty. Now then. This can be ameleorated in a number of ways, but the society will not be able to continue to support the "king's word is law" approach at the SCA-World level. That would require totally overtaxing any sort of World-Level structure that might be set up short of a monster central beurocracy. Rather, disputes must be addressable first at the local level. Thus, any kingdom which wishes to maintain a strict version of the "king's word is law" should be requested and required to place itself under the authority of a local corporation or similar mundane body. Questions of game definition would still go up to SCA-World, but local quarels need to be addressed more locally. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amteur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 2 16:51:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 16:35:40 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Galleron: Revised Proposal 5/2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 13:56:28 -0400 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Galleron: Revised Proposal 5/2 Revised Proposal For a New International Structure for the Society Revisions in this version: I have incorporated some of the details from Finnvarr's revised proposal into the WORLD COUNCIL section, and I have deleted the suggestion that the Council also provide guidelines beyond the Charter, such as model Corporas. OUTLINE OF PROPOSAL World Council is set up, with reps chosen from each Kingdom and Principality, to interpret the common rules of the game we play, embodied in a document called the Great Charter. The Council controls a spartan SCA-World, which deals with worldwide issues, mostly by a advice and co-ordination. It recognizes as many Mundane Governing Bodies as are needed to meet legal requirements wherever the SCA operates. SCA,Inc.(US) becomes one of these, and ceases to control the others. The Council recognizes game groups that follow the charter. There would be certain advantages to having worldwide publications spun off into a separate organization. This need not be done immediately. In the interim, SCA-Milpitas could continue to produce TI and CA, and make them available to other SCA corps., at a cost intended to cover both direct costs and a proportionate share of publication overhead. Other SCA corps. would make their publications available on the same terms. WORLD COUNCIL Every Kingdom and Principality (excluding Crown Principalities) may choose one representative to the World Council, by any method demonstrably agreeable to the members of the Kingdom or Principality. Kingdoms may not dictate the selection method to be used by their Principalities. Kingdoms and Principalities will be responsible for financing the participation of their representative, and for a share of common expenses (if any). This body interprets the Great Charter, a document that defines the common rules of the game we play. By 2/3 vote, they may amend it, but wouldn't do so very often. The Charter would not be Corpora, but would define those elements that a Corpora must contain for the group that follows it to be part of the Society. For example, it would define Barons, but not say how they must be appointed. To quote Finnvarr, it need not concern itself with the minimum size of Shires. It would specify that SCA groups were not permitted to bring the whole Society into gross disrepute,. or cause injury to other SCA groups. (I only see this coming into play if Kingdom A gets so weird that Kingdom B has a hard time getting sites because of what people in their area have been hearing about "The SCA".) The Council would have the power to decide that a group was violating the Charter, and could no longer be recognized as part of the Society until it rectified the problem. This, and the threat to invoke it, would be the only binding control the Council would have over Society groups. In general, however, it would operate mostly by consent and moral force. It would appoint a review panel to consider matters that come before it. In cases of major policy, the panel would submit its recommendation to the whole Council for consideration and approval. JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL I consider the following to legitimately fall into the Jurisdiction of the World Council, or a review committee it appoints: Interpretation of the Great Charter. Questions of conflict with and violations of the Charter. Recognition of SCA Corps. (Are their governing documents consistent with the Charter?) Recognition of Kingdoms and Principalities (Ditto) Matters affecting more than one SCA corp. Matters affecting the whole of the Society. SCA Corps. would have Jurisdiction as provided in their Corporas. They would hand on up questions that were, in their judgment, better decided by the World Council. Ideally, I would like to see Corporate Judicial review delegated to independent bodies at Kingdom or principality level, although probably with a right to appeal. I would also like to see a bill of rights for subjects written into the Great Charter. There are some bits in the Magna Carta that seem quite useful... If at all possible, I'd like to see detailed discussion of this part of the issue deferred, because I think it starts to shade into another, and non-trivial, topic. This may not be possible. SCA-WORLD.... ...would be controlled by the Council. It would be a pretty slim organization. I see it including: Laurel Sovereign of Arms, doing pretty much what he does now. Marshalate Advisor. Does NOT control a hierarchy. Does collect some data worldwide on how many fighters are getting injured and by what, as a guide to both the Council, the Kingdoms, and the Boards. As the name implies, his function is advisory. A&S Advisor. Primary function is to glom onto research, resources, and the like that are being produced anyplace in the Society and find them a wider audience. Also advises Council on Arts issues when required. You might also want Medical and Seneschal advisors, to co-ordinate sharing of knowledge in their fields, and to advise the Council. If we continue to have a Society College of Arms, it would seem best to have it answerable to the World Council. The other advisors are not absolutely essential, but I think they would be useful. If my Kingdom was considering, say, face thrusts, it would be convenient to have one person to go to to find what the experience elsewhere was... Other administration? Not much. Someone would have to keep track of contacts and addresses at the various SCA corps. I can't think of much else that would have to happen at the SCA-World level. MUNDANE GOVERNING BODIES Every SCA branch would be affiliated with a Mundane Governing Body, recognized by SCA-World and appropriate to its jurisdiction, to deal with mundane legal requirements. Such a body must agree not to violate the great charter. Kingdoms and Principalities may be affiliated with SCA, Inc.(US), as they are now. Or they might be affiliated with another national corp. (like Australia's). Or, for a Kingdom spanning several jurisdictions, a federation of corporations, or an umbrella corp. for several national/local corps. Mundane Governing Bodies associated with Kingdoms and Principalities would be alike in their relation to the World body. Each would have its own corpora, consistent with the Charter but otherwise varying according to the requirements of each jurisdiction and the preferences of each group. In my opinion, local SCA corporation should at the very least have control over the appointment, removal, and replacement of Treasurers, Seneschals, Marshals, and Chirurgeons within their jurisdiction, since these officers can impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. I also believe that this should become de-facto Board policy as soon as possible. MEMBERSHIP For purposes of satisfying the number of subscribing members required for Principality, and Kingdom status, "Subscribing Members" are defined as natural persons maintaining an address within the branch that subscribes to the appropriate Kingdom or Principality newsletter. If the minimum size of Baronies was specified by the charter, they would also use this definition. Individual Mundane Governing Bodies may, within the limits of the Charter, have other categories of membership, and may set membership requirements to take part in their activities or hold office. AN EXAMPLE To see how this would work, imagine how the Canadian Principality of Ealdormere would operate under this arrangement. Its inhabitants might continue to be members of SCA, Inc., (US) as they are now. Or they might be members of a Canadian Principality level corp. that pays to produce and deliver a Principality newsletter, and buys TI from SCA Publications. Or you might have some of each. Now, Ealdormere's Corpora might be a clone of that of SCA-US. Or it might be as different as the Charter allows. Or Ealdormere might choose to remain affiliated with the US Corp. and follow its Corpora. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 2 18:13:21 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 35 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 17:57:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Off topic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Looking at Galleron's revised proposal, I would like to throw out an idea for anyone on the Board of the Corporation we have now. I've never figured out what the Corporate A & S officer does. Possibly many good things. It's safe to say, though, that Alysoun's remark before she evaporated -- that if the SCA *can* help people outside the Society find expertise, that's more than it has done for the members -- was right on the mark. To take up one of Alysoun's favorite themes, one thing we do not have now is any formal connection to the academic world, the educational world, the museum world. If one of the arguments for umbrella orgs is good PR, so that we aren't all hunted down as Satanists by paranoid neighbors, then the job of PR for our artisans and unaffiliated scholars has never been attempted, that I can see. Whether this job can be done successfully by any conceivable candidate with any realistic budget, I don't know. I sure am tired, though, of hearing SCA self-trained scholars telling me stories of inability to get access to resources, or having the atmosphere suddenly curdle when a heretofore friendly museologist hears the words SCA. (I don't have this problem because I have academic credentials and affiliation, so this NEVER happens to me.) It sure would be nice if corporate officers and kingdom officers worried less about routine reports and more about identifying important issues and getting information out, both to us and to "them" -- all the other people the Society must deal with. I know a lot of good officers DO do that -- but a lot more energy goes into identifying groups whose officers are in arrears in their reporting. Well, I said this was off topic. Perhaps it's time to start voting or something on the proposals that have come forward? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 2 22:31:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 22:14:52 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Re: Off topic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Finnvarr, Your comments about the A&S officer may be off topic but i hope we try to deal with this before the GC completes it's tenure. If we go towards a structure like your's or Galleron's the A&S coordinator will have little formal control of lower officers to worry about, freeing him or her to do the kind of PR you suggest. PR that might help us be taken seriously in academic circles. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 2 22:57:39 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 23 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 22:39:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: galleron's proposal 5/2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Hrolf by Finnvarr. >>> Whilst I have no vote, I think that this is a firm proposal that embodies the main points. There is still a lot of work to do on it, but a formal start needs to be made. One a set of ground rules are accepted, and can be put to the BOD, then people (as in general populace) can see the directions GC is heading in its thinking and offer comment on the specific issues. These are much easier to deal with than the generally fuzzy broad issues. As I have said before, local rules (as long as they remain within the broad grouping of "SCA") are matters of application to local conditions and need no "Imperium" to micro-tune. Appeals (either SCA-mundane or internal) are a different kettle of fish and there is a gain in objectivity as the viewer moves away from from the action (and a corresponding difficulty in understanding all of the matters that bear on the issue). Hrolf cary_jl@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au (Cary Lenehan) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 3 00:18:58 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Fri, 3 May 1996 00:04:51 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: galleron's proposal 5/2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L So....the first thought that popped into my head after reading the newest version of the Proposal (and a very nice one it is, too), was "How do we persuade the Board to go along with this?" The second thought was, "So, who wants to run the numbers, to see what the Board _will_ need as operating funds under this proposal, and what the Board _won't_ need?" (In other words, what kind of finances are we talking about, here?) The third thought was, "So, how do we persuade the vast membership of the SCA and the Society that this is a good and right thing to do?" It's this last thought that may be the toughest to answer. (I'm leaping over the vote, and looking waaaay ahead to possible implementation, here. It may be a nice thought experiment, but it ain't worth diddly if it'll never get past first base.) Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 3 11:28:27 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 45 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:15:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Response to Comar's concerns To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Duke Comar's concerns about treating Principalities like Kingdoms in the World Council set-up are unlikely to be isolated concerns. If he says this, other people will say it too, and some more vociferously and less diplomatically. Let me spell out why I suggested it, and why I stick to it. It was not to undermine kingdoms. It was to have a medieval/symbolic logic for getting representation of our diversity on the World Council. Perhaps the Principality of the Mists or even the Principality of Ealdormere (Ontario) does not need representation on a World Council. It could be argued. However, some very distinct areas outside the core areas in North America do need something. Sweden, Australia, and Alaska leap to mind. International coordination and world partnership, in Alysoun's phrase, *could* be managed by corporation-to-corporation contacts, and in fact it will have to be done. But the details are nightmarish, and coordination of this sort will always have huge grey areas and holes in it. The whole point of my proposal is to have a symbolic/constitutional structure that we can always point to, even in the midst of major corporate re-organizations, and say, "this is the unity of the Society." Principalities are major, medievally defined and symbolized communities. Growth overseas will be organized largely by the creation of new principalities. If we give them a place at the table in regards to game rules, then we need worry much less about how we handle national tax regulations. We won't have to pretend that reporting forms have a vital *symbolic* value, we'll just file them the way the national authorities want us to. I don't worry too much about voting blocs. My guess is that many Principalities won't even send a rep most of the time. On the other hand, I was much impressed by Comar's discussion of the recent problems handling requests for new fighting rules. I'm a fighter, and I might be on the same field as nutcases who don't want thrusting tips on swords. Comments? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 3 14:16:00 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 40 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 14:02:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Response to Comar's conce To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ Noble Cousins! Duke FInnvarr wrote regarding combat rules: >On the other hand, I was much impressed by Comar's discussion of the recent >problems handling requests for new fighting rules. I'm a fighter, and I >might be on the same field as nutcases who don't want thrusting tips on >swords. Comments? We alredy have similar problems. There are places which still fight in an old-fashioned way which accepts blows which are now generally treated as light. People from these areas have problems at Pennsic. SImilarly, Pennsic has been having problems with keeping out dangerous weapons since at least Pennsic VI. (That was the Pennsic where a group showed up with swords bent in the middle.) To some extent, there will be local rule variations and you wil have decide whether you wish to fight there or not. For large events, there will still have to be rules negotiations. There should still be some soviety level marshalate to negotatiate society-wide minimum rules for the lists. Acceptance of society mimimum combat standards should probably be a requirement for group recognition. (Other places can have tougher standards as the so determine.) Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 3 19:10:58 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 15:48:06 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Call for Votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Fiacha, Galleron reminded me that it is time and past time we voted on our deliberations for this quarter. This time, I will track the votes but I have no objection to someone else acting as backup. Remember that the original topic was international issues. Somehow, most of the proposals deal with game control. As a result, I am asking you to indicate your position on various statements as well as voting on the proposals. For each proposal and statement, please assign a score from 0 to 10 (0 meaning I'd rather poke my eyes out with a rusty screwdriver, 5 meaning that I don't care and 10 meaning that I think that this is the hottest idea since someone learned how to make a fire) 1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we resove relations with foreign corporations. 2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps buy memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. 3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. 4. We need to define the game before we can separate game control from the Board of the SCA Inc. 5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into World Council) 6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by Kingdoms and Principalities) 7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) 8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World Court, describes possible world service corp.) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 3 19:17:28 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 13:21:26 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Off topic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 19:36:13 -0500 >From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: Off topic Noble Cousins! As Master Justin strenuously objects to the word "landmarks" in my proposal, I would like to substitute the word "cornerstones". I don't care a whole lot about what they are called as long as it is a nice short Anglo-Saxon word that makes some mnemonic sense or other. That excludes, callling them "blue titmice" or "homotopies", but lots of other pithy names are quite possible. I do agree that the Society should have some central cluster of fundamental declarations. I think that some should deal with quidity (which is what the "cornerstone" are supposed to be about), some should deal with rights and some should deal with basic proceedure. These different things should not necessarily all have the same degree of mutability or lack thereof. However, I think that quidity issues and rights issues should be quite difficult (if not impossible) to change. Hence the super-majority and ratification language. I am not convinced that gathering these different sorts of things into a single "Charter" is a good idea. This places the same degree of mutability on all of them which may not be desireable. If equal mutibility are desireable, then grouping them a single "Charter" is not such a problem. Personally, I do not have a problem with a collection of documents with differing degrees of mutability. Together, they would be the "Constitution" (in the British sense of the word) of the Knowne World. There should be a corpus of game-related and other formal stuff having to do with relations to support corporations which I view as temporal law. This is stuff that properly goes into a corpora and can be changed much more readily as the situation warrants. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun May 5 19:57:10 1996 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: Sun, 5 May 1996 19:41:11 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I like the voting idea - but I wonder: is this a vote that's going to the Board of Directors? Or is it a vote to decide what proposals we're going to work on further? I prefer something along the lines of Our Chairman saying something like "These are the top two or three proposals; we're reporting them to you as an interim measure, but we're working on further details right now." >For each proposal and statement, please assign a score from 0 to >10 (0 meaning I'd rather poke my eyes out with a rusty >screwdriver, 5 meaning that I don't care and 10 meaning that I >think that this is the hottest idea since someone learned how to >make a fire) >1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before >we resove relations with foreign corporations. 0. (Anyone else notice it should be spelled "resolve"?) Paid membership is defined as those people sending money to the appropriate corporation in return for a membership card, at least one magazine, and such other, umm, "perquisites" as that corporation comes up with. Oy! >2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, >corps buy memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane >independence. 0. Corps *already have* legal, mundane independence. >3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. Senility sets in. Can't remember this worth a darn, so I vote, "abstain". >4. We need to define the game before we can separate game >control from the Board of the SCA Inc. 0. We don't need to decide what the game is, and separate that out; we can just as well decide what's purely mundane, separate _that_ out, and whatever's left over is either game, or in the gray area of game/mundane. >5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into >World Council) 2. The IKAC was structured as an advisory thing; better we build something new and appropriate for the job, rather than restructure something that only vaguely fits. >6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen >by Kingdoms and Principalities) 8. Needs details. >7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater >detail) 8. ditto. >8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member >World Court, describes possible world service corp.) 6. Like the world service corp, dislike such a large world court. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun May 5 20:26:32 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 21:17:32 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Call for Votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein! IAW Fiacha's request, here are my votes: >1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we resove >relations with foreign corporations. 0 -- this proposition is simply not true. >2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps buy >memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. 1 -- Too close to the status quo for my taste (sorry, Fiacha :-(). >3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. 7 -- Right direction but not enough elaboration. >4. We need to define the game before we can separate game control from >the Board of the SCA Inc. 0 -- If we don't have a good ballpark notion of the game we're playing, we are engaged in a doomed, masturbatory exercise in trying to accomplish anything in the GC. >5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into >World Council) 3 -- I don't see the current IKAC structure as sufficiently independent or well-organized to accomplish anything (from what I've seen thus far, the IKAC makes us look like a paradigm of efficient action, and that's quite an accomplishment, albeit a negative one). >6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by Kingdoms and >Principalities) 8 -- Damned near the best thing I've seen on the question, although I think that implementation needs to be more carefully thought-out. >7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) 3 -- I don't like the corporate layer. The game should be run and adjudicated by the "player" organizations, not the mundane corporation. >8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World Court, >describes possible world service corp.) 1 -- Too much micromanagement of the process. There is nothing here that Finnvarr's proposal doesn't do vastly better with considerably more elegance. I think that Finnvarr's analytical post was as fine a statement of the underlying conflation of issues in a number of these proposals. None of them accomplish all three tasks and that suggests that we ought to consider disaggregating these issues and addressing them seriatim. BTW, a semi-private note: Finnvarr, will you be at Kzoo this year? I'm arriving late Wednesday afternoon. I'll be in Valley III. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun May 5 20:26:44 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 104 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 19:08:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Analysis To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Today is the nicest day Northern Ontario has seen since last August. I hope you all had good weather, too, and were out enjoying it. I was looking at the various proposals and questions that we are supposed to be voting on, and this occurred to me. We are really trying to tackle three different but related questions. 1. Who owns the rules of the game. 2. Who adjudicates disputes. 3. Who handles financial and legal aspects of the Society's operations. I think that #2 and #3 are not all that controversial, within this group. (I've been looking over my personal archive.) I don't think anyone thinks having a lot of appeals going to the Board of Directors (currently also in charge of most of #3) is a good idea. I think that most people would grant that one corporation cannot handle all of #3 (because this is the status quo). Anyone who doubts can apply to me to the story of how the Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario branch just had to cancel their main recruiting event because of insurance problems. In my proposal, I have tried to supply an answer to #1, and the answer is, a body appointed by the top rank "game" organizations. My inclusion of Principalities among the appointing bodies was done to make sure that right >from the start non-US groups would have a share in the ownership. My proposal also supplies an answer to #2. Alysoun's proposal answers #3 (corporate) very neatly and simply by ignoring #1 (ownership). One can infer that the SCA, Inc. (Milpitas) still owns the rules under her scheme, but this is not a necessary part of it. I don't have a copy of her IAC becomes the World Council. Perhaps this took care of both #1 (ownership) and #2 (adjudication). Fiacha's Ugly Compromise, which I have also misplaced, grants the near-consensus position of #3 (foreign corps for foreign jurisdictions where necessary). It answers question #1 by keeping ownership with the SCA, Inc. I forget what it says about adjudication, if anything. Galleron's proposal is close to mine with two big BUTs. My reading of it channels adjudication through corporations before it gets to a World Court. This is messy, because our kingdoms and principalities do not follow corporate lines or vice-versa. There may be legal considerations that say G's is the better approach, but it is messy! Also G agrees with me that a world body would own the rules, and have final adjudication powers. However, (here's the other BUT) while corporate functions of one sort would be decentralized, others would be kept under a world corporation (publications, possibly). Solveig's proposal grants the existence of multiple corporations, and proposes a fairly developed world body for rule ownership and adjudication. It seems to me that we have near consensus on some points, some important differences on others. Near consensus: Multiple corporations (i.e. recognizing reality). No one has put forward a proposal saying that everyone and everything should belong to the SCA, Inc. Near consensus: Distancing game appeals and rule enforcement from the corporate functions. BUT no agreement on how appeals would work: through corporations or game units? And what is the court of final appeal? Near consensus: Court of final appeal on individual questions should not be the Board of Directors. Rule ownership: No agreement. SCA, Inc. (Milpitas) owning the rules? This raises questions of representation, and affects the question of adjudication. World body? This raises the question of how that body should be constituted, and what else (if anything) it should do. Lastly, there is the question of what the rules of the game are. In some ways this is a curious question. We know what the rules of the game are. We have Corpora, and we have decisions that have been made on the basis of Corpora. Peerages are defined, selection of and powers of the Crown are defined, types of groups are defined, other titles are defined. A lot of things are not defined and fall outside of Corpora and are handled differently in different places. The question of what are the rules only arises if the rules are to be changed. The one place where they may need to be changed is in the counting of memberships for group status and eligibility for office. If we decentralize corporate functions, something has to be done about this. Otherwise, I see very little uncertainty about what the rules ARE. There is more uncertainty about what the rules SHOULD BE. Ah, but that's a different matter. Finnvarr Quote du jour: "I didn't play all that Dungeons and Dragons without learning something about courage." -- Young nerd on the X-Files. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun May 5 20:27:57 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <9605022035.AA19017@dsd.camb.inmet.com> with last message <9605022035.AA19017@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 01:03:17 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 5/2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9605022035.AA19017@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Yes to Gallerons Revised Proposal 5/2 - 9 1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we resove relations with foreign corporations. 5 2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps buy memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. 1 3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. 3 4. We need to define the game before we can separate game control from the Board of the SCA Inc. 1 5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into World Council) 10 6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by Kingdoms and Principalities) 2 7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) 4 8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World Court, describes possible world service corp.) 4 -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun May 5 23:32:00 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 13:20:08 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Artos: Votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Preface: I have not been able to follow any of the discussion leading up to this vote, so it may be that some of my concerne have already been addressed, and I'm wasting bandwidth, in which case I ask the indulgence of the Council and present my apologies. As most of you probably know, the SCA in Australia (where I am) is incorporated separately from the SCA Inc. I am on the governing body (Committee). I am also on the Incorporation Steering Committee of the groups in the ACT (Australian Capital Territory), who are in the process of incorporating separately from SCA Australia. If anyone is interested in the background to all this, I'd be happy to discuss it offline. My part in the incorporation process (which is not yet complete) is such that I did most of the work in drawing up the articles of incorporation (called Rules). I say all this so that my remarks further down are intelligible. >1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we resove >relations with foreign corporations. 1 The foreign corporations that already exist have solved this problem already. It could use some work, (I would love to see it deregulated), but it is not a show-stopper. > >2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps buy >memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. 0 As someone else has already said: the other corporations already have mundane independence except where they volunatrily give up some of that autonomy to the BOD. > >3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. 5 The BOD already recognises other corporations, albeit in a rather informal fashion. I would like to see this process formalised. In the Rules I drew up for the ACT incorporation, I invented a mechanism called a Memorandum of Affiliation, which defines the relationship between the ACT corporation (actually, association) and the SCA Australia. It's kind of like a treaty between two countries, except that it is legally binding. It's not phrased as a contract, but there's no reason why it couldn't be. This mechanism is very flexible, and incorporates such things as membership, dispute resolution procedures and so on. > >4. We need to define the game before we can separate game control from >the Board of the SCA Inc. 0 I think it's more the other way around: we can define the mundane stuff pretty easily; the rest is the game. The Rules I set up make no mention of the game at all. In fact there is no mention of medieval activities at all. Control of the game is vested in a subcommittee which consists of one member of the committee and a number of members of the populace. The sub-committee's job is not so much to run the show (it more or less runs itself) but to ensure that problems don't get too big before they get solved. And the only problems it has to do anything formal about are mundane problems that might need to be brought to the attention of the Committee. > >5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into >World Council) 5 I have no problem with a world council of some sort, but I think that expecting it to do anything more often that once every four or five years is unrealistic. This is because the kinds of things the World Council will be looking at are the kinds of high-level things that can wait that long (because the already have), and take that long to discuss. In which case we may as well have the discussion between five-year-celebrations and have a big meeting at each one. (Only joking - everyone knows that the amount achievable by a committee is inversely proportional to the number of its members.) > >6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by Kingdoms and >Principalities) 8. I like any idea that separates the mundane from the medieval (though I like some more than others). > >7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) 8. As above. > >8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World Court, >describes possible world service corp.) 8. As above. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 6 14:34:18 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 13:17:47 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Recognizing reality? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 07:08 PM 5/4/96 PDT, Finnvar wrote: >I think that most people would grant that one corporation cannot handle all >of #3 (because this is the status quo). I've recieved more information that indicates that with the exception of Australia, the Multiple corporations model has worked just as poorly as the One Corp model. It seems small numbers of people can make off with large chunks of a Kingdom--Nordmark. Small groups in Canada can't hadle insurance (Still waiting details on this.) A number of corporations have been created in Canada, but they don't follow Canadian tax law either. We don't even seem to know how many corps there are in Europe. Even less do we know how many are operating in such a way as to cause problems for the SCA. Recognizing any status quo is required to figure it all out. Recognizing any status quo as "A Good Thing"TM is wrong until these things can be ironed out. We absolutely need someone/thing at the top with firm rules and enforcement powers, or the legal aspects and probably the game aspects of the SCA will fragment out of control. SCA World, Inc./ SCA Inc (of Milpitas)/ a Coalition of Kingdoms under contract and treaty or a Council of the Known World. Any of these COULD do the Job. In recognizing any Corps, it will be necessary that some authority only recognize corps and groups that can and will play the game. Recognizing some group JUST BECAUSE THEY EXIST would be a "BAD THING"TM Extra levels of complication, without some guaranteed benefit, will only cause harm. This is why I felt I had to comment on the idea that we should just recognize multiple corps becasue they are the status quo. They exist, but to a great degree they do NOT exist within the SCA...at this point...and only should be part of the SCA to the point that actively serve some purpose. That some local people someplace thought they should builda corporation is no guarantee of this. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 6 14:37:21 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 13:17:45 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Analysis To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 07:08 PM 5/4/96 PDT, you wrote: > Anyone who doubts can apply to me to >the story of how the Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario branch just had to cancel >their main recruiting event because of insurance problems. > Please tell us this story and tell us what You think it means. Thanx Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 6 16:05:02 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 26 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:41:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Insurance To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The Kitchener Waterloo story is simple. To use municipal property in the KW area, a group must have $5 million worth of insurance. (Why? Who knows? If you live in KW the "why" is irrelevant.) The SCA's insurance policy does not provide this. Getting one-day insurance separately is prohibitively expensive. On the other hand, insurance to this level for all of Ontario would be well within the means of the Ontario groups if they banded together and bought it. You don't need to be a corporation to do this, but it would simplify things, especially raising the money. What I think it means is that at least here and probably elsewhere, there are a lot of practical problems that the SCA, Inc. has a hard time dealing with, but that regional corporations could easily deal with. A further, tangential, point, is that repeated requests for details on the SCA insurance policy by the group looking into incorporation (including the Principality Seneschal) have yet to get a satisfactory response, after months. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 6 16:21:18 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 12:48:41 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Analysis To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <318C0DAC@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> Greetings from Fiacha, On Sat, 4 May 1996, Steve Muhlberger wrote: > We are really trying to tackle three different but related questions. > > 1. Who owns the rules of the game. > 2. Who adjudicates disputes. > 3. Who handles financial and legal aspects of the Society's operations. Agreed. > I don't think anyone thinks having a lot of appeals going to the Board of > Directors (currently also in charge of most of #3) is a good idea. I rather like this idea, provided that this is all that they do.. > Fiacha's Ugly Compromise, which I have also misplaced, grants the > near-consensus position of #3 (foreign corps for foreign jurisdictions where > necessary). It answers question #1 by keeping ownership with the SCA, Inc. > I forget what it says about adjudication, if anything. I left both #1 and #2 with the Board. I'm not terribly attached to the proposal, viewing it as a minimal change option that might be acceptable to the conservatives among us. > Galleron's proposal is close to mine with two big BUTs. My reading of > it channels adjudication through corporations before it gets to a World > Court. This is messy, because our kingdoms and principalities do not follow > corporate lines or vice-versa. There may be legal considerations that say > G's is the better approach, but it is messy! I'm not convinced that the mundane corporations have any business getting involved in adjudications. If you twist my arm enough, I might go with allowing them jurisdiction if all parties are member of the same corporation. > Near consensus: Multiple corporations (i.e. recognizing reality). No one > has put forward a proposal saying that everyone and everything should belong > to the SCA, Inc. > Near consensus: Distancing game appeals and rule enforcement from the > corporate functions. > BUT no agreement on how appeals would work: through corporations or > game units? And what is the court of final appeal? > Near consensus: Court of final appeal on individual questions should not be > the Board of Directors. Can we have a pair of competing proposals that fit this analysis? > Rule ownership: No agreement. SCA, Inc. (Milpitas) owning the rules? This > raises questions of representation, and affects the question of adjudication. > World body? This raises the question of how that body should be constituted, > and what else (if anything) it should do. Can we explicitly defer this issue? > Lastly, there is the question of what the rules of the game are. In some > ways this is a curious question. We know what the rules of the game are. We > have Corpora, and we have decisions that have been made on the basis of > Corpora. Peerages are defined, selection of and powers of the Crown are > defined, types of groups are defined, other titles are defined. A lot of > things are not defined and fall outside of Corpora and are handled > differently in different places. I feel that we are the wrong group to address this issue. > The one place where they may need to be changed is in the counting of > memberships for group status and eligibility for office. If we decentralize > corporate functions, something has to be done about this. This was what my proposal was directed towards. Obviously I got it wrong, but I don't think anyone else has come close to resolving the issue. Voting closes on May 26 so that I can write a report in time for the next Board meeting. I can deal with adding and subtracting proposals until the end of this week. I can deal with modifying proposals until the end of next week. Fiacha Current voting summary. Votes cast by Modius, Hossein, Alban, Artos 1. Q1 5001 15% 2. Fiacha 1100 05% 3. Alysoun 3755 50% 4. Q2 1000 02% 5. Alysoun +325 50% 6. Finnvarr 2888 65% 7. Galleron 9388 70% 8. Solveig 4168 47% From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 6 18:26:22 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:13:02 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Call for Votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Fri, 3 May 1996 15:48:06 -0700) Responding to Fiacha's call -- >1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we resove >relations with foreign corporations. 1 -- while I can see why this would be desireable, I don't think it's practical. Having run the membership working group, it is *very* clear to me that this is a big, thorny, and emotional issue. I don't think we *need* to answer it before the relations question, so I think it *must* be put off. (This is, BTW, a *very* reluctant vote; my gut says 8, but my head says 1.) >2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps buy >memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. 0 -- it fails my main goals here. It's almost worse than status quo in my book, because it looks like reform without reforming what I see as the crucial areas. (Sorry.) >3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. 5 -- like I've said, I think the idea is reasonable, but I think it's at most semi-relevant at the moment, so I'm abstaining. >4. We need to define the game before we can separate game control from >the Board of the SCA Inc. 0 -- *Absolutely* not. I think we will need to define it more rigorously before we *finish* doing that, but I think we *must* get started and learn as we go, otherwise nothing will happen. (We can and will argue about the exact definition of the game for-bleeding-ever.) I think the two processes necessarily have to occur in tandem... >5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into >World Council) 3 -- it's an improvement over the status quo, but I find it weak. >6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by Kingdoms and >Principalities) 10 -- I don't think it's anywhere near sufficient in and of itself, but I agree entirely with everything in it. >7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) 9 -- not quite as Mom-and-apple-pie as Finnvarr's version, but I agree with most of the details. (And I consider it compatible with Finnvarr's.) >8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World Court, >describes possible world service corp.) 5 -- I don't dislike it (modulo the name issue about using the term "Landmarks"), but I find it weaker than Galleron's, so I'll abstain. -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "`I am that merry wanderer of the night'? I am that giggling-dangerous- totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life-and-limb, more like it." "Shush, Peaseblossom! The Puck might hear you!" -- from Sandman From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 6 19:02:34 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 23 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:44:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Fiacha's questions To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I think that the fact that there are separable questions doesn't mean that they can be answered in sequence. As far as I can tell, no one here is against having appeals adjudicated by some other body than the Board. But unless we have some suggestions on who will do the job, making this recommendation doesn't mean much. Adjudication also brings in the question of who owns the rules. Many of us think that the SCA, Inc. should recognize foreign corporations. But unless there is some kind of standard for judging them -- as Magnus points out -- this would be ridiculous. Which brings in the question of who owns the rules. Which has implications for appeals. I think there are 3 questions with different possible answers, but answering them separately is not useful. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 6 20:07:50 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 19:55:17 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Re: Call for Votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl I will be on vacation in Ireland from Wednesday the 9th for 2 1/2 weeks and will be unable to make any votes other than this or otherwise follow the discussion. Fiacha, please consider these my final votes. >1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we resove relations >with foreign corporations. 0- As much as I would like to see this resolved, we can get by without it for now. We'll need some space to talk about it as a separate topic as we did in the membership committee. >2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps >buy memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. 3- I don't see any practical value over what we have now, and keeping ultimate control of the game in the hands of the American corp just doesn't seem fair somehow... >3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. 5- No feeling one way or the other >4. We need to define the game before we can separate game >control from the Board of the SCA Inc. 0 - Same reason as proposition #1 >5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into >World Council) 2 - >6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by Kingdoms and >Principalities) 7- I like the general idea but would like to see it fleshed out more. >7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) 8 - My favorite by far, although the extra levels of work to go through an appeal bother me. >8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member >World Court, describes possible world service corp.) 4- Too admin heavy. It may take me a while to get back up to speed when I get back but I'll do my best. (Yes I know I don't post much but I do read everything- and I'm not looking forward to my mail list when I get home...) Master Serwyl ap Morgan From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 6 21:21:58 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 42 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 21:06:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: My votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we resove >relations with foreign corporations. 0 -- An important issue, but.. >2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps buy >memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. 0 -- I don't think it will work. 3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. 10 -- Magnus is right that criteria have to be worked out, but this is an obvious step that has already been part-taken. >4. We need to define the game before we can separate game control from >the Board of the SCA Inc. 0 5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into World Council) 0 6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by Kingdoms and Principalities) 9 -- because I know it's not perfect. 7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) 8 -- because I like mine better than his :-) 8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World Court, describes possible world service corp.) 2 -- I don't think it will fly. I did like the last point -- on sponsorship of events. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 06:08:51 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 10:09:49 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Lord Magnus says: >... with the exception of >Australia, the Multiple corporations model has worked just as poorly as the >One Corp model. The One Corp has proved to be pathetically inept in handling legal facts outside the USA. I don't quite see in what ways the multiple corps model has worked badly: what blatantly doesn't work is the *interaction* between SCAInc and the local corps/associations, because until very recently SCAInc simply ignored their existence, instead of asking itself *why* they had come to exist. >It seems small numbers of people can make off with large >chunks of a Kingdom--Nordmark. The Nordmark mess has very little to do with the existence of a local Swedish corp. A number of people here decided that they didn't want to play SCA anymore. If they had been members of SCAInc to begin with, they could have left it and started their own operation anyway, once they decided they wanted to play a different game. It takes three people, 20 minutes (plus one week to call the meeting) and no money to start a non-profit here. The Big Trouble started when those people claimed that *they* were The True Nordmark(TM) and that, in spirit, Nordmark had never been SCA at all. Of course, SCAInc behaving as if everyone was living under US law and custom didn't make things easier at that point, not to mention the military background and mentality of most Drachenwald Americans. >... We don't even seem >to know how many corps there are in Europe. Even less do we know how many >are operating in such a way as to cause problems for the SCA. Maybe you don't know. Tough luck. Rest assured that the Drachenwald seneschal knows, and the Board knows. As for causing problems - is that problems for the SCA, or the SCAInc? We play the same game: if you came to an event in Holland or Sweden, you'd feel right at home. Also, all European corps that claim to support SCA activities are required to prove that our tax status is in order. But yes, we do cause trouble to SCAInc by pointing out that the mundane rules we need to cope with differ from those in California, Texas or North Dacota, and by insisting on wanting to follow these rules, precisely because we don't want to harm the reputation of SCA-associated people and activities. >... They exist, but >to a great degree they do NOT exist within the SCA...at this point... Oh, we would, gladly. But not at the cost of jumping through hoops that don't make legal sense where we live, or that actually inhibit our activities or give us a bad name locally. >... only should be part of the SCA to the point that actively serve some >purpose. That some local people someplace thought they should build a >corporation is no guarantee of this. Okay. Magnus, can you say "non-profit status, tax exemption, the right to open a bank account, the right to rent a municipally owned site, the right to apply for an alcohol licence for an event"? Are those "purposes" by your definition? An American corp the shape of SCAInc can't give us that, at least not easily. Those "local people" (you make it read like "primitive natives", do you notice?) don't build corps just for the perverted pleasure of doing it, or to get the SCAInc's goat. Starting and running a local non-profit may be easy, but it ain't *that* much fun! That some people across the Atlantic think that we don't need a local/national corp is certainly no guarantee that this actually is the case. The SCAInc has done nothing to show it. Considering that our local Board (I know them, I've voted to put them there!) consists of just as responsible adults, just as aware of the current legal realities, as ever the BoD of the SCAInc, if you want to convince us that SCAInc is all we need to cover the mundane side of our activities, the burden of proof rests with you (or the SCAInc, whatever). /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 06:19:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 11:52:22 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 6 20:05:09 1996 >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Recognizing reality? >To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > >At 07:08 PM 5/4/96 PDT, Finnvar wrote: > >>I think that most people would grant that one corporation cannot handle all >>of #3 (because this is the status quo). > >Magnus: >I've recieved more information that indicates that with the exception of >Australia, the Multiple corporations model has worked just as poorly as the >One Corp model. It seems small numbers of people can make off with large >chunks of a Kingdom--Nordmark. I would like to point out that "a small number of people" did NOT make off with Nordmark; Nordmark is still within SCA! A not-so-small number of people stopped paying fees to SCA,Inc. because that fee does not buy anything they want. Heck, it does not buy anything I want, but I pay it so that Nordmark will still exist in the SCA. Under the model that (I think) Alysoun suggested a couple of weeks back, foreign membership = membership in a SCA-affiliated organization outside US, there would be 200+ SCA members in Nordmark. Two years ago there would have been 600+ members! AND: The One Corp Model has never worked in Sweden/Nordmark. The affiliated (or whatever) corps model has, for ten years. >In recognizing any Corps, it will be necessary that some authority only >recognize corps and groups that can and will play the game. Agreed. >This is why I felt I had to comment on the idea that we should just >recognize multiple corps becasue they are the status quo. They exist, but >to a great degree they do NOT exist within the SCA...at this point...and >only should be part of the SCA to the point that actively serve some >purpose. That some local people someplace thought they should builda >corporation is no guarantee of this. Do you actually want some central office somewhere (Milpitas?) to decide wether a separate corp for Sweden and for Ontario and Australia and &c is a better idea than trying to bend a US corp to fit everywhere, *and do a better job than the local people***? Local people know local laws and customs, probably better than non-locals.... Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 09:14:11 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 52 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 09:00:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Frithiof said: >Do you actually want some central office somewhere (Milpitas?) to >decide wether a separate corp for Sweden and for Ontario and >Australia and &c is a better idea than trying to bend a US corp to fit >everywhere, *and do a better job than the local people***? Local people >know local laws and customs, probably better than non-locals.... This is exactly the point. Dealing adequately with all possible legal matters would challenge the legal staff of General Motors. Indeed, General Motors does not have a single, world-wide corporation. Can the SCA, Inc. deal with such things as the Kitchener-Waterloo insurance situation on a case-by-case basis? Do we need to revamp the entire SCA's insurance policy everytime a medium sized group runs into trouble? Just exactly who is going to do this work? How much will it cost? On the other hand, if the SCA, Inc. cannot practically deal with such problems, what precisely are the people in Kitchener-Waterloo paying their memberships for? TI? Well, they HAVE to get TI. The Kingdom newsletter? Most people in Ontario could function perfectly well in the SCA with only the Principality newsletter, which is produced in Ontario and is not bundled up with the SCA membership. But they HAVE to buy them. Insurance? Ha ha! They have to find insurance of their own before they can use the best local sites. Magnus, it seems to me that you are unfairly putting the burden of proof on people who say that a US corporation does not efficiently provide to non-US groups the services that corporation claims to provide -- communication and a legal structure. The burden of proof is on you. These "local corporations" meet local needs. Some have existed for two decades. If you think that they can be replaced by a single worldwide corporation that does the job of the local ones to the satisfaction of the people who have to, for instance, find tournament sites in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, or Sydney, Australia, then show us. The people who are complaining are doing so on the basis of long experience. What do you have to counterbalance these practical concerns? And again, how much will preserving the single corporation model cost? How much will it cost US members? Ask the people in your local group how much more they are willing to pay for their memberships so that people in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario can get sites. Perhaps your main concern here is to preserve a central body that keeps people playing the same game and keeps groups from calling themselves the SCA while actually running a Satanist motorcycle gang, or whatever. I share that concern. However, I think you are conflating the two concerns -- game uniformity and practical daily membership services. These are two different issues, and have to be dealt by separate structures. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 10:52:24 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 10:37:55 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: admin heavy? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 22:39:47 -0500 >From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: admin heavy? Noble Cousins! I'm frankly astonished that even though my proposal had absolutely no administration in it, it is somehow perceived as being administration heavy and engaged in micromanagement. The people specified by it were as follows: World Council: 1 representative from each kingdom and principality. World Court 9 justices. Experience also suggests that there should probably be somebody with a job similar to the Steward or the Society Seneschal. This person would serve at the behest of the World Council. I am not convinced that this office is necessary, however various members of the Grand Council have called for it. ------ That was it. The ombudsmen were appeals clerks who would accept appeals >from the the kingdoms assigned to them. These are the same guys who are also busy being justices. They are specified so that someone out in the Canton of Dysphoria will know who to send their complaints to. This is a direct transfer of the extant ombudsman system from the BoD to the World Court. It is NOT and administrative system. The world court was also expected to elect a chairman from among its experienced members. I think that the experiences of the Grand Council amply demonstrated the need for a chairman to set agendas and stuff like that. I also required that regional groups have some way of adjudicating their problems before they get sent up to the World Court. I don't care whether this is done on the Recreation side or the Corporation side of things. That should be be set up in such a way as to best support each regional group's vision of how it does medieval recreation. However, you have to have some lower level resolution mechanism or some kingdoms will be dumping all of their dirty laundry on the World Court and the World Court will simply not be able to handle it all. These are going to be nine unpaid volunteers for pity sakes. So if Western Rite kindoms want to play "king's word is law", fine by me, but they had best have a local mundane organization playing the role that the BoD now plays. (Please remember that we will all too soon have dozens of kingdoms.) I also mentioned the possibility of a World Service corporation. This depends upon how various adminstrative and other functions will be distributed. This can be worked out later. However, the World Service Corporation would serve the World Council. I think that whether or not there should be a World Service Corporation is as yet unclear. That can only be figured out once the Grand Council has settled upon a macroscopic structure. Once that is done, various jobs can be allocated either to local corporations or to a world corporation. Master Bertram of Berrignton has argued pretty convincingly that it is possible to save money by using an outsourced central registry. Whether or not central contracts require a world service corporation or not is I think a matter for legal and business study and not for political fidgitting. Your Humble Servant Solveig Thronardottir Amateur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 12:01:00 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 10:47:09 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Insurance To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 03:41 PM 5/6/96 PDT, you wrote: >The Kitchener Waterloo story is simple. > >To use municipal property in the KW area, a group must have $5 million worth >of insurance. (Why? Who knows? If you live in KW the "why" is irrelevant.) First off that is just silly...are there anyother cities that require this? >The SCA's insurance policy does not provide this. > > > >On the other hand, insurance to this level for all of Ontario would be well >within the means of the Ontario groups if they banded together and bought it. > Yes, but is there any reason for them to do so except for municipal sites in KW? >You don't need to be a corporation to do this, but it would simplify things, >especially raising the money. I what way would this simplify anything? > >What I think it means is that at least here and probably elsewhere, there are >a lot of practical problems that the SCA, Inc. has a hard time dealing with, True, but >but that regional corporations could easily deal with. I've seen no reason to think that a smaller corp could do any better, rather there would be more corps messing up than just one. > >A further, tangential, point, is that repeated requests for details on the >SCA insurance policy by the group looking into incorporation (including the >Principality Seneschal) have yet to get a satisfactory response, after >months. This is more than tangential. I see this as being the primary problem. What info is trying to be found out, and from whom? Thanx, Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun May 5 20:26:44 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 104 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 19:08:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Analysis To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Today is the nicest day Northern Ontario has seen since last August. I hope you all had good weather, too, and were out enjoying it. I was looking at the various proposals and questions that we are supposed to be voting on, and this occurred to me. We are really trying to tackle three different but related questions. 1. Who owns the rules of the game. 2. Who adjudicates disputes. 3. Who handles financial and legal aspects of the Society's operations. I think that #2 and #3 are not all that controversial, within this group. (I've been looking over my personal archive.) I don't think anyone thinks having a lot of appeals going to the Board of Directors (currently also in charge of most of #3) is a good idea. I think that most people would grant that one corporation cannot handle all of #3 (because this is the status quo). Anyone who doubts can apply to me to the story of how the Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario branch just had to cancel their main recruiting event because of insurance problems. In my proposal, I have tried to supply an answer to #1, and the answer is, a body appointed by the top rank "game" organizations. My inclusion of Principalities among the appointing bodies was done to make sure that right >from the start non-US groups would have a share in the ownership. My proposal also supplies an answer to #2. Alysoun's proposal answers #3 (corporate) very neatly and simply by ignoring #1 (ownership). One can infer that the SCA, Inc. (Milpitas) still owns the rules under her scheme, but this is not a necessary part of it. I don't have a copy of her IAC becomes the World Council. Perhaps this took care of both #1 (ownership) and #2 (adjudication). Fiacha's Ugly Compromise, which I have also misplaced, grants the near-consensus position of #3 (foreign corps for foreign jurisdictions where necessary). It answers question #1 by keeping ownership with the SCA, Inc. I forget what it says about adjudication, if anything. Galleron's proposal is close to mine with two big BUTs. My reading of it channels adjudication through corporations before it gets to a World Court. This is messy, because our kingdoms and principalities do not follow corporate lines or vice-versa. There may be legal considerations that say G's is the better approach, but it is messy! Also G agrees with me that a world body would own the rules, and have final adjudication powers. However, (here's the other BUT) while corporate functions of one sort would be decentralized, others would be kept under a world corporation (publications, possibly). Solveig's proposal grants the existence of multiple corporations, and proposes a fairly developed world body for rule ownership and adjudication. It seems to me that we have near consensus on some points, some important differences on others. Near consensus: Multiple corporations (i.e. recognizing reality). No one has put forward a proposal saying that everyone and everything should belong to the SCA, Inc. Near consensus: Distancing game appeals and rule enforcement from the corporate functions. BUT no agreement on how appeals would work: through corporations or game units? And what is the court of final appeal? Near consensus: Court of final appeal on individual questions should not be the Board of Directors. Rule ownership: No agreement. SCA, Inc. (Milpitas) owning the rules? This raises questions of representation, and affects the question of adjudication. World body? This raises the question of how that body should be constituted, and what else (if anything) it should do. Lastly, there is the question of what the rules of the game are. In some ways this is a curious question. We know what the rules of the game are. We have Corpora, and we have decisions that have been made on the basis of Corpora. Peerages are defined, selection of and powers of the Crown are defined, types of groups are defined, other titles are defined. A lot of things are not defined and fall outside of Corpora and are handled differently in different places. The question of what are the rules only arises if the rules are to be changed. The one place where they may need to be changed is in the counting of memberships for group status and eligibility for office. If we decentralize corporate functions, something has to be done about this. Otherwise, I see very little uncertainty about what the rules ARE. There is more uncertainty about what the rules SHOULD BE. Ah, but that's a different matter. Finnvarr Quote du jour: "I didn't play all that Dungeons and Dragons without learning something about courage." -- Young nerd on the X-Files. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 12:39:24 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 59 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 12:26:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Insurance To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Responding to Magnus: >First off that is just silly...are there anyother cities that require this? Yes, it is silly; no, I don't think anyone else requires it; but as I said, the why is irrelevant to the group. The requirement is preventing one of our mainline groups from using their best sites for recruiting, practicing, etc. It is a problem that the local group has been wrestling with for more than a year, and they think it is a big problem. >Yes, but is there any reason for them to do so except for municipal sites in >KW? Something has to be done about the KW problem. Practical suggestion? I also strongly suspect that some at least of the Ontario organizations that rent us sites would find Canadian insurance more reassuring than a foreign coverage rider from the States. (Anecdotal evidence.) >>You don't need to be a corporation to do this, but it would simplify things, >>especially raising the money. >I what way would this simplify anything? Well, if you want to collect $3500 for a really good local insurance policy, there has to be some framework for collecting and administering the money. >I've seen no reason to think that a smaller corp could do any better, rather >there would be more corps messing up than just one. The main reason: a smaller corp would be more quickly responsive to the local environment. If the insurance situation changes in Ontario, an Ontario group can quickly respond. If it doesn't, people know where to find the people responsible. >>A further, tangential, point, is that repeated requests for details on the >>SCA insurance policy by the group looking into incorporation (including the >>Principality Seneschal) have yet to get a satisfactory response, after >>months. >This is more than tangential. I see this as being the primary problem. This is not the first, or the fifth, time that we in Ontario have had problems getting info in a timely fashion. Why? The Corp has a very small number of employees trying to cover too much territory. I see it as a systemic problem. >What info is trying to be found out, and from whom? What the insurance policy actually says, and so that insurance people here can look at it and see if it is adequate (for groups outside KW). I have not personally tried, so I can't provide any further details. Ghita has kindly told me that the info will be forthcoming soon (after personnel changes at head office). Finnvarr Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 13:06:53 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 09:42:18 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: where is paid membership (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 22:07:47 -0500 From: Barbara Nostrand To: fiacha@PREMIER1.NET Subject: where is paid membership Lord Fiacha! I thought I covered that in my proposal. As far as I can tell, the big reason I got tarred for "micromanagement" was because I tried to deal with implementation detail. Regardless, if the thumbnail propals win the straw ballot (as I suspect they will), I do think that it behooves the Grand Council to thrash out initial implementation plans. That is details on how things would work until there is enough experience with things to fine tune them. One thing you don't want to do is recruit a bunch of well meaning people and dump an amorphous blob on them. That will simply result in a rerun of the first year of Grand Council, except for much higher stakes. Anyway. My proposal was that membership would be local. Each recreation side territory would be associated as necessary with one or more corporations. All territories not having a specific local corporation at start up would be covered by the existing corp (Milpitas). However, any territory could form its own corporation and take over corporate functions. Groups outside of the United States would be specifically encouraged and aided in doing so as soon as possible. Paid membership in any affiliated local corporation would receive reciprocity rights in terms of event attendence sponsored by any other affiliated local corporation. (This is how certain rights work in NASCO.) Essentially, the local corporation would distribute universal SCA affiliation membership cards to those which it considered to be paid members. Registry services should be considered at another date. About a year ago, I proposed a multi-part card scheme which would allow the things to be sold locally. Once the overall organization is settled upon, how to handle the registry can be dealt with. I strongly suggest implementing some version of Master Bertram's outsourcing scheme. However, this will only work at the global level if there is some sort of central service corporation. Otherwise, it will all have to be handled by local registries. Or locally contracted out. Master Bertram has argued that contracted central registry is the lowest cost approach. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar --- Please post this if you consider it worthy of doing so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 13:25:04 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 12:05:13 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Should have labeled the topic line as above originally... Members of the Grand Council, and other concerned and contributing Friends: As to all of your above replies...I find almost nothing to disagree with. I will try to be concise. 1. I do not feel the current SCA, Inc running everything model is working. 2. There definitely do seem to be needs for other Corps world wide. In fact my early statements that I had seen NO necessary reasons for other Corps (Which was true at the time) has resulted in many good posts showing us some of those reasons. 3. My current main point was: Just because a corp was created in the past does Not mean that it should be Automatically made part of a new structure. 4. Some group with technical expertise needs to be able to advise new groups what they need to run legally. 5. Some group with technical expertise needs to be able to advise SCA, Inc. or SCA World or The Council of the Known World as to whether a new corp is assembled and running legally before it is "Recognized." 6. I am strongly trying to avoid the Assumption that just because someone has built a corporation, then it must be true that: A. It is needed. B. They know what they're doing. and C. The corporation is meeting those needs. 7. If the assumtions in 6. were all true, then SCA, Inc in Milpitas would be already be perfect and there would be no need for a Grand Council or any advised changes. You have apologies for upsetting people by being unclear. You have my thanks for bringing out the facts behind the assumptions some people seem to hold. And at the risk of upsetting folks, I'll surely continue to question those assumptions. Please never stop challenging my facts, theories or assumptions if they don't match what you know. Sometimes I'll be wrong, sometimes I'll be right, but I'll always be digging. Yours in Service to the Grand Council, Society and especially To the Dream. Magnus MagUire From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 13:29:20 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 12:05:11 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? Comments: To: James Prescott To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 01:18 AM 5/7/96 -0600, you wrote: > > >Nonsense. In Alberta the halls and other places we rent have their >own property damage insurance, which we pay for in higher hall >rental fees. The SCA Inc. policy has been completely redundant. /snip/ This was written in direct response to a Canadian post that the group there could not rent municipal property because they needed $2 million in insurance instead of the $1 million that the SCA Inc provides. Not nonsense. Doesn't necessarily apply to your group either. But not nonsense And as far as we >have ever been able to get a straight answer out of Milpitas, >nobody local is covered by the current SCA Inc. policy anyway. > Absolutely... this is a Big Big Problem >The largest British Columbia corporation provides, in addition >to all of the above, amateur sports insurance which includes >liability, additional medical coverage for more-than-basic care, >and full medical coverage while travelling in the US! For $5 per >person per year. Beat that! Don't want to beat it, just want to join it. > > >> A number of corporations have been created >> in Canada, but they don't follow Canadian tax law either. > >Nonsense. This is completely and utterly untrue. If anything, >it is *exactly* the reverse of the truth. Sorry my friend, but right below this you completly contradict yourself. The un-incorporated >groups (mostly in Ealdormere and points east, by the way) >generally do not file with the tax department. This is *** >technically illegal because, while they are not usually *** >liable to pay any tax as unincorporated non-profits, they >are still required to tell the tax man. But the tax man >could care less about small groups that don't file. Just because the groups are currently getting away with it does NOT make it legal. > > > >If our gross revenue exceeds $30,000, /snip/ That should be easy enough to avoid. /snip/ > >Nonsense. Our local corporation serves many excellent and >necessary purposes, as I have detailed in this and other >notes to you. And you and others have also pointed out that altho the SCA, Inc owning everything approach has problems, they can sometimes be fixed from within SCA, Inc. Also, sometimes local corps have been formed and the problems still exist. Canada seems to have corps that are very helpfuland some that don't accomplish much. European corps have been both helpful and baneful. It is the non unified ad lib approach that has caused much of this and a change is required rather than just "recognizing" whatever is out there. > >All my best, >Thorvald Grimsson/James Prescott (james@nucleus.com) (PGP 2.6.2 user) Thanx for your continued valuable input. Magnus > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 13:45:24 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 14 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 13:30:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Sports insurance To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >>The largest British Columbia corporation provides, in addition >>to all of the above, amateur sports insurance which includes >>liability, additional medical coverage for more-than-basic care, >>and full medical coverage while travelling in the US! For $5 per >>person per year. Beat that! >Don't want to beat it, just want to join it. EVERYBODY who hears about this one wants to join it. :-) Let's all move to B.C.! Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 13:51:41 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 18 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 13:35:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Like Magnus says, that business of what kind of corps to recognize is going to be a big problem. I'm not sure the GC can sort this one out. It CAN be recommended to the Board that in principle, at least for non-US groups, membership in a foreign SCA corporation can be considered equivalent to membership in the SCA, Inc. This is basically Alysoun's "recogninition of foreign corps" option. A list of requirements for what those foreign corps would be like would probably end up being pretty short and reasonably simple. But it will take expertise and a fair amount of thought to sort it out. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 13:51:53 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 12:32:44 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Insurance To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 12:26 PM 5/7/96 PDT, Finnvarr wrote: >Responding to Magnus: >Something has to be done about the KW problem. Practical suggestion? One of our Canadian respondents (Torvald I believe) suggests that local roups regularly get low priced event insurance for individual events...is this practical? > >I also strongly suspect that some at least of the Ontario organizations that >rent us sites would find Canadian insurance more reassuring than a foreign >coverage rider from the States. (Anecdotal evidence.) If the policy is actually OK and available I suspect and hope this is really a non problem. > >>I what way would this simplify anything? > >Well, if you want to collect $3500 for a really good local insurance policy, >there has to be some framework for collecting and administering the money. If there is a group, there is a structure. For this purpose don't see a corp helping > $3500.00 ouch! For $3500.00 I suspect we could at least double the Society wide Policy limits to $2,000,000.00. >>I've seen no reason to think that a smaller corp could do any better, rather >>there would be more corps messing up than just one. >The main reason: a smaller corp would be more quickly responsive to the >local environment. If the insurance situation changes in Ontario, an Ontario >group can quickly respond. If it doesn't, people know where to find the >people responsible. Some people know where to find the responsible people. If there is a problem, often it will just slide. (to be specific, in Some groups it will just slide.) In Insurance there is a huge efficiency of scale. I suggest having whoever found the Sports insurance coverage for the British Columbia Corp be put in charge of Insurance for the Whole Society, or at least all of Canada. They've found what might be the first actually Useful policy in Society history. > >>> repeated requests for details on the >>>SCA insurance policy by the group looking into incorporation (including the >>>Principality Seneschal) have yet to get a satisfactory response, >> The Corp has a very small >number of employees trying to cover too much territory. I see it as a >systemic problem. >Ghita has kindly >told me that the info will be forthcoming soon (after personnel changes at >head office). Good, that should do it. If not soon I'd be glad to attempt to run through channels for you. It might be useful for you and it would definitely be educational for me. Actually, if you do get a copy of the policy please forward me a copy. I'm reachable by fax at (218) 727-5514. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 13:58:04 1996 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: 969 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 13:46:27 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Insurance To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605071547.KAA07788@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at May 7, 96 10:47:09 am Greetings from Tibor. Finnvarr answered many of the points I was saving up, in response to Magnus, about Kitchener-Waterloo. Thanks, Finnvarr. Magnus, part of what I would like to impart to you, is that we can question other entities all we like, but we cannot necessarily change them. That is why the phrase "go fight City Hall" has the meaning it does. Who knows why municipal sites in Kitchener-Waterloo require that insurance? I don't know: but one of the reasons our domestic policy has at least 1 million in insurance is because many domestic US sites require the that amount. Who knows why insurance underwriters prefer to deal with corporations? I don't know: but I suspect it is because that is a standard means of doing business. I've seen no reason to think that a smaller corp could do any better, rather there would be more corps messing up than just one. What you forgetting, however, is the real world's prejudice for propinquity. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 14:19:44 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 13:07:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Insurance To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 01:46 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: > >What you forgetting, however, is the real world's prejudice for propinquity. > > Tibor > True, but we cannot let prejudice overcome reason, lest propinquity becomes in inequity. Magnus NB: My above statement is posted mostly because I was forced to look up the word "propinquity", at least as much as because it is pertinent. :{)> M From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 14:39:40 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 8 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:17:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Insurance To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I've sent a private message to Magnus on the insurance problem. The one thing everybody might like to know is that, as far as I can tell, the wonderful B.C. insurance is only available to amateur athletic associations in that province. People in Ontario are in no better position to access it than people in New Zealand. Sigh. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 7 14:50:44 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:37:09 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605071705.MAA09342@CP.Duluth.MN.US> (maghnuis@CP.DULUTH.MN.US) Magnus writes: >As to all of your above replies...I find almost nothing to disagree with. And in reply: I pretty much agree with the points you're making as well. There is actually a philosophical issue here, of whether the top game body needs to concern itself with even so basic a mundane issue as you bring up (that the constituent Corps are legally constituted), but for practical purposes I suspect that you're correct -- it's probably wise for SCA-World to make sure that its constituents *are* legal within their jurisdiction. (With the caveat that the requirements for legality will vary a *lot* from country to country...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Why don't we all show our resounding devotion and pledge of allegiance to Mr. Newbie by giving him the talk.bizarre salute of reverence... "plonk"" -- Markk From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 8 03:55:22 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 09:21:19 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Magnus on local corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > European corps have been both helpful and baneful. > >Magnus Please explain. Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 8 17:57:04 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 16:41:43 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I, Magnus, pass on to you all this missive from Thorvald who shows not only how I misread some of his prior info, but also adds some extra info that strongly supports incorporating all Canadian groups of at least Baronial size. We need, Very soon, a format under which to do this on a Society wide basis as needed. Magnus > >On Tue, 7 May 1996, Magnus wrote: > >> >Nonsense. This is completely and utterly untrue. If anything, >> >it is *exactly* the reverse of the truth. >> Sorry my friend, but right below this you completly contradict yourself. > >Not so. Please re-read my text with care. > >My text says that the UN-incorporated groups are technically illegal. > >My text goes on the say that the IN-corporated groups are fine. > >Your claim had been to the opposite effect, to wit that the >incorporated ones were illegal. > >> The un-incorporated >> >groups (mostly in Ealdormere and points east, by the way) >> >generally do not file with the tax department. This is *** >> >technically illegal because, while they are not usually *** >> >liable to pay any tax as unincorporated non-profits, they >> >are still required to tell the tax man. But the tax man >> >could care less about small groups that don't file. >> >> Just because the groups are currently getting away with it does NOT make it >> legal. > >I explicitly said in the paragraph you have just quoted above >that it was technically illegal. > >I added the observation that the actual legal exposure of the >members of those unincorporated groups is minimal, since the >tax man doesn't really *want* to know about them. > >Almost every "SCA" group in Canada that fails to incorporate, >separately or province-wide, is probably also failing to file. > >They don't have to incorporate to file, of course, but if they >do incorporate then they aren't offered the choice of not >filing. By definition, the groups that have incorporated are >*not* illegal vis-a-vis the tax man. > >Separate incorporation (at *least* one corporation per province), >is the *most* cost-effective (and lowest hassle) way of protecting >the interests of Canadians who are playing our game. > >> >If our gross revenue exceeds $30,000, >> /snip/ >> That should be easy enough to avoid. > >Not if several local groups incorporate on a multi-group >basis. About four large baronies up this way would just >about crack that annual revenue. Two large baronies that >hold a Kingdom crown event would just about crack the >limit. Ealdormere, if incorporated provincially, would >crack it several times over. Once you crack that limit >for even one year, it's useless paperwork ever after. > >There is only two legal ways to avoid that limit. Stay >unincorporated (IMHO not in the best interests of the >Canadian members involved). Or incorporate separately, >on a group-by-group basis. > >I think any other alternative would require fraudulent >bookkeeping. > >All my best, >Thorvald Grimsson/James Prescott (james@nucleus.com) (PGP 2.6.2 user) > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 10 06:01:20 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 202 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 20:26:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: Revised Proposal 5/9 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr. Note that the revisions, which discusses the relationship between corporations and medieval units, start quite far down. Don't quit before you get there! --Finnvarr >>>> Revised Proposal For a New International Structure for the Society 5/9 The major changes are in the section on adjudication and jurisdiction. I have also tried to make some other bits more clear. OUTLINE OF PROPOSAL World Council is set up, with reps chosen from each Kingdom and Principality, to interpret the common rules of the game we play, embodied in a document called the Great Charter. The Council controls a spartan SCA-World, which deals with worldwide issues, mostly by a advice and co-ordination. It recognizes as many Mundane Governing Bodies as are needed to meet legal requirements wherever the SCA operates. SCA, Inc.(US) becomes one of these, and ceases to control the others. The Council recognizes game groups that follow the charter. There would be certain advantages to having worldwide publications spun off into a separate organization. This need not be done immediately. In the interim, SCA-Milpitas could continue to produce TI and CA, and make them available to other SCA corps., at a cost intended to cover both direct costs and a proportionate share of publication overhead. Other SCA corps. would make their publications available on the same terms. Spinning off worldwide publications is not an essential part of this proposal, and this issue may be decided at a later time. WORLD COUNCIL Every Kingdom and Principality (excluding Crown Principalities) may choose one representative to the World Council, by any method demonstrably agreeable to the members of the Kingdom or Principality. Kingdoms may not dictate the selection method to be used by their Principalities. Kingdoms and Principalities will be responsible for financing the participation of their representative, and for a share of common expenses. This body interprets the Great Charter, a document that defines the common rules of the game we play. By 2/3 vote, they may amend it, but wouldn't do so very often. The Charter would not be Corpora, but would define those elements that a Corpora must contain for the group that follows it to be part of the Society. For example, it would define Barons, but not say how they must be appointed. To quote Finnvarr, it need not concern itself with the minimum size of Shires. It would specify that SCA groups were not permitted to bring the whole Society into gross disrepute,. or cause injury to other SCA groups. (I only see this coming into play if Kingdom A gets so weird that Kingdom B has a hard time getting sites because of what people in their area have been hearing about "The SCA".) The Council would have the power to decide that a group was violating the Charter, and could no longer be recognized as part of the Society until it rectified the problem. This, and the threat to invoke it, would be the only binding control the Council would have over Society groups. In general, however, it would operate mostly by consent and moral force. It would appoint a review panel to consider matters that come before it. In cases of major policy, the panel would submit its recommendation to the whole Council for consideration and approval. JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL I consider the following to legitimately fall into the Jurisdiction of the World Council, or a review committee it appoints: Interpretation of the Great Charter. Questions of conflict with and violations of the Charter. Recognition of SCA Corps. (Are their governing documents consistent with the Charter?) Recognition of Kingdoms and Principalities (Ditto) Matters affecting more than one SCA corp. Matters affecting the whole of the Society. JURISDICTION OF CORPORATIONS An SCA Corporation, or its representatives, would have standing in: Matters effecting the financial and legal integrity of the Corporation. Violations of the Corporation?s Governing Documents Matters affecting the ability of officers essential to fulfilling the Corporation?s mundane obligations to perform their duties. Requests for the Corporation to employ its mundane coercive powers. Game issues that clearly did not fall into the above categories would not need to be submitted to the Corporation before being brought before the World Review Panel. Issues that did, or possibly did, would first be submitted to the Corp. or its representatives. They would hand on up questions that were, in their judgment, better decided by the World Review Panel. LOCAL REVIEW Groups would be permitted and encouraged to form review panels at the Kingdom or Principality level. Such panels could operate either within or outside the medieval game structure of the Society. They could be chosen by any method manifestly agreeable to the members of the group, provided that the members of the panel were not subject to royal selection or removal. They would have powers as provided in local Corpora, provided that they did not conflict with the Charter. Appropriate matters for such bodies to consider would include: Violations of Local Corpora Violations of Kingdom Law Determinations of Questions of Fact Decisions made by such bodies could be appealed to Council or Corporation when the decision fell into the jurisdiction of either body. I would also like to see a bill of rights for subjects written into the Great Charter, with guaranties of due process and protections from unreasonable penalties. There are some bits in the Magna Carta that seem quite useful. This is another matter for later discussion SCA-WORLD.... ...would be controlled by the Council. It would be a pretty slim organization. I see it including: Laurel Sovereign of Arms, doing pretty much what he does now. Marshalate Advisor. Does NOT control a hierarchy. Does collect some data worldwide on how many fighters are getting injured and by what, as a guide to both the Council, the Kingdoms, and the Boards. As the name implies, his function is advisory. A&S Advisor. Primary function is to glom onto research, resources, and the like that are being produced anyplace in the Society and find them a wider audience. Also advises Council on Arts issues when required. You might also want Medical and Seneschal advisors, to co-ordinate sharing of knowledge in their fields, and to advise the Council. If we continue to have a Society College of Arms, it would seem best to have it answerable to the World Council. The other advisors are not absolutely essential, but I think they would be useful. If my Kingdom was considering, say, face thrusts, it would be convenient to have one person to go to to find what the experience elsewhere was... Other administration? Not much. Someone would have to keep track of contacts and addresses at the various SCA corps. I can't think of much else that would have to happen at the SCA-World level. It may be desirable or necessary for SCA-World to be a Corporation. This proposal does not yet make a recommendation for or against incorporation, and regards it as a matter to be settled in later discussion. MUNDANE GOVERNING BODIES Every SCA branch would be affiliated with a Mundane Governing Body, recognized by SCA-World and appropriate to its jurisdiction, to deal with mundane legal requirements. Such a body must agree not to violate the great charter. Kingdoms and Principalities may be affiliated with SCA, Inc.(US), as they are now. Or they might be affiliated with another national corp. (like Australia's). Or, for a Kingdom spanning several jurisdictions, a federation of corporations, or an umbrella corp. for several national/local corps. Mundane Governing Bodies associated with Kingdoms and Principalities would be alike in their relation to the World body. Each would have its own corpora, consistent with the Charter but otherwise varying according to the requirements of each jurisdiction and the preferences of each group. In my opinion, local SCA corporation should at the very least have control over the appointment, removal, and replacement of Treasurers, Seneschals, Marshals, and Chirurgeons within their jurisdiction, since these officers can impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. I also believe that this should become de-facto Board policy as soon as possible. This would be in contrast to current Corpora, where in theory the authority for all appointments or removals flows jointly from the throne and from Milpitas. MEMBERSHIP For purposes of satisfying the number of subscribing members required for Principality, and Kingdom status, "Subscribing Members" are defined as natural persons maintaining an address within the branch that subscribes to the appropriate Kingdom or Principality newsletter. If the minimum size of Baronies was specified by the charter, they would also use this definition. The intent here is to create a common yardstick between groups with different requirements for mandatory membership. Groups with differing policies might have different proportions of associate membership, but the numbers of people that cared enough to order the newsletter would be more similar. Individual Mundane Governing Bodies may, within the limits of the Charter, have other categories of membership, and may set membership requirements to take part in their activities or hold office. AN EXAMPLE To see how this would work, imagine how the Canadian Principality of Ealdormere would operate under this arrangement. Its inhabitants might continue to be members of SCA, Inc., (US) as they are now. Or they might be members of a Canadian Principality level corp. that pays to produce and deliver a Principality newsletter, and buys TI from SCA Publications. Or you might have some of each. Now, Ealdormere's Corpora might be a clone of that of SCA-US. Or it might be as different as the Charter allows. Or Ealdormere might choose to remain affiliated with the US Corp. and follow its Corpora. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 10 10:02:17 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <3192B7A8@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> with last message <3192B7A8@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 08:43:39 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 5/9 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3192B7A8@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> Yes to Galleron's 5/9 rev. prop. -Erik Langhans modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 13 13:42:15 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:18:41 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:19:32 >To: Christer.Romson@abc.se >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb > >At 08:36 PM 5/9/96 +0100, > >Lindorm responded to > >>my prior post: >I then replied-Magnus > > >>> 4. Some group with technical expertise needs to be able to advise new >>> groups what they need to run legally. >> >>New groups or new corporations? >Either/both at some minimum levels so that the group does not reflect badly on the SCA. One bad SCA group can lead to bad PR and investigatons of all the others. > > Unless we want to set up some kind of >>international law firm, this will be hard to do. Consider the number of >>countries that the sca is in, I'd say let the sca people in each nation >>worry about this. > >This is og course wher we'd find people to assist each group and/or insist that they find someone to do so. >> >>> 5. Some group with technical expertise needs to be able to advise SCA, Inc. >>> or SCA World or The Council of the Known World as to whether a new corp >>> is assembled and running legally before it is "Recognized." >> >>Why? If the group says that everything they do is fine and legally correct, >>why shouldn't we recognize them? >Some level of trust is of course required. But if they know they have to meet some standards they will more likely do so. If they just try to get by ad libere, then they could easily hurt themself in the long run. >>If they aren't set up correctly, it could >>be disaster for them, but I don't see how it could affect the rest of the >>organizations. >One Bankrupt SCA group or one conviction for Tax fraud, fro example is enough to severely damage the reputation of SCA internationally. >> I'll buy that we should investigate things if people start >>complaining that a corp isn't set up right, or if they can't tell us with >>a straight face that they are set up in a good way. But creating a group >>of technical experts to evalueate the legal standing of new foreign >>corps is overkill! > >I agree, a standing panal of legal and accounting experts from each nation is not required. Someone, Society Seneschal maybe?, needs to check and see whether the group has contacted the right kinds of people. Those people may be in house experts or attorneys. We are a large group with lots of connections. We can always find someone that knows what is required. And we should. >> >>> 6. Just because someone has built a corporation, then it must [not] be >>> true that it is needed, they know what they're doing [or] the corporation >>> is meeting those needs. >> >>But is there someone else who knows their needs or what they should do >>better? >Almost always... I personally work with for-profit corporations and other non-profit corporations run by intelligent hard working people who sometimes haven't a clue. But because they are consulting an attorney, they and I working together can meet their needs. My most lucrative cases arise when clients thought they could set things up on their own, discover they messed up something basic and require me to fix it. Fixing after the error is always pricier than making sure it is done right in the first place. > >> If they're set up in a truly alien and non-sca way, the rest of >>the corps, or sca world or whoever ends up in charge can refuse to >>accept the corp. I don't think anyone has suggested that every corp >>created should automagically have a right to be recognized as a sca corp. >> >> Lindorm >> >Magnus > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 13 16:32:27 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 5 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 16:18:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Out of touch To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I will be away from home from Wed May 15 to Wed May 29. I do not know if I will be able to get e-mail from here. I'll let you know when I'm back. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 14 15:36:03 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:12:58 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Administrivia To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Kwellend... -- Justin >From: "David W. James" >Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 14:34:01 -0400 >Subject: Administrivia It is that time of the year when most folks at academic institutions start packing and sweating out finals. This is a small reminder that, if you will not be regularly checking your email over the summer, please unsubscribe from your lists for the duration so that nasty things don't happen. To unsubscribe from SCAGC-L if you will be away from it for a while, send an email message from the subscribing account to listserv@listserv.aol.com with a body of: unsubscribe scagc-l You will be off the list until you send a similar message saying 'subscribe scagc-l firstname lastname'. You can also use the 'nomail' feature, but unsubscribing is better; academic institutions take advantage of the summer to change computing structures, so your email address when you return in the fall may be different from what it is today. Either way will save me (as well as the admins of any other lists you may be subscribed to) a lot of trouble and agrivation. Take care, have fun, and we'll see you when you sign up again. David W. James SCAGC-L ListOwner From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 14 18:24:46 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:07:43 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 5/9 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I am coming back into the conversation after a long absence; I apologize if as a result I misunderstand things that have already been hashed out. Galleron writes: >It recognizes as many Mundane Governing Bodies as are needed to meet legal >requirements wherever the SCA operates. This sounds as though you are limiting the structure to the smallest number of independent corporations that suffice to meet legal requirements. But there might be good reasons other than legal requirements to have more corporations than that. >In my opinion, local SCA corporation should at the very least have control >over the appointment, removal, and replacement of Treasurers, Seneschals, >Marshals, and Chirurgeons within their jurisdiction, since these officers can >impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. And it now sounds as though you are requiring each of those corporations to be a membership corporation with individual members, rather than permitting the option of an incorporated federation whose members are legally independent (incorporated or unincorporated) groups. Am I wrong in thinking that you have eliminated the possibility (for example) of permitting the East Kingdom to create a corporation, as its mundane governing body, which is a federation of the EK groups? In such a system, there is no reason why the EK corporation need have control over the treasurers etc. of the groups that make it up--they are not subdivisions of the corporation (as at present) but members of it. David/Cariadoc From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 14 18:29:10 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:07:37 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >6. I am strongly trying to avoid the Assumption that just because someone has > built a corporation, then it must be true that: > A. It is needed. > B. They know what they're doing. and > C. The corporation is meeting those needs. >Magnus MagUire Let me take off from this to make a general point. In deciding whether to recognize an affiliated group (foreign or U.S.), there are two different questions the SCA Inc. (or its successor organization might ask). 1. Is having this group a good idea (needed, know what they are doing, etc.)? 2. Is this group playing our game? I think it would be desirable to set up our rules so that the central organization only has to answer question 2. The reason is twofold: A. The central organization will usually not be competent to answer question 1. B. If the group isn't needed (but is playing our game), the people who will suffer for the error will be the people who set it up and participate in it (who will find that they have wasted their time and energy setting up a new corporation to do things that were being done better by existing structures), so let them decide. My point is not that the corporation should be completely indifferent to the features of the new organization--we may want to require a minimum size for affiliated groups, for instance, or some structural features that we think important if the central organization is to deal with them. But I don't think that issues such as "are the Swedes better off with their own corporation" ought to be decided in Milpitas. David/Cariadoc From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 16 05:10:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 15:27:55 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Galleron: Revised proposal 5/15 to Forward To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 15:07:52 -0400 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Galleron: Revised proposal 5/15 to Forward I have added a summary of the problems the proposal is trying to solve, and made a number of clarifications of the text. I have marked them *thus* Revised Proposal For a New International Structure for the Society 5/15 I. THE PROBLEM In several cases, because of the requirements of local law and custom, members of the Society have found it desirable to set up corporations distinct from the SCA, Inc. corporation based in Milpitas. The Board has agreed that in many cases these corporations are desirable to meet the needs of the Society, and have recognized several on an ad hoc basis. However, there are a number of unresolved issues: 1. Currently, Corpora requires officers of the Society to be members of SCA, Inc. Participants must be members of SCA,Inc. to count towards the membership requirements for branch size. Where local corporations essentially support all local operations, many participants must hold memberships in both corporations. This is often seen as unnecessary and burdensome. 2. Corpora specifies that the appointment and removal of officers is controlled jointly by the Crown and by officers of SCA,Inc. This is cumbersome, and frequently creates anomalies in foreign jurisdictions. For example, the Exchequer of Nordmark might be considered either an officer of SCA,Inc. (In which case he controls no money, since SCA, Inc. does not operate or legally exist in Sweden.) or an officer of the Swedish Corp. (In which case he is appointed contrary to Corpora) 3. Currently, while there are several SCA corps., the rules of the game are controlled by only one. This seems unfair. 4. Currently, the Board of SCA,Inc not only oversees operations within its jurisdiction, but also controls and interprets the rules of the Society worldwide, has sole responsibility for sanctions against improper Royal actions, and determines which foreign corporations to recognize and what their relation to the Society will be. The Board is seriously overworked. The Board could developed a formal procedure for recognizing affiliated corporations, and rewrite Corpora to allow members of those corporations to be considered members of the Society for purposes of holding Society office and satisfying branch membership totals. Corpora could also allow local corporations to make reasonable regulations to control the appointment and removal of Society officers within their jurisdiction. This would be a useful partial measure, and should be done. It would not, however, address problems 3 and 4. The following proposal attempts to outline a solution. While the proposal is not yet sufficiently detailed for actual implementation, the Council would like to know if the Board agrees with the basic concepts as developed here, and any specific concerns the Board has with the proposal. The Council would be happy to develop the proposal further. II. OUTLINE OF PROPOSAL World Council is set up, with reps chosen from each Kingdom and Principality, to interpret the common rules of the game we play, embodied in a document called the Great Charter. The Council controls a spartan SCA-World, which deals with worldwide issues, mostly by a advice and co-ordination. It recognizes as many Mundane Governing Bodies as are needed to meet legal requirements *and the convenience of the Society* wherever the SCA operates. SCA, Inc.(US) becomes one of these, and ceases to control the others. The Council recognizes game groups that follow the charter. There would be certain advantages to having worldwide publications spun off into a separate organization. This need not be done immediately. In the interim, SCA-Milpitas could continue to produce TI and CA, and make them available to other SCA corps., at a cost intended to cover both direct costs and a proportionate share of publication overhead. Other SCA corps. would make their publications available on the same terms. Spinning off worldwide publications is not an essential part of this proposal, and this issue may be decided at a later time. III. WORLD COUNCIL Every Kingdom and Principality (excluding Crown Principalities) may choose one representative to the World Council, by any method demonstrably agreeable to the members of the Kingdom or Principality. Kingdoms may not dictate the selection method to be used by their Principalities. Kingdoms and Principalities will be responsible for financing the participation of their representative, and for a share of common expenses. *Allowing Principalities to choose reps for the Council will give far more satisfactory representation for non-US branches than if membership was limited to Kingdoms. I believe that this advantage outweighs the arguments against representation for Principalities.* The Council interprets the Great Charter, a document that defines the common rules of the game we play. By 2/3 vote, they may amend it, but wouldn't do so very often. The Charter would not be Corpora, but would define those elements that a Corpora must contain for the group that follows it to be part of the Society. For example, it would define Barons, but not say how they must be appointed. To quote Finnvarr, it need not concern itself with the minimum size of Shires. It would specify that SCA groups were not permitted to bring the whole Society into gross disrepute,. or cause injury to other SCA groups. (I only see this coming into play if Kingdom A gets so weird that Kingdom B has a hard time getting sites because of what people in their area have been hearing about "The SCA".) The Council would have the power to decide that a group was violating the Charter, and could no longer be recognized as part of the Society until it rectified the problem. This, and the threat to invoke it, would be the only binding control the Council would have over Society groups. In general, however, it would operate mostly by consent and moral force. It would appoint a review panel to consider matters that come before it. In cases of major policy, the panel would submit its recommendation to the whole Council for consideration and approval. IV. JURISDICTION A) JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL I consider the following to legitimately fall into the Jurisdiction of the World Council, or a review committee it appoints: Interpretation of the Great Charter. Questions of conflict with and violations of the Charter. Recognition of SCA Corps. (Are their governing documents consistent with the Charter?) Recognition of Kingdoms and Principalities (Ditto) Matters affecting more than one SCA corp. Matters affecting the whole of the Society. B) JURISDICTION OF CORPORATIONS *SCA Mundane Governing Bodies may be Corporations, Incorporated Federations, Associations, etc. For brevity I will refer to the governing bodies simply as Corporations, while recognizing that other structures may be possible or desirable.* An SCA Corporation, or its representatives, would have standing in: Matters effecting the financial and legal integrity of the Corporation. Violations of the Corporation’s Governing Documents *Matters affecting the ability of officers to fulfill the mundane obligations of the Corporation* Requests for the Corporation to employ its mundane coercive powers. Game issues that clearly did not fall into the above categories would not need to be submitted to the Corporation before being brought before the World Review Panel. Issues that did, or possibly did, would first be submitted to the Corp. or its representatives. They would hand on up questions that were, in their judgment, better decided by the World Review Panel. C) LOCAL REVIEW Groups would be permitted and encouraged to form review panels at the Kingdom or Principality level. Such panels could operate either within or outside the medieval game structure of the Society. They could be chosen by any method manifestly agreeable to the members of the group, provided that the members of the panel were not subject to royal selection or removal. They would have powers as provided in local Corpora, provided that they did not conflict with the Charter. Appropriate matters for such bodies to consider would include: Violations of Local Corpora Violations of Kingdom Law Determinations of Questions of Fact Decisions made by such bodies could be appealed to Council or Corporation when the decision fell into the jurisdiction of either body. *Note that if a local panel was acceptable to a Corporation as representatives of the Corporation, this could simplify the process of appeals. However, if someone insisted on appealing a matter affecting the integrity of a Corporation to its Board, I believe the fiduciary duties of the Board would require it to consider the appeal.* I would also like to see a bill of rights for subjects written into the Great Charter, with guaranties of due process and protections from unreasonable penalties. There are some bits in the Magna Carta that seem quite useful. This is another matter for later discussion V. SCA-WORLD.... ...would be controlled by the Council. It would be a pretty slim organization, *consisting of the Council, a few officers to assist it, and whatever legal structure it needed to operate.* I see it including: Laurel Sovereign of Arms, doing pretty much what he does now. Marshalate Advisor. Does NOT control a hierarchy. Does collect some data worldwide on how many fighters are getting injured and by what, as a guide to both the Council, the Kingdoms, and the Boards. As the name implies, his function is advisory. A&S Advisor. Primary function is to glom onto research, resources, and the like that are being produced anyplace in the Society and find them a wider audience. Also advises Council on Arts issues when required. You might also want Medical and Seneschal advisors, to co-ordinate sharing of knowledge in their fields, and to advise the Council. If we continue to have a Society College of Arms, it would seem best to have it answerable to the World Council. The other advisors are not absolutely essential, but I think they would be useful. If my Kingdom was considering, say, face thrusts, it would be convenient to have one person to go to to find what the experience elsewhere was... Other administration? Not much. Someone would have to keep track of contacts and addresses at the various SCA corps. I can't think of much else that would have to happen at the SCA-World level. It may be desirable or necessary for SCA-World to be a Corporation. This proposal does not yet make a recommendation for or against incorporation, and regards it as a matter to be settled in later discussion. VI. MUNDANE GOVERNING BODIES Every SCA branch would be affiliated with a Mundane Governing Body, recognized by SCA-World and appropriate to its jurisdiction, to deal with mundane legal requirements. Such a body must agree not to violate the great charter. Kingdoms and Principalities may be affiliated with SCA, Inc.(US), as they are now. Or they might be affiliated with another national corp. (like Australia's). Or, for a Kingdom spanning several jurisdictions, a federation of corporations, or an umbrella corp. for several national/local corps. Mundane Governing Bodies associated with Kingdoms and Principalities would be alike in their relation to the World body. Each would have its own corpora, consistent with the Charter but otherwise varying according to the requirements of each jurisdiction and the preferences of each group. In my opinion, local SCA corporation should at the very least have control over the appointment, removal, and replacement of Treasurers, Seneschals, Marshals, and Chirurgeons within their jurisdiction, since these officers can impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. I also believe that this should become de-facto Board policy as soon as possible. This would be in contrast to current Corpora, where in theory the authority for all appointments or removals flows jointly from the throne and from Milpitas. VII. MEMBERSHIP For purposes of satisfying the number of subscribing members required for Principality, and Kingdom status, "Subscribing Members" are defined as natural persons maintaining an address within the branch that subscribes to the appropriate Kingdom or Principality newsletter. If the minimum size of Baronies was specified by the charter, they would also use this definition. The intent here is to create a common yardstick between groups with different requirements for mandatory membership. Groups with differing policies might have different proportions of associate membership, but the numbers of people that cared enough to order the newsletter would be more similar. Individual Mundane Governing Bodies may, within the limits of the Charter, have other categories of membership, and may set membership requirements to take part in their activities or hold office. VIII. AN EXAMPLE To see how this would work, imagine how the Canadian Principality of Ealdormere would operate under this arrangement. Its inhabitants might continue to be members of SCA, Inc., (US) as they are now. Or they might be members of a Canadian Principality level corp. that pays to produce and deliver a Principality newsletter, and buys TI from SCA Publications. Or you might have some of each. Now, Ealdormere's Corpora might be a clone of that of SCA-US. Or it might be as different as the Charter allows. Or Ealdormere might choose to remain affiliated with the US Corp. and follow its Corpora. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 16 14:05:22 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:44:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 03:07 PM 5/14/96 -0800, Caradoc wrote: >2. Is this group playing our game? we also need some kind of assurance that the game they are running will not negatively impact "Our" game thru improper mundane structure. > My point is not that the corporation should be completely indifferent to >the features of the new organization--we may want to require a minimum size >for affiliated groups, for instance, or some structural features that we >think important if the central organization is to deal with them. But I >don't think that issues such as "are the Swedes better off with their own >corporation" ought to be decided in Milpitas. > >David/Cariadoc > To use Sweden as an example... "The Swedes" have not made this decision. A few people have made this decission in various places. If I decide to incorporate the Shire of the Inner Sea, it is not the Americans who have decided this issue, nor the Midrealm, not even the members of the SCA Shire of the Inner Sea. Who should have authority to do this for an SCA group. Who should have authority to Confirm this decision. Who should have responsibiity to see that it is done in such a way as to not bring disrepute to the Society or Kingdom? Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 16 15:50:34 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 15:31:02 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Galleron: Implementation Outline To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 14:21:02 -0400 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Galleron: Implementation Outline Unless people have objections, I'd like to add this to the end of my proposal. Let me know soon, since the deadline for changes is, I believe, the end of this week. IX. IMPLEMENTATION OUTLINE Assuming both Board and Society assent to the proposal.... Phase One Board institutes regular procedure to offer affiliated status to suitable foreign SCA corps.. Their members count as members of the Society for purposes of satisfying branch population requirements, and membership requirements for Society officers. They are allowed to make reasonable regulations for the appointment and removal of Society officers within their jurisdiction. They are given the option of purchasing TI in bulk for redistribution to their members. Board permits and encourages the creation of Kingdom and Principality review panels as described in proposal. Where appropriate, it delegates its power of review and to impose sanctions to those panels, while retaining standing for appeals. Kingdoms and Principalities determine how they will choose their World Council reps, and choose them. Phase Two Council appoints World Review Panel. It begins to review game issues that make it past lower review panels, making recommendations to the Board. At this stage it has only advisory powers. Council revises and approves Great Charter. Legal structure drawn up to allow Council to have powers discussed in proposal. Board reviews Charter and suggests any changes to World Council. Great Charter published. Assent of Society to the Charter secured. Phase Three World Council given full legal standing. Board hands over to it control of common game rules, power of review of game issues, and power to recognize, or remove recognition of, SCA groups. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 16 15:52:12 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 15:35:29 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 15:27:58 -0400 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? So far, I've deferred the question of whether SCA-World would need to be a corporation. Let me raise a hypothetical question. Suppose, under the proposal I have outlined, a group of Satanist poodle-burning bikers decides to call itself the SCA. (Or alternatively, an existing SCA group mutates into a bunch of Satanist poodle-burners). The World Council decides that they aren't a recognized SCA group, and tells them to stop calling themselves one. They laugh in our face. Now, if SCA-World is a corporation that owns control of the SCA name, the answer is simple. It can sue them. If SCA-World isn't a corporation, I'm not sure how we would proceed in such a case. Can someone with legal knowledge suggest a way the Society could protect itself if SCA-World was not a legal entity able to own those rights? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 16 16:21:46 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 15:06:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >If SCA-World isn't a corporation, I'm not sure how we would proceed in such a >case. Can someone with legal knowledge suggest a way the Society could >protect itself if SCA-World was not a legal entity able to own those rights? > If it has not yet been done, then the SCA needs to register SCA and Society for Creative Anachronim for Trademark/copyright protection...as well as dba or corporate registration in States and/or countries. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 16 16:51:19 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 16:38:08 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Ownership of the name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Katerine/Terry by Tibor. Forwarded message: From gfrose@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu Thu May 16 16:29 EDT 1996 Date: Thu, 16 May 96 15:27:40 CDT From: gfrose@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu (Gregory Frank Rose) Subject: Ownership of the name Please forward to the Grand Council. Thanks! -- Katerine/Terry =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Greetings to the good gentles of the Grand Council. Galleron has written: > Suppose, under the proposal I have outlined, a group of Satanist > poodle-burning bikers decides to call itself the SCA. (Or alternatively, an > existing SCA group mutates into a bunch of Satanist poodle-burners). The > World Council decides that they aren't a recognized SCA group, and tells them > to stop calling themselves one. They laugh in our face. > > Now, if SCA-World is a corporation that owns control of the SCA name, the > answer is simple. It can sue them. > > If SCA-World isn't a corporation, I'm not sure how we would proceed in such a > case. Can someone with legal knowledge suggest a way the Society could > protect itself if SCA-World was not a legal entity able to own those rights? On the one hand, there is a real, live, Satanic Church of America that calls itself the SCA (I think it's even incorporated), and there's not one blessed thing the SCA, Inc. can do about it. You cannot "own" a set of initials. Unless they actually claim to be part of _us_, there is no tort, and no cause for civil action. For that matter, unless you could show they were attempting either to damage us or to commit a fraud, I doubt that we could do much, in most states, to keep some other group from calling themselves "Society for Creative Anachronism", since we are not registered as doing business in most states, so that as far as most states are concerned, we don't exist there. On the other hand, in at least most states, there is no need to be incorporated to protect a DBA ("Doing Business As"; a name registered with the state as the name under which an individual, association, or corporation is doing business). In order to prevent anyone else using the name, you _still_ would have to show that they are similar enough to you for there to be a reasonable ground for confusion. But given such grounds, incorporation in some other place (and for almost every legal jurisdiction, an incorporated "SCA-World" would be somewhere else) is certainly not sufficient, and in most cases not necessary for protection. -- Katerine/Terry From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 16 16:53:22 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 16:39:33 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605162006.PAA29381@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at May 16, 96 03:06:05 pm If it has not yet been done, then the SCA needs to register SCA and Society for Creative Anachronim for Trademark/copyright protection...as well as dba or corporate registration in States and/or countries. That wouldn't work, and wouldn't be sufficient. And, it argues for more and better separate incorporations, as separate govrenment jurisdictions might not easily recognize foreign corporations. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 16 19:40:15 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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, 16 May 1996 19:25:09 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Is incorporation necessary to register and have protected the potential future trademarks of "SCA" and "Society for Creative Anachronism"? Would the one incorporation of SCA-World convey such protection not only in the country of incorporation but throughout the rest of the world? Galleron, I think this opens up a question that would require legal expertise....but I'd be surprised if incorporation were required for registration, or vice versa. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 16 20:08:50 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 16:43:25 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605161744.MAA25970@CP.Duluth.MN.US> Greetings from Fiacha, On Thu, 16 May 1996, James D. McManus wrote: > At 03:07 PM 5/14/96 -0800, Caradoc wrote: > > >2. Is this group playing our game? > we also need some kind of assurance that the game they are running will not > negatively impact "Our" game thru improper mundane structure. I don't get it. I don't see that a support corporation has any need to be 'playing our game'. Instead, what it has to do is acknowledge that it will support individuals 'playing our game' regardless of their membership status. The existence of a local corporation is, in my mind, irrelevant to the issue of branches going wierd, diverging from the rules and traditions of the SCA or actively causing the mundane population to distrust the SCA as a whole. If the local SCA population are going to do these things, they are going to do them regardless of which corporation they might be members of. > Who should have authority to do this for an SCA group. Who should have > authority to Confirm this decision. Who should have responsibiity to see > that it is done in such a way as to not bring disrepute to the Society or > Kingdom? > > Magnus As with the formation of the SCA Inc., the people who pay for the incorporation have the authority to do so. They may affect the game if they can persuade enough people that they have the power to influence the game. If they are that persuasive, they will be able to influence the game anyway. Local corporations should support the 'game' and not be seen as a way to exert local control over the game. For me, the relevant issues are:- Does the local corporation support the centralized game control/oversight structure, i.e. does it help fund SCA-World Are members of the local corporation treated the same as members of the original corporation with regard to game related issues, i.e. do they count towards branch populations. Can everyone be educated to accept that legal authority derives >from the appropriate corporation at any specific time or place. Funding the central organization remains an issue, mostly because we have no feel for how much the individual services are constig us and thus we have no idea if we are getting our moneys worth. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 09:58:52 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 09:46:38 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Ownership of the name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 17:20:02 -0400 Subject: Re: Ownership of the name (fwd) Please forward to the GC OK, Let's flesh out the hypothetical. Again assume we have the structure outlined in my proposal. A dissident splinter group is denied recognition by the World Council, but continues to insist on calling itself the Society for Creative Anachronism. By conspicuous midnight ignition of gigantic wicker poodles it makes it very difficult for recognized Society groups nearby to get sites, and causes considerable confusion among new members who show up for their demos. If the World Council is an unincorporated association, can it register as as "doing business as" the Society for Creative Anachronism? Can it take legal action? Suppose the splinter group is Kingdom size? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 10:55:37 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:41:35 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 00:38:41 -0500 >From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb Noble Cousins! Lord Magnus asked an astute question: >If I decide to incorporate the Shire of the Inner Sea, it is not the >Americans who have decided this issue, nor the Midrealm, not even the >members of the SCA Shire of the Inner Sea. > >Who should have authority to do this for an SCA group. Who should have >authority to Confirm this decision. Who should have responsibiity to see >that it is done in such a way as to not bring disrepute to the Society or >Kingdom? It seems to me that the answer to this is fairly simple and direct. The Shire of the Inner Sea should decide in very much the same way that they currently decide to become a Shire. The Shire would decide to affiliate with one or another corporation. This corporation would have to meet various criterea in order for the arrangement to be recognized by the SCA. Groups wishing to be sanctioned by the SCA would either affiliate through an existing recognized corporation or would set one up according to broad guidelines and would seek recognition for both the group and the corporation. Yes, this does make it a bit more difficult to affiliate if you are also setting up a corporation. This should discorage frivolous incorporation all by itself. (Essentially, both the medieval side and the mundane side would have to petition for recognition if a new corporation were being set up. However, this is not that much different from how things are currently done. Any group has to present an acceptable group of officers, a petition, membership lists, etc.) However as Duke Carriadoc pointed out, there is no need or this to restrict regional corporations from being themselves federations of local corporations. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 11:21:09 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:06:12 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Return-Path: WMclean290@aol.com >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 16:22:55 -0400 >To: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us >Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? > >In a message dated 96-05-16 16:08:00 EDT, you write: > >>If it has not yet been done, then the SCA needs to register SCA and Society >>for Creative Anachronim for Trademark/copyright protection...as well as dba >>or corporate registration in States and/or countries. >> >> > >But if the Milpitas Corp, is the one that owns the rights to the name, then >doesn't SCA -World have to go to it to ask it to sue the hypothetical bikers? >And doesn't SCA-World have to go to SCA,Inc. for permission for other Groups >to use the name? I suppose it could work but it sounds a bit clumsy, and >contrary to the notion of equal corporations... > >Galleron >Forward if you like > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 11:21:22 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:04:51 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Ownership of the name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > If the World Council is an unincorporated association, can it register as as > "doing business as" the Society for Creative Anachronism? Individuals and people only can register as DBA. Can it take legal > action? For legal purposes it probably isn't an "it" or person, and therefore has no standing to sue anyone. Some person or corp has to ow the trademarks and or copyrights. Suppose the splinter group is Kingdom size? Doesn't matter.. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 11:27:05 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 11:05:40 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I4S9CQ66V294F2P3@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at May 16, 96 07:25:09 pm Galleron, I think this opens up a question that would require legal expertise....but I'd be surprised if incorporation were required for registration, or vice versa. At least in the US, any individual or corporation can file for trademark, or servicemark protections. But, do we want those marks owned by individuals? I don't think we would. I think we'd want them owned by something whose rules and regulations had to be created by some kind of consensual process. I have no experience or reading expertise on whether unincorporated associations can register such marks, but I suspect not. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 11:27:55 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:07:55 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 04:39 PM 5/16/96 -0400, you wrote: > If it has not yet been done, then the SCA needs to register SCA and Society > for Creative Anachronim for Trademark/copyright protection...as well as dba > or corporate registration in States and/or countries. > >That wouldn't work, and wouldn't be sufficient. And, it argues for more and >better separate incorporations, as separate govrenment jurisdictions might >not easily recognize foreign corporations. > > Tibor > I disagree. All States will recognize a California Corporation. Almost all Countries will recognize US Copyright and trademark protection (By Treaty). Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 11:41:54 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <01I4S9CQ66V294F2P3@delphi.com> with last message <199605171505.LAA03230@abel.math.HARVARD.EDU> Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:27:42 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605171505.LAA03230@abel.math.HARVARD.EDU> I propose that the SCA registers the needed trademarks and servicemarks to protect itself. -Modius modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 11:53:12 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 11:40:56 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605171507.KAA23819@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at May 17, 96 10:07:55 am >That wouldn't work, and wouldn't be sufficient. And, it argues for more and >better separate incorporations, as separate govrenment jurisdictions might >not easily recognize foreign corporations. I disagree. All States will recognize a California Corporation. Almost all Countries will recognize US Copyright and trademark protection (By Treaty). States will recognize them (due faith and credit). That is not the issue. Have you done your homework? If you register a trademark or copyright in one state, it has no weight in another state. If you register a trademark in one state, and someone else has federal registration, you are in the inferior position. Other countries will grant trademark and copyright restrictions in their jurisdictions if you have registered in your own AND APPLY for it. But you are still in an inferior legal position to a native corporation. Gosh, the information is just sitting there on the Web, go and look! Start with the US Patent and Trademark Office, the US Department of Commerce, and the Cornell Law Library's online pages. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 13:00:51 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:47:55 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Ownership of the name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Morgan, by Tibor. (I lightly reformated, as her linelengths didn't permit me my customary 2 character indentation.) Please allow me to remind you that Morgan is a professional attorney, working in intellectual property issues. Forwarded message: Date: 17 May 96 11:48:59 EDT From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Ownership of the name (fwd) =========================================================================== I have been very busy, complicated by a futzed computer, and unable to keep up with all the GC discussion. I do mean to get caught up One Of These Days, as I have some comments on the proposals. The discussion of the name fell squarely in my bailiwick, however, and I thought I would toss in some professional commentary: DOING BUSINESS AS: Registration of a business alias. There need be no corporation or any other formal entity behind the name. Often, people register DBA when they start a business, to make themselves look bigger or more professional. People who do the Schedule C/SE thing are generally a DBA, if they use a name other than their own. DBA is county-by-county (at least in Illinois) and has absolutely no legal effect whatsoever except in that county. INCORPORATION: Registration of a business as a legal entity. This is on a state-by-state basis, and the rules and protections vary according to the laws of the particular state. In conjunction with this, most states require that a corporation registered in another state, also register in that state to do business. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS DBA, above. This means you are, for example, an Ohio corporation which intends to do business in the state of Illinois, perhaps by having a branch office here. THERE IS NO FEDERAL CORPORATE REGISTRATION. TRADEMARK: You can register a name or logo for use by your group in one or more given fields. There are restrictions on the name/logo; it cannot be a common word or a surname, it cannot remove the item from general usage by others. You can have a trademark which is the same as someone else's, if the examiner deems the fields are so divergent there is no likelihood of confusion. So, the initials SCA in and of themselves probably cannot be registered, but a logo containing those initials can as a cohesive design -- for example, a green shield with a gold 'SCA' in blackletter. For period reference trademark law is just like heraldry, including to points of difference. Galleron's question about the mythical spinter group is easily answered: If the group has or had permission to use the name/logo, and then goes off as renegades, the SCA-World (or any other licensor) has the right to attack them and ask for legal injunction, as this would be a besmirchment of the name/logo as well as a violation of the license/contract that gave them the right to use the name in the first place. ---= Morgan (off to Calontir Crown, and I won't be back online until Monday) |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Been there, done that, in some Kingdom or other. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 13:41:45 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:21:27 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: trademarks and treaties To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >More info, forwarded from Solveig by Magnus Thanx... >Lord Magnus! > >I know that there is a growing corpus of treaties covering trademark ownership. >But, I still don't think that trademarks are nearly as well covered as >copyrightable works are. At least in 1989, patents were in even worse shape. >At least this was true in Japan where items invented and patented in other >countries were being routinely "invented" and pantented in Japan by Japanese >nationals. (A friend of mine was doing technical writing and translation for >Japanese patent applications and I was helping her with her English versions >of these things.) What is the current status of trade and srevice mark >protection internationally? There are over 150 members of the UNO to at >least in principle deal with. Incidentally, last I heard here in Canada, it >is possible to register trademarks with specific domains of protection. That >is you can register a trademark which is not necessarily clear with marks in >use for similar purposes in the United States. You can register for a greater >sphere of protection. Remember that there is a very practical checking problem >that is undertaken. International trade and service marks frequently cost >industry millions of dollars. Presumably, the SCA is sufficiently unique so >that the costs are substantially reduced. > >On the patent thing. Patents still seem to be being taken out in individual >major industrial countries often with separate patent numbers for each being >displayed on the products. > > Your Humble Servant > Solveig Throndardottir > Amateur Scholar > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >| Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | >| Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | >| DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >| Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 14:19:43 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 13:02:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 11:40 AM 5/17/96 -0400, you wrote: > >That wouldn't work, and wouldn't be sufficient. And, it argues for more and > >better separate incorporations, as separate govrenment jurisdictions might > >not easily recognize foreign corporations. > > I disagree. All States will recognize a California Corporation. > Almost all Countries will recognize US Copyright and trademark protection > (By Treaty). > >States will recognize them (due faith and credit). That is not the issue. >Have you done your homework? Sorry, but that was EXACTLY the issue I was responding to. I was specifying that registration did not argue for separate incorporations as you said above. In what way would registration in a foreign country put us in an inferior position to a native corporation? Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 14:54:31 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 14:41:45 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605171802.NAA27399@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at May 17, 96 01:02:37 pm Greetings from Tibor. Magnus wrote: I disagree. All States will recognize a California Corporation. Almost all Countries will recognize US Copyright and trademark protection (By Treaty). I answered (perhaps it appeared, testily): States will recognize them (due faith and credit). That is not the issue. Magnus answered: Sorry, but that was EXACTLY the issue I was responding to. I was specifying that registration did not argue for separate incorporations as you said above. In what way would registration in a foreign country put us in an inferior position to a native corporation? First, let me make a distinction. If anyone incorporates, they do so at a state level. To handwave and oversimplify, this makes a new fictional person. Because of the "full faith and credit" part of the constitution, such a corporation is always recognized in all 50 states and possesions. On the other hand, a state can require such "recognized" corporations to register to do business in their state. Say, for taxation purposes, or in order to require them to meet certain state laws. And, they can pass laws which provide, say, legislative legal protections for those businesses. Analagous to the issue of foreign versus native, my state (Massachusetts) taxes interest earned in out of state banks at a higher rate than money earned in state. All of this has NOTHING to do with copyright and trademark protections, which are not always treated with reciprocity. Does that help to give you an idea of what I meant? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 17 17:52:03 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 14:29:52 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Galleron: Reminder (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 14:48:10 -0400 From: WMclean290@aol.com To: fiacha@premier1.net Subject: Galleron: Reminder Please forward to the GC Back at the beginning of the month Fiacha wrote: "Voting closes on May 26 so that I can write a report in time for the next Board meeting. I can deal with adding and subtracting proposals until the end of this week. I can deal with modifying proposals until the end of next week." Time is running out. By my count seven of the Coucil have voted. Effective the end of this week (That is, just before Fiacha's deadline for changes) I'd like you to consider the the following to be added to my proposal. Unless some member of the Council says they have a problem with this part before then, in which case you shouldn't consider it to be part of the proposal.... IX. IMPLEMENTATION OUTLINE Assuming both Board and Society assent to the proposal.... Phase One Board institutes regular procedure to offer affiliated status to suitable foreign SCA corps.. Their members count as members of the Society for purposes of satisfying branch population requirements, and membership requirements for Society officers. They are allowed to make reasonable regulations for the appointment and removal of Society officers within their jurisdiction. They are given the option of purchasing TI in bulk for redistribution to their members. They make some reasonable contribution to SCA,Inc to cover costs of game oversight that will later be taken over by SCA world, similar to the contribution made by the Australian corp. now, although not necessarily at that level. Board permits and encourages the creation of Kingdom and Principality review panels as described in proposal. Where appropriate, it delegates its power of review and to impose sanctions to those panels, while retaining standing for appeals. Kingdoms and Principalities determine how they will choose their World Council reps, and choose them. Phase Two Council appoints World Review Panel. Review Panel begins to review game issues that make it past lower review panels, making recommendations to the Board. At this stage it has only advisory powers. Council revises and approves Great Charter. Legal structure drawn up to allow Council to have powers discussed in proposal. Board reviews Charter and suggests any changes to World Council. Great Charter published. Assent of Society to the Charter secured. Phase Three World Council given full legal standing. Board hands over to it control of common game rules, power of review of game issues, and power to recognize, or remove recognition of, SCA groups. Foreign corps. cease to make contributions to SCA, Inc.(Milpitas), except for services and publications provided. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat May 18 14:35:55 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Sat, 18 May 1996 14:24:36 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Ownership of the name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron asks > If the World Council is an unincorporated association, can it register as as > "doing business as" the Society for Creative Anachronism? Can it take legal > action? Suppose the splinter group is Kingdom size? 1) Yes. Here in Missouri anyone can register a "DBA" name, with payment of the usual fees and submission of the usual forms. I'm not incorporated, never have been, and have registered myself DBA Potboiler Press. No problem, other than tracking down a notary public to stamp the form. 2) Probably not. I think the DBA registry is more to let the state know what's going on, and who is responsible, than to let individuals duke it out. WE could register "Society for Creative Anachronsim", no problem, but it'd probably be not too difficult to register the "Society _of_ Creative Anachronism_s_". DBA registration< if I remember correctly, affords no protection to the registrants -other than that no-one else has registered that particular name. Trademarks, however, are a completely different matter; we'd probably want to register the name, the laurel wreath, and various other items now in Known World usage, with the United States government, and with (probably eventually) the European Union, Canada, Australia. Trademark protection _does_ grant certain legal you-can-be-sued- if-you-use-this-wiithout-permission rights. All of this, of course, comes with the standard I'm not a lawyer so you might want to consult with one warranty. Basically, a DBA registration doesn't do much. Trademarks do. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat May 18 14:50:27 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Sat, 18 May 1996 14:37:27 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Ownership of the name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron asks >But if the Milpitas Corp, is the one that owns the rights to the name, then >doesn't SCA -World have to go to it to ask it to sue the hypothetical bikers? >And doesn't SCA-World have to go to SCA,Inc. for permission for other Groups >to use the name? I suppose it could work but it sounds a bit clumsy, and >contrary to the notion of equal corporations... Trademark infringement is a mundane worry, not a game worry; I'd think SCA-World wouldn't have this as its concern, then. If there were infringement with bikers, the corporation itself would sue; it wouldn't need to be asked. IF the name were copyrighted/trademarked in the U.S., Canada, and other appropriate venues, when local/regional groups come into the fold, they'd get automatic (more or less) permission to use the name; "other groups"? What "other groups" are you talking about? (If copyrighted in the U.S., do you mean what happens when a new corporation gets formed in, oh, OUter Slobovia, which also happens to be a member of the international copyright convention? Simple; they'd also get one of those blanked permissions. I don't see this as much of a worry.) Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun May 19 02:06:20 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 22:53:04 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >If I decide to incorporate the Shire of the Inner Sea, it is not the >Americans who have decided this issue, nor the Midrealm, not even the >members of the SCA Shire of the Inner Sea. > >Who should have authority to do this for an SCA group. Who should have >authority to Confirm this decision. Who should have responsibiity to see >that it is done in such a way as to not bring disrepute to the Society or >Kingdom? > >Magnus I think the natural model is not one in which someone associated with the SCA decides in advance who has authority "to incorporate the Shire of the Inner Sea," but in which someone associated with the SCA decides whether to accept the incorporated Shire of the Inner Sea as part of the Society. After all, if someone in Sweden or elsewhere wants to incorporate an organisation called "the Shire of the Inner Sea," there is very little we can do with it. In my view, when some organization comes to us and says "we want to be part of the Society," we shouldn't worry about whether they have organized themselves in a sensible fashion--that is their problem. We should worry about whether they are playing our game, and whether they have some minimal number of members, and whether their organization is such as to make it practical for us to deal with them--for example, whether they have enough structure so that we can figure out who to talk to. Obviously, a problem arises with this if you give groups territorial monopolies. But one can deal with most of it by defining some small central area which "belongs to them," letting them recruit over a much wider area, and figuring that if some other group next door is really doing a much better job, pretty soon almost everyone will belong to that group. Alternatively, we can do without territorial monopolies entirely and allow multiple corporations in the same territory--as long as each has a reasonable number of members. David/Cariadoc From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun May 19 02:10:01 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 15:56:46 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Ownership of the name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. At 02:24 PM 18/5/96 -0500, Alban St. Albans wrote: >Galleron asks >> If the World Council is an unincorporated association, can it register as as >> "doing business as" the Society for Creative Anachronism? Can it take legal >> action? Suppose the splinter group is Kingdom size? > > > >Trademarks, however, are a completely different matter; we'd probably >want to register the name, the laurel wreath, and various other items >now in Known World usage, with the United States government, and >with (probably eventually) the European Union, Canada, Australia. >Trademark protection _does_ grant certain legal you-can-be-sued- >if-you-use-this-wiithout-permission rights. > The Australian Committee has already started proceedings to register a trademark in the name of the SCA. It was approved by the Committee at the last meeting, but as far as I know the papers haven't been lodged yet. It's a fairly simple process here, and not particularly expensive (less then $300 Australian). One of the reasons for doing this is the possibility that we can licence the use of the trademarked symbol to any other corporation that starts in Australia, particularly the one about to be formed in Canberra. Whan the Committee was discussing the formation of this new incorporated body, we decided that about the only sanction we could apply was the withdrawal of permission to use trademarked symbols, and the Memorandum of Affiliation that will bind the two bodies is based around this idea. Artos. -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 20 04:24:29 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 10:13:42 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Recognizing reality? Topic Bomb To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Greetings from Fiacha, >I don't get it. I don't see that a support corporation has any need to be >'playing our game'. Instead, what it has to do is acknowledge that it >will support individuals 'playing our game' regardless of their >membership status. > >Local corporations should support the 'game' and not be seen as a way to >exert local control over the game. Hoorray, another Transatlantian with a considerable clue! My thanks for an insightful comment. Greetings from /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 20 10:57:10 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 16:25:49 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Trademarks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >At least in the US, any individual or corporation can file for trademark, or >servicemark protections. > >I have no experience or reading expertise on whether unincorporated >associations can register such marks, but I suspect not. > > Tibor > If i remember correctly, SKA-Nordmarks has trademarked the phrase "kreativ anakronism" in Sweden. Catrin, do you have better memory than I? Trademarking "SCA" is probably not possible, though; it is already owned by Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget (Swedish Cellulose Company). The fact caused some minor confusion for our local group based in the same city as the company.... (Side note: The Swedish Cellulose Company adapted the valknut as logotype at about the same time Laurel decided it was no longer usable in SCA heraldry!) On groups bringing the SCA in disrepute: That local group mentioned above was once barred from using a public billboard, because they were "a secret organization sending money to their leaders in America"! I think the situation was cleared up when SKA-Nordmark intervened. Frithiof the tired herald. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 20 11:29:22 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 17:15:18 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Trademarks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >If i remember correctly, SKA-Nordmarks has trademarked the phrase >"kreativ anakronism" in Sweden. Catrin, do you have better memory than I? No, sorry. At that time I was only active locally & you're closer to Stockholm than I am :-). Your information is correct, as far as I know. >On groups bringing the SCA in disrepute: That local group mentioned above >was once barred from using a public billboard, because they were "a secret >organization sending money to their leaders in America"! On a tangent, this is a pretty good illustration of the trouble making people here sign waivers could get us into, if someone decided to make an issue of it. Being labeled as "an American-based group that forces Swedish residents to sign legal documents in a foreign language" might turn out to be serious bad medicine. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 20 14:16:35 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 13:55:41 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: More on Ownership of the Name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 13:49:52 -0400 Subject: Galleron: More on Ownership of the Name Please Forward to the GC This is getting complicated, so let me try to sum up: As I understand it, if the Society is concerned about a group going rogue and continuing to call itself "The Society for Creative Anachronism", the legal mechanism to stop it (assuming persuasion has failed) is to have "The Society for Creative Anachronism" registered as a trademark. The question then is, who owns the trademark? I see three possibilities. 1) Each Corporation owns the trademark in its jurisdiction. The problem here is that if a local corp goes rogue it isn't misusing the trademark, since it owns it. 2) SCA,Inc.(Milpitas) owns the trademark, and licenses it to foreign and local corps. This would vest ultimate coercive power over all SCA Corps. in SCA,Inc. (Milpitas) . If, for example, one Canadian group and its SCA corp. turned into a bunch of poodle burning cultists, only the Milpitas corp. would have the power to make them call themselves something different. 3) SCA-World owns the trademark, and licenses it as above. For SCA-World as a body to own the trademark it would need to be a Corporation. At least in some jurisdictions it could also be a partnership of Corporations, but I'm not sure that gains us any simplicity. I suppose one of the World Council, or a partnership of Councilors, could own the trademark as an individual or partnership of individuals, but that doesn't sound like a good idea. I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, but have a summed the issues up correctly? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 20 14:35:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 14:20:05 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Ownership of the Name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I confess that there is a certain level at which I simply don't care if there is a splinter group which calls itself "SCA." What does it really matter? We know who we are. If a mechanism to make the sacrosanct were implemented, would we really want to become engaged in the litigation necessary to enforce it? Litigation, even in defense of an absolutely clear legal right, is monstrously expensive and dreadfully troublesome (I suspect that with Tibor, Bertram, and Fiacha I am one of the few people on this list who have empirical experience of just how hard it is to enforce one's legal rights in a court of law). The fixation on the need to protect "the one true way to Medieval recreation" and the holy name of its corporation is one of the least healthy aspects of our Society -- it smacks of cultism. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 20 15:45:17 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 14:29:48 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > >Does that help to give you an idea of what I meant? > > Tibor > Yup. And agreed. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 20 16:03:23 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 14:47:36 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Ownership of the Name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 01:55 PM 5/20/96 -0400, you wrote: > > I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, but have a summed the issues up > correctly? > > Galleron > Sounds good to me. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 20 16:20:32 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 16:06:34 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Ownership of the Name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605201755.NAA16499@abel.math.HARVARD.EDU> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at May 20, 96 01:55:41 pm Greetings from Tibor. Greg, as usual, blithly smacked the nail upside the head. Good post. Rather than over-focus on the coercive aspects, I think we need to focus on the cooperative ones. At the very least, I believe that a formal motion ought to be placed before the Board, that it consider membership in local corporations as often as is appropriate to be equivalent for membership purposes in the US Corporation. The circumstances around that may vary wildly. I also think that, while they are both important, we ought to be able to sever the issues of "outside groups" like Acre or LHA asking for potential recognition, and cooperative existing groups working with the SCA to form local incorporations where needed, like Lochac, Ontario, and Nordmark. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 20 20:09:08 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Mon, 20 May 1996 19:38:04 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Ownership of the Name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L There's been some discussion about needing to trademark to protect our good name (among other things). Hossein then suggests that it's, um "monstrously expensive and dreadfully troublesome." I now wade in, and suggest that the decision to trademark, or not, and whether to sue, or not, and how to best protect the reputation of the SCA, or not, is not really a topic deserviing of all this time. Isn't it more appropriate for the new corporations that we're working on setting up? (Er, ah, the new structure, that is. Not necessarily the new corporations.) It's a nice side issue for fire-side conversations, but, um, can we move on? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon May 20 20:52:29 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 20:41:05 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Ownership of the Name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alban, Exactly my point. Nicely said. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 09:18:47 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 09:09:21 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Proposals (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 17:24:01 -0400 Subject: Galleron: Proposals Please forward to GC Tibor, you write: "At the very least, I believe that a formal motion ought to be placed before the Board, that it consider membership in local corporations as often as is appropriate to be equivalent for membership purposes in the US Corporation." I think that is contained in Alysoun's (remember Alysoun?) first proposal (Alysoun: What We CAN Do, 4/22) It reads in part: "On the topic at hand, non-US participants want to be recognized as playing the game without being members of SCAinc. There are two options at the beginning: one is to say you can't; the other is to say you can. We do not have at present a way of recognizing non-SCAinc groups. We are trying to envision how this would be." "The easiest way to do it is for SCAinc to establish a corporate recognition on a case by case basis. For the individual player this might mean sending registration money to a local address rather than California and for officers a change in paperwork. By and large things go on just as they are now. This gives SCAinc the power of discretion but it also, being corporation to corporation, means that the technical matters are uppermost." That proposal is number three of the eight proposals and statements currently languishing on the floor, waiting for votes. It is also part of the transition plan of my proposal. Galleron. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 09:28:15 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 09:19:27 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: More on Name Ownership, Trademarks, etc. (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Morgan, by Tibor Forwarded message: Date: 21 May 96 00:27:31 EDT From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@CompuServe.COM> Subject: More on Name Ownership, Trademarks, etc. Tibor, please forward this to the GC: ===================================== As a lawyer, who knows well how much litigation costs, and the differences in the situations Alban and Galleron have thrown out, I'll weigh in again: A>> Trademark infringement is a mundane worry, not a game worry; Yes, probably, but if trademark infringemnet starts interfering with the game (as in groups being denied sites because of misuse by similarly-named groups), then I think SCA-World should be concerned. A>> IF the name were copyrighted/trademarked in the U.S., Canada, A>> and other appropriate venues, when local/regional groups come A>> into the fold, they'd get automatic (more or less) permission A>> to use the name; .... Wrong. To ensure protection of the name, the groups would have to be vetted in and granted a license. Otherwise, you have a dilution problem, as well as the possibility of de facto release as a generic term. (Similar to "public domain," but that is a term from copyright law.) A>> (If copyrighted in the U.S., do you mean what happens when a A>> new corporation gets formed in, oh, OUter Slobovia, which also A>> happens to be a member of the international copyright convention? Irrelevant. You CANNOT copyright a name/title. That's why you get books and movies with the same name, different contents. You can TRADEMARK a name, and this would be governed by various international trademark treaties. G>> As I understand it, if the Society is concerned about a group going rogue G>> and continuing to call itself "The Society for Creative Anachronism", the G>> legal mechanism to stop it (assuming persuasion has failed) is to have G>> "The Society for Creative Anachronism" registered as a trademark. The G>> question then is, who owns the trademark? I see three possibilities. G>> G>> 1) Each Corporation owns the trademark in its jurisdiction. Problematic, because the Corps. can change boundaries. Also, if they are all licensees of either SCA, Inc. or SCA-World, it makes more sense and works as a better protection for the name if the umbrella organization owns the mark. G>> 2) SCA,Inc.(Milpitas) owns the trademark, and licenses it to foreign and G>> local corps. G>> G>> 3) SCA-World owns the trademark, and licenses it as above. For SCA-World G>> as a body to own the trademark it would need to be a Corporation. Um, no. In the USA, a partnership, other business organization, or an individual can also own a mark. ('Mark" means trademark and/or service mark.) Once a mark is owned, it can be cross-registered in other countries -- and I'm sure you don't want a long lecture about how THAT works. The question is whether the SCA, Inc., and SCA-World would work together, each in its own sphere, and agree who owns the mark but that they would work together to protect it. Or they could own it jointly, have you considered that? I disagree with Alban and Hossein that this should be set aside, although perhaps it could be back-burnered. The SCA we know has lasted for a long time with other groups using the same letters, so it's probably not a big issue from that standpoint. I think the focus should be on usage by groups who are part of the SCA/whichever, and protection against splinter/renegade groups. Oh, yes, Solveig Throndardottir said that: >On the patent thing. Patents still seem to be being taken out in individual >major industrial countries often with separate patent numbers for each being >displayed on the products. True. But patent law is not trademark law is not copyright law. The treaties and treatments are all very different. I doubt that patent law will ever be relevant to the SCA's work. And I disagree about trademark protection, but the treaties are very different. Remember, the USA has belonged to the Berne (copyright) Convention for a very few years, and the trademark treaties are much older, as is the USA's membership. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Home again, being a fighter-nanny. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 10:06:23 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 09:55:42 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Ownership of the Name (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I4XUYSAJAW8ZG9Y3@delphi.com> (ALBAN@DELPHI.COM) Alban writes: >I now wade in, and suggest that the decision to trademark, or not, >and whether to sue, or not, and how to best protect the reputation >of the SCA, or not, is not really a topic deserviing of all this >time. Isn't it more appropriate for the new corporations that >we're working on setting up? Yes and no. On the one hand, I agree that we've talked this one out about as much as we need to for now. On the other, it isn't entirely a tangent, because it could have some effect on overall structure. Remember, the original point was about incorporation of SCA-World, on the grounds that that's the appropriate way to protect an SCA trademark. So far, it sounds to me like that assertion still holds, *if* we want to have such trademarks. However, I think we can leave that for the next phase. None of the plans we're voting on now pretends to really be complete -- even Galleron's still has *lots* of implementation details to fill in. I think that this vote is really mainly about broad frameworks; after we're done here, that framework is going to need to be hammered on by someone (the GC or someone else) to fill in those details, of which the decision about whether and how to incorporate the top level will be an important one... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "god is dead, and i'm contesting his will" -- gypsy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 12:42:31 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 12:28:19 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Siobhan... -- Justin >From: "Pat McGregor" >Subject: Re: Galleron: Should SCA-World be incorporated? >In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 May 1996 10:27:42 CDT." > >Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 07:01:17 -0700 Good morning from siobhan! In a previous message, Erik Langhans writes: >I propose that the SCA registers the needed trademarks and >servicemarks to protect itself. >-Modius Excuse me, but isn't this in the works? I know that Mistress Myrra spent a great deal of time working for Hilary and then Aelflaed gathering information and filling out forms..... siobhan ====================================================== Pat McGregor pat@lloyd.com Consultant, Lloyd Internetworking +1 916 676 1147 Cameron Park, CA +1 916 676 3442 (fax) http://www.lloyd.com/~patmcg Co-Author, "Mastering the Internet," Sybex Books, Feb 1995 From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 13:25:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 09:58:52 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Voting Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31A1F50B.7D34@dgii.com> > Greetings from Fiacha, > > First, here are my votes and comments. > > 1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we > resove relations with foreign corporations. > > 10 Actually, I think that we have resolved this. I has seen > no objections to the proposition that members of recognized > corporations have the same status as current members of the > SCA Inc. The precise meaning of such a membership remains > an open question. > > 2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps > buy memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. > > 10 I'm not sure why noone else likes this idea, but I didn't > suggest it to be liked. > > 3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. > > 6 I don't like the idea of the SCA Inc. vetting local corporations > and SCA-World can't do it until it is set up. Remember, local > corporations exist to support the game as it stands. Recognizing > a corporation running a separate game as being equivalent is > a separate issue that we have not gotten to yet. > > 4. We need to define the game before we can separate game > control from the Board of the SCA Inc. > > 1 I think that this is necessary but impossible. I have some > mild concerns about the ability of the SCA Inc to sustain > its right to its privileged status if we strip it of at > least nominal control of the game. > > 5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into > World Council) > > 6 The principle is good but the proposal doesn't address > critical issues. > > 6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by > Kingdoms and Principalities) > > 7 The principle is better but I have reservations. > > 7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) > > 7 An extra point for covering all of the bases, but I'm not > happy with the idea of 'approving' local corporations, nor > am I happy with the some of the mechanics. > > 8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World > Court, describes possible world service corp.) > > 5 I need to reread this proposal. > > > > Voters - Modius, Hossein, Alban, Artos, Justin, Serwyl, Finnvarr, > Fiacha > > Votes (+ = 10points) > > 1. We need to resolve the meaning of paid membership before we > resove relations with foreign corporations. > > 5001100+ = 21% > > 2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps > buy memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. > > 1100030+ = 19% > > 3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. > > 375555+6 = 56% > > 4. We need to define the game before we can separate game > control from the Board of the SCA Inc. > > 10000001 = 02% > > 5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into > World Council) > > +3253206 = 39% > > 6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by > Kingdoms and Principalities) > > 2888+797 = 72% > > 7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) > > 93889887 = 75% > > 8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World > Court, describes possible world service corp.) > > 41685425 = 44% > > > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 14:45:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 14:32:46 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Voting Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Tue, 21 May 1996 09:58:52 -0700) Fiacha writes: > 1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we > resove relations with foreign corporations. > > 10 Actually, I think that we have resolved this. I has seen > no objections to the proposition that members of recognized > corporations have the same status as current members of the > SCA Inc. The precise meaning of such a membership remains > an open question. I was going to strongly argue with this until I read the last sentence; I think we're reading the question quite differently. I would say that "the precise meaning of such a membership" is most of the issue. In particular, we have scarcely *touched* on the question of how "membership in the/a Corporation" relates to "membership in the Society". That's somewhat intentional -- I am *extremely* aware of how difficult that question is to answer. But I think it's tightly tied up with "the meaning of paid membership". (In other words -- I disagree that we have resolved it, but I don't particularly want to open that can of worms right now.) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "To sleep! Perchance to sleep through class tomorrow... Ay, there's the rub. Whether 'tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows Of lethargic lectures, or to take sleep over the series of seminars, and by doing so, flunk them." -- Christopher Davis From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 16:18:55 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: flieg@garnet.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 13:00:40 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Subject: My Votes and Welcome to them To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- Hi -- I've been very busy the last month or more, and it hasn't all been workup to 3YC. Mundane job has been very active. I've been looking in on this discussion and I don't think that any of the proposals are finished, I don't see conclusion on much of the argument, and I see apples and elephants being voted on at the same time. I see that we have yet another voting scheme.... *sigh* This one does seem to me to be workable, though. My votes for this section are all _zero_ In my opinion none of this should be sent on to the Board. * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chemistry Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ====================== Old Used Duke ===================== [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 18:15:59 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 18:03:38 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: My Votes and Welcome to them To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960521200040.00e10728@garnet.Berkeley.EDU> from "Fred" at May 21, 96 01:00:40 pm My votes for this section are all _zero_ In my opinion none of this should be sent on to the Board. You know, Frederick is right. This needs (and merits) more discussion. Put me down the same, if you please. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 20:31:21 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 17:07:48 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605212203.SAA19641@abel.math.HARVARD.EDU> Greetings from Fiacha, Considering the lack of participation in the discussions, I would like all members of the council to send me a reply as soon as they read this. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 20:59:56 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: flieg@garnet.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 17:39:49 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 05:07 PM 5/21/96 -0700, Nigel Haslock wrote: >Greetings from Fiacha, > >Considering the lack of participation in the discussions, I would like >all members of the council to send me a reply as soon as they read this. > > Fiacha > Present! * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chemistry Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ====================== Old Used Duke ===================== [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 22:39:14 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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, 21 May 1996 22:25:36 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Greetings from Fiacha, > >Considering the lack of participation in the discussions, I would like >all members of the council to send me a reply as soon as they read this. Yo! (Alban stands up, waves his arms madly, sits down, stops waving hands.) Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 23:21:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 23:19:50 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: My Votes and Welcome to them To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg, When an old warhorse like yourself speaks sense, you speak a hell of a lot of sense. I like Finnvarr's proposal as a general statement of what I'd like to see as a barebones structure, but you're absolutely right that we need to craft something far more complete and thought-out to present to the Board. I think we should step back and think more about these issues. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 23:23:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 23:21:56 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha, Present and accounted for, sir! Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 23:55:18 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 22:43:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 05:07 PM 5/21/96 -0700, you wrote: >Greetings from Fiacha, > >Considering the lack of participation in the discussions, I would like >all members of the council to send me a reply as soon as they read this. > > Fiacha > Magnus here...no surprise...? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 21 23:55:27 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 22:41:44 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >> >> Here are Magnus's votes and comments. >> >> 1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we >> resove relations with foreign corporations. >> >> 5 The precise meaning of such a membership remains >> an open question.** Which I beleive can wait till later. >> >> 2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps >> buy memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. >> >> 8 Relatively simple.. >> 3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. >> >> 6 The SCA, Inc. is currently The legal control of game in town. This will probably get us where we need to go. >> >> 4. We need to define the game before we can separate game >> control from the Board of the SCA Inc. Nearly >> 5 I think that this is necessary but impossible. I have some >> mild concerns about the ability of the SCA Inc to sustain >> its right to its privileged status if we strip it of at >> least nominal control of the game. I agree with Fiacha's statement above. I think that the SCA, Inc MUST stay in firm control till the new system is set up or we have too big a shot at anarchy. >> >> 5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into >> World Council) >> >> 5 Not bad at all but covered in other proposals... >> >> 6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by >> Kingdoms and Principalities) >> >> 7 Not bad... >> >> 7. Galleron Proposal As updated(Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) >> >> 8 Some Small parts I have Great problems with, but over all I think this is The plan >> >> 8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World >> Court, describes possible world service corp.) >> >> 7 Good as far as it goes. >> >> > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 03:49:38 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 21:16:47 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Greetings from Fiacha, > >Considering the lack of participation in the discussions, I would like >all members of the council to send me a reply as soon as they read this. > > Fiacha Present. I vote: 1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we resove relations with foreign corporations. 0 (wrong order--solve the framework first) 2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps buy memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. 4 3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. 4 4. We need to define the game before we can separate game control from the Board of the SCA Inc. 0 5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into World Council) 4 6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by Kingdoms and Principalities) 4 7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) 8 8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World Court, describes possible world service corp.) 7 David/Cariadoc From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 04:36:29 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:05:12 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 17.07 21-05-1996 -0700, you wrote: >Greetings from Fiacha, > >Considering the lack of participation in the discussions, I would like >all members of the council to send me a reply as soon as they read this. > > Fiacha Here I am. The reason i have not been particularly active in discussions lately is because said discussion has been rather centered around US=20 legalities, of which I am quite ignorant. Swedish legalities are already=20 taken care of by our swedish "f=F6rening", SKA-Nordmark. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 05:04:17 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 09:15:55 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Yup, I'm here. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 05:50:06 1996 Return-Path: References: Approved-By: David Schroeder Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 05:36:07 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Schroeder Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: I'm here. I'm quiet, but I'm here... Thanks -- Bertram From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 06:56:14 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:11:38 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At long last, here are my votes: >1. We need to resove the meaning of paid membership before we resove >relations with foreign corporations. 0 >2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps buy >memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. 3 A short-term fix. An improvement over status quo, but not sufficient in the long run. I'm worried about getting stuck there. >3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. 3 Same problem as (2). >4. We need to define the game before we can separate game control from >the Board of the SCA Inc. 2 Nice if it was feasible, maybe. >5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into >World Council) 5 >6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by >Kingdoms >and Principalities) 5 >7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) 8 >8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World >>Court, describes possible world service corp.) 6 /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 07:43:30 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: skeyes@tiac.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: skeyes Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 07:27:56 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: skeyes Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Greetings from Fiacha, > >Considering the lack of participation in the discussions, I would like >all members of the council to send me a reply as soon as they read this. > > Fiacha > > ------------------------------------ + ----------------------------------- Anybody know of property for rent, lease or sale In Braintree northeast of Quincy street (rte 53) ? I am Seeking house or in-law apartment, with at least 2 bedrooms on one of the following streets: Harbor Villa,Glenrose,Pleasant View,Trefton,Audobon,Inglewood,Arborway, Ardmore, beechwood,edgehill,gordon,Arthur,Spencer,Primrose,Argyle,ferncroft,vinedale Reply to Scott Keyes skeyes@tic.net or Call 617-322-1769 From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 09:50:18 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <199605212203.SAA19641@abel.math.HARVARD.EDU> with last message Priority: Urgent Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:30:24 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Hello, Hello -Modius modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 10:29:48 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:11:17 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Flieg's and Tibor' Concerns (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 09:53:56 -0400 Subject: Galleron: Flieg's and Tibor' Concerns Please forward to the GC Back in early April, writing of what we could hope to accomplish this Quarter, Fiacha said: "My best hope now is that we can suggest to the board outlines of proposals and not ready to implement tomorrow proposals. I would be exstatic to be proven wrong on this point." My proposal says: "While the proposal is not yet sufficiently detailed for actual implementation, the Council would like to know if the Board agrees with the basic concepts as developed here, and any specific concerns the Board has with the proposal. The Council would be happy to develop the proposal further." None of the proposals pretends to be complete enough to implement. And we can't hope to make them complete in time for Fiacha to write a report for the next Board meeting. We have two choices. we can sit on the proposals until every detail is settled. Or we can say "This is what we're working on. You can see that we still have to settle a great many details. Can we have some feedback on what you think of what we've outlined? Have we persuaded you that this is the right direction to go? Do you have specific concerns you would like us to address? We intend to keep working on this" I would be happy to make this disclaimer more explicit and prominent. I agree that none of the proposals are at the point where we can say to the Board "We think you should implement this as written." But I do think they are complete enough to get some input on the concept. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 10:33:11 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:14:58 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Flieg's and Tibor' Concerns (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron wrote: None of the proposals pretends to be complete enough to implement. And we can't hope to make them complete in time for Fiacha to write a report for the next Board meeting. We have two choices. we can sit on the proposals until every detail is settled. Or we can say "This is what we're working on. You can see that we still have to settle a great many details. Can we have some feedback on what you think of what we've outlined? Have we persuaded you that this is the right direction to go? Do you have specific concerns you would like us to address? We intend to keep working on this" I would be happy to make this disclaimer more explicit and prominent. I agree that none of the proposals are at the point where we can say to the Board "We think you should implement this as written." But I do think they are complete enough to get some input on the concept. The original intent of voting, was to present to the Board as an action item under new business, whatever proposal or proposals we voted for. Fiacha can write an update, and he should. But, if we feel the proposals are not ready, there is no need to vote, and "request and require" that the Board vote on them. So, I renew and agree with Flieg's comment. None of these are worthy of the Board's vote yet, so our voting is a waste of time. Fiacha can write a report without a vote being conducted. He can even ask for feedback. None of these managerial moves require a vote. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 11:00:20 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 6 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:38:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Roll call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Ragni here. I didn't notice if Finnvarr's response, or rather, mine on his behalf, got posted. Anyway, though away at present he is still with you in thought and intention. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 11:23:28 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 11:02:27 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: My Votes and Welcome to them To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Well, someone has to say it -- I do *not* agree with Flieg in any particular here. First -- yes, these aren't fully-fleshed-out proposals. Finnvarr's is a direction; Galleron's is a little more, but still just an outline. That doesn't make them useless to send to the Board; on the contrary, I think it's *essential* to send them to the Board at this point. Remember, we are just a think-tank here; we do not have the power to make final decisions. It's essential, at this juncture, to check in with the Board and make sure that they don't think these notions crazy. Otherwise, we could easily spend many months fleshing this out, only to discover that they don't buy into the underlying concepts. I have little desire to do that. (Not to mention the simple fact that we *do* need to demonstrate some progress to the Board and ourselves here, even if it's fractional, just to inject a little confidence that we're getting *somewhere*.) Second, I think *we* need this vote, regardless of what we do with respect to the Board. Personally, I need a good feeling for how the Council feels about these ideas, before we move on to trying to work things out in more detail. Most of the Council has sat on their hands and not said a damned thing during this discussion. Again, I have little desire to spend more months on it, if it's not going anywhere in the end -- I need a "sense of the Council" for my own confidence. (Or, from a different direction -- this topic is *much* too large to take all in one bite. We need to agree on a framework first, before we can fill that in. I think it's entirely appropriate to vote on that framework, so we can see whether we are reasonably in agreement.) Third, I am by no means sure that the Council is going to survive the next two months. I believe we've lost too many members (who have either explicitly resigned or implicitly dropped out) to continue much longer without at least a major reshuffle. That being the case, we need some checkpoints on the progress we *are* making, so that it's at least possible for a successor to pick up and continue. Finally, I have to say that I *am* slightly annoyed at people coming out and saying that there hasn't been nearly enough discussion, when they've said little. *I* have spent dozens of hours, and read and written megabytes on this subject, as have a number of others. The folks complaining here have written little or nothing on the topic. If you think something needs saying, then *say it*. As far as I'm concerned, we've talked through the fundamentals pretty thoroughly, and now it's time to take stock before moving into details... -- Justin Who can easily see this group talking forever, and getting nowhere, if we aren't willing to set and adhere to our deadlines... Random Quote du Jour: "DEFINITION: The Rialto - a very large `post' revel" -- Bertram of Bearington From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 11:28:45 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 11:09:57 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Back to Tibor on Concerns (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:54:45 -0400 Subject: Galleron: Back to Tibor on Concerns Please forward to the GC Tibor, In a message dated 96-05-22 10:14:39 EDT, you write: > None of these are worthy of the >Board's vote yet, so our voting is a waste of time. I disagree. The voting tells the Fiacha and the Council what its members think of the outline proposals. Right now, for example, I haven't a clue what Flieg and You think of the different proposals as they are presented in outline. Surely you like some more than others. You could write a little mini-essay explaining your opinions without quantifying them, but that would take longer and tell less. With the vote, Fiacha can say "Outline proposal X is strongly supported by the Council, and they will develop it further." Without it, he'd just be guessing. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 12:34:12 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: flieg@garnet.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 09:10:20 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Subject: Flieg to Justin Re: My Votes and Welcome to them To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Frederick to Justin and other members of the Council, Greetings. Ah... more controversy. As you have put your own feelings on the line, Justin, let me put mine. I think I sense behind your words here feelings very similar to mine, but with a different thrust. At 11:02 AM 5/22/96 EDT, Mark Waks wrote: >Well, someone has to say it -- I do *not* agree with Flieg in any >particular here. > >First -- yes, these aren't fully-fleshed-out proposals. Finnvarr's is >a direction; Galleron's is a little more, but still just an >outline. That doesn't make them useless to send to the Board; on the >contrary, I think it's *essential* to send them to the Board at this >point. Remember, we are just a think-tank here; we do not have the >power to make final decisions. It's essential, at this juncture, to >check in with the Board and make sure that they don't think these >notions crazy. Otherwise, we could easily spend many months fleshing >this out, only to discover that they don't buy into the underlying >concepts. I have little desire to do that. OK, we have a disagreement here. I hold that our Charter says that we are supposed to study and to make proposals to the Board for implementation. To my mind that does _not_ mean asking the the Board "are we going in the right direction?" It means making a firm proposal, _with_ implementation, for the Board to accept or reject after sending it out for commentary by the rest of the populace. Now the proposal could be as simple as: "The Board hereby states its agreement in principal that non-U.S. groups should be separately incorporated. If such a corporation is recognized by the SCA, Inc. as an affiliated corporation, membership in that corporation will satisfy any membership requirements as set forth in Corpora." If we send that in, then we have done part of our job. The Board sends it out for comment, or maybe even votes it in. It is a complete section of what we have been told to do, a small step. It is a statement of principal, so it doesn't need immediate implementation, and it sets a direction for _some_other_committee_ to figure out the details, or for the Board to send it back to us, saying, "Excellent. Now we would like an implementation for European countries." >(Not to mention the simple fact that we *do* need to demonstrate some >progress to the Board and ourselves here, even if it's fractional, >just to inject a little confidence that we're getting *somewhere*.) Progress, I think, has been achieved, a little bit. I note which proposals are getting the most support. But I would have been far more interested in the discussion if we had been discussing a series of concrete statements such as the one I just made up. As it was, what with work and all, I could find nothing on which I could make concrete comment. I would have also been more interested if the dicussion had been limited to a discussion of directions. Or of a few really concrete proposals. Remember that I have stated before that the actual implementation of a good idea is as important than the nature of the idea and that bad implementation can ruin an excellent idea. > >Second, I think *we* need this vote, regardless of what we do >with respect to the Board. Personally, I need a good feeling >for how the Council feels about these ideas, before we move on >to trying to work things out in more detail. Then a straw poll would have been appropriate, with a set of directions set forth, clearly labeled. The mix of "directions" and "proposals" leaves me, at least, confused as to what is actually being discussed, voted on and for that matter, sent to the Board. > Most of the Council >has sat on their hands and not said a damned thing during this >discussion. Guilty to not saying anything. I could wish that I had had the leisure to sit on my hands. (Might have been fun ;>) But as I note above, part of my lack of comment was based in the nature of what was being discussed. [..small trimm...] > >(Or, from a different direction -- this topic is *much* too large to >take all in one bite. We need to agree on a framework first, before we >can fill that in. I think it's entirely appropriate to vote on that >framework, so we can see whether we are reasonably in agreement.) See what I said before. What you are talking about here does not seem to me to be the same thing as what is currently up in proposals which may or may not be sent to the Board. > >[trim thoughts on survival] > [..trim statement on "not enough discussion". I didn't say that and I don't feel that I need to respond. In general I agree.] In service -- Frederick * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chemistry Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ====================== Old Used Duke ===================== [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 12:35:02 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 12:21:06 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Are the proposals complete? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 12:09:45 -0500 >From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Are the proposals complete? Noble Cousins! I am distressed at the Grand Council. It seems to have a positive aversion to drawing up complete proposals. My own (initially at least somewhat more complete) proposal was jumped on early on apparently for simply being more complete. It had no micromanagement of anything. It didn't even have management. However, since it went into details about things like how to send cases off to the World Court for review (you were to send them off to the cognisant ombudsman or alternatively to the Chief Justice), it was painted as being micromanagement incarnate. Now then, is the current bout of incompleteness one of a) initial operational polity (let's face it that the thing once set up will have to adjust itself a bit, but it needs to be thought out well enough so that it can manage to do its job while doing so) or b) how to manage the transition? I submit that the the first question needs to be addressed now and the second question can be addressed should the BoD decide that the proposed polity is to be implemented. This means that you are going to have to write down organizational strucutres and at least enough of a thumbnail sketch of how they are supposed to work so that the folks who get stuck with these jobs will have some idea of what they are supposed to be doing and how to go about doing it. Yes, you can throw together a group of a couple of dozen carpenters with a pile of equipment and building matterials at about 7:00 AM with no plans and tell them to build a baseball stadium and they can produce a functional baseball stadium by 5:00 PM (this actually occured at the Hanford Construction Camp in the 40's), but those carpenters have three big advantages: 1) they are professional carpenters, 2) they know what a baseball field, grandstands and scoreboard are and 3) they have all of the necessary stuff sitting around ready for them to use. At present, the Grand Council is not giving any future SCA-World any of that stuff. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 13:13:18 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 12:59:32 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Back to Tibor on Concerns (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605221509.LAA12718@abel.math.HARVARD.EDU> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at May 22, 96 11:09:57 am Greetings from Tibor. Galleron, I understand your point: I still disagree with it. As Flieg mentioned, a formal vote is not called for. If we wanted a straw poll, we could always have one. Or, we could work off the evidence at hand. I wasn't debating that some utility couldn't be extracted from a vote. There is informational value in everything, including that. I believe that the side effects of a formal vote include pushing a proposal before the Board, and I see little utility in that at this time. If Fiacha wants a straw poll, he can have one. A formal vote is another thing altogether. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 13:17:38 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:04:47 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: My Votes and Welcome to them To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9605221502.AA24505@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at May 22, 96 11:02:27 am Greetings from Tibor. Justin wrote: Well, someone has to say it -- I do *not* agree with Flieg in any particular here. Yes, it seems, you do. First -- yes, these aren't fully-fleshed-out proposals. See? Justin, if we send something to the Board, with a vote attached, they are required to vote on them under New Business. What, exactly, do we wish to recommend to them? If you conceded these are merely proto-proposals, then they are not ready for Board action. (Not to mention the simple fact that we *do* need to demonstrate some progress to the Board and ourselves here, even if it's fractional, just to inject a little confidence that we're getting *somewhere*.) I refuse to send incomplete proposals to the Board for action, as part of some cheerleading effort. That is stupid. (Sorry, but it is.) Anything short of that can be in Fiacha's report, without a formal vote. Second, I think *we* need this vote, regardless of what we do with respect to the Board. Personally, I need a good feeling for how the Council feels about these ideas, before we move on to trying to work things out in more detail. Most of the Council has sat on their hands and not said a damned thing during this discussion. Again, I have little desire to spend more months on it, if it's not going anywhere in the end -- I need a "sense of the Council" for my own confidence. Straw poll. Third, I am by no means sure that the Council is going to survive the next two months. I believe we've lost too many members (who have either explicitly resigned or implicitly dropped out) to continue much longer without at least a major reshuffle. That being the case, we need some checkpoints on the progress we *are* making, so that it's at least possible for a successor to pick up and continue. "Death of the net predicted". (Except, I suspect you are right.) In any case, putting out half the job does not restore confidence: it breaks it. Finally, I have to say that I *am* slightly annoyed at people coming out and saying that there hasn't been nearly enough discussion, when they've said little. *I* have spent dozens of hours, and read and written megabytes on this subject, as have a number of others. The folks complaining here have written little or nothing on the topic. If you think something needs saying, then *say it*. As far as I'm concerned, we've talked through the fundamentals pretty thoroughly, and now it's time to take stock before moving into details... I wouldn't want to belittle your efforts. But just because you feel you are done, doesn't mean that we are done. With respect. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 14:24:15 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 14:09:13 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Responding to Fiacha To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Myrdin... -- Justin >From: "Potter, Michael" >Subject: Responding to Fiacha >Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:53:00 -0700 I'm here and have kept up with the discussions. Michael/Sir Myrdin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 15:18:32 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 15:07:27 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron Re: My Votes and Welcome to them Comments: To: WMclean290@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960522145810_118876207@emout14.mail.aol.com> from "WMclean290@aol.com" at May 22, 96 02:58:10 pm Greetings from Tibor. Galleron wrote: My proposal recommends that they look over my outline proposal and get back to us with any comments and concerns. Finnvarr's, I think, recommends that they approve in principal the idea that Kingdoms and Principalities select a Council that controls game issues. Wait, now I am truly confused. We were voting on the proposals themselves, and not meta-proposals about what to do with the various proposals. Weren't we? Or did this change of plan get lost in the sauce? Fiacha said "vote on the proposals". Flieg and Hossein are right: these proposals aren't there yet. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 15:18:44 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 15:04:57 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron Re: My Votes and Welcome to them (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 14:58:10 -0400 Subject: Galleron Re: My Votes and Welcome to them Please forward to the GC Tibor, In a message dated 96-05-22 13:05:04 EDT, you write: >Justin, if we send something to the Board, with a vote attached, they are >required to vote on them under New Business. > >What, exactly, do we wish to recommend to them? My proposal recommends that they look over my outline proposal and get back to us with any comments and concerns. Finnvarr's, I think, recommends that they approve in principal the idea that Kingdoms and Principalities select a Council that controls game issues. None of the others are currently scoring above baseline apathy (Sorry, Solveig, those two Zeros dragged you down. I didn't think your plan was that bad, but I can't vote) Unless later votes bring them up, presumably Fiacha will simply report "We thought about these other options too, but didn't like them much, for the following reasons". I had assumed that the non-proposal statements were for our internal use.. We need to know if the Board can live with the basic concepts, because if they can't we need to either figure out how to persuade them or give up on the notion. If they're happy with the basic idea, we can put all of efforts into implementation. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 17:30:05 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 17:16:43 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L yo From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 18:09:41 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 17:30:11 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Galleron Re: My Votes and Welcome to them To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings to all. I have to agree with Tibor (et al) regarding the incomleteness of these proposals; as well as his confusion as to what exactly is being carried out here. So, for now my vote is 0 to all. I would like to request one last final posting of the proposals AS THEY ARE TO BE VOTED ON okay ? Corwyn --------------------------------------------------- Tibor writes: Greetings from Tibor. Galleron wrote: My proposal recommends that they look over my outline proposal and get back to us with any comments and concerns. Finnvarr's, I think, recommends that they approve in principal the idea that Kingdoms and Principalities select a Council that controls game issues. Wait, now I am truly confused. We were voting on the proposals themselves, and not meta-proposals about what to do with the various proposals. Weren't we? Or did this change of plan get lost in the sauce? Fiacha said "vote on the proposals". Flieg and Hossein are right: these proposals aren't there yet. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 19:59:40 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 8 TEXT Approved-By: Guy Cox Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 16:40:53 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Guy Cox Subject: Roll Call Comments: cc: Guy Cox To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Greetings from Fiacha, > >Considering the lack of participation in the discussions, I would like >all members of the council to send me a reply as soon as they read this. Yep! I'm here. Reading and trying to catch up to cast my vote before the deadline. -- Brian O'Seabac From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 22 20:05:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 16:35:43 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron Re: My Votes and Welcome to them To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960522173010_118981683@emout18.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, The vote is aborted pending further discussion and more participation. 1. In 24 hours, the roll call generated 18 responses including one from Solvieg and one from John Bearkiller (who will not, after all, be joining us) and one from Finnvarr's account minder. If I don't get another 8 responses by the weekend, I will feel obliged to tell the Board that we are below quorum. 2. The rules that we agreed to last December allow for a discussion to be extended if 5 members so request. I am joining the the four who want more discussion. Unless you persuade me to do otherwise, my report will say that we agree that it is necessary to recognise members of foreign national corporations as members of the society but that we have not reached agreement on how this might be done. There is no clear agreement on which foreign corporation should be treated this way. Further, the Council is generally agreed that control of the 'game' aspects of the society need to be handed over to a new organization which directly represents every Kingdom and every Principality. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 02:55:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:03:29 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Galleron Re: My Votes and Welcome to them (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Galleron wrote: > > We need to know if the Board can live with the basic concepts, because if > they can't we need to either figure out how to persuade them or give up on > the notion. If they're happy with the basic idea, we can put all of efforts > into implementation. > I disagree. Our charter does not say that we should only suggest changes the board will be happy with. It seems likely to me that the board are going to be resistant to any significant change (as people usually are), as is the populace, but that doesn't mean that the changes are bad or unnecessary. Also, this particular board will not be around forever. In a few years the makeup of the board will have changed completely, perhaps driven by the airing now of proposals the current board finds unacceptable. We shouild have the long view in mind, not the short one the board generally uses. I think that the approach we used to have is correct: the board sees only complete proposals, and is not involved in the discussions leading up to them. Artos. -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 03:12:23 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 08:43:15 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Report to the BoD. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 16.35 22-05-1996 -0700, you wrote: >Greetings from Fiacha, > > Unless you persuade me to do otherwise, my report will say that > we agree that it is necessary to recognise members of foreign national > corporations as members of the society but that we have not > reached agreement on how this might be done. There is no clear > agreement on which foreign corporation should be treated this way. > > Further, the Council is generally agreed that control of the > 'game' aspects of the society need to be handed over to a new > organization which directly represents every Kingdom and every > Principality. > I can live with that. I wish there was more complete proposals to put forth, but just wishing gets you nowhere. I find that I do not know enough of how US corporations work to write up a completet proposal myself. (But I am learning lots!) Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 03:29:18 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:59:54 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Galleron Re: My Votes and Welcome to them To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Fiacha wrote: > > Unless you persuade me to do otherwise, my report will say that > we agree that it is necessary to recognise members of foreign national > corporations as members of the society but that we have not > reached agreement on how this might be done. There is no clear > agreement on which foreign corporation should be treated this way. > I find this phraseology indicative of something which should perhaps be one of the first things to be addressed by the Board in the transition from where we are to where we want to go. The idea of the SCA as fundamentally American is something that should change. Without a change of perspective (paradigm, if you like) everyone outside the USA will always be considered secondary, not playing the main game. Currently, from the corporate perspective, it is true that everyone outside the USA is in some sense less of a member than a domestic USA member. Indeed, the same argument could be made for members not resident in California. Clearly, this will continue to be the case while the California incorporation owns the definition of "member", so I think we are on the right track to divorce membership from the California incorporation. The corresponding cultural change is not so easily arranged. I seems ironic to me that a society whose main aim is the recreation of medieval Europe should treat modern European members as secondary in some sense. I am not advocating that modern Europe should become the center of the SCA's activities, but that the SCA should be encouraged towards the belief that there more ways than one to skin this particular cat. > Further, the Council is generally agreed that control of the > 'game' aspects of the society need to be handed over to a new > organization which directly represents every Kingdom and every > Principality. > I think this is also phreased backwards: we should allow the purely mundane aspects of the running of the organisation ("club") to be handled by locally incorporated bodies. Everything else should be considered to be part of the "game". But I don't necessarily agree that it should be the exclusive domain of some godlike entity that imposes its rules from on high and demands compliance and threatens sanctions. My vision is somewhat different from this. I would like to see a periodic "conference", held every (say) ten years, at which important game questions debated since the last conference are decided. The conferences are attended by as many delegates as can afford to go, or who want to attend. The decisions of the conference would be seen as guidelines rather than rules, and Kingdoms and other game bodies would be expected to provide the mechanisms for implementation of the guidelines. This mechanism provides a loose bond between any two game bodies which allows them to each claim that they are in the SCA, but also allows them to express their own cultural identity. We could implement this scheme immediately, completely independently from any other changes. Day-to-day game questions should be left to the Kingdoms. If they require some independent arbitrator for a particular question, they can adopt one of a large number of mechanisms that can be created for this purpose. For instance, if two Kingdoms have a dispute, they can allow a third Kingdom to adjudicate for them. Or they can create a tribunal by each choosing a person to be on it, and allowing these two to choose the third member. At the moment, the BOD acts like an imperial government, binding the heads of state of the Kingdoms. I would like the SCA to model the real world a little better: each Kingdom should have sovereignty, and develop treaties with its neighbors governing the ways in which they can interect. This happens to a small extent now, but while there is an avenue of appeal to the BOD, this mechanism cannot work properly. I see no reason for a top-most appeal mechanism. The Monarch shpould be the final court of appeal within their Kingdom. (The existence of Kingdoms where the monarch is not just the King and/or Queen, but is some combination of them and a Curia or other governing body makes no difference to the preceeding statements. The "monarch" in these cases is taken to be the King/Queen or Curia, whichever is appropriate in the circumstances. The central concept here is sovereignty in the modern sense superimposed on a medieval kingdom structure. I would suggest extending this to Principalities and Baronies, but I think we would just be recreating the conditions that led to the Magna Carta. On the other hand, one could argue that those Kingdoms that have powerful Curias already have taken that path, and that the next step for them is the development of a formal parliament. But I digress.) The question of outside bodies (eg, Acre) being admitted to membership in the SCA can be decided on a case-by-case basis at the conferences. Because their decisions are not strictly binding, some Kingdoms will choose to accept the newcomer (and therefore negitiate treaties with them), and others won't. I don't see this a a bad thing. Variety is the spice of life. The question of rogue Kingdoms should be left to the Kingdoms themselves to solve. If the treaties the Kingdoms make amongst each other are binding, rogue Kingdoms can be sanctioned quite effectively by their neighbors, and either brought back into line, or not. If not, we will learn to live together, as the SCA and Acre do now. None of these things require a top-level perpetual body adjudicating every aspect of the recreation. I'm not even sure that it isn't a sign of some malaise in the organisation to have such a body. Artos -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 03:46:22 1996 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, 23 May 1996 00:39:56 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Fiacha's Board proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha said: >Unless you persuade me to do otherwise, my report will say >that we agree that it is necessary to recognise members of >foreign national corporations as members of the society but that >we have not reached agreement on how this might be done. >There is no clear agreement on which foreign corporation >should be treated this way. > Further, the Council is generally agreed that control of the >'game' aspects of the society need to be handed over to a new >organization which directly represents every Kingdom and >every Principality. 'With all respect I do object'. (Gilbert and Sullivan, Trial by Jury), especially to the last section. The World Council does not 'represent' every Kingdom and Principality; it is _comprised_ of representatives from every kingdom and _non-Crown_ Principality (I think that's the way it's phrased). It in fact represents nothing other than the hopes of those of us who've put all this effort into it. (And, oh, by the way, the 'foreign corporation' mentioned in the last sentence of the first section should be plural: 'foreign corporation_s_.' There are several out there, you know. (I got this image of the Board trying to decide whether to let the Australian corporation, or one of the Canadian corporations, or Nordmarch, become the One True Foreign Corporation.) Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 08:33:43 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:23:54 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Report to the BoD. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >.... I find that I do not know enough of how >US corporations work to write up a completet proposal myself. No need for that, from where we sit. US corporate law should be (and *is*) irrelevant to us, except to the extent that the future SCA-World should be some sort of corporation, possibly an American one. (I still haven't gotten around to finding out how things like Amnesty International, the Red Cross or the International Soccer Federation are organized at the top level.) As for making the SCA international, the quick, simple and sensible solution would be for the as yet hypothetical SCA-World to recognize every group that 1) wants to be part of the society, 2) plays a game sufficiently similar to the rest of the Known World (those who have defined/appointed SCA-World) and 3) can show that it has a formally correct legal existence in its home country. Exactly *how* a Swedish, British or American mundane interface ought to work is nobody's business but the national group's. /Catrin Frithiof's co-Drachenwalder From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 09:41:21 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 09:30:36 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron Re: My Votes and Welcome to them To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Nigel Haslock" at May 22, 96 04:35:43 pm Unless you persuade me to do otherwise, my report will say that we agree that it is necessary to recognise members of foreign national corporations as members of the society but that we have not reached agreement on how this might be done. There is no clear agreement on which foreign corporation should be treated this way. Further, the Council is generally agreed that control of the 'game' aspects of the society need to be handed over to a new organization which directly represents every Kingdom and every Principality. Sounds good. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 10:13:27 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 09:55:08 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Report to the BoD. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Janna G. Spanne" at May 23, 96 02:23:54 pm No need for that, from where we sit. US corporate law should be (and *is*) irrelevant to us, except to the extent that the future SCA-World should be some sort of corporation, possibly an American one. (I still haven't gotten around to finding out how things like Amnesty International, the Red Cross or the International Soccer Federation are organized at the top level.) Red Cross is covered by international treaty, and the few sports organizations I know of are simply committees with little actual power, that recognize local groups. (Doesn't that sound promising...) As for making the SCA international, the quick, simple and sensible solution would be for the as yet hypothetical SCA-World to recognize every group that 1) wants to be part of the society, 2) plays a game sufficiently similar to the rest of the Known World (those who have defined/appointed SCA-World) and 3) can show that it has a formally correct legal existence in its home country. Heartily agreed. Some time about two years ago, I started to build a set of law for a US based corporation with multiple sub-corporations under it. In retrospect, it is badly flawed, was never completed, and wouldn't quite make it. The demon I wrestled with the most, was how to define compliance with the game... and the best solution that I could find was consensus and negotiation. Frankly, if we started over now, with each of the Kingdoms of the Society being their own Corporation, and attempted to negotiate a new top level, there are major stumbling blocks, and the final top level would be quite alien to what we have now. Given this postulate, it is no wonder that we have such trouble defining how to add more players to the current chaos. If desired, I could post that abortive attempt... but probably it is only worth it as a launching point. It certainly is not a proposal worthy of the name. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 11:27:28 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 10:47:54 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Galleron: Final Version Of Proposal for 2nd Quarter Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 18:19:55 -0400 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Galleron: Final Version Of Proposal for 2nd Quarter Voting Revised Proposal For a New International Structure for the Society Contains implementation outline added 5/17 Final version for 2nd Quarter Voting I. THE PROBLEM In several cases, because of the requirements of local law and custom, members of the Society have found it desirable to set up corporations distinct from the SCA, Inc. corporation based in Milpitas. The Board has agreed that in many cases these corporations are desirable to meet the needs of the Society, and have recognized several on an ad hoc basis. However, there are a number of unresolved issues: 1. Currently, Corpora requires officers of the Society to be members of SCA,Inc. Participants must be members of SCA,Inc. to count towards the membership requirements for branch size. Where local corporations essentially support all local operations, many participants must hold memberships in both corporations. This is often seen as unnecessary and burdensome. 2. Corpora specifies that the appointment and removal of officers is controlled jointly by the Crown and by officers of SCA,Inc. This is cumbersome, and frequently creates anomalies in foreign jurisdictions. For example, the Exchequer of Nordmark might be considered either an officer of SCA,Inc. (In which case he controls no money, since SCA, Inc. does not operate or legally exist in Sweden.) or an officer of the Swedish Corp. (In which case he is appointed contrary to Corpora) 3. Currently, while there are several SCA corps., the rules of the game are controlled by only one. This seems unfair. 4. Currently, the Board of SCA,Inc. not only oversees operations within its jurisdiction, but also controls and interprets the rules of the Society worldwide, has sole responsibility for sanctions against improper Royal actions, and determines which foreign corporations to recognize and what their relation to the Society will be. The Board is seriously overworked. The Board could developed a formal procedure for recognizing affiliated corporations, and rewrite Corpora to allow members of those corporations to be considered members of the Society for purposes of holding Society office and satisfying branch membership totals. Corpora could also allow local corporations to make reasonable regulations to control the appointment and removal of Society officers within their jurisdiction. This would be a useful partial measure, and should be done. It would not, however, address problems 3 and 4. The following proposal attempts to outline a solution. While the proposal is not yet sufficiently detailed for actual implementation, the Council would like to know if the Board agrees with the basic concepts as developed here, and any specific concerns the Board has with the proposal. The Council would be happy to develop the proposal further. II. OUTLINE OF PROPOSAL World Council is set up, with reps chosen from each Kingdom and Principality, to interpret the common rules of the game we play, embodied in a document called the Great Charter. The Council controls a spartan SCA-World, which deals with worldwide issues, mostly by a advice and co-ordination. It recognizes as many Mundane Governing Bodies as are needed to meet legal requirements and the convenience of the Society wherever the SCA operates. SCA, Inc.(US) becomes one of these, and ceases to control the others. The Council recognizes game groups that follow the charter. There would be certain advantages to having worldwide publications spun off into a separate organization. This need not be done immediately. In the interim, SCA-Milpitas could continue to produce TI and CA, and make them available to other SCA corps., at a cost intended to cover both direct costs and a proportionate share of publication overhead. Other SCA corps. would make their publications available on the same terms. Spinning off worldwide publications is not an essential part of this proposal, and this issue may be decided at a later time. III. WORLD COUNCIL Every Kingdom and Principality (excluding Crown Principalities) may choose one representative to the World Council, by any method demonstrably agreeable to the members of the Kingdom or Principality. Kingdoms may not dictate the selection method to be used by their Principalities. Kingdoms and Principalities will be responsible for financing the participation of their representative, and for a share of common expenses. Allowing Principalities to choose reps for the Council will give much more satisfactory representation for non-US branches than if membership was limited to Kingdoms. I believe that this advantage outweighs the arguments against representation for Principalities. The Council interprets the Great Charter, a document that defines the common rules of the game we play. By 2/3 vote, they may amend it, but wouldn't do so very often. The Charter would not be Corpora, but would define those elements that a Corpora must contain for the group that follows it to be part of the Society. For example, it would define Barons, but not say how they must be appointed. To quote Finnvarr, it need not concern itself with the minimum size of Shires. It would specify that SCA groups were not permitted to bring the whole Society into gross disrepute,. or cause injury to other SCA groups. (I only see this coming into play if Kingdom A gets so weird that Kingdom B has a hard time getting sites because of what people in their area have been hearing about "The SCA".) The Council would have the power to decide that a group was violating the Charter, and could no longer be recognized as part of the Society until it rectified the problem. This, and the threat to invoke it, would be the only binding control the Council would have over Society groups. In general, however, it would operate mostly by consent and moral force. It would appoint a review panel to consider matters that come before it. In cases of major policy, the panel would submit its recommendation to the whole Council for consideration and approval. IV. JURISDICTION A) JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL I consider the following to legitimately fall into the Jurisdiction of the World Council, or a review committee it appoints: Interpretation of the Great Charter. Questions of conflict with and violations of the Charter. Recognition of SCA Corps. (Are their governing documents consistent with the Charter?) Recognition of Kingdoms and Principalities (Ditto) Matters affecting more than one SCA corp. Matters affecting the whole of the Society. B) JURISDICTION OF CORPORATIONS SCA Mundane Governing Bodies may be Corporations, Incorporated Federations, Associations, etc. For brevity I will refer to the governing bodies simply as Corporations, while recognizing that other structures may be possible or desirable. An SCA Corporation, or its representatives, would have standing in: Matters effecting the financial and legal integrity of the Corporation. Violations of the Corporation’s Governing Documents Matters affecting the ability of officers to fulfill the mundane obligations of the Corporation Requests for the Corporation to employ its mundane coercive powers. Game issues that clearly did not fall into the above categories would not need to be submitted to the Corporation before being brought before the World Review Panel. Issues that did, or possibly did, would first be submitted to the Corp. or its representatives. They would hand on up questions that were, in their judgment, better decided by the World Review Panel. C) LOCAL REVIEW Groups would be permitted and encouraged to form review panels at the Kingdom or Principality level. Such panels could operate either within or outside the medieval game structure of the Society. They could be chosen by any method manifestly agreeable to the members of the group, provided that the members of the panel were not subject to royal selection or removal. They would have powers as provided in local Corpora, provided that they did not conflict with the Charter. Appropriate matters for such bodies to consider would include: Violations of Local Corpora Violations of Kingdom Law Determinations of Questions of Fact Decisions made by such bodies could be appealed to Council or Corporation when the decision fell into the jurisdiction of either body. Note that if a local panel was acceptable to a Corporation as representatives of the Corporation, this could simplify the process of appeals. However, if someone insisted on appealing a matter affecting the integrity of a Corporation to its Board, I believe the fiduciary duties of the Board would require it to consider the appeal I would also like to see a bill of rights for subjects written into the Great Charter, with guaranties of due process and protections from unreasonable penalties. There are some bits in the Magna Carta that seem quite useful. This is another matter for later discussion V. SCA-WORLD.... ...would be controlled by the Council. It would be a pretty slim organization, consisting of the Council, a few officers to assist it, and whatever legal structure it needed to operate.. I see it including: Laurel Sovereign of Arms, doing pretty much what he does now. Marshalate Advisor. Does NOT control a hierarchy. Does collect some data worldwide on how many fighters are getting injured and by what, as a guide to both the Council, the Kingdoms, and the Boards. As the name implies, his function is advisory. A&S Advisor. Primary function is to glom onto research, resources, and the like that are being produced anyplace in the Society and find them a wider audience. Also advises Council on Arts issues when required. You might also want Medical and Seneschal advisors, to co-ordinate sharing of knowledge in their fields, and to advise the Council. If we continue to have a Society College of Arms, it would seem best to have it answerable to the World Council. The other advisors are not absolutely essential, but I think they would be useful. If my Kingdom was considering, say, face thrusts, it would be convenient to have one person to go to to find what the experience elsewhere was... Other administration? Not much. Someone would have to keep track of contacts and addresses at the various SCA corps. I can't think of much else that would have to happen at the SCA-World level. It may be desirable or necessary for SCA-World to be a Corporation. This proposal does not yet make a recommendation for or against incorporation, and regards it as a matter to be settled in later discussion. VI. MUNDANE GOVERNING BODIES Every SCA branch would be affiliated with a Mundane Governing Body, recognized by SCA-World and appropriate to its jurisdiction, to deal with mundane legal requirements. Such a body must agree not to violate the great charter. Kingdoms and Principalities may be affiliated with SCA, Inc.(US), as they are now. Or they might be affiliated with another national corp. (like Australia's). Or, for a Kingdom spanning several jurisdictions, a federation of corporations, or an umbrella corp. for several national/local corps. Mundane Governing Bodies associated with Kingdoms and Principalities would be alike in their relation to the World body. Each would have its own corpora, consistent with the Charter but otherwise varying according to the requirements of each jurisdiction and the preferences of each group. In my opinion, local SCA corporation should at the very least have control over the appointment, removal, and replacement of Treasurers, Seneschals, Marshals, and Chirurgeons within their jurisdiction, since these officers can impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. I also believe that this should become de-facto Board policy as soon as possible. This would be in contrast to current Corpora, where in theory the authority for all appointments or removals flows jointly from the throne and from Milpitas. VII. MEMBERSHIP For purposes of satisfying the number of subscribing members required for Principality, and Kingdom status, "Subscribing Members" are defined as natural persons maintaining an address within the branch that subscribes to the appropriate Kingdom or Principality newsletter. If the minimum size of Baronies was specified by the charter, they would also use this definition. The intent here is to create a common yardstick between groups with different requirements for mandatory membership. Groups with differing policies might have different proportions of associate membership, but the numbers of people that cared enough to order the newsletter would be more similar. Individual Mundane Governing Bodies may, within the limits of the Charter, have other categories of membership, and may set membership requirements to take part in their activities or hold office. VIII. AN EXAMPLE To see how this would work, imagine how the Canadian Principality of Ealdormere would operate under this arrangement. Its inhabitants might continue to be members of SCA, Inc., (US) as they are now. Or they might be members of a Canadian Principality level corp. that pays to produce and deliver a Principality newsletter, and buys TI from SCA Publications. Or you might have some of each. Now, Ealdormere's Corpora might be a clone of that of SCA-US. Or it might be as different as the Charter allows. Or Ealdormere might choose to remain affiliated with the US Corp. and follow its Corpora. IX. IMPLEMENTATION OUTLINE Assuming both Board and Society assent to the proposal.... Phase One Board institutes regular procedure to offer affiliated status to suitable foreign SCA corps.. Their members count as members of the Society for purposes of satisfying branch population requirements, and membership requirements for Society officers. They are allowed to make reasonable regulations for the appointment and removal of Society officers within their jurisdiction. They are given the option of purchasing TI in bulk for redistribution to their members. They make some reasonable contribution to SCA,Inc to cover costs of game oversight that will later be taken over by SCA world, similar to the contribution made by the Australian corp. now, although not necessarily at that level. Board permits and encourages the creation of Kingdom and Principality review panels as described in proposal. Where appropriate, it delegates its power of review and to impose sanctions to those panels, while retaining standing for appeals. Kingdoms and Principalities determine how they will choose their World Council reps, and choose them. Phase Two Council appoints World Review Panel. Review Panel begins to review game issues that make it past lower review panels, making recommendations to the Board. At this stage it has only advisory powers. Council revises and approves Great Charter. Legal structure drawn up to allow Council to have powers discussed in proposal. Board reviews Charter and suggests any changes to World Council. Great Charter published. Assent of Society to the Charter secured. Phase Three World Council given full legal standing. Board hands over to it control of common game rules, power of review of game issues, and power to recognize, or remove recognition of, SCA groups. Foreign corps. cease to make contributions to SCA, Inc.(Milpitas), except for services and publications provided. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 11:40:38 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 11:26:48 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron Re: My Votes and Welcome to them (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605230503.PAA31998@macquarie.matra.com.au> (message from Richard Lesze on Thu, 23 May 1996 15:03:29 +1000) While this: >Our charter does not say that we should only suggest changes >the board will be happy with. is certainly true (and was a major meta-discussion when we were organizing), this: >the board sees >only complete proposals, and is not involved in the discussions leading up >to them. is IMO dead wrong. In any group that is trying to get anything done, preventing communication is *always* a bad thing. It invites gratuitous argument based on miscommunication. It invites major infighting at the end, over what would have been minor issues if they'd been seen early on. It makes this group more parochial in its outlook, for no good reason. I'm entirely willing to countenance rewriting of the state of things; frankly, I regard Fiacha's suggested wording as accomplishing most of what I wanted to get out of Finnvarr's proposal, from the Board POV. But I strongly object to the notion of deliberately keeping the Board out of the loop. I'd be the last one to say that they were the *only* people with valid views on the subject; however, they *do* have useful and valid views on these topics, and we'd do well to solicit their opinions. One of my major regrets in this process is that we haven't gotten the Board and Society Officers nearly involved enough. They don't and shouldn't have votes here, but we should be trying to get their input and advice... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "[Using] The Internet is like Chinese food: it takes someone who knows what they're doing to show you around until you get a taste for it." -- Jane Waks From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 12:09:14 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:58:11 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Justin: Re: Galleron Re: My Votes ... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >>the board sees only complete proposals, and is not involved in the >>>>discussions leading up to them. > >is IMO dead wrong. In any group that is trying to get anything done, >preventing communication is *always* a bad thing. ... >... >One of my major regrets in this process is that we haven't gotten the >Board and Society Officers nearly involved enough. ... Amen. Thanks, Justin. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 12:17:25 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:50:10 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Report to the BoD. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >... the few sports >organizations I know of are simply committees with little actual power, that >recognize local groups. (Doesn't that sound promising...) In fact, it does. A sports federation may have little actual power, but players from all over the world still somehow seem to agree on how to play soccer. >The demon I wrestled with the most, was how to define compliance with the >game... and the best solution that I could find was consensus and >negotiation. After a first-hand experience with the Landmarks project, I tend to agree. So let the players define the game. Let every kingdom and (regular) principality appoint members of the SCA-World committee/board/whatever and let that instance decide in each case. An example: Boyarovo is a medievalist group in Inner Slobovia. They feel that the SCA would be a neat way to develop international contacts. They write to SCA-World and show interest. SCA-World answers by sending them an outline of the rules of its game (something like the recreation-related parts of Corpora). The Slobovians answer that they'll gladly incorporate the SCA rules into Boyarovo's principality law, except that they want to alternate between heavy weapons combat, fencing and chess tourneys to appoint their princes. Then it's up to SCA-World to consider if this is an acceptable variation. If it is, Boyarovo becomes an SCA principality and gets a seat on the SCA-World committee. If not, Boyarovo's neighbors are still free to play with Boyarovo as a "foreign power", i.e. they can exchange diplomats, and Boyarovo's tin hats get proper respect but have no power, no right to hold courts etc. at SCA events. All this says absolutely nothing about modern structure and organization. All SCA-World would ask of Boyarovo would be that they follow Slobovian law. Of course they'd just have Boyarovo's word on that the group is properly incorporated, and maybe a piece of paper in Slobovian to prove that the group exists and keeps the tax authorities happy, but if the deal with SCA-World was that whoever gets caught cutting mundane corners is out effective immediately, local groups would either make sure to do their own stuff right or consider joining some bigger and more experienced SCA-related corp. /Catrin P.S. I got Galleron's final version while I was writing this. I haven't had time to take it apart, but at first sight I like it a lot. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 12:32:24 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: flieg@garnet.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 09:17:28 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Subject: Re: Fiacha's Report To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 04:35 PM 5/22/96 -0700, Nigel Haslock wrote: >Greetings from Fiacha, > >The vote is aborted pending further discussion and more participation. > [..trimmed announcements...]> > Unless you persuade me to do otherwise, my report will say that > we agree that it is necessary to recognise members of foreign national > corporations as members of the society but that we have not > reached agreement on how this might be done. There is no clear > agreement on which foreign corporation should be treated this way. I believe that the above does in fact represent a concensus opinion of what I have been reading the last couple of months. > > Further, the Council is generally agreed that control of the > 'game' aspects of the society need to be handed over to a new > organization which directly represents every Kingdom and every > Principality. I do not believe that the above is true. "A substantial number" of people feel this way, and I feel that the majority of the GC feel that the "game" should be separated from "the 20th C", but the statement above focuses on one particular representation plan, for which there was not so much universal agreement. * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chemistry Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ====================== Old Used Duke ===================== [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 12:54:39 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:43:45 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Report to the BoD. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Janna G. Spanne" at May 23, 96 05:50:10 pm Greetings from Tibor. I had written: >... the few sports >organizations I know of are simply committees with little actual power, that >recognize local groups. (Doesn't that sound promising...) Catrin answered: In fact, it does. A sports federation may have little actual power, but players from all over the world still somehow seem to agree on how to play soccer. Oh, no, I wasn't being sarcastic. It does sound promising. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 14:34:00 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:19:56 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Fiacha's Report To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg writes: -> -> Further, the Council is generally agreed that control of the -> 'game' aspects of the society need to be handed over to a new -> organization which directly represents every Kingdom and every -> Principality. - I do not believe that the above is true. "A substantial number" of -people feel this way, and I feel that the majority of the GC feel -that the "game" should be separated from "the 20th C", but the statement -above focuses on one particular representation plan, for which there was -not so much universal agreement. - * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. - *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu At the risk of sounding like an official "Frederick of Holland mirror site", I have to concur with his observation. I know I don't agree with the above statement. My main agenda for splitting game and corporation aspects is primarily to reduce the workload, conflicts and multple hats that the board (or boards, or whatever ends up in that position) has to wear, along with the conflicts and potential abuses inherent in our present set-up; not to allow periodic redefinition of the goals and ideals of the SCA. Given my experience with the GC and rules bodies in general, I remain unconvinced that such a body would be capable of working let alone preserving the game we all play in. I also am very leery of opening up the _game_ for redefinition by such a comittee. The corporation being voted on, I have less problems with. Officially then, my position is that while I do feel that the game needs to be split off, I do not agree that the council as a whole has agreed that a _directly_ representative body is where it belongs. I can live with the first half, not the second. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 14:34:26 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:22:02 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron Re: Fieg on Fiacha's Report (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:02:05 -0400 Subject: Galleron Re: Fieg on Fiacha's Report Please forward to the GC Flieg writes, quoting Fiacha: >> Further, the Council is generally agreed that control of the >> 'game' aspects of the society need to be handed over to a new >> organization which directly represents every Kingdom and every >> Principality. > > I do not believe that the above is true. "A substantial number" of >people feel this way, and I feel that the majority of the GC feel >that the "game" should be separated from "the 20th C", but the statement >above focuses on one particular representation plan, for which there was >not so much universal agreement. > Look at the votes, Flieg. Aside from the people that felt that any voting on any proposals was premature, the only person that gave my plan less than a "7" was Hossein. He rejected my plan on other grounds and warmly endorsed the Finnvarr Proposal, which contains the same notion. If there are opponents on the Council to that model for choosing the representatives to the Game Body, they are expecting us to read their minds. Which isn't fair. Unless you're objecting to Fiacha's choice of words. As Alban correctly says: "The World Council does not 'represent' every Kingdom and Principality; it is _comprised_ of representatives from every kingdom and _non-Crown_ Principality (I think that's the way it's phrased). " Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 14:41:49 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:27:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Fiacha's Report To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >> Further, the Council is generally agreed that control of the >> 'game' aspects of the society need to be handed over to a new >> organization which directly represents every Kingdom and every >> Principality. > > I do not believe that the above is true. "A substantial number" of >people feel this way, and I feel that the majority of the GC feel >that the "game" should be separated from "the 20th C", but the statement >above focuses on one particular representation plan, for which there was >not so much universal agreement. > Altho a "new organization" seems most likely, to me, at this point in time, I agree with the above statement of Flieg that the agreement and consensus was to separate out the game, not specifically to a new organization. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 14:44:38 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <9605231447.AA04044@dsd.camb.inmet.com> with last message <9605231447.AA04044@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Priority: Urgent Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:26:42 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Galleron: Final Version Of Proposal for 2nd Quarter Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9605231447.AA04044@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Yes -Erik Langhans modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 18:08:48 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:54:12 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Galleron: Reset to Zero To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron. I will emphasize that I concur... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:36:28 -0400 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Galleron: Reset to Zero OK, so we are to have further discussion. If there are things that are in my proposal you don't like, please say what they are. If there are things that you think should be in the proposal but aren't, please say what they are. For example: Legal framework for SCA World, if any. Number on Review Panel Cost, which is tied up with: How often the review panel will need to meet face to face How often the World Council will need to meet face to face. Changes to Corpora required. Term limits for Councilors? If you want to write your own proposal that says 'Just like Gallerons, except....', be my guest. If you want to write your own proposal from scratch, be my guest. However: We don't have forever. I can't read your minds. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 18:56:27 1996 Return-Path: References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.2 10apr95 MediaMail) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Approved-By: Bart Orbons Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 00:35:49 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Bart Orbons Subject: Re: Roll Call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Nigel Haslock "Roll Call" (May 21, 5:07pm) Oh my... It seems i read it... I am still working through a large backlog of GC discussio in an attempt to catch up... I hope to be there in a week or so. Allmost finished april now, I guess... Bertrik/bart -- ========================================================================= | Bart H. Orbons, warande 193, 3705 ZP Zeist,the Netherlands | | Planet Internet Holding. | | bart@holding.pi.net | ========================================================================= The earth is like a tiny grain of sand, only much, much heavier. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 20:50:04 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:28:58 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: New Member To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Fiacha, I have recieved mail from John Bearkiller to say that he will not be joining us and that his crown has selected Cathal to take his place. So I have asked Kwellend-Njal to grant him access. I have also asked Kwellend Njal to grant posting privileges to Galleron, Solvieg and Morgan. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 23 23:11:51 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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, 23 May 1996 22:58:31 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: Final Version Of Proposal for 2nd Quarter Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron? Ummm, what exactly are you proposing? That the Board accept and put into motion this proposal? That the Board read it over and come back with comments? That the Board files it and forgets about it until we do something else? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 24 03:48:04 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 03:36:55 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Galleron Re: Fieg on Fiacha's Report (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron writes - Look at the votes, Flieg. Aside from the people that felt that -any voting on - any proposals was premature, the only person that gave my -plan less than a - "7" was Hossein. He rejected my plan on other grounds and -warmly endorsed the - Finnvarr Proposal, which contains the same notion. A vote against is a vote against. Please don't recast my vote as anything but what it was. "0" on all meant that I didn't like what I saw, and didn't want to 'part vote" for the proposal I was "least uncomfortable with". Part of my discomfort with both of the above proposals are the same reasons I have a problem with Fiacha's statement to the board. And in addition I thought that voting on the proposals is/was premature. So, no, I don't believe that the statement in question represents the consensus of the GC. Particulalry given all of the comments recieved since. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 24 11:22:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 16:57:04 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: My votes, nevertheless To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Here are my answer to Fiacha's request for votes of May 4th; I know that people on the list does not think these items are ready to vote on, but call it a statement of opinion or something, then.... 1. We need to resolve the meaning of paid membership before we resolve relations with foreign corporations. My vote: 3 I don't think so. The issues are connected, but can be handled separately. 2. Fiachas ugly compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps buy memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. My vote: 0 This would put foreign corps on the same level as US individuals. 3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. My vote: 7 A step in the right direction, but just a small one. 4. We need to define the game before we can separate game control from the Board of the SCA Inc. My vote: 3 Defining the game is probably a hopeless task. Who was it that suggested defining whats mundane; the rest is game? That would probably be an easier way to do it. 5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into World Council) My vote: 7 It's one way to do it. 6. Finnvarr's proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by Kingdoms and Principalities) My vote: 7 Another way to relieve the BoD of some of their work load. 7. galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) My vote: 9 Best proposal I have seen so far. The only quibble I have is in part VI; on which officers the local corporations should appoint. IMO this could be left to the local corps themselves. For example, marshals and chirurgeons could probably NOT affect the legal responsibilities of a swedish corp. 8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World Court, describes possible world service corp.) My vote: 6 Too vague in some respects, and too detailed in others. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 24 11:54:41 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhaw@indyunix.iupui.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: marci haw Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:45:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: marci haw Subject: Roll Call posted by Fiacha, 5 pm 21 May To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'm still here, just lagging behind a bit. John of Sternfeld From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 24 12:33:44 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:18:25 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron Re: Flieg on Fiacha's Report (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron (I assume Kwellend hasn't had a chance to update things yet)... -- Justin >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 11:05:15 -0400 >Subject: Re: Galleron Re: Flieg on Fiacha's Report (fwd) Corwyn, In a message dated 96-05-24 03:37:56 EDT, you write: >A vote against is a vote against. Please don't recast my vote as anything >but what it was. Not trying to. Just saying that, since the nay-sayers were voting against all proposals, and gave as their sole reason that the proposals weren't complete enough, there was no reason to assume that they opposed the reps by kingdom and principality model. Now Flieg, Magnus and you say that there is no consensus on this issue. Corwyn, you now say that you oppose the model. Flieg and Magnus imply that they do, but do not explicitly say so. It would have been nice to know this a few weeks ago. If you oppose the model, please say so explicitly. Reasons why would be nice. And suggest what you'd like to do instead. I still think it is fair to say that a strong majority of the Councilors that voted could live with that model, and no other model has been proposed. Justin, if this falls to the floor, please forward it. I'm testing my nifty new posting powers. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 24 13:45:07 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 13:28:09 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Re: Roll call To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Ok Fiacha, I just got back from Ireland late last night and I'm trying to plow through a few messages before heading off to our Crown list.... Yo. Well, you did say to reply as soon as we read the message... By the way, I'm kind of glad discussion slowed up a bit. I wasn't looking forward to reading 200 messages :) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat May 25 12:02:45 1996 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: Sat, 25 May 1996 11:50:59 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: What's the proposal? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L From: IN%"WMclean290@aol.com" 24-MAY-1996 11:26:50.45 To: IN%"ALBAN@delphi.com" CC: Subj: RE: Galleron: Final Version Of Proposal for 2nd Quarter Voting Return-path: Received: from emout12.mail.aol.com ("port 4332"@emout12.mx.aol.com) by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01I52Z2KPFK09371UU@delphi.com> for ALBAN@delphi.com; Fri, 24 May 1996 11:26:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA04030 for ALBAN@delphi.com; Fri, 24 May 1996 11:26:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 11:26:40 -0400 From: WMclean290@aol.com Subject: Re: Galleron: Final Version Of Proposal for 2nd Quarter Voting To: ALBAN@delphi.com Message-id: <960524112639_400222411@emout12.mail.aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Alban, in a message dated 96-05-23 23:00:38 EDT, you write: >Galleron? Ummm, what exactly are you proposing? That the Board >accept and put into motion this proposal? That the Board read it >over and come back with comments? What I WAS proposing was that the Board read it over and come back with comments. Preferably, "This is just what we want, now work out a detailed implementation. In the meantime we'll publish the outline you've sent and start asking for feedback from the Society" That was sent in before Fiacha aborted the second quarter vote. Since we are back at the discussion stage, stay tuned for further mutations. Galleron Forward if you like. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat May 25 14:33:39 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhaw@indyunix.iupui.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: marci haw Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 13:21:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: marci haw Subject: Re: GC Vote - 24 May To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L 1) Define paid membership, etc. = 0. I see this as something that needs or not needs to be done depending on how the corp finally ends up being organized. 2) Fiacha's Ugly Compromise = 2 3) Alysoun's - BoD recognizes other corporations = 0. I am a proponent of getting the BoD out of running the Society (the game) and this proposal doesn't go that direction. 4) Define game before moving on = 0. 5) Alysoun's Fall Back = IAC grows into World Council = 0, I don't believe the IAC is set up to be a good representative or governmental body. 6) Finnvar's Proposal = 7. My favorite proposal, it gets the BoD outta the game, allows localities to handle their local legal problems. 7) Galleron's - 6. I see this a same direction as Finnvar's and by the time a committee this size gets done chewing onit #'s 6,7,8 will become the same answer. 8) Solvieg's - 6. I see this a same direction as Finnvar's and by the time a committee this size gets done chewing onit #'s 6,7,8 will become the same answer. Please feel free to comment. John of Sternfeld From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 28 14:13:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: flieg@garnet.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:55:46 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Subject: Re: Galleron Re: Flieg on Fiacha's Report (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here At 12:18 PM 5/24/96 EDT, Mark Waks wrote: >Forwarded for Galleron (I assume Kwellend hasn't had a chance to update >things yet)... > > -- Justin > [...]] > >Now Flieg, Magnus and you say that there is no consensus on this issue. >Corwyn, you now say that you oppose the model. Flieg and Magnus imply that >they do, but do not explicitly say so. To me, "concensus" means that: 1) Everyone has talked about it. 2) Most of everyone likes it. 3) There is no violent opposition to it. I objected to Fiacha's statement of "concensus" on the basis that item one (1) had not been satisfied. I do not oppose the model. Neither do I support it (I feel that Kingdoms are a small enough unit), but I thought that Fiacha's statement of concensus was definitely premature. > >It would have been nice to know this a few weeks ago. > >If you oppose the model, please say so explicitly. Reasons why would be nice. >And suggest what you'd like to do instead. > >I still think it is fair to say that a strong majority of the Councilors that >voted could live with that model, and no other model has been proposed. I would agree with this statement. It is, however, a different statement. > * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chemistry Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ====================== Old Used Duke ===================== [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue May 28 18:58:26 1996 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: 1713 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 15:46:49 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Bricks Without Straw To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cathal to All, Greetings: As Fiacha has previously posted, TRM of Meridies have requested me to assume the duties as GC representative for Meridies lately vacated by Duke John the BearKiller. The necessary bona-fides and hostages having been exchanged, here I am. Casting caution to the winds, let me ask a question which has troubled me as a spectator from the inception of these deliberations. Given that the GC has been appointed to advise the BoD on changes necessary to perpetuate and facilitate growth and existance of the Society, what considerations other than this broad perspective have been created to guide our deliberations? In my estimation the situation has devolved into a process of negotiation wherein we posit the best of all possible worlds without knowing the foundation upon which we will be required to build. There is, again to the best of my knowledge, no single document which states those conditions which the BoD deems essential to their version of the status quo and upon which, at this particular stage of the parley, they will not deviate. Would it not then make more sense to have from the BoD a list of "last territorial demands" from which we can garner potential resolutions rather than to shot-gun the issues with a myriad of proposals which may meet total objection. Yes, this would limit our initial actions. However it would also present a point of departure from which our eventual proposals could be considered with a higher possibility of implementation. It would also lock the BoD into a status quo from which no "misunder= standing" about initial stands could be claimed. Indeed, what good is a landmark without a map to place it on? Salvete, Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 29 10:53:09 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:40:06 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron re: Bricks Without Straw To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Welcome, Cathal. You write: > In my estimation the situation has devolved into a process >of negotiation wherein we posit the best of all possible worlds without >knowing the foundation upon which we will be required to build. There is, >again to the best of my knowledge, no single document which states those >conditions which the BoD deems essential to their version of the >status quo and upon which, at this particular stage of the parley, they >will not deviate. Well, it may not even be that adversarial. The Board might be willing to consider with an open mind anything that the whole Council supports and makes a good argument for. But yes, I would certainly like to have a better idea where the Board stands. Which is why I wanted my proposal to go to the Board for their comments before their next meeting. I still do. Especially since the Board is making a highly commendable effort to develope a five year budget, I think they deserve early notification of the direction the Council is heading. Fiacha, could your report say something like: Finnvarr put forward a proposal that game issues be decided by a body comprised of representatives from each Kingdom and Principality, Crown Principalities excepted. Galleron, who is not a member of the Council but has submitted proposals to it, developed a more detailed outline based on those principals. His proposal also included a mechanism for recognizing the membership of other recognized SCA corporations as equivalent to membership in SCA,Inc. for certain purposes, such as satisfying branch size requirements. While both proposals were acceptable in principal to the majority of Councilors that took part in the discussions, five Councilors felt that the proposals were not ripe for presentation to the Board for action as new business, and asked for further discussion and more detailed development of the proposals. While the Council does not ask the Board to take action on the proposals in their current form at this time, they are included for the Board's information. Galleron asks: Are the proposals acceptable in principal to the Board, assuming an acceptable plan for implementation is developed and the assent of the Society is obtained? If not, what portions of the proposals does the Board object to? Does the Board have suggestions as to how the proposals might be improved? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 29 12:22:08 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:10:46 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Bricks Without Straw To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605282246.PAA14406@netcom19.netcom.com> from "James Pratt" at May 28, 96 03:46:49 pm Greetings from Tibor. At last, Master Cathal has come to join us. This is good. Casting caution to the winds, let me ask a question which has troubled me as a spectator from the inception of these deliberations. Given that the GC has been appointed to advise the BoD on changes necessary to perpetuate and facilitate growth and existance of the Society, what considerations other than this broad perspective have been created to guide our deliberations? No, we have none. In fact, I doubt that it is worth asking for, at this time. The charter for the Grand Council ends with the fourth quarter meeting this fall. I doubt it would be extended, I doubt it should be. While you ask good, and challenging questions, I suspect re-engineering the process one more time would open us up to excessive Dilbert inspired hi-jinks. Perhaps I am merely overtired... but it is time for planning the replacement of the Grand Council, not refining the current version. There simply isn't enough time left to change our methods, Dr Watson. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 29 13:09:34 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:56:36 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Bricks Without Straw To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605282246.PAA14406@netcom19.netcom.com> (message from James Pratt on Tue, 28 May 1996 15:46:49 -0700) Cathal writes: >There is, >again to the best of my knowledge, no single document which states those >conditions which the BoD deems essential to their version of the >status quo and upon which, at this particular stage of the parley, they >will not deviate. Would it not then make more sense to have from the >BoD a list of "last territorial demands" from which we can garner >potential resolutions rather than to shot-gun the issues with a myriad >of proposals which may meet total objection. Perhaps, but frankly, I don't think the Board has made the decisions implicit in such a document; nor do I think they really want to open that particular can of worms themselves. This is really the "vision" question -- roughly speaking, where are we going, and what needs to stay the same? I don't think the Board has a specific vision at this time, or even a general one, except a strong motivation to make things work more smoothly and fairly than they have been doing in recent years. Honestly, I think this is a large part of the motivation behind this Council -- to suggest a little bit of vision and direction. With that in hand, implementation isn't nearly as hard. (IMO.) That's why I regard the recent proposals as entirely valid, despite being largely lacking in detail. This is also why I've been trying to emphasize interaction and communication with the Board and Officers. I don't think the Board is going to give us the sort of boundary document you describe. That being the case, it makes sense to try and keep them in the loop (insofar as is practical), incrementally reality-checking ourselves to make sure we don't go too far off-kilter... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: The reason snowstorms are so bad for productivity is: o Before the storm people stand around the hallways saying: "Goodness, it's going to be a heck of a snowstorm." o After the storm, people stand around the hallways saying: "Goodness, it sure was a heck of a snowstorm." -- Bill White From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 29 16:21:38 1996 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: 410 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:55:07 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Bricks Without Straw To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605291610.MAA28811@abel.math.HARVARD.EDU> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at May 29, 96 12:10:46 pm Cathal to All, Greetings: Tibor, the role of Cassandra does not become you. Let us at least depart the stage with an attempt at producing a set of viable proposals which will put to the test once and for all _if_ the BoD and by extension the Society as a whole is willing to implement change where needed. There is nothing so sad as the phrase, "what might have been." Salvete, (with more to come) Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 29 17:02:50 1996 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 16:45:17 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Bricks Without Straw To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605291955.MAA07382@netcom14.netcom.com> from "James Pratt" at May 29, 96 12:55:07 pm Tibor, the role of Cassandra does not become you. Rarely have I been levelled so deftly. Conceded. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 29 18:43:17 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 15:22:57 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Fiacha, Galleron's proposal has foreign corporations vetted by a central authority. Can we see some discussion of what might be involved? Rememeber that there are at least two ways to look at this. 1. The mundane support corporation of an existing branch applies. 2. The corporation that supports a related but different game applies. My concern is that we not ask type 1 corporations jump through hoops designed to ensure that type 2 corporations are playing a game with no significant differences from our game. Thus my requirement for a type 1 corporation would be to ensure that the corporate officers ceded game authority to those selected by the mechanisms in place within the game. My requirement for a type 2 corporation would be that the recognition of existings branches, individual titles and awards be subject to the approval of the central game controlling authority. Regards Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed May 29 23:41:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Susan C Earley Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 20:22:22 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Susan C Earley Subject: Re: Galleron re: Bricks Without Straw To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L You wrote: >Well, it may not even be that adversarial. The Board might be willing to >consider with an open mind anything that the whole Council supports and makes >a good argument for. Personally, I would. >Especially since the Board is making a highly commendable effort to develope >a five year budget, I think they deserve early notification of the direction >the Council is heading. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES. As of right now, it looks like it's gonna be my guesses for the first pass. -Ghita From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 30 12:04:01 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 17:52:33 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha says: >Rememeber that there are at least two ways to look at this. > 1. The mundane support corporation of an existing branch applies. > 2. The corporation that supports a related but different game applies. These aren't just two ways of looking at the matter, they are two different beasts. Implicitly, there has been a lot of confusion and people have discussed one or the other as "the" international issue, much depending on the point they've wanted to make. >Thus my requirement for a type 1 corporation would be to ensure that the >corporate officers ceded game authority to those selected by the >mechanisms in place within the game. Sure. So (and here's the eternal question) how do we ensure that the game mechanisms quit interfering with the mundane side? The dilemma we're facing over here is that mundane non-profit practice requires the chairman, treasurer and secretary of my local group to be elected by the group, while the current SCA regulations require the seneschal, exchequer and chronicler to be appointed by their superiors. Should we have double sets, and who should actually do what? - One solution I could live with would be that the seneschal/chairman and secretary/chronicler were elected, subject to approval by their SCA superiors*); the treasurer being a purely mundane office and the rest of them (herald, marshal, MoAS etc etc) purely game-related offices. - On the other hand, I'm not at all certain that this solution would work anywhere outside Scandinavia. *) That's the way most groups here already do it in reality; it would be nice to be able to make it official, and openly discuss the various possibilities in case of conflict (e.g. if a group elects a person the SCA superior can't work with). >My requirement for a type 2 corporation would be that the recognition of >existings branches, individual titles and awards be subject to the >approval of the central game controlling authority. No objection. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 30 12:52:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 12:38:34 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Katrin writes: >Sure. >So (and here's the eternal question) how do we ensure that the game >mechanisms quit interfering with the mundane side? My preference is that we specify those game positions that we care how they're created (Counts, for instance) in the Great Charter. For the others (exchequer, for example) give the local corporation discretion. How Nordmark or An Tir chooses their Chronicler has bloody little effect on the common game that I can see. The selection takes place off stage, after all. The East has gotten along for years with local officers that are effectively chosen by their local groups. regardless of what it says in Corpora. We aren't in technical violation, since the King does sign off on them. But the spirit is certainly contrary to the wording in Corpora. Another thing. If we assume that these groups have a structure like SCA, Inc., they will also have a local corpora. If they follow our example, it will be a governing document of their corporation (safest place to put it, where the Kings can't mess with it). This was the main reason why I wanted the world body to vet the other corps: to make sure there wasn't anything there that would prevent them from playing our common game. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 30 13:19:09 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:07:43 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Wed, 29 May 1996 15:22:57 -0700) Fiacha writes: >Rememeber that there are at least two ways to look at this. > 1. The mundane support corporation of an existing branch applies. > 2. The corporation that supports a related but different game applies. > >My concern is that we not ask type 1 corporations jump through hoops >designed to ensure that type 2 corporations are playing a game with no >significant differences from our game. I don't see a need for a difference in *kind*; it seems more appropriate to simply be a difference in *scale*. Galleron's proposal also provides for a Charter, which would be a concrete description of what a club has to do and be to be considered part of "us". The vetting process really just boils down to reality-checking against that, I would expect. I'd say that this process should be nominally the same in both cases, but with the understanding that an external group looking to join will probably get scrutinized rather more carefully -- it doesn't get as much presumption that it's probably already in line with the Charter. (In practice, I suspect that all existing branches would, in the implementation phase, just get passed on through with a presumption that they're doing adequately, with just a cursory check; they would mainly be examined after the fact, if a challenge was brought that they were violating the Charter. I don't defend this as necessarily the best way to do things, but I'd bet that it's the most practical, and what would actually happen.) >Thus my requirement for a type 1 corporation would be to ensure that the >corporate officers ceded game authority to those selected by the >mechanisms in place within the game. >My requirement for a type 2 corporation would be that the recognition of >existings branches, individual titles and awards be subject to the >approval of the central game controlling authority. I suspect that there would wind up being more than that, but yes -- these are significant, different changes for each kind of organization. Both *should* be clearly spelt out in the Charter, though, if we agree that these are essential to how things are to be done, and to some degree subsumed in the general requirement to conform to Charter... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "You're nobody until parodied..." -- Dur the Nasty, slightly edited From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 30 13:36:11 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:21:58 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: Cost Implications (Yo, Ghita!) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Glad at least one member of the Board is reading this stuff. In my plan, there is a transitional period where affiliated, recognized corps. make a contribution to SCA, Inc., on the same principal that Australia does now. Now, what of the things SCA, Inc. does is actually used by a corporation that funds its own registry, operations, insurance, and tax reporting.? (Assuming it buys TI in Bulk) Not our registry or US operations. The Board (partially, we won't try to break out what part of the Board does applies only to the US), Committees, and the Society Officers ($66,000 total in the '96 budget). Possibly the Society Seneschal and Executive Assistant ($14,500) Divide that by the projected total number of members for 1996, including Australia, (26,014) and you have either $2.50 or $3.00 per head. That seems like a fair contribution from a corporation that takes care of all its own operations. Sounds like we're overcharging the Australians. On the other hand, net revenue from Europe might actually go up, since it would be paid on a larger membership base and we (SCA,Inc.) would not have the marginal expense of maintaining their names on our registry. Presumably you'd phase this in gradually, as the Non-US folks let their subscriptions to SCA,Inc lapse. Or, you might transfer those memberships to the foreign corp., along with a pro-rated portion of their remaining membership payment. That might work better. Fortunately for planning purposes, the absolute sums involved are small in relation to the total budget. OTHER IMPLICATIONS Presumably, you might see some shifting of phone and mail expense from the Board to the Review panel. This would tend to be a wash with little effect on the bottom line. During the transitional period, I would think SCA, Inc. would pay the expenses of the Review panel. Assuming for starters that the review panel has five members, the key question is, how often would they need to meet face to face? Would any current or past Board member like to hazard a guess how often a review panel concerned only with game issues would need to meet? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 30 14:24:57 1996 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: Thu, 30 May 1996 14:13:31 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Galleron: Cost Implications (Yo, Ghita!) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960530132158_545720806@emout07.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at May 30, 96 01:21:58 pm > > Glad at least one member of the Board is reading this stuff. Well, you can be sure that more than on eBOD member _is_ reading this. I thought I made _my_ ideas very clear last December. My job is not to really comment on the "process", just the end results...:-) Yep....you all get to do the leg-work.... EDWARD Z -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Landgraf Edward Zifran von Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 30 18:19:08 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 14:58:38 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960530123832_545693105@emout09.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Thu, 30 May 1996, Will McLean wrote: > Another thing. If we assume that these groups have a structure like SCA, > Inc., they will also have a local corpora. If they follow our example, it > will be a governing document of their corporation (safest place to put it, > where the Kings can't mess with it). This was the main reason why I wanted > the world body to vet the other corps: to make sure there wasn't anything > there that would prevent them from playing our common game. > > Galleron I begin to see. My model has been based on my experience of NSCA, the corporation that supports Lions Gate and possible some other branches in British Columbia. NSCA has, to the best of my knowledge, an offer structure that is independent of the Lions Gate officer structure. The President is not 'de facto' seneschal, or vice versa. The NSCA does not have a charter to match Corpora because no part of its function is related to controlling or administering the game. This is clearly a different model to that used in other places. Given that we are trying to formulate a world organization to assume control of the game, it would make sense to require that all corporation amend their charters to accept the authority of the world organization in all game matters that are not at odds with local laws of the land. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu May 30 22:16:42 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 49 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:02:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Reaction to the last two weeks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here. I've just returned from two weeks away, and have plodded through the discussion. I share the feeling that Galleron expressed a few days ago: if the proposals on the table are either too detailed or not detailed enough or completely wrong-headed, where are the counter-proposals? This next comment is not aimed at anyone in particular, but at a recurrent syndrome. Some of us have been spending a lot of time refining ideas and proposals, and some of us have been silent. At some point, silence -- or even unfocussed dissatisfaction -- will have to be taken not as consent, but at least as complete indifference to the Grand Council project. Here are my reactions to what I have seen: On the substantive question of international re-organization: if the SCA is to continue to be an international organization, recognition of foreign corporations is going to be a necessity. If recognition of foreign corporations is not merely going to be a prelude of fractures on national or continental lines, then over-all authority over the game is going to have to be defined which gives no national group automatic preference to others. The same project necessitates taking some of our existing game rules and defining them essential, and letting the rest go, to be dealt with closer to the grassroots. And figuring out some way to judge if the essentials are being upheld. On communications with the Board: I have always thought that one of the best things we could offer the Board was our discussions. I doubt very much that they have much time to discuss this stuff among themselves. The GC could be a (qualified) success even if we never came up with anything. Much better, of course, would be to produce proposals so wonderful that every fairminded person would immediately see how reasonable and necessary they were. But I have never expected that the Board or the membership would react to our proposals in that way. Therefore, though I hope that we can give the Board some solid proposals, I have never thought that they would vote Y/N on what we offered them. For one thing, they better consult the membership on serious changes! In line with all that, I don't see any reason why we can't give them a "direction" or an "outline proposal" at the end of a quarter and ask -- "Is this so crazy that you wouldn't consider it for a moment? And if so, why?" But mainly, I feel that people who are seriously dissatisfied with the proposals on the table should speak up soon with specific problems and proposals of their own. Finnvarr (still jet-lagged) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 31 06:48:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 12:36:49 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Lindorm: >From: Christer.Romson@abc.se (Christer Romson) >To: "Janna G. Spanne" >Subject: Re: Another contentious offshoot >Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 20:48:49 +0100 >Fiacha: >> My requirement would be to ensure that the corporate officers ceded >> game authority to those selected [in the normal sca way]. > >Catrin: >> over here mundane non-profit practice requires the chairman, treasurer >> and secretary of my local group to be elected by the group > >> Should we have double sets, and who should actually do what? - One >> solution would be that the seneschal/chairman and secretary/chronicler >> were elected, subject to approval by their SCA superiors > >I wouldn't equate secretary with chronicler, but that's a very minor >nitpick. > >I think the problem is worse than you state it. Practice require that >the highest authority is the general assembly of members where each >member has one vote. This assembly can delegate game-power to officers. >It can be written into the by-laws (just as delegation of mundane powers >to the board is written into the by-laws) but the general assmebly will >always be able to take that power away, or overturn decisions of the >board or the officers. > >I think it would be acceptable if the by-laws said that the officers >and/or board had to be approved by the Crown and corresponding Kingdom >officer (when there is one). > >This might be good enough for Fiacha, The Sca and/or The World Council, I >don't know. > > Lindorm From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 31 08:57:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 14:47:17 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Galleron: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >My preference is that we specify those game positions that we care how >they're created (Counts, for instance) in the Great Charter. For the others >(exchequer, for example) give the local corporation discretion. ... I agree completely. >The East has gotten along for years with local officers that are effectively >chosen by their local groups... ... and Drachenwald used to be a principality under the East Kingdom. That's why so many of our members don't realize that, technically, local officers aren't elected but appointed by their superiors. >Another thing. If we assume that these groups have a structure like SCA, >Inc., they will also have a local corpora. Since the mundane supporting group of my shire recently went away to join the pseudo-Nordmark secessionists (a majority of its members were non-SCA), we've had to found a new local non-profit for the shire. In the "goals and purposes" section of our governing document it says that the organisation will support the purposes and activities of the Society for Creative Anachronism, and all voting members are also required to be members of the SCAInc. I'm looking forward to the day we'll be able to put in, instead, that we endorse the Great Charter of SCA-World, and that membership in the local group entails membership in SCA-World, with no US (or German, or British, or whatever) corporation involved. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 31 11:13:17 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 10:58:28 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 96-05-30 18:08:03 EDT, Fiacha writes: >The NSCA does not >have a charter to match Corpora because no part of its function is >related to controlling or administering the game. > >This is clearly a different model to that used in other places. > Another way to look at it is this: in addition to controlling the game, Corpora also minutely specifies a lot of things that aren't really game issues. Who appoints the Treasurer. How you fire the newsletter editor. And it specifies that the ultimate authority on these matters is the Board of SCA, Inc. That's what's tying Catrin's group in knots. Which is why, in the long run, you can't just say "OK, you must follow the Corpora of SCA,Inc. to play our game." Unless you strip the non-game stuff out of it, and turn it into something like the Great Charter I've been pushing. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 31 15:28:37 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Susan C Earley Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 12:16:18 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Susan C Earley Subject: Re: Galleron: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron wrote: > >Another way to look at it is this: in addition to controlling the game, >Corpora also minutely specifies a lot of things that aren't really game >issues. Who appoints the Treasurer. How you fire the newsletter editor. And >it specifies that the ultimate authority on these matters is the Board of >SCA, Inc. That's what's tying Catrin's group in knots. > >Which is why, in the long run, you can't just say "OK, you must follow the >Corpora of SCA,Inc. to play our game." Unless you strip the non-game stuff >out of it, and turn it into something like the Great Charter I've been >pushing. >From the not-widely-known department: We are already talking about moving some of the stuff in Corpora, Bylaws, etc. to more appropriate documents. It won't happen immediately, it requires a lot of talk and work to make sure things get into where they should be. And personally, I would want to see whether we want to change the structure before we go making sweeping changes to the organization so we don't have to go through this exercise more than once. -Ghita From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 31 16:23:49 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 13:04:40 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960531105827_404483442@emout09.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Fri, 31 May 1996, Will McLean wrote: > Another way to look at it is this: in addition to controlling the game, > Corpora also minutely specifies a lot of things that aren't really game > issues. Who appoints the Treasurer. How you fire the newsletter editor. And > it specifies that the ultimate authority on these matters is the Board of > SCA, Inc. That's what's tying Catrin's group in knots. There is the mindset believes that anything not expressly allowed is forbidden and there is the opposing mindset that believes that everything not expressly forbidden is allowed. I suspect that I switch mindsets to use the rules to reinforce my opinions. Thus I agree that there is stuff that we should break out of Corpora, but I believe that I could find a way around those bits as a temporary measure. > Which is why, in the long run, you can't just say "OK, you must follow the > Corpora of SCA,Inc. to play our game." Unless you strip the non-game stuff > out of it, and turn it into something like the Great Charter I've been > pushing. "this corporation exists to hold events at which the attendees will be bound by the rules set out in the Corpora of the SCA Inc." Officer appoinment rules are now irrelevant outside the confines of an event. "this corporation exists to hold events at the request of 'The Shire of Bear Mountain', a branch of the SCA Inc., at which all activities will be governed by the such rules as that organization requires." Requires a parallel officer structure but keep the money away from the branch. Exchequer and Chronicler become empty jobs because they have no operating funds. Regards Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 31 16:24:16 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 16:13:09 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Deliberations of the council available through the SCA Home page To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Siobhan... -- Justin >From: "Pat McGregor" >Subject: Deliberations of the council available through the SCA Home page >Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:03:42 -0700 Pardon me for this brief announcement: As the SCA, Inc. Web page is coming online quickly, we've added a link to Justin's archive of the deliberations of the council to the main menu. It seemed silly not to give people looking for it a way to get there from the SCA home page. (http://www.sca.org) The Heraldry database and the Corporate handbook and other official documents will be up as soon as we get them converted. Which is happening apace, even as we speak. Again, thanks to Edward and Eilis for their strong sponsorship of this project. (Others may be also strong, just haven't heard from them. ;-) ) cheers, 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 Fri May 31 17:04:09 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 16:50:35 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199605311916.MAA17459@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> (message from Susan C Earley on Fri, 31 May 1996 12:16:18 -0700) Ghita writes: >From the not-widely-known department: We are already talking about moving some >of the stuff in Corpora, Bylaws, etc. to more appropriate documents. It won't >happen immediately, it requires a lot of talk and work to make sure things get >into where they should be. And personally, I would want to see whether we want >to change the structure before we go making sweeping changes to the >organization so we don't have to go through this exercise more than once. Intriguing; I'm glad to hear you're already thinking about this. I suspect that this could be productively approached in parallel with the discussions we're having here, since it sounds like you're mainly talking about separating the strands out sensibly. If that's the case, the transition >from this "new Corpora" to Galleron's proposed Charter might well be quite straightforward... -- Justin Who thinks that this is a good idea in its own right, entirely independent of the rest of the issues... Random Quote du Jour: Re: Interesting Chinese Foods ">WOTON in hot oil - $3.75 Ah, yes, it's been a while since I've seen a Chinese restaurant offer this delicacy, brought to them by the Vikings when they sailed their longships up the Yellow River.... I'm surprised they actually serve it, since (if I remember correctly) gods fall under the "Endangered Species Act" and it's illegal to import them for consumption....probably the restaurant uses imitation gods, made out of cornstarch and marzipan..." -- Fujimoto From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 31 19:35:05 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 16:16:28 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Roll Call Results To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Fiacha, In case anyone cares, the results of the roll call were 18 replies within 24 hours, including Solveig plus a message from Finvarr's mail service. 5 more trickled in, including Galleron So we have 22 councilors and 2 vociferous members of the public who can send email in a timely fashion. Councilors who have neither responded nor, to my knowledge, resigned are Alienor, Brion, Edric, Eichling, Eric, Gyrth, Nathan, Randell, Sarah and Titus. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 31 19:52:25 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 5 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 19:38:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Note To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L "Finnvarr's mail service" is also known as "Finnvarr's lady" or "Finnvarr's wife." Finnvarr :-) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri May 31 20:27:17 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 20:16:10 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Roll Call Results To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >> Greetings from Fiacha, >> So we have 22 councilors and 2 vociferous members >> of the public who can send email in a timely fashion. Ah! I didn't realize you wanted us lowly "members of the public" to chime in. I've been reading and digesting stuff before I tried the new direc