From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 16 10:26:45 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:44:52 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: do what? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun I would like Edward to tell us whether the "information gathering process" that he sees the Council helping with is the gathering of opinion from the members of the Council or something more factual. If it is the first, we should recognize that there are deep divisions which will probably not result in any single proposal on some topics. This does not mean that our work is in vain because we can clearly state several different views and feel confident that each of those views represents the feelings of a large number of the broader membership. In this case, something along the lines of what Arthur has been doing would be the way to go. We will know who sits where on a particular topic. If it is the second, I'd like to know how the Board expects the Council or any Council subcommittee to do it. Catrin did a great job in polling. Do we have the time and the resources to do this in other regions? Do we have access to records, people, or systems to make intelligent assessments? Is the Board willing to share their concerns in enough detail for us to consider the real constraints? >From the very start, the job of the Council has been ill-defined so it is no wonder that we are having trouble setting an agenda and developing a mode of operation. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 16 14:15:08 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:36:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Alysoun: do what? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951116094450_24120349@mail06.mail.aol.com> from "Carole C. Roos" at Nov 16, 95 09:44:52 am > Greetings from Alysoun > I would like Edward to tell us whether the "information gathering process" > that he sees the Council helping with is the gathering of opinion from the > members of the Council or something more factual. It must be a combination of both. If I just wanted peoples personal opinions on a subject, I'd call them up and ask, "what do you think about X". I'm sure I'd get an opinion, whether the person had any knowledge of of the subject or not. :-) To tell the truth, I don't care about the individual opinions of the Members of the GC. What I care about is the process of looking at a problem or question and the recommendation(s) that arise from researching said subject(s). The GC was not chosen nessesarily(sp) for it's expertise. Before you get all haughty, think about it... If the GC decides to look into accounting procedures, one would think that this sub-conmmittee would be made up of "professionals" in the financial would. Do we have any accountants, MBA, etc on the council? I hope so. It would do no good to get the opinion of someone who is a left-handed computor programmer (UNIX), who has had no practical experiance in management, on this subject. (sure they might have an opinion but would it be valid?) With that in mind, you can see that no-one is an expert in all fields, the need for Research is needed. > If it is the first, we should recognize that there are deep divisions which > will probably not result in any single proposal on some topics. This does not > mean that our work is in vain because we can clearly state several different > views and feel confident that each of those views represents the feelings of > a large number of the broader membership. In this case, something along the > lines of what Arthur has been doing would be the way to go. We will know who > sits where on a particular topic. I have to restate, that I don't care about "individual" opinions. I'm not trying to be insensitive...THere will be forty variations on any subject. What I need is: From the GC: question 1; Poss.1 reasons Poss.2 reasons We reccomend.......Poss.2 Question 2; etc. It is a unified opinion that I want to look at. > > If it is the second, I'd like to know how the Board expects the Council or > any Council subcommittee to do it. Catrin did a great job in polling. Do we > have the time and the resources to do this in other regions? Do we have > access to records, people, or systems to make intelligent assessments? Is the > Board willing to share their concerns in enough detail for us to consider the > real constraints? > I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you telling me that you have opinions and are knowledgable about every single topic that could come before the GC. Have you not done any research? You allude to "access to records, people or systems to make intelligent assessments".... How have you made "assessments" up to now? What "constraints" are you talking about? You said above: > I would like Edward to tell us whether the "information gathering process" > that he sees the Council helping with is the gathering of opinion from the > members of the Council or something more factual. I want something more factual. Questions like "what's the best insurance we should buy" might come up. I can do all the research myself and make a decision. The reason to have a committee is to do the research(legwork) and recommend. Thats "MY" personal Opinion.. EDWARD -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Viscount Edward Zifran of Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 16 20:41:44 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 20:16:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: confused purpose To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I am not taking a swipe at Edward here, but trying to point out the communication problem that may underlie our difficulties. If the Board wanted a committee to explore specific topics of concern such as insurance, it would have been helpful if they had listed these concerns up front. The sweeping description of the Grand Council has been interpreted different ways. We all agree that the SCA is at some sort of turning point, but we do not seem to agree on what is actually at stake. If each of the members of the Council were to list what he or she thinks are the five greatest areas of concern--the five most important topics the Council should address--maybe we could find enough in common to set an agenda. It would be helpful if Edward and/or the rest of the Board did the same. Consider these as topics to submit to Fiacha's agenda day. I think Arthur's vote has passed de facto in the sense that we are concentrating on how to organize ourselves and the more quickly we settle it, the more quickly we can get back to David's proposal, ideas from the membership committee, etc. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 17 05:05:19 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:05:30 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Alysoun: confused purpose To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951116201630_24739397@emout05.mail.aol.com> from "Carole C. Roos" at Nov 16, 95 08:16:32 pm > > I am not taking a swipe at Edward here, but trying to point out the > communication problem that may underlie our difficulties. I agree. I personally believe that the GC has been left to it's own devices too long. This vaccuum has created the headless, non-directed creture that it has become. The reason I would like to see someone be "Chair/Boss/etc" is because you must start somewhere. And I personally want some "ONE" person to "pin things on". My opinion is that without a "Head", this collective of rather talented individuals is ineffective. Point...Look how long it has taken to set some sort of agenda making process. > > If the Board wanted a committee to explore specific topics of concern such as > insurance, it would have been helpful if they had listed these concerns up > front. > Again, I personally believe that when the GC was created, there wa sno direction given it. I would like to provide/assist in that direction. What you say is true. But I find that most of your missives here in this forum and in mail to myself, deal with, what-ifs. I agree that the way is was may not have worked and am trying ot move on. > The sweeping description of the Grand Council has been interpreted different > ways. We all agree that the SCA is at some sort of turning point, but we do > not seem to agree on what is actually at stake. If each of the members of the > Council were to list what he or she thinks are the five greatest areas of > concern--the five most important topics the Council should address--maybe we > could find enough in common to set an agenda. It would be helpful if Edward > and/or the rest of the Board did the same. > That would be nice. If everyone was to do a This is what I think we should look at, 1, 2, 3. Single sentences...one line topics. SUch as: EDWARD thinks the GC should deal with: 1) - Form, Method and Cost of the election of the BOD. 2) - Kingdom control of Branch Elevation (up to & including Principalities). 3) - Rules,Regulations,guielines for total International participation. THose are my "TOP" 3. The ones that need to be looked into NOW!!!!!! That's what I shall bring up at the January Meeting for the GC to focus on. > Consider these as topics to submit to Fiacha's agenda day. I think Arthur's > vote has passed de facto in the sense that we are concentrating on how to > organize ourselves and the more quickly we settle it, the more quickly we can > get back to David's proposal, ideas from the membership committee, etc. > To get organized you must have a head. My opinion, I know...Don't let the long hair fool you, I am not in favor of a free collective. I believe in structure.(that is one of the reasons, I like being a simple Norman Knight). Most people who know me in the SCA, only see the Kind Simple Country Knight, Creative Artistic Laurel and "let me give you the Shirt off MY back" Pelican. In SHort, good ol Viscount Edward, known to some as Fast Eddy. However, Most of you do not know, E. F. Morrill, Professional Designer, Director of Finance, U.S. Federal Customshouse Broker, Producer, Business Man (just to name a few of my past and current 20th Century Positions). I do not hedge a lot of words. Since you have not addressed the rest of my previous questions in my earlier post today,I am sure you are still digesting. Again, I would like this leadership matter, and how things are adgendized, before the January meeting. My suggestion would be, and it appears that you are, to work on this matter from now until it is decided, putting all other matters aside until then. The questions of WHAT you will discuss is not as great an import as HOW it will be discussed. Yours, EDWARD Z -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Viscount Edward Zifran of Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 17 05:07:33 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:11:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Alysoun: do what? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511161836.NAA23036@panix.com> from "E. F. MORRILL" at Nov 16, 95 01:36:21 pm I wrote: > It must be a combination of both. If I just wanted peoples personal > opinions on a subject, I'd call them up and ask, "what do you think about > X". I'm sure I'd get an opinion, whether the person had any knowledge of > of the subject or not. :-) > > To tell the truth, I don't care about the individual opinions of the > Members of the GC. What I care about is the process of looking at a > problem or question and the recommendation(s) that arise from researching > said subject(s). I trust that none of you have taken this to mean that I don't think that your individual opinions are important. They are what make up the "collective opinion". I wanted to clear this up, but I'm sure that it will be reported that "the BOD doesn't care about the opinions of the GC". EDWARD Z From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 17 09:55:21 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2966 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 08:26:35 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Morgan weighs in (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan > Hi, y'all. I have been quiet of late because people told me they were tired of > a non-GC member dominating the discussions, and because Ive had some nastythings > to deal with personally. But I wanted to make a few points about the recent > discussion concerning leadership and topics: > > I think that everybody is right. The GC has dithered around so long I have lost > track of a lot of the conversations, and I'm sure the members who get this on > paper are just as confused. [It really didn't help to have motions modified > while they were being voted upon, but others have pointed that out.] > > I think that the GC should take a given list of topics for discussion in a > quester. NOT one-at-a-time, because that gets boring, and can devolve into a > chat betwen two people on some miniscule point. Choose 3-5 topics for general > discussion. Two times a month, or so, the person in charge should issue a > status message concerning the discussions. If a topic is completed, this would > include a final statement and if there is no further discussion, it is tabled. > When a topic is tabled, another topic an be introduced if appropriate. > > The first order of business is to get someone managing this group. Were I a > member of the GC I'd probably have volunterred by now (yeah, I can hear you > shudder from here) because I have had a lot of experience managing lists, APAs, > comittees, programmes, as autocrat, running businesses, and generally being a > bossy person. You had several persons on the GC volunteer, and that election > seems to have disappeared in the wake of the how-to-be-organized voting. > > NOW: Get the people who want to head the GC for the next year (1996) back > online, have each make a short statement of "WHAT", and vote on them. By > mid-December, preferably earlier. > > THEN: Agree on the topics you will discuss for 96-Q1. Given the holidays, you > can start now, but don't necessarily expect continuity the last couple weeks in > December. You can start with Edward Z's list; I like those topics, also. (And > if you want my personal opinions on the unnecessary micromanaging the Board has > done for #2 to date, just ask.) > > The GC could do almost nothing before when there was little opportunity for the > members to interact. You haven't done a whole lot since this list went from > mailer to interactive. Don't waste the opportunity any more! > > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 21 00:32:02 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:04:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: VOTE ON ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=11 No=9 Abstain=2 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L AYE:11 --------------------------------- Arthur The Dented :11/06/95 Janna Span/Caitrin:11/06/95 Fiacha :11/06/95 Chuck Hack/Serwyl :11/06/95 Alyson/carol Roose:11/07/95 Alban St Alban :11/09/95 Justin :11/09/95 Finvarr :11/11/95 John of Sternfield:11/11/95 Magnus :11/11/95 Kyle kincora1@aol :11/21/95 NAY:9 -------------------------------- Frederick of Holland:11/06/95 Hossien :11/06/95 Cariadoc/David :11/07/95 Sven Noren/Frithiof :11/07/95 Joseph Heck :11/07/95 Corwyn :11/09/95 Tibor :11/09/95 Eichling :11/11/95 Bertrum :11/11/95 ABSTAIN:2 -------------------------------- Proxy for Isabeau of the wild wood:11/09/95 roy gathercoal :11/21/95 -----------------OCT 8 GC ORG PROPOSAL AS AMMENDED----------------------- I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From December 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 'and disenting positions' '3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance.' '4) that voting on this measure be closed on Noveber 28th and results be determined by a simple majority of votes recieved by that date' -------------------NOTES----------------------------------------------- If you havent voted yet, or if you wish to change your vote, please E-mail to arthur@cnj.digex.net EVEN if its to abstain so I and others can get a real picture of participation... If youd like to ammend this let me know by private e-mail... I guess we're in the 'caucussing' stage where compromises are made on the floor during the vote so that SOMETHING passes. Votes arent considered final till midnight on the 28th, so feel free to change yours by sending antother one. Such ammendments as there are have been to keep the motion current, both in date and with GC discussion, AND with the input and suggestions coming in with the votes. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 21 01:05:09 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:39:31 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: The sooner we start, the sooner we get back to work.... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Ok, lets get down to it, its dull work, but we NEED to get this done before we slove the problems of the known world. most of you seem to be hoping some 'leader figure' will get us in order and keep us focussed, but frankly I doubt it. Its the easy way out to hope a leader will set yur agendas (there is time for feedback on an 'agenda day'?) and make it all work. WE need to get OURSELVES in agreement on how to do things.. Like for instance: "1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion" So how do we add an item to the agenda? should a single 'second' do it, or should it take four ? or is that the wrong track entirely? And how will we know when it time to 'get serious' on a topic, I.E. act on in it , vote on it, whatever? We've got to be able to say "we've talked about this long enough ...*YOU* (somebody?) write up something we can act on and lets get to it." "2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 'and disenting positions'" I've heard people saying how much they like 'consensus' instaed of voting... cool, i undertand. how doe we DO IT here on the net? failing that the 'polling the amendable motion' thing I stumbled onto seems to work... lets try to formalize that. so far the format seems to run that once we DECIDE somethings up for vote the AUTHOR is responsible for collecting votes and then publishing his amended motion along with the list of who voted which way on a... what, weekly? basis. So do we need a mechanism to keep someone from abusing this by radically altering his motion the day before the vote closes? how? how else do you feel this should work? or do you want something else entirely? '3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance.' OK, how the heck does a moderator do thier job on the mailing list? do we need a (fill in title here) to manage the mailing list (LISTS if we make commitees) how do we select them? a poll-vote with each of the candidates and their platforms, published weekly for a month? I think we'll also need an 'asleep at the switch' clause. we're all volunteers with lots of demands on our time, so if someone let slip on GC work after getting elected what do we do to keep that from slowing or stopping us? another question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:53:00 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: A PLAN to get us from here to there... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I wrote this plan with a couple of assumptions. One was that a member shouldnt need spend more than an hour or two a week to be an informed and conrtibuting member.Another assumption was that UNLESS WE MAKE A SPECIFIC DECISION AGAINST postal members, any GC organization plan had to be written so that postal members can meaningfully contribute. The third assumption I made,was no assumption at all, it was the GC charter... MY PLAN runs something like this For the first quarter of 1996 we hold the 'Landmarks' discussion and spend the last month of that quarter approving a single document that states those landmarks... At this point we would also create three separate committees: the "amended Bylaws Committee", the "Adapted Bylaws Committee", and the "Created Bylaws Committee" select thier chairmen and members and set up thier separate mailing lists... For the second quarter of 1996 we recess the grand council as a whole and work in our separate committees. Each committee would be charged with coming up with a completed set of by-laws AND an implementation plan to be submitted to the GC as a whole by the end of the quarter. The "Amended By-laws" committee will do this by amending the existing SCA by-laws, the "Adapted Bylaws" Commitee by taking a generic 'non-profit Bylaws' from a book and adapting them, and the "Created Bylaws" committee will do it by creating by-laws from scratch... For the third quarter of 1996, The GC again meets as a whole and spends a month commenting on and amending each of the three proposals in turn. For the fourth quarter of 1996, GC Spends a month on each of the revised and amended proposals debating its merits AS IS (no ammending at this point). At this point the GC as a whole will approve those documents we feel as a whole have a practical chance of succesful implementation, and of fulfilling the requirements of our earlier Landmark document. ALL approved documents get passed to the BOD as complete "you can vote on this, its even got an implementation plan and timetable all laid out, see?". Someone should also summaraize the advantages and disadvantages of each plan based on our discussions and provide that as the cover.. feedback is nice, i like feedback..... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 21 02:23:25 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 01:54:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein! I do not think that Arthur's tentative proposal begins to fill Edward's tasking to us as Board Ombudsman. We need to accomplish these concrete tasks and well before the last quarter of 1996, if we are to have any credibility either to the Board or the SCA at large. I therefore put forward the following organizational proposal: 1. We elect a chairman. 2. The chairman selects two assistant chairmen. [The idea is not to load one poor bugger with a full-time GC job and to ensure that the chairman has people on whom he can depend and with whom he can work easily]. 3. The chairman and assistant chairmen constitute the GC's executive committee. The responsibility of that executive committee is to formulate the agenda for discussion on a biweekly basis, to track the status of issues and proposals regularly and post status reports, to obtain volunteers >from the GC to draft proposals, to conduct and tabulate GC votes on issue proposals, and to ensure regular reporting to the Board and the GC Ombudsman on GC activities and progress. [The idea here is to have biweekly agenda reports and status reports on all issues on the agenda so that we know what's being done, how it's being done, and what the deadlines are.] 4. Any GC member may raise any issue for inclusion in the agenda. If an issue remains without a proposal for two months, it is removed from the agenda, but may be resubmitted at any time. The executive committee does not have the power to refuse any issue placement on the agenda. [It is essential that there are guarantees that the executive committee cannot block discussion of any issue which a GC member wants to raise, but that there is some concrete cloture which guarantees resolution of an issue with a specific proposal or proposals on which we can vote]. 5. Once an issue has been on the agenda for one month, the executive committee will solicit proposals on that subject, if no proposals are previously forthcoming. 6. Once a proposal is presented to the GC, discusssion on that proposal will continue for one month. At that time the executive committee will conduct a vote on that proposal unless five GC members request continuation of debate. Debate cannot be continued for more than one additional month. [We have to stop talking and make decisions at some point.] I think this is a workable system which has some hope of getting something concrete accomplished in a reasonable period of time. We have got to get our shit together NOW and get the job with which we have been entrusted done. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory RoseO From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 21 16:40:58 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 11:31:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: purpose To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This is to think about--not to discuss now. If you have a question, contact me personally. Grundmann wrote of the 13th-century religious movement: "All of these witnesses reveal that beguines were divided into two groups. While one part, doubtless by far the greater part, led a regulated life in beguinages, often with ties to mendicant houses, earning their way with handcrafts, the other part stimulated complaints against women who kept no enclosure and wandered about without restraint, preferring alms to work. The dichotomy would prove fateful for the further history of beguines. The term of 'beguine' used for two such distinct phenomena, combined with the lack of a fundamental organizational division between them, would lead to measures against 'unregulated' wandering beguines, dragging 'regulated' beguines into a common catastrophe." This is what concerns me about the SCA. While the majority of people are sensible, there are subcultures which are not healthy and which endanger the reputation of the whole. The Society as an informal body has been unable to regulate itself. The Corporation has ignored the situation. It is a heavy matter and it will not go away just because no one is willing to deal with it. The Board cannot be unaware of the kinds of problems caused by this situation. Others may be unaware of these difficulties, or may be naive in assessing their degree of seriousness. As we grow in numbers and public recognition, we also grow in our vulnerability. We have far graver things to consider than board elections and group elevations. I expected Council members to be more aware and concerned about this situation than is the case. Since many of you are long-term members, you may have developed blind spots which allow you to discount those incidents which seem so glaring to me. As an insider you know that this particular group is not with it or that type of behavior will never advance, so you dismiss it as regrettable but unimportant. We cannot afford to continue to do this. From now through the holidays to the end of the year, take a careful look at the weakest parts of the SCA in your area and consider whether they would pose real liabilities if they were taken as representative of the whole. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 21 16:50:39 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:20:03 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Fiacha Re: The sooner we start... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Fiacha, who has changed addresses... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:12:37 -0800 (PST) >From: Nigel Haslock >Subject: Fiacha Re: The sooner we start... >In-Reply-To: Greetings from Fiacha, On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, arthur dent wrote: > Ok, lets get down to it, its dull work, but we NEED to get this done > before we slove the problems of the known world. most of you seem to be > hoping some 'leader figure' will get us in order and keep us focussed, > but frankly I doubt it. Its the easy way out to hope a leader will set > yur agendas (there is time for feedback on an 'agenda day'?) and make it > all work. WE need to get OURSELVES in agreement on how to do things.. Keep it up Arthur and we'll cede the job to you. > "1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion > upon it and limiting the length of that discussion" > > So how do we add an item to the agenda? should a single 'second' do it, > or should it take four ? or is that the wrong track entirely? I believe that a single second should be enough. > And how will we know when it time to 'get serious' on a topic, I.E. act > on in it , vote on it, whatever? We've got to be able to say "we've > talked about this long enough ...*YOU* (somebody?) write up something we > can act on and lets get to it." This is what I want Agenda Day for. I want each topic framed as a proposal. If no one wants to revise the proposal on Agenda Day then we are done talking and need to vote on the formal version of the proposal. I would not object to a pool of proposal writers to help out with proposals that no one seems to own. > "2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 'and > disenting positions'" > > I've heard people saying how much they like 'consensus' instaed of > voting... cool, i undertand. how doe we DO IT here on the net? > > failing that the 'polling the amendable motion' thing I stumbled onto > seems to work... lets try to formalize that. so far the format seems to > run that once we DECIDE somethings up for vote the AUTHOR is responsible > for collecting votes and then publishing his amended motion along with the > list of who voted which way on a... what, weekly? basis. So do we need a > mechanism to keep someone from abusing this by radically altering his > motion the day before the vote closes? how? how else do you feel this > should work? or do you want something else entirely? Given that I want agenda items worded as proposals, the chair gets to chose which wording is the basis for ongoing discussion, although I would expect people to spend the discussion period arguing about it. Remember, there is a distinction between an agenda item proposal and a formal proposal for a month long vote. I do not expect the formal proposal to be eligible for ammendment although I would append dissenting opinion statements. Equally if the topic stays on the floor too long, there is something wrong with it and it needs to be tabled for a while (for me, too long is a month) > '3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of > Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and > minimum performance.' > > OK, how the heck does a moderator do thier job on the mailing list? Forget it. Noone has time for this job. > do we need a (fill in title here) to manage the mailing list (LISTS if we > make commitees) I'd ask for volunteers, even from non-council members. > how do we select them? a poll-vote with each of the candidates and their > platforms, published weekly for a month? Appoint a chair and let them do it their way, requiring reports every Agenda Day and closure within two months. > I think we'll also need an 'asleep at the switch' clause. we're all > volunteers with lots of demands on our time, so if someone let slip on GC > work after getting elected what do we do to keep that from slowing or > stopping. My answer is an informed deputy or two. I'll support a three strikes and you're out clause for all appointees. Fiacha p.s. Please note my new email address is fiacha@premier1.net From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 21 16:51:56 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:21:56 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Fiacha... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:18:36 -0800 (PST) >From: Nigel Haslock >Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... >In-Reply-To: Greetings from Fiacha, On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, arthur dent wrote: > I wrote this plan with a couple of assumptions. One was that a member > shouldnt need spend more than an hour or two a week to be an informed and > conrtibuting member.Another assumption was that UNLESS WE MAKE A SPECIFIC > DECISION AGAINST postal members, any GC organization plan had to be > written so that postal members can meaningfully contribute. The third > assumption I made,was no assumption at all, it was the GC charter... If this is a counter proposal to Agenda Day, I don't like it. If it isn't, I really don't like it. Fiacha > feedback is nice, i like feedback..... OK. I don't like this idea. Vote for the agenda day scheme instead. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 21 17:46:51 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 17:16:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Hossein's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr, Thanks for the support. I have grave reservations about the amendment because I strongly feel that any GC member should have the right to put any issue on the agenda without having to canvass for a second. There can be many issues on the agenda so long as the executive committee keeps track of them and keeps us posted on their status. An issue which everyone else thinks is a non-issue is highly unlikely to get to the proposal stage anyway. And such a non-issue is even more unlikely to get a proposal related to it adopted by majority vote :-). Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 21 19:13:00 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 34 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 08:19:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Hossein's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I favor Hossein's proposal, though there may be room to improve it a little. I think we need something with this kind of definite structure and short turnaround time. Over the past 6 months we have tried to get along without all the tried and true techniques used to make F2F meetings timely and productive: chairs, agendas, motions and seconding of motions, rules on amendment, etc. It has got us precisely nowhere. Not only has "consensus" not emerged, it is very difficult at any given time to even tell where the discussion is. Recently, you notice, it is nowhere at all. Two points occur to me. For both putting items on the agenda and for considering proposals, I think we should require seconders. If a proposal does not look good enough for AT LEAST ONE other member of the GC to support it tentatively, it should be put aside. >>>SECOND and AMENDMENT<<< So put me down as SECONDING Hossein's proposal, and proposing this amendment: that no agenda item be entered unless there is a seconder within 3 days; and that no proposal be tabled without a seconder within 3 days. >>>END OF AMENDMENT<<< Second, H's proposal looks like we could have more than one thread going at once. I wonder if we can actually do this. Our own experience makes me doubt it. But I will not propose anything on this at the moment, and see if anyone else shares my concern. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 21 19:17:11 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:13:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: offer To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun My difficulty with Arthur's plan is the committee divisions. We will need to look at the by-laws, but we haven't gotten enough ground work done yet to know what changes we want. Agenda work should come first, so I favor Hossein's plan which fits with Fiacha's. I suggest that we collect a pool of possible agenda topics early on. So: elect a chairman, who forms an executive committee, which will keep track of things and issue a status report every two weeks. Every member can contribute to the agenda but items will have specific closure dates. With a stated agenda and time period we can do a better job of connecting with people not on line. There are telephones and long distance is not that prohibitive. To keep the main list.serve from getting clogged, committee discussions or small group debates should be encouraged off the main list. That way if only a few people want to hammer out a particular point they can do so and come back to the rest of us with their agreement or disagreement stated in a concise form. Even with this approach, we should all take a lesson from Arthur and keep pushing on a subject during its time period. If we rely on the executive committee to do this, those people will have the whole burden of work. Individual responsibility is still necessary. My original offer to Caroline stands. I cannot set agendas, but I do have time for paperwork since my computer access is here at home and I set my own hours. To salvage the first year's work, does it make sense for me to go back through all our stuff and come up with a list of topics which have already been introduced? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Nov 21 21:23:33 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 20:50:54 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511210654.BAA09902@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Greg Rose wrote: > I do not think that Arthur's tentative proposal begins to fill Edward's > tasking to us as Board Ombudsman. We need to accomplish these concrete > tasks and well before the last quarter of 1996, if we are to have any > credibility either to the Board or the SCA at large THE GC CHARTER : Focus Areas * Mutual relationships between branches and the Corporation * Mutual relationships between participants and the Corporation * Goals of the Corporation (strategy) * Methods of the Corporation (tactics) The GC is charged with managing discussions and providing recommendations on these focus areas to have them completed by the Winter (January) 1997 Board meeting. The project schedule to achieve this timetable will be presented at the April 1995 Board meeting. Completing the projects before the Winter (January) 1997 meeting, if possible, is encouraged. Additional projects may be added to these focus areas by the GC, or may be requested by the Board, but each project must be managed so that the GC can appropriately discuss and make recommendations on all it has been asked to consider. The timetable I laid out fits precisely with the original expectations publsished by the board. those original expectations are surprisingly realistic given the fact that even if we could all conven face to face on a regular basis I doubt we cold come to agreemtn on the issues before us very quickly. I think the board, and probably edward is MORE concerned with the fact that we've made no PROGRESS and show(ed?) no signs of getting organized, than at any lack of *results* In re-reading are charter I again come tot the conclusion that our task an pretty much be summed up as reforming the bylaws. The opinion of the council regarding the by laws seems to run form "it aint broke much, lets just fix as little as we can" to "We need a whole new and very unique set of by-laws to bring the Inc. into line with the Society". I doubt the ability of these two groups to substantially alter thier positions. I therefor planned on using these difference to let each group do the work they feel is important TEMPERED, by the knowledge that thier work would have to be acceptable to each other. My personal opinion is that the EXISTING bylaws are to bizarre, archaic and crotety to be of much use, especially when you think of 'govierning documents' and have to throw our unique idea of 'corpora' into the picture, and that any amendments we throw on are going to be patches to a document that is way out of touch with where we are now. On the other hand I see the creation of unique by-laws from scratch to be a VERY difficult task that is more than a little risky and will require a great deal of time and thought to ensure that the critter behaves as its authors hope and that everyone can live with it when it does. I figured that the middle road was to start with an accepted generic set of 501c3 by laws and modify to suit, and that most of us not firmly commiteed to either ofthe othr postions could start here... In the end, I think there is utility with presenting a range of proposals to the board, not the least of which is the better odds that at least ONE of the three committees would be complete something acceptable on time. I think the original 1997 completion date set by the board was exceptionaly prophetic and a very good estimate of long its going to take us to hash things out. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 22 16:08:19 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 15:29:49 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Hossein's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <30B1FDC5@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Tue, 21 Nov 1995 08:19:00 PST) Finnvarr wonders: >Second, H's proposal looks like we could have more than one thread going at >once. I wonder if we can actually do this. Our own experience makes me >doubt it. I suspect we can, in moderation. My experience is that a mailing list can typically support around three discussions at once before they start getting totally lost. However, some care is required; the chair would need to be sensitive to whether one discussion was drowning out the others, and adjust accordingly. I *do* think that three is a pretty solid maximum at any given time, and two may be more adviseable... -- Justin Being a little quiet this month due to deadlines at work, but still listening... Random Quote du Jour: "However, much like Phoenix, Jesus returns as Dark Jesus and threatens to return again whenever sales drop or the writing staff of the Bible and its various spinoffs (such as the Book of Mormon and the Watchtower) run out of new ideas." -- from the King Chris Edition of the Bible, courtesy tyg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 22 16:10:08 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 15:36:34 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from arthur dent on Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:53:00 -0500) Regarding Arthur's more concrete plan: I have one specific problem with it, which I think is crippling. He proposes dividing into three separate committees, and having much or most of the work done in that way. I don't think it's going to work. It would make sense *if* the implementation was the sticking point, and we were trying to use multiple approaches to that implementation. But I don't think it is -- I believe the hard part is going to be the *philosophy*, and that the implementation is, frankly, relatively easy if we could agree on the philosophical issues. I believe that if we split along the lines Arthur describes, we would wind up with three subcommittees, all having exactly the same philosophical arguments, and being paralyzed by them in the same ways. I think we need to hash out those Big Issues in the Council as a whole, before we can deal with the implementation issues. (And yes, I know that Arthur describes putting the Landmarks discussion first. But that's only a part of it. I doubt that everyone here even agrees that the Landmarks are a central part of this process, or even whether they are a good idea. The Landmarks are pretty tightly coupled to one particular view of the SCA, that it is a game that can be described, and that groups that fit that description are part of the game. I'd be willing to bet that some people don't buy into those assumptions...) -- Justin Who *does* happen to buy those ideas, and indeed proposed them in the first place, but doesn't pretend that he's the usual case... Random Quote du Jour: "How do I know you're the murderer, sir? Simple. You've got more lines in the screenplay than anyone else." -- from KlingKlangKlatch From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 23 03:20:46 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 08:55:08 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >(... I doubt that >everyone here even agrees that the Landmarks are a central part >of this process, or even whether they are a good idea. The >Landmarks are pretty tightly coupled to one particular view of >the SCA, that it is a game that can be described, and that groups >that fit that description are part of the game. I'd be willing to >bet that some people don't buy into those assumptions...) ...and even if you do like the Landmarks model, the modern/medieval=20 dichotomy and all that, the contents of the Landmarks themselves are=20 only arguably GC business. If you really *really* want to be a purist,=20 the Landmarks have to do with the medieval side, which makes them IAC=20 business. (By the way, what do we know about the IAC? Are they alive?=20 Doing what? How does one talk to them (my Kingdom representative=20 appears to be dormant)? Anyone?)=20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 23 09:29:11 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 09:05:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Catrin's request re IAC To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I would suggest that anyone who is having trouble getting in touch with their IAC representative talk to the Trimarian rep, who handles the IAC communications. Baron Janos der Kleine, O.L. Jonathan Hawes janos@trimaris.com >From my discussions with him it appears that IAC organization is MUCH worse than ours. A number of members are no longer commited to the process and appear ready to terminate it. And there is apparently little interest by those individuals' Crowns to keep the process going. In any event, your best chance to contact someone (or find out if they are still active in the discussions) would be through Janos. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 23 12:14:06 1995 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 08:46:18 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Fiacha Re: Landmarks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951123.085508.36448@macpost.lu.se> Greetings from Fiacha On Thu, 23 Nov 1995, Janna Spanne wrote: > ...and even if you do like the Landmarks model, the modern/medieval > dichotomy and all that, the contents of the Landmarks themselves are > only arguably GC business. I disagree most strongly. I see the landmarks as being central to or a reflection of the definition of membership and of inter branch relationships (i.e. how we deal with separate incorporations). > If you really *really* want to be a purist, > the Landmarks have to do with the medieval side, which makes them IAC > business. IAC business is interkingdom business and few landmarks deal with this. I believe that the landmarks are more GC business than IAC business. > (By the way, what do we know about the IAC? Are they alive? > Doing what? How does one talk to them (my Kingdom representative > appears to be dormant)? Anyone?) The chairman is Donn ap Bronach, roboscribe@aol.com Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 23 12:30:43 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 18:05:23 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Fiacha Re: Landmarks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >> ...and even if you do like the Landmarks model, the modern/medieval >> dichotomy and all that, the contents of the Landmarks themselves are >> only arguably GC business. > >I disagree most strongly. I see the landmarks as being central to or a >reflection of the definition of membership and of inter branch >relationships (i.e. how we deal with separate incorporations). Personally, I like Fiacha's viewpoint - I was just trying to anticipate=20 that particular type of hairsplitting. In any case, the Landmarks=20 proposal should show up here fairly soon (yes, I know, I'm beginning to=20 sound like some software company... "real soon now...").=20 Lady Solveig, who was the original secretary of the Landmarks debate, has=20 read my latest proposal and discovered, in addition to a predictable=20 bunch of language faults, two major errors relating to the way the=20 discussion went last spring. She has positively *promised* to send her=20 comments to me right after this weekend; if she does, I'll be able to=20 present the proposal here sometime next week.=20 =20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 23 13:18:41 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 12:56:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9511222036.AA05438@dsd.camb.inmet.com> On Wed, 22 Nov 1995, Mark Waks wrote: > I believe that if we split along the lines Arthur describes, we would > wind up with three subcommittees, all having exactly the same > philosophical arguments, and being paralyzed by them in the same > ways. Actually, the idea was to put people who mostly *agree* with each other in each commitee so they could PRODUCE something and then crosscheck/moderate it by the whole GC as a body afterwords. This way those who are philosophiclly inclined to change as little AND those who see the need to start over can BOTH produce solutions to pick over WIHTOUT haing to agree on each little point.. >I think we need to hash out those Big Issues in the Council as a > whole, before we can deal with the implementation issues. I agree, thats why I set aside a quarter for us to hash out precisely those issues in the GC as a "commitee of the whole" before going are separate ways as subcommittees to apply our very differnt approaches and philosphies to creating something whose ends we could all live with (see next post) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 23 13:30:22 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 13:06:43 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: I must have misused the term "landmarks" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951123.085508.36448@macpost.lu.se> When I said "Landmarks" and set aside a quarter to discuss it, what I apparently should have specified instead is that we spend th first quarter coming to agreement on the minimum acceptable outcome of the proposals of the committees. sort of like definining specifications before requesting proposals from contractors. FIRST we agree on the bare minimum framework of the job we want done then we let the firms comng to bid (in this case committees ) get creative in coming to a solution that meets those spec's. I'm was ignorant of what the landmarks discussion really IS. I was hoping that someone had already done the work of 'minimum acceptable definiaiton of the society' for us so we wouldnt have to start from scratch.. > >... I doubt that > >everyone here even agrees that the Landmarks are a central part > >of this process, or even whether they are a good idea. The > >Landmarks are pretty tightly coupled to one particular view of > >the SCA, that it is a game that can be described, and that groups > >that fit that description are part of the game. I'd be willing to > >bet that some people don't buy into those assumptions...) > > ...and even if you do like the Landmarks model, the modern/medieval > dichotomy and all that, the contents of the Landmarks themselves are > only arguably GC business. If you really *really* want to be a purist, > the Landmarks have to do with the medieval side, which makes them IAC > business. (By the way, what do we know about the IAC? Are they alive? > Doing what? How does one talk to them (my Kingdom representative > appears to be dormant)? Anyone?) > > /Catrin > > Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 23 13:52:25 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 19:28:57 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: I must have misused the term "landmarks" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >... FIRST we agree on the bare >minimum framework of the job we want done then we let the firms comng to >bid (in this case committees ) get creative in coming to a solution that >meets those spec's. > >I'm was ignorant of what the landmarks discussion really IS. I was hoping >that someone had already done the work of 'minimum acceptable definiaiton >of the society' for us so we wouldnt have to start from scratch.. Misuse... not really. The Landmarks the ad hoc group discussed last spring,= =20 and that the proposal is about that I intend to present here, certainly hav= e=20 to do with a 'minimum acceptable definition of the society' or, more=20 precisely, an explicit description of what 'we all know' that the society=20 does in terms of content. The 'job we want done', in the first paragraph=20 above, has more to do with the formal workings of the society, so the=20 Landmarks really are a prerequisite for that.=20 The Landmarks proposal says nothing about the organization of the society,= =20 in terms of corporation, branches, etc etc, as these are matters for some=20 sort of governing document; in my book the function of such a document=20 should be to enable people do the things described by the Landmarks in a wa= y=20 that is practically, legally and ethically workable in the modern world. But we'll argue about that when everybody's seen the Landmarks proposal.=20 /Catrin ... real soon now! :-) Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 23 19:55:55 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 9 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 18:48:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Fiacha on Landmarks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I disagree most strongly. I see the landmarks as being central to or a >reflection of the definition of membership and of inter branch >relationships (i.e. how we deal with separate incorporations). This is pretty much what I learned in my time on the membership committee. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Nov 24 10:16:48 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 812 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 09:54:56 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... Comments: cc: Tom Courtney , Michael Ely , Hal Heydt To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951123.085508.36448@macpost.lu.se> from "Janna Spanne" at Nov 23, 95 08:55:08 am Catrin wrote: (By the way, what do we know about the IAC? Are they alive? Doing what? How does one talk to them (my Kingdom representative appears to be dormant)? Anyone?) I've been corresponding with a few of them. Duke Comar, Hal Ravn, Duke Vissevald. They are working on a proposal to rework banishments, which I think highly of. They are using a private bulletin board, and seem to be producing results of enviable caliber. Catrin, you can correspond with any of them. The email addresses for those three are appended below my signature. Note that Hal Ravn's email address is shared with his wife, Dorothea of Caer Myrddin (Dorothy Heydt). Tibor vis = Courtney; Tom = vis@shore.net ravn = Heydt; Hal = djheydt@uclink.berkeley.edu comar = Ely; Michael = mely@freenet.columbus.oh.us From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 27 02:38:34 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 02:18:03 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: new address To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L To all and sundry; Please change my G C address to: Maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us Thanx Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 27 02:41:04 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 02:18:06 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: Alysoun: offer To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 95-11-21 23:24:03 EST, you write: > To salvage the first year's work, does it make sense for me to go back >through all our stuff and come up with a list of topics which have already >been introduced? > > I think this would be a big help. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 27 09:19:03 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 940 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 07:49:03 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan, > Catrin asked: > > >> (By the way, what do we know about the IAC? Are they alive? > >> Doing what? How does one talk to them (my Kingdom representative > >> appears to be dormant)? Anyone?) > > The new Midrealm representative (was Duke Eli, now is Duke Comar) has email, and > he is generally a responsive person: mely@freenet.columbus.oh.us > > > ---= Morgan > > PS: Happy Thanksgiving to the USA GC members! > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 27 11:50:34 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 22 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:02:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Grand Council goals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Excerpt from a personal note forwarded with permission. Finnvarr >>> The only hope or wish that I have for whatever proposal(s) come >from the GC, whether federation, centralization or whatever, is that there be a _clear_ avenue or channel of appeal from decisions at any level. There is no "one right way." You won't always like my decisions, and I won't always like yours. But the existence of appeal to someone outside, and clearly outside, is (to me at least) the best and fairest way to make sure those decisions aren't based on personalities and personal tastes. Tabitha ---------------------------------------------- Diana Parker parkerd@mcmaster.ca Security Services CUC - 201 McMaster University (905) 525-9140 (x24282) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 27 14:46:07 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:16:53 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Siobhan... -- Justin >From: "Pat McGregor" >Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... (fwd) >In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Nov 1995 07:49:03 CST." > <199511271349.HAA144188@gold.missouri.edu> >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 07:50:39 -0800 Morgan wrote: >> The new Midrealm representative (was Duke Eli, now is Duke Comar) has email, > and >> he is generally a responsive person: mely@freenet.columbus.oh.us >> Duke Comar is, by the way, _terribly_ representative of the Midrealm Central Kindom. I'm not so certain about Ealdomere. His lady wife is Kingdom Seneschal. 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 Mon Nov 27 17:35:45 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 17:02:32 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: I must have misused the term "landmarks" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from arthur dent on Thu, 23 Nov 1995 13:06:43 -0500) Arthur writes: >I'm was ignorant of what the landmarks discussion really IS. I was hoping >that someone had already done the work of 'minimum acceptable definiaiton >of the society' for us so we wouldnt have to start from scratch.. Well, we won't be starting completely from scratch. There was a big long discussion (indeed, an informal working group) on this subject a while back, which Solveig and Catrin have collected and condensed into a concise summary; this'll get posted soon. But the process certainly isn't yet done -- it's far from final or official yet... The important point, though, is that landmarks mostly aren't what this discussion is mainly about. They define the *game*, but (deliberately) say little about the *implementation*. And that implementation is really what *we* need to decide (or at least advise) on... (Although, while we're on the topic: on the one hand, I think Catrin is technically correct, that the Landmarks are in the IAC's bailiwick. But I think we're better constituted to examine them -- the Landmarks, above almost *anything* else, need to be scrutinized from a variety of viewpoints, since they are an attempt to define the game. And like it or not, we're perhaps the only official body designed with diversity specifically in mind. We probably *should* take a good look at them, although they're something of a tangent...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Dark Fuzzy turns OM into an asparagus person and prepares for dinner." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 27 17:51:22 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 17:12:15 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: A PLAN to get us from here to there... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from arthur dent on Thu, 23 Nov 1995 12:56:32 -0500) Arthur writes: >Actually, the idea was to put people who mostly *agree* with each other in >each commitee so they could PRODUCE something and then crosscheck/moderate >it by the whole GC as a body afterwords. Yes, but those committees are only designed for agreement in one dimension: how you think the rules ought to be altered, in the technical sense. I don't think that's the only dimension, or even necessarily the most important one. It's possible to be *very* radical philosophically, while changing the rules very slightly. For example, the CSOS' Big Proposal (from many months ago) involved only a relatively small tweak to the rules (creating the concept of Group Membership) -- that was one of its selling points. But it reflected some significant *philosophical* changes to the way things work. I think this is unsurprising, and suspect that each of these committees you propose would wind up with just this kind of internal dichotomy. Also, I worry about hardening attitudes. If people go off and spend three months or more coming up with a detailed proposal, they wind up developing a *lot* of ego-stake in it. It looks to me like we would wind up with three proposals, each with that level of vested ego -- this looks like a really poor atmosphere for compromise and melding of the proposals at the end. It's a recipe for factionalizing, which would almost certainly be the death of the GC as a useful body. (We're closer to that line than I like, to start with...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "I forgot today was Tuesday. I forgot this month was May. I forgot what year this was." -- from "Final Impotence: Reasons Why I Missed the Test" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 27 18:00:48 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 17:13:45 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Landmarks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 21:09:57 -0500 >From: spacey@major.cei.net (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Landmarks Master Justin! While the landmarks greatly facilitate an association model of the society wherein groups are recognized (more or less in the same way that peers are recognized) as being part of the society, a codification such as the landmarks provides can be useful for other models as well. For one thing, they are an improvement over "Foreward into the Past" as a description of the society. The landmarks serve well in any model for the society wherein the society is somehow viewed as "eternal" as opposed to the current whim of whatever central governing body it currently enjoys. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 812 West 13th, Little Rock, 72202 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 501-370-5331 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From arthur@cnj.digex.net Mon Nov 27 20:43:17 1995 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 20:42:59 -0500 (EST) From: arthur dent To: Mark Waks Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Subject: Re: I must have misused the term "landmarks" In-Reply-To: <9511272202.AA16966@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Mark Waks wrote: > The important point, though, is that landmarks mostly aren't what this > discussion is mainly about. They define the *game*, but (deliberately) > say little about the *implementation*. And that implementation is > really what *we* need to decide (or at least advise) on... Er... before we discuss how to implement it, it could be handy to make sure we're all talking about the same game... the ohter option , now that I think about it a very practical one, is to define whts WRONG with things as they stand... perhaps coming to agreemtn on those issues would be a smalller and less contraversial way of finding our common ground? > > (Although, while we're on the topic: on the one hand, I think Catrin > is technically correct, that the Landmarks are in the IAC's > bailiwick. But I think we're better constituted to examine them -- the > Landmarks, above almost *anything* else, need to be scrutinized from a > variety of viewpoints, since they are an attempt to define the > game. And like it or not, we're perhaps the only official body > designed with diversity specifically in mind. We probably *should* > take a good look at them, although they're something of a tangent...) The only reason I put landmarks as a first step was to see if, in three months of discussion, we could all agree an objective that our attempts at structure should fulfil BEFORE we started working on that structure... The theory there was that if we agree ahead of time what the structure(s) should accomplish we'd have a rational way of saying "that part seems to conflict with items 7 on our spec" , and *KNOW* that item 7 was something we'd codifeid and signed under as something we all agree on... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Nov 27 21:38:21 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 21:07:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: * SOMEBODY VOTE DAMMIT!* ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=10 No=10 Abstain=2 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L AYE:10 --------------------------------- Arthur The Dented :11/06/95 Janna Span/Caitrin:11/06/95 Chuck Hack/Serwyl :11/06/95 Alyson/carol Roose:11/07/95 Alban St Alban :11/09/95 Justin :11/09/95 Finvarr :11/11/95 John of Sternfield:11/11/95 Magnus :11/11/95 Kyle kincora1@aol :11/21/95 NAY:10 -------------------------------- Frederick of Holland:11/06/95 Hossien :11/06/95 Cariadoc/David :11/07/95 Sven Noren/Frithiof :11/07/95 Joseph Heck :11/07/95 Corwyn :11/09/95 Tibor :11/09/95 Eichling :11/11/95 Bertrum :11/11/95 Fiacha :11/27/95 ABSTAIN:2 -------------------------------- Proxy for Isabeau of the wild wood:11/09/95 roy gathercoal :11/21/95 (faicha changed his vote on the 21st from yeah to nay) -----------------OCT 8 GC ORG PROPOSAL AS AMMENDED----------------------- I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From December 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 'and disenting positions' '3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance.' '4) that voting on this measure be closed on Noveber 28th and results be determined by a simple majority of votes recieved by that date' -------------------NOTES----------------------------------------------- The *SECOND* most annoying thing that could happen is a deadlock... the ( the most annoying was 'no reponse' which is waht ticked me into this in the first place)... Betwee the Ayes, Nays, and Abstains, we've got a pretty good roll call of who's still out there. to those of you out there who read this and HAVENT voted yet !DAMMIT VOTE SOMETHING! If you havent voted yet, or if you wish to change your vote, please E-mail to arthur@cnj.digex.net EVEN if its to abstain so I and others can get a real picture of participation... If youd like to ammend this let me know by private e-mail... I guess we're in the 'caucussing' stage where compromises are made on the floor during the vote so that SOMETHING passes. Votes arent considered final till midnight on the 28th, so feel free to change yours by sending antother one. Such ammendments as there are have been to keep the motion current, both in date and with GC discussion, AND with the input and suggestions coming in with the votes. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 00:57:01 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 00:22:30 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: who did this? Becasue it sure WASNT me... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L somebody forwarded my "vote dammit" posting to SEVERAL forums with the heading that it was for 'all SCA members'. who did that? Why? it MISLEADINGLY appears to come from me, but I never posted it beyond the GC list and that "for all SCAdians" header is the real kicker... what gives? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 95 17:56:50 -0500 From: JILL L. KASSEBAUM To: arthur@cnj.digex.net Subject: Re: FW: RE: * SOMEBODY VOTE DAMMIT!* from GC council >________________This is for all you paid SCA members__________________ >Please forward this to any list that has a high number of SCA folks on it. > >>Subject: * SOMEBODY VOTE DAMMIT!* >>Author: arthur dent at SMTP >>Date: 11/27/95 9:07 PM >>-----------------OCT 8 GC ORG PROPOSAL AS AMMENDED----------------------- >> >>I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From December 1 >>to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To >>include discrete procedures for >> >>1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion >>upon it and limiting the length of that discussion >> >>2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 'and >>disenting positions' >> >>'3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of >>Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and >>minimum performance.' >> >>'4) that voting on this measure be closed on Noveber 28th and results be >>determined by a simple majority of votes recieved by that date'>11/11/95> >> >> >> >>-------------------NOTES----------------------------------------------- >>The *SECOND* most annoying thing that could happen is a deadlock... the >>( the most annoying was 'no reponse' which is waht ticked me into this in >>the first place)... Betwee the Ayes, Nays, and Abstains, we've got a >>pretty good roll call of who's still out there. >> >>to those of you out there who read this and HAVENT voted yet >> >> !DAMMIT VOTE SOMETHING! >> >> >>If you havent voted yet, or if you wish to change your vote, please E-mail >>to arthur@cnj.digex.net EVEN if its to abstain so I and others can get a >>real picture of participation... I just received this (forwarded to the Middlebridge by ches@tristero.io.com). (It's about 6 pm on 11/28.) I abstain because I don't have any idea what this is all about or even what the Grand Council (being held from December 1 to December 31, 1995) is or is for. ---------------------------------------------------------- Jill L. Kassebaum jlk@in.net ** Jillian Stevynsdaughter ---------------------------------------------------------- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 01:01:35 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 00:30:00 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: who did this? Becasue it sure WASNT me... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Arthur, It didn't reach the East, Ansteorra, An Tir, Drachenwald or Nordmark lists (at least it hasn't come over yet). I do find it fucking outrageous that someone would forward mail under the guise of your address. Do any of our technical gurus have a clue how to track this nonsense down? The idea of someone screwing with a GC vote really pisses me off. Greg/Hossein From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 04:06:46 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 00:51:03 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Seminfinal Tally:ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=13 No=12 Abstain=3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L AYE:13 --------------------------------- Arthur The Dented :11/06/95 Janna Span/Caitrin:11/06/95 Chuck Hack/Serwyl :11/06/95 Alyson/carol Roose:11/07/95 Alban St Alban :11/09/95 Justin :11/09/95 Finvarr :11/11/95 John of Sternfield:11/11/95 Magnus :11/11/95 Kyle kincora1@aol :11/21/95 Bruce erikson :11/28/95 Chiara Francesca Arianna D'Onofro:11/28/95 Bart Orbons :11/28/95 NAY:12 -------------------------------- Frederick of Holland:11/06/95 Hossien :11/06/95 Cariadoc/David :11/07/95 Sven Noren/Frithiof :11/07/95 Joseph Heck :11/07/95 Corwyn :11/09/95 Tibor :11/09/95 Eichling :11/11/95 Bertrum :11/11/95 Fiacha :11/27/95 Duncan Macconacher of Dunheath:11/28/95 Rhian Ferch Muirgheal:11/28/95 ABSTAIN:3 -------------------------------- Proxy for Isabeau of the wild wood:11/09/95 roy gathercoal :11/21/95 Dierdre O'faighetaigh of Ansteorra:11/28/95 (faicha changed his vote on the 21st from yeah to nay) -----------------OCT 8 GC ORG PROPOSAL AS AMMENDED----------------------- I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From December 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 'and disenting positions' '3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance.' '4) that voting on this measure be closed on Noveber 28th and results be determined by a simple majority of votes recieved by that date' -------------------NOTES----------------------------------------------- Due to sombody's slip up I'm very concerned taht some of the votes recieved on the 28th may *NOT* be GC members. Rather than just ask'em. I figured this would be a good time to A) check the WHOLE list against the GC membrship tosee if we have any non-member votes and B) If I recall we have 40 members of which 28 are acounted for in this vote. Thats the REAL victory, that we now have a head cunt of people who are active enough in the GC to put in thier 2 cents when it counts. As voting goes that a very respectable percentage. Whats even more itneresting, thugh in our case forboding is that it was a photo finish right down to the wire. I'll consider the voting final when 1) a day or so is passed so no more votes posted before midnight the 28th could possibly straggle in 2) somebody passes me a copy of the GC mailing list so I can verify that all votes are indeed from GC members 3) even with a month+ lead time we have not ONE vote from our six postal members.. if this is because they DIDNT vote, then the tally will become final, but if for some reason they WERE UNABLE to vote (wasnt included in thier digest, dont know who or how to respond to) I'll tack them on too. G'night- my greatest relief is not that it passed, but that it wasnt a TIE.... Thanks all Gnight Arthur From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 12:19:21 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 08:52:36 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Seminfinal Tally:ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=13 No=12 Abstain=3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- With a lot of trimming for space. In message Wed, 29 Nov 1995 00:51:03 -0500, arthur dent writes: > AYE:13 [trim] > > NAY:12 [trim] > > ABSTAIN:3 > -------------------------------- [big trim] > > G'night- my greatest relief is not that it passed, but that it wasnt a > TIE.... Thanks all Just my two cents worth, but as far as I am concerned, that vote _IS_ a tie. The abstentions are more than the difference between the two "sides", and it's clear that there is no concensus or even a strong majority in favor of this proposal. If people start acting as if "We voted on it and it passed", then this will be a fine example of the "tyranny of the majority" (a technical term in this usage, not meant to imply that any of us are tyrannical). * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ================== Old Used Duke ================= [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 13:49:06 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 13:16:25 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: reaching my limit To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun: Corrected at this time, Arthur's vote is 11 yes, 10 no, 2 abstaining--which presents the same sort of ratio that Flieg suggests might be a tyranny of the majority. Failure to discuss procedure as per the proposal would be tyranny of the minority. Spending yet more time trying to decide if we should talk about procedure etc is tyranny of the deadlock. Well, what now? I have learned a lot both by serving on the Council and in private conversations with Council members and others following our work. Reading back through Council correspondence (a process which will take a while) is enlightening and depressing. There is an SCAinc which makes a definition of a society in literature promoting that society. There are people in the SCA who believe that definition is accurate, or at least the direction in which they want to go. This is fact so there is no point arguing about it. At the same time, and prior to SCAinc, there is a society, the main focus of which is not restricted to the definition SCAinc has made and which does not want to go in that direction. This too is a fact. The main question before the Council is what to do about this situation. To what extent is it possible to compromise? Is a compromise the best long-term solution? If not, what are the alternatives? Get this settled and the rest of the questions will follow suit. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 14:22:40 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 12 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 13:43:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Re Flieg's note To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >If people start acting as if "We voted on it and it >passed", then this will be a fine example of the "tyranny of the majority" >(a technical term in this usage, not meant to imply that any of us are >tyrannical). The weakness of the Council so far has been an unwillingness to face the question: "When do we know when we've made a decision?" If people are unwilling to abide by a vote, even a vote that commits us to formulating rules about future votes, then what future does this Council have? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 14:39:35 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 14:13:12 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: so? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L So?... I take by the recent traffic on the gc-list that I've read, the discussions/votes/non-votes/I-don't-like-the-way-we-voted stuff seems to leave you were you started. Am I incorrect in this conclusion? I'm starting to get worried. EDWARD Z -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Viscount Edward Zifran of Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 14:48:10 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 14:21:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Seminfinal Tally:ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=13 No=12 Abstain=3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31957.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> from "Flieg Hollander" at Nov 29, 95 08:52:36 am > Flieg here -- With a lot of trimming for space. > Just my two cents worth, but as far as I am concerned, that vote _IS_ a > tie. The abstentions are more than the difference between the two "sides", > and it's clear that there is no concensus or even a strong majority in favor > of this proposal. If people start acting as if "We voted on it and it > passed", then this will be a fine example of the "tyranny of the majority" > (a technical term in this usage, not meant to imply that any of us are > tyrannical). > > * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. > *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu > _|___|___|_ > |===========| > (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) > ================== Old Used Duke ================= > [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection > and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] So what is it going to be? I did not klnow that you were a Quaker, Flieg. The generally accepted procedures in this type of situation is "majority rules". Unless you are looking for a "King's word is law" style of decision making.... Let's face it...some things can not be reached by concensus.. Well, folks...what will be your next step? January 19th, 1996, is not that far off. EDWARD Z -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Viscount Edward Zifran of Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 16:40:19 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 13:02:29 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Seminfinal Tally:ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=13 No=12 Abstain=3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here again -- In message Wed, 29 Nov 1995 14:21:23 -0500, "E. F. MORRILL" writes: > [ My stuff trimmed for space] > > So what is it going to be? I did not klnow that you were a Quaker, Flieg. I'm not. > > The generally accepted procedures in this type of situation is > "majority rules". Unless you are looking for a "King's word is law" > style of decision making.... This is exactly the situation where, if we reached in on a matter of substance, I would expect to see a double report, one for the proponents and one for the opponents. I don't want to see autocratic decisions on the GC, but I don't want to see "51% voted this way so we've _all_ got to do it" either. > > Let's face it...some things can not be reached by concensus.. If we can't get a concensus or at least a strong majority on the GC when we are talking about a policy recommendations then there is no chance at all that the SCA at large is going to go along with the idea. Probably some things _can't_ be reached by concensus, but in this case that probably means that they are not ready to be reported out, or need to be reported out with widely varying options. > > > Well, folks...what will be your next step? January 19th, 1996, is not > that far off. > Personally, I think that Arthur has shown us exactly how to run discussions and voting, by getting up and doing it and shepherding his motion out onto the floor, collecting votes and the like. In this case, he has clearly shown that the GC is seriously split on the matter of whether or not we ought to be discussing the _how_ of discussion or whether we should be discussing something. Nothing in here says that Arthur or Finnvaar or Hosein or whomever can't make a proposal (in fact there have been several made) about how to run the discussion of topics in the GC. Have whomever put that proposal forward in an amendable form and start calling for votes. Do it well enough that I like the method and I'll vote for it -- get a large enough majority to vote for it and I'll probably go along. If it ends up tied, what that means is that there is some sort of flaw that many people see in the plan. Amend the plan and send it around again or call for people to reconsider their votes. In the meantime, other people can talk about other things! I am avidly awaiting the official publication of the results of the Landmarks Committee and the discussion in here about the Landmarks. And what's so magic about 19 Jan? I thot the deadline for items under consideration at the BoD meeting was the end of December! * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ================== Old Used Duke ================= [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 18:01:53 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 502 Approved-By: ccjoe@SHOWME.MISSOURI.EDU Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 16:09:49 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: This is just amazing. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This is really incredible. Okay - so it's NOT a one-person swing vote - I change my vote to YES. Got that? Two people. Yes. Abide by the vote or leave. Seems simple enough to me. Terras Very frustrated with people today Shire of the Standing Stones Kingdom of Calontir and damn proud of it. -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 18:21:51 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 14:48:42 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: who did this? Becasue it sure WASNT me... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I will be out of town from tomorrow until January 2nd. I can be reached, if necessary, via my AOL account, which is ddfr@aol.com. I will be in Boston off and on from about December 22nd to January 1st, probably staying at the Buttery. David/Cariadoc David Friedman School of Law Santa Clara University From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Nov 29 19:43:20 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 19:11:54 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Re Flieg's note To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I voted against the proposal and as far as I am concerned (excepting the vetting of the list to make sure that all are GC members) it passed and I am prepared to live with it. I also have a concrete organizational proposal on the floor which Finnvarr seconded. I would appreciate some discussion and a vote. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 02:17:27 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 01:47:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Seminfinal Tally:ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=13 No=12 Abstain=3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein. There is a problem with the vote on Arthur's motion. I have compared the listed votes to the GC Masterlist which Justin, our secretary, circulated when we went over to the listserver. Two persons who are not listed as GC members are counted as voting for the motion, two who are not listed as GC members are counted as voting against the motion. One not listed as a GC member is recorded as abstaining. That gives the motion a majority with 11 ayes, 10 nays, 3 abstentions, and 17 not voting. Since 42.5 percent of our colleagues have not voted, I strongly suggest keeping the balloting open at least until 2400 hrs., Monday, Dec. 4 to give them one final chance to vote. If that is not acceptable, I can live with the motion passing by one vote. Hossein/Greg THE REVISED TOTALS ARE: REVISED TOTAL, AYE:11 --------------------------------- Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Alyson de Ros/Carole C. Roos Alban St Albans/Edward Eisenstein Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons LISTED AS VOTING AYE, BUT NOT ON GC MASTERLIST: Bruce erikson :11/28/95 Chiara Francesca Arianna D'Onofro:11/28/95 REVISED TOTAL, NAY:10 -------------------------------- Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Hossein Ali Qomi/Gregory F. Rose Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren Terras/Joseph Heck Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Bertram of Bearington/P. David Schroeder Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock LISTED AS VOTING NAY, BUT NOT ON GC MASTERLIST: Duncan Macconacher of Dunheath:11/28/95 Rhian Ferch Muirgheal:11/28/95 REVISED TOTAL, ABSTAIN: 2 -------------------------------- Proxy for Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh Gareth ap Tancred/Roy Gathercoal LISTED AS ABSTAINING, BUT NOT ON GC MASTERLIST: Dierdre O'faighetaigh of Ansteorra:11/28/95 TOTAL, GC MEMBERS NOT VOTING: 17 --------------------------------- Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Galen Eadwin Kirchenbauer/Galen Bevel Gyrth Oldcastle/Gerald O'Leary Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Olaf Askoldssonn/Charles Curtis Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 08:55:43 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 08:27:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: FINAL Tally:ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=11 No=10 Abstain=2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L AYE:11 --------------------------------- Arthur The Dented :11/06/95 Janna Span/Caitrin:11/06/95 Chuck Hack/Serwyl :11/06/95 Alyson/carol Roose:11/07/95 Alban St Alban :11/09/95 Justin :11/09/95 Finvarr :11/11/95 John of Sternfield:11/11/95 Magnus :11/11/95 Kyle kincora1@aol :11/21/95 Bart Orbons :11/28/95 NAY:10 -------------------------------- Frederick of Holland:11/06/95 Hossien :11/06/95 Cariadoc/David :11/07/95 Sven Noren/Frithiof :11/07/95 Joseph Heck :11/07/95 Corwyn :11/09/95 Tibor :11/09/95 Eichling :11/11/95 Bertrum :11/11/95 Fiacha :11/27/95 ABSTAIN:2 -------------------------------- Proxy for Isabeau of the wild wood:11/09/95 roy gathercoal :11/21/95 (faicha changed his vote on the 21st from yeah to nay) (another member requested to change thier vote from Nay to Yeah, but after the polls closed (declined but thank you...)) -----------------OCT 8 GC ORG PROPOSAL AS AMMENDED----------------------- I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From December 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 'and disenting positions' '3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance.' '4) that voting on this measure be closed on Noveber 28th and results be determined by a simple majority of votes recieved by that date' From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 08:57:37 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 08:35:19 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: If you havent read 10/08 motion in a while. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From December 1 to December 31 1995 is grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include discrete procedures for: 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position and disenting positions 3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 13:53:01 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:18:51 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Revised GC posting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Modius. I'd like to point out that we *have* voted to get our internal act together first, so we should probably defer these questions a little bit... -- Justin Greetings Fellow GCers, >from (Modius@dobharchu.org) I support a unified Chair, whoever it is I do not care. Could we get back to hashing out porposals. I would like to put an idea out for a proposal. It has been touched on before. We need to have the BoD look into having a backup for Renee with Membership services. This concept is known as sucession planning. Does Renee have a deputy? If something should happen, if there is not a local deputy the office of the registrar may need to be moved from Milpitas. It is exactly these types of thoughts that the BoD needs to consider, just in case. In regard to centralized/regionalized services. I had a conversation with the Laurel Sovereign of Arms. When I put the concept of decentralizing the corporate level of his office, he mentioned that though perhaps two or three kingdoms had the experienced staff avaliable currently to perhaps do it themselves, some of the other kingdoms are not as far along. Aside from this, having a corporate level entity does give us another tie which binds the SCA together. Another unifying tie. Months ago we talked about centralization or decentralization. Lets vote. Sould we have a centralized organization (of some sort) or a completely regionalized organization? I think we do need some sort of central organization. What happens if the SCA need to raise money in the future due to lets say having to fight another destructive Mandamus proposal, or perhaps needing to hire a Big 3 accounting firm to help it travel through an audit? Raise our membership fees? I propose that the BoD be allowed to sell the SCA's membership list. Of course there will need to be limitations and control, and obervance of privcay issues. Let's put it to the populace. Would they rather recieve junk mail or have to pay an extra $5.oo per year?? Modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 16:07:35 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 15:34:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: please repost? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun, Congratulations to Lord Brian O'Seabac of the Council on the birth of an heir! I have been told that Sir Galen and Duke Olaf have both officially left the Council. Hossein, Arthur, and Fiacha have each made organization proposals (am I forgetting anyone?). Could they please repost these with a distinctive title like "Hossein's Proposal", so everyone is clear about what is up for discussion? Thank you From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 16:17:12 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 15:48:52 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Hossein's Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The following is my organizational proposal, as Alysoun requested: 1. We elect a chairman. 2. The chairman selects two assistant chairmen. [The idea is not to load one poor bugger with a full-time GC job and to ensure that the chairman has people on whom he can depend and with whom he can work easily]. 3. The chairman and assistant chairmen constitute the GC's executive committee. The responsibility of that executive committee is to formulate the agenda for discussion on a biweekly basis, to track the status of issues and proposals regularly and post status reports, to obtain volunteers >from the GC to draft proposals, to conduct and tabulate GC votes on issue proposals, and to ensure regular reporting to the Board and the GC Ombudsman on GC activities and progress. [The idea here is to have biweekly agenda reports and status reports on all issues on the agenda so that we know what's being done, how it's being done, and what the deadlines are.] 4. Any GC member may raise any issue for inclusion in the agenda. If an issue remains without a proposal for two months, it is removed from the agenda, but may be resubmitted at any time. The executive committee does not have the power to refuse any issue placement on the agenda. [It is essential that there are guarantees that the executive committee cannot block discussion of any issue which a GC member wants to raise, but that there is some concrete cloture which guarantees resolution of an issue with a specific proposal or proposals on which we can vote]. 5. Once an issue has been on the agenda for one month, the executive committee will solicit proposals on that subject, if no proposals are previously forthcoming. 6. Once a proposal is presented to the GC, discusssion on that proposal will continue for one month. At that time the executive committee will conduct a vote on that proposal unless five GC members request continuation of debate. Debate cannot be continued for more than one additional month. [We have to stop talking and make decisions at some point.] Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 17:34:06 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 16:48:49 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Hossein's Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511302048.PAA00215@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> (message from Greg Rose on Thu, 30 Nov 1995 15:48:52 -0500) I'd say Hossein's proposal is entirely reasonable; my only concern with it is that it has no apparent method for keeping down the number of concurrent discussions on the agenda. I do think that it would be advantageous if we can hold ourselves to a couple of things at a time, to avoid topics getting lost in the shuffle. But I'm not coming up with any practical proposals for doing so off the top of my head, so I'm not going to demand it. Worth considering. Okay, that's one suggestion, which seems viable. What else? -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "The Tick is definitely not Monarch. (Pity, really. It would have made a great story and a very interesting future with all the Monarch police hanging out at the local PEZ shop, armed with straws and yelling "SPOON!!!" whenever they attack a social-deviant.)" -- Randall White From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 17:42:18 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 836 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 17:00:25 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: please repost? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951130153446_121148516@emout06.mail.aol.com> from "Carole C. Roos" at Nov 30, 95 03:34:50 pm I have been told that Sir Galen and Duke Olaf have both officially left the Council. Well, perhaps so. Certainly, it has appeared in the newsletter of Atlantia, the Acorn, that Duke Olaf and Duke Gyrth are both resigning from the Grand Council. I'd sent a note about this earlier in the week to Sir Edward, to let him know. I too, share Edward's concerns. We have no agenda, poor follow-through, and a low participation rate. As a sidebar, I'd like to see us discuss what work we are doing right now for the Grand Council. I'm going to make it my task, to contact each member, and ask them the following questions: 1. What are you working on right now? 2. What would you like to see the Grand Council address? 3. Are you still interested in being on the Grand Council? I hope to get a report back to people ASAP. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 17:48:52 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1058 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 17:11:00 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Hossein's Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511302048.PAA00215@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> from "Greg Rose" at Nov 30, 95 03:48:52 pm I am still firmly in favor of Greg's proposal. But there is one issue that it does not address, which I think it should. Bluntly, it doesn't track what work the members of the GC are doing. It merely tracks what we are pontificating about. I am subtly suspicious that relatively few of us are doing much work, and I'd like to see us do more. That means, I suspect, making us visually commit to working on something, and doing so. This is not because we are lazy: far from it. We are all, mostly, the sorts of people that have a million commitments, and try to serve all of them. I think public commitments to each other would serve that end well, by giving each of us more of a sense of obligation. Greg, if you agree, please feel free to word this into your proposal as you see fit. If you would rather I would, please contact me privately, and I shall. In the interests of candor, I can state that there have been several periods where I don't think I contributed enough to the committee as it stands. I am not alone in this, I believe. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 17:50:40 1995 Return-Path: References: <9511301818.AA28611@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Approved-By: David Schroeder Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 17:16:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Schroeder Subject: Re: Revised GC posting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9511301818.AA28611@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Excerpts from mail: 30-Nov-95 Revised GC posting by Mark Waks@dsd.camb.inmet > What happens if the SCA need to raise money in the future due to lets > say having to fight another destructive Mandamus proposal, or perhaps ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yep, another destructive Mandamus proposal... What a joy to read. For now and for all time -- what was destructive wasn't the mandamus proposal. What was destructive was the Board being pigheaded enough to bring things to the point where the mandamus action had to happen in the first place. A California judge ruled that the Board of the Society had to obey their own bylaws and make their financial records available. The Board fought it tooth and nail, to the severe detriment of the Society... But what's destructive is the *proposal* (or more properly, the mandamus action) -- not the Board's own behavior. Somehow I don't think so. I know that this is the Grand Council discussion list. I apologize for taking up valuable bandwidth to mention this, and if it is not what Modius intended, my apologies. But... I've been quiet of late, because it seems we're mostly just spinning our wheels and not much is likely to snap us out of it. But I'd appreciate it if those who believe that filing the mandamus petition was the problem would understand that there are a substantial number of us out here -- many on the GC itself -- who feel that the real problem was a Board that seemed to think that the members of the organization had no right to information about the club's finances, rather than a legal action to gain access to that information. > needing to hire a Big 3 accounting firm to help it travel through an > audit? Raise our membership fees? I propose that the BoD be allowed to > sell the SCA's membership list. Of course there will need to be > limitations and control, and obervance of privcay issues. Let's put it > to the populace. Would they rather receive junk mail or have to pay an > extra $5.oo per year?? > I think the biggest issue facing us is not whether the Corporation should be allowed to sell the mailing list, but the deeper philosophical question about the nature of the Corporation. I'm not talking "Centralized vs. Decentralized," I'm talking about "Big Government vs. Small Government." In my opinion, the central part of the organization should be kept poor and should focus on performing a minimal set of tasks that are best done centrally. A great many obstacles should be put in place of the central organization trying to increase membership dues, add functions, assume new responsibilities, and so on, to avoid over-bureaucratization. I'd like to know how many people on the Grand Council are *IN FAVOR* of a larger, more expensive, more "powerful" central organization? Is this a goal any of us support? I'll look forward to your responses, good gentles... My best -- Bertram From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 17:55:50 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 17:26:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Revised GC posting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Not me, Bertram, my friend, but then my views on SCA, Inc. as a "powerful, central organization" are generally well-known. Hossein/Greg Mandamus Petitioner Archfiend of Legal Hell Once upon a time "Chairman of the Companions of the Son of Sam" (as one of the wittier opponents of the mandamus action once transcribed CSOS) :-) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 17:59:42 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 17:21:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Hossein's Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor, I sympathize with your frustration, but I think my proposal covers tracking three out of the four things I think GC members should be doing: adding issues to the agenda, drafting proposals, and voting on proposals. The fourth thing, discussing proposals, is already being archived by the list. Short of going to people's homes and whacking them with a sturdy truncheon until they participate more in the GC's deliberations (that was meant as studied sarcasm), I don't know how to accomplish the end you seek in a better way. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Nov 30 23:05:42 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 22:29:00 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: To business: Topics of Discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 95-11-30 08:38:57 EST, you write: >1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion >upon it and limiting the length of that discussion It is my suggestion that a topic not come to discussion unless brought as a motion. This motion would then need to have two seconds. (Note, these seconds don't even have to be by supporters of the Motion, but only supporters of the discussion.)( The two seconds rule would be for the purpose of trying to keep us focused.) Ammendments to the original motion could be made in two ways.: 1. The original mover and their twosecnds could agree toa friendly ammendment, or 2. A separate motion to ammend could be made according to the procedure for bringing a motion. Upon some number of people calling for a vote, say 10, voting would commence on the Motion (or ammendment) for two weeks. At this time no further ammendments of the motion would be allowed. The consensus building should be in the period before the vote is called. Other than required differences, Roberts rules of order should apply when possible. Obviously, noone needs wait to be called upon to express their views, but they should be on topic to one of the Motions on the Floor. Saying so, I move the previous four paragraphs be accepted as a motion and request seconds. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 00:50:51 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 00:14:31 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: article ONE of Hossein's Organizational Proposal Comments: To: Greg Rose To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511302048.PAA00215@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> > 1. We elect a chairman. by what procedure? are self nominations allowed do you need a second or third on a nominations? is the election by simple majority? 2/3 majority? do we allow for a minority veto (say by five GC members?) whats the specific timetable for the elections? (I suspect we'll need to start a "passage +" system of notation like "starting the first monday after passage and concluding four weeks thereafter, but then again, hard dates are less confusing) I KNOW... it sounds a lot like knitpicking but its not, its the difference between "a house on that hill would be nice" and blueprinting the bugger before getting permits... thanks for posting your org proposal again Hossein, if this one liek like I'm trying to shoot it down, I'm not, we just need details to see how it would work... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 01:00:23 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 00:24:02 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: article ONE of Hossein's Organizational Proposal Comments: To: arthur@cnj.digex.net To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Arthur, Please don't take this as a slam, but I assume that all of us aren't simpering cretins. We elect a chairman by the same procedure that your proposal got adopted. We allow nominations for a few days, then take a vote. The person who gets the most votes wins. This stuff really isn't all that difficult. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 01:06:00 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 00:38:13 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Voting Procedure for Hossein's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L It will have been a week this Monday, Dec. 4, since I moved adoption of my organizational proposal. I propose that on Wednesday, Dec. 6, we begin voting on it. I don't mean to accomplish a fait accompli, but we need desperately to get organized, as Ed Gendy strongly urged to me in a private conversation today. I suggest the following voting procedure: 1. Votes should be mailed to this list, SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM. 2. Voting will close at 2400 hrs., Tuesday, Dec. 12. 3. A majority of those voting (as with Arthur's propsal) will carry the motion. 4. Since the votes will be sent to this list, we can all tally them; and I will check the voters against the GC masterlist (although this shouldn't be a problem if the votes are coming to the GC list) and post vote tallies every other day until voting is closed. 5. A GC member may change his vote any time prior to close of voting. Unless there is a general uproar that this whole procedure is unwise, I say let's get on with it. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 07:08:43 1995 Return-Path: References: <199512010538.AAA05855@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> Approved-By: David Schroeder Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 06:47:44 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Schroeder Subject: Re: Voting Procedure for Hossein's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512010538.AAA05855@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> Okay... I'll toss my hat in... * I vote in favor of Hossein's Proposal * Thanks, folks -- my best -- Bertram From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 08:36:21 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 08:13:45 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Hossein's Organizational Proposal Article 2 and 3 Comments: To: Greg Rose To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511302048.PAA00215@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> > 2. The chairman selects two assistant chairmen. [The idea is not to > load one poor bugger with a full-time GC job and to ensure that the > chairman has people on whom he can depend and with whom he can work easily]. > > 3. The chairman and assistant chairmen constitute the GC's executive > committee. The responsibility of that executive committee is to formulate > the agenda for discussion on a biweekly basis, to track the status o I actually think a LARGER group of officers with SPECIFIC duties would better serve us, and I'm I suspect an 'executive committee' may be an unsound approach for the GC for two reasons, ONE is that it would be too efficient. No serioulsy , I mean it. three peoplecan get a focus and move faster than a large group , and one can go faster than three, but the point of this excercise is to GO TOGETHER. I suspect an 'executive committee' would probably move very quickly but in away that makes al ot of our Members feel rushed, left out or just run over. The other reason is that its probably too much work for any THREE people to do all those jobs, and would further put the discussion in the hands of those who have LOTS of net time because no one else could fill the duties required... for those reasons I think an having a SPECIFIC officer for each of our most important duties would make sense, would spread the work load and invovle more tof the council memebers by allowing those NOT terminally plugged into the net to have and fulfil specific responisblities I ESPECIALLY feel that, unless Hossiens motion has been subject to a lot of feedback I havent seen, (yes I know its been around a long time) that it could do with a bit more work. I dont feel it meets all the requierments of a good set of GC rules, but that if we put our heads together it can be made to do so... I dont know if Hossien feels as I did about my proposal, but I really didnt like to have to GUESS what everybody was thinking and would have loved to hear "id suport it If..." comments so I could have put on the amendments that would have gotten more than 51% of us happy with it. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 08:47:58 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 08:24:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: To business: Topics of Discussion:SECONDED To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951130222858_40086649@mail02.mail.aol.com> I would like to second magnus motion ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 08:57:58 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 08:35:59 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Hossein's Organizational Proposal: ARTICLE 4 Comments: To: Greg Rose To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511302048.PAA00215@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> I strongly feel that having NO control of the number of the topics on the floorseriously handicaps this plan BUT ALSO agree with Hossien that it is essential that an executive commitee should *NOT* be allowd to take over.. that means another mechanism is needed to make agenda control work becasue *I* and I suspect others, cant really keep coherent track of of six or eight or ten agenda items without taking a lot of work at it... > 4. Any GC member may raise any issue for inclusion in the agenda. If an > issue remains without a proposal for two months, it is removed from the > agenda, but may be resubmitted at any time. The executive committee does > not have the power to refuse any issue placement on the agenda. [It is > essential that there are guarantees that the executive committee cannot > block discussion of any issue which a GC member wants to raise, but that > there is some concrete cloture which guarantees resolution of an issue > with a specific proposal or proposals on which we can vote]. > This is NOT an attempt to shoot down hossiens proposal, I think the proposal need addtions and modifiations before we adopt it , and that hurrying now and just voting on something to get it passed is NOT a good thing. Hossiends doe his bit , put out his best effort, *I'M* putting in negatie feedback which I now reallize should be positive 'how about we amend this ' instead, but how about a few more of you chiming in with solutions? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 11:11:06 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:44:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Hossein's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Run-down on parts of the proposal: 1. Chairman; 2. assistant chairmen; 3. executive committee Fine with me and I don't see any reason to make this thing very complicated. If the executive committee--or any parts thereof--doesn't satisfy us, we will tell them (we are not a shy group). If there are specific tasks falling by the wayside, the executive committee can assign some volunteer to take care of them. In other words, additional officers can be added as needed or particular tasks can be taken care when they arise. 4. Agenda: the main thrust of this part seems to be to guarantee that the agenda is not controlled by the executive committee. Very good. If the executive committee is issuing an agenda report every two weeks (bi-weekly meaning every two weeks as opposed to twice a week?) and we all agree to discuss what's on the agenda, the number of threads going on at one time should be narrowed. This means that the executive committee should not set forth an agenda with two dozen topics on it and that the rest of us have to sit on our brillant but unrelated ideas until they are on the agenda. The difficulty here is that many of our topics are so interrelated we cannot discuss one part without giving some thought to other parts. Although there is pressure to come up with something narrow and concrete, we need to work on some big broad things first. I will be posting a message from Lord Brian--one of our more silent members--to illustrate what I mean. 5 and 6: Let me make sure I have got this straight: I put out an issue for the agenda (and may have to wait for it to be on the agenda depending on how many other people were putting out issues at the same time). Once it appears on the agenda, it will be up for discussion for one month (2 agenda review lists). At that point the executive committee asks for a proposal if one has not already been offered. The proposal will be discussed for 1 month (2 agenda review lists) and then will be up for a vote (or if requested by 5 members, given an extension of another month). If I understand this correctly, at any one point in time, we will have some number of issues under discussion, some proposals under discussion, and some proposals being voted upon. This is going to be tricky, but not impossible (using good subject lines for postings will be important in keeping threads straight). This system would not preclude a shorter route. The issue could be presented as a proposal from the start and someone could push the voting through the discussion period like Arthur did. The longest a topic would be up would be 3 months (1 as an issue, 1 for discussion, 1 as an extension of discussion). This does not seem very different from Fiacha's approach. Let me know if I have it right. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 11:21:18 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:44:45 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Brian's message To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L (Lord Brian is catching up on Council correspondence but has given me permission to quote him from some personal messages. I think it's clear without my reponses and will answer Tibor [Re: please repost] for at least one member.) In your post [Alysoun: Reaching my limit] this day to the Grand Council I heard echos of my own frustrations. I express them differently, but I believe they are related. If we do not know what we are trying to create and achieve with/through SCAinc then I can't make reasonable decisions about the issues before the Grand Council. Or as you said: "Get this settled and the rest of the questions will follow suit." I need to know the direction we (meaning the SCA) are going to go in order to participate in making decisions about how to get there. This does not require the Grand Council to decide now and forever, for everyone, what the SCA is all about, but it does mean that we need to have a clear picture of what _we_ believe the SCA is about. Then we can make decisions and recommendations that enable that picture to materialize and others -- the board, the populace -- can judge our choices. I'm not much of an "either/or" thinker. I prefer "both/and." And I believe that the two directions you described may not be all that far apart -- especially if we look past the "directions" used, to what it is we want to achieve. For the past months the Council has been heavily focused on the past -- solving the problems of a year and half ago (? - times flies). The present discussion is at least getting to be more "What are we doing here, now?" And if we keep that and add to it "What are we doing here and now, to sustain and build the future SCA?" Then we are on to something! I want the SCA to be a place where I will feel good taking Aidan [the new baby] and raising him. What will it take to make that true for the next 20 years? (And also an organization he will want to be part of even without me?) I talk with newcomers a bit -- what I hear from them is not a concern about what the board is doing or not doing, if we are incorporated or not incorporated, tax exempt or not, but a joy of learning and sharing. How will what we build contribute to that? When we can talk about that future SCA, then we can ask: So how does having a single SCAinc help create that? What do we get? What value does it add? How will we know when we have it? The purpose in the by-laws may be one good place to start the discussion. Other starting places can be used also to make it a rich and meaningful discussion and picture for all the Council members. [I]t is a little different for each of us. Yet, we are an organization and community who have bonded together -- very strongly and voluntarily -- to make the SCA a reality. So there is unspoken understanding between us, the really difficult part is speaking it. -- Brian O'Seabac From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 11:28:45 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:57:40 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Number of Non-email Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Crimthann... -- Justin >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 01:00:28 -0700 >From: outlaw@Rt66.com (Robert A. Goff) >Subject: Number of Non-email Members I made an incorrect statement regarding the number of non-email members of the council: there are 5, not 6. I inadvertently counted the copy of the Chronicle that I send to the corporate office. Sorry for the error. Crimthann From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 13:33:58 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 13:11:48 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: To business: Topics of Discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951130222858_40086649@mail02.mail.aol.com> (message from Magnus MagUire on Thu, 30 Nov 1995 22:29:00 -0500) Magnus moves a set of proposed rules: >It is my suggestion that a topic not come to discussion unless brought as a >motion. Hmm. Not quite what I usually think of as a "motion", but I'm not a parliamentarian. Okay, this seems a reasonable gate for starting something up. >This motion would then need to have two seconds. (Note, these seconds don't >even have to be by supporters of the Motion, but only supporters of the >discussion.)( The two seconds rule would be for the purpose of trying to keep >us focused.) My instincts say one second, but I suspect you're right -- we need a decent "barrier to entry" for discussions, so we don't wander *too* much. And two seconds shouldn't be hard. >Ammendments to the original motion could be made in two ways.: 1. The >original mover and their twosecnds could agree toa friendly ammendment, or > 2. A separate motion to ammend could be made according to the procedure for >bringing a motion. Reasonable, although you should bear in mind that many of these discussions may not start out with specific proposals. Or, I should make clearer -- we *must* have a mechanism for starting a discussion that doesn't yet have a specific proposal attached; not every debate works well with a starting strawman. (Sometimes they can be very useful; sometimes they can polarize a discussion too early. Matter of discretion.) So some "motions" may not be straightforwardly amendable. (Although I suppose one could consider a motion to adjourn that topic an "amendment". Again, I'm not completely up on Robert's Rules.) >Upon some number of people calling for a vote, say 10, voting would commence >on the Motion (or ammendment) for two weeks. I think 10 is too many for the call to vote, given that we've only got around 25 people active. I'd say 5-7 for a vote call. Also, two weeks *may* be too fast. On the one hand, I think it's about the right amount of time; on the other, it implicitly cuts the postal members out of the process. While I am willing to entertain that notion, I think we need to do it explicitly and clearly. (And I'd be interested in Edward's opinion on the subject -- the Board clearly ought to have some say in this.) > At this time no further >ammendments of the motion would be allowed. The consensus building should be >in the period before the vote is called. Concur; I found the on-the-fly amending of Arthur's motion rather confusing. I think we need to vote on clear, delineated proposals. >Other than required differences, Roberts rules of order should apply when >possible. Obviously, noone needs wait to be called upon to express their >views, but they should be on topic to one of the Motions on the Floor. I would say that they should apply when reasonable. Let's not bind ourselves too tightly; this is a *very* different circumstance than what those rules were written for, being a semi-persistent, asynchronous medium. They're a guideline... >Saying so, I move the previous four paragraphs be accepted as a motion and >request seconds. I think it's a little too meta to propose a method and then immediately use it. (Especially since we don't yet have a chair set up to recognize the motions.) But okay -- you can consider this another second for at least discussing it... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "I am not interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack of observation." -- Orac From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 16:15:37 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 15:41:44 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Alysoun: Hossein's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alysoun, You have it basically right. I think that there could, in fact, be quite a few issues on the agenda at any given time, but that shouldn't complicate deliberation much. The reason is that agenda-issues which don't spark general interest probably won't get concrete proposals (i.e., while the Exec Comm will solicit volunteers for proposals, they don't have the power to bludgeon anyyone into writing a proposal he doesn't want to write). What publishing a tracking of agenda items every two weeks does is let us cull items which don't seem salient enough to produce proposals. Certainly the issue proposer can put an item back on the agenda, but after the second time it is culled I am assuming that we all are reasonable enough not to spit in the wind by proposing items for which we are not willing to write concrete proposals for voting. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 1 23:58:27 1995 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, 1 Dec 1995 23:34:12 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Voting Procedure for Hossein's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L in re hossein's proposal: it's doable. it's decent. we need something. i vote aye. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 2 00:05:41 1995 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, 1 Dec 1995 23:39:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Hossein's Organizational Proposal Article 2 and 3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L arthur dent suggests more officers to handle all the work. er, ah, arthur? what work? we've talked a lot, and a couple of people with specific proposals have gone off and done the work themselves (bertram's outsourcing, e.g.). the idea of adding more bureaucracy makes me shudder. i would suggest if someone wants to do something, they should. no need to elect or pick more officers. no need to impose additional burdens. bureaucrats! work load! endless discussion about rules discussions! washington mentality! inside the beltway! ay gevalt! alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 2 13:09:24 1995 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 09:40:13 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511302048.PAA00215@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> Greetings from Fiacha, I lost my archives when I changed systems so I don't have a copy of my last proposal to repost. If someone can mail me a copy I'll start running a vote on it. In the meantime, I vote for Hossein's proposal. I will be voting for my proposal too. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 2 14:16:39 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 10:46:40 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: on voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L To keep this short and sweet. If we are going to use majority rule, we need to formally adopt an established, comprehensive set of rules to cover our procedures. Most use Roberts' Rules of Order. Otherwise, any discussion is open to accusations of impropriety. I am not interested in rules-jockeys or power politics on any level. I have already grown weary of trying to keep track of what votes are happening for which things. I do not regard this emphasis on voting as productive. So unless I indicate otherwise, record me as an abstention on every vote. It is a matter of principle for me. I am deeply sorry this forum has gone this way. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Dec 3 09:17:18 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 08:50:16 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Hossein's Organizational Proposal Article 2 and 3 Comments: To: "cAlban St. Albans" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01HYB7JCH7FO9LY7YQ@delphi.com> On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Alban St. Albans wrote: > arthur dent suggests more officers to handle all the work. er, > ah, arthur? what work? Have you noticed we haven't really been DOING any work? 1) By hossiens proposal someones going to have to track threads, and at specific points say "we need to solicit a motion" and "its time to go to a vote". I suspect ath will be a lttel time consuming and possibly VERY difficult because of the nature of net 'threads'. so TRACKING the agenda is proably one job. 2)the "Running tally posted with the motion" I did seems to work much better than the "hope everybody votes by x date and then count them" method, gets a much larger response, and provokes discussion as the scales tip this way and that BUT it takes time to do. thats another job. 3)We should be keeping some form of digested minutes so that we dont have to review a gazillion E-mail messges to keep track of where we've been, and to make sure we agree on whats has happened..(did we vot on that? I thought that WAS a motion, WE've talked about this before etc). taking a condensed official form of minutes is still a good idea, but a time consuming one... another job. 4) our end product is 'reports to the bod', and while the chairman of the BOD has taken occaional peeks in to see how we're dong they'd probably be happier with above mentioned minutes SHORTENED EVEN MORE, with current agenda attatched compiled quartely (monthly) so he/they could figure out what were up to at a glance and get on t\wtiht hier other stuff... we could combine this with the minute taker BUT.. 5) one SPECIFIC job per person promotes ACCOUNTIBILITY. if it aint done, we know who didnt do and 'I could do either fo these two GC jobs on time but not both" aint an issue. > i would suggest if someone wants to do something, they should. > no need to elect or pick more officers. no need to impose additional > burdens. In an ideal world YES but I've never lived in an ideal world. "Lets hope people just volunteer and all the work gets done"for short term, small, ad-hoc, groups... I was about to say it might work there, but my expereince is something gets dropped .. messily , unless you decide and define what needs to get done, and parcel it out to specific people who each KNOW what they're part of hte job is. We wouldnt even run a small event that way.We've alle seen it tried have seen the chaos (and last minute fudging we dont have the luxury of on the net..) involved, I cant imagine that it would work here. > bureaucrats! work load! endless discussion > about rules discussions! washington mentality! inside the beltway! > ay gevalt! Was that really neccesary... I'm not suggesting we create useless beauracracy. I'm saying we should decide what the work is then see that its spread out among more GC members... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Dec 3 09:29:50 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 09:07:02 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: The unholy rush some of us seem to be in... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L More than a couple of us seem to want to pass a rule set and elect a chair NOW and get back to the work of the GC TOMMOROW... in spirit thats laudible but in practice I think its disasterous... For one thing the fact that *I* got away with a simple majority vote DDOESNT MEAN we should just rush right over the GC members who ARENT comfortable with it and get going. Simple Majority was the simple "default until we make some rules" thing to do... BUT the motion it passed said "lets take a month to get a rule system we can all work with". If we mess this up by huryying through it its going to trip us up EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, slow us down by A LOT MORE than the time it would have taken to get it right, and permanently alienate the councilers who feel that they've been railroadeed into rules that they dont agree with. I dont think we can make every one happy, but we can take the time to let everyone be heard and compromise in a way that we can all grumble about and live with. ___________________________________+__________________________________ "how much time have you spent cursing the 612k, 2GB limits of DOS, and do you want to do the same thing to the GC operating system?" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Dec 3 09:38:59 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 09:18:06 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: on voting Comments: To: Roy Gathercoal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <935499.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> *IF* we adopt "Simple Majority" I agree that should be explicitly, AND that we'll need a comprehensive rules set. To roy and those out ther who ARENT comfortable with 'simple majority rules' *PLEASE* dot just fold up, *NOW* is the time to say what you WANT, in a specific and concrete form that works on the net aand allows us to know when we've mada a decsion. telling us what you DONT find comfortable/acceptable isnt nearly as useful as telling us what you DO Please? On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Roy Gathercoal wrote: > To keep this short and sweet. If we are going to use majority rule, we need > to formally adopt an established, comprehensive set of rules to cover our > procedures. Most use Roberts' Rules of Order. > Otherwise, any discussion is open to accusations of impropriety. I am not > interested in rules-jockeys or power politics on any level. > I have already grown weary of trying to keep track of what votes are happening > for which things. I do not regard this emphasis on voting as productive. > So unless I indicate otherwise, record me as an abstention on every vote. It > is a matter of principle for me. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 4 16:40:08 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4319 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 16:09:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Procedures (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [Forwarded for Angharad, by her request. -- Tibor] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Greetings to the Grand Council from Angharad ver' Rhuawn. I'm finding myself confused by some of the remarks on organization that have been made recently. Specifically, I don't understand the apparent connection some people seem to see between voting and parliamentary procedure. I also feel some perplexity at the apparent view that suggestions for the agenda need seconds. 1. Concerning seconds to place items on the agenda: I've never seen a system of parliamentary rules, or any other normally accepted system for running meetings, that treats agenda suggestions as motions. Motions need seconds. Agenda suggesions, as a rule, can either be made by anyone, or are completely under the control of the chair. Part of the reason that rules sets don't require seconds, is that if none is available, the problem is self-correcting. In meetings, the chair can always stop one person lecturing, if nobody else is disagreeing. On line, one can quickly discover what's happening, and stop reading that person's posts. So if only one person is interested, there isn't a discussion. If, on the other hand, enough people are interested to make a discussion, then enough people are interested to get a second (or even two). This becomes trivial, the moment you have a couple of people who don't think anyone should be silenced, because they will second everything. The effect of a rule that suggestions for the agenda would produce, it seems to me, is that for every such suggestion, instead of one message to put it on, we will get at least three: the suggestion, and the automatic seconds, and seconds from anyone else who is interested. What does the council gain by this increase in traffic? 2. Concerning voting. Certainly the Council needs to decide what proportion of its members voting constitutes a legitimate vote (effectively, how many it needs for a quorum), and what provisions it wants to make for minority reports. But it doesn't seem to me that it needs processes more elaborate than the US Supreme Court uses for the latter, and it seems to me that the former can be one of the earlier votes. (For those not familiar with Supreme Court processes on opinions: the vote is reported, and the Court issues a majority and a minority opinion. In cases where the Court is not significantly divided, the minority opinion carries little weight. In cases where the minority opinion is itself very divided, likewise. In 5-4 cases, minority opinions are very important.) 3. Concerning Robert's Rules of Order: Has anyone stopped to consider what the effect of adopting a system of this kind would be in an electronic forum? Consider, for instance, that under any set of parliamentary rules, the chair must recognize a member before that member can speak. Apply this principle here: you want to comment on an item up for discussion. So you send a message asking for permission to speak. You get back a message, granting that permission (at least, I certainly _hope_ you do!). Then you speak. Is there a point to this? Consider what happens for the five people who are doing this by U.S. mail! If you think I'm picking nits, let me urge you to _look_ at parliamentary procedure. This kind of thing isn't peripheral or easily peeled away. The control of the process by the chair is _central_ to the entire set of rules. Parliamentary procedure was devised to control situations in which hundreds of people were sitting physically in the same room, all trying to talk at once. Many of the problems it addresses do exist in this forum. Worse, it was devised to insure that the power structure had control of the process. Does anyone here _want_ that? I've worked on many, many, many committees, some of them electronic. I've _never_ worked on an electronic committee that adopted this kind of formal trappings and got anything done. I strongly urge the council to consider that while a bullet to the temple will put a stop to the headache, it's not the only cure. You people need to get your act together. But that doesn't mean that you need to rush to put on a straightjacket, or abandon common sense. -- Angharad ver' Rhuawn (Terry Nutter) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 4 17:11:05 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 16:38:41 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Why so difficult? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun I vote yes for trying Hossein's plan and I vote for Fiacha as chair. If Hossein's plan does not work I will point that out and try to amend or change it til there is something that does work. If Fiacha does not work I will point that out and try to help or suggest changes til he or someone else does work. There is no fine print here; it is not a 30 year mortgage. We have people with very different views trying to work together through a medium which is not familiar to many of us and to which we have varying access. If we were seated together, we could learn a lot by body language. We could tell if someone was nodding approval without speaking or was leaning forward in great interest. Since we lack that kind of feedback, asking people to give ayes or nays does not seem unreasonable. It does not eliminate minority opinion--if anything it gives us a better idea of where other members sit on the topic. I'm open to other ideas on how this thing could work but anything we come up with will require cooperation. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 4 19:29:58 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 13 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 18:59:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Procedures To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I agree that Parliamentary Proceedure is not adapted for our current situation. However, the attempt to have a discussion without a chair and without any method of deciding when we have decided has led us precisely nowhere. We are here to make recommendations, we have a limited amount of time. If anyone has a better idea than Hossein's for steering discussion (not a bad word to me, since we are aiming for a goal: a final report) and guaging the amount of agreement on various proposals, let's hear it now. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 4 23:34:53 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 22:52:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Vote: Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Since I have heard only two objections, and have received four votes already and Finnvarr's suggestion that we get on with it as well as private mail >from other GC members suggesting that I proceed, I am opening the vote on my organizational proposal. The proposal text is (the bracketed text is exegesis, not the motion): 1. We elect a chairman. 2. The chairman selects two assistant chairmen. [The idea is not to load one poor bugger with a full-time GC job and to ensure that the chairman has people on whom he can depend and with whom he can work easily]. 3. The chairman and assistant chairmen constitute the GC's executive committee. The responsibility of that executive committee is to formulate the agenda for discussion on a biweekly basis, to track the status of issues and proposals regularly and post status reports, to obtain volunteers >from the GC to draft proposals, to conduct and tabulate GC votes on issue proposals, and to ensure regular reporting to the Board and the GC Ombudsman on GC activities and progress. [The idea here is to have biweekly agenda reports and status reports on all issues on the agenda so that we know what's being done, how it's being done, and what the deadlines are.] 4. Any GC member may raise any issue for inclusion in the agenda. If an issue remains without a proposal for two months, it is removed from the agenda, but may be resubmitted at any time. The executive committee does not have the power to refuse any issue placement on the agenda. [It is essential that there are guarantees that the executive committee cannot block discussion of any issue which a GC member wants to raise, but that there is some concrete cloture which guarantees resolution of an issue with a specific proposal or proposals on which we can vote]. 5. Once an issue has been on the agenda for one month, the executive committee will solicit proposals on that subject, if no proposals are previously forthcoming. 6. Once a proposal is presented to the GC, discusssion on that proposal will continue for one month. At that time the executive committee will conduct a vote on that proposal unless five GC members request continuation of debate. Debate cannot be continued for more than one additional month. [We have to stop talking and make decisions at some point.] End of Proposal. I have received the following votes: AYE - 5 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose NAY - 0 ABSTAIN - 1 Gareth ap Tancred/Roy Gathercoal As announced earlier, the voting will go on for one week; we will all tally the votes since they must be posted to the GC list (excepting postal members who can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278; or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every two days until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 00:48:08 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 500 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 23:08:44 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: GC Vote: Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512050352.WAA09443@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> from "Greg Rose" at Dec 4, 95 10:52:14 pm Greg Rose said: > Since I have heard only two objections, and have received four votes already > and Finnvarr's suggestion that we get on with it as well as private mail > from other GC members suggesting that I proceed, I am opening the vote on > my organizational proposal. I vote yes. Terras -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 08:01:33 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 09:46:19 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: GC Vote: Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L My vote on Hossein's organizational proposal: AYE. /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 08:44:19 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 08:17:31 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: GC CHAIR VOTE:ARTHUR CANDIDACY (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I also would like to be a candidate for the chairmanship fo the grandcouncil. My objectives as chair would be to make sure that we take the time to hear everbody and compromise in a way we can all live with where possible. I recognize that there are various clusters of opinion withing the GC that are probably unchangeable and irreconciliable, and that this may entail up to three separate reports (I think thats the most the board will gracefully accept) from the GC, BUT because we're ALL trying to live within the same SCA that any document leaving us with the GC stamp should be at least minimally aceptable to the whole GC (not liked or approved, just 'could live with it if addpoted) I beleive the BOD mandate that created the GC is our guiding document and should be checked agains t and re-read frequently. Its going to be a long and difficult trip from here to there. I dont think we CAN do it quickly and I think, now that we're STARTING to get organized, rushing could be VERY VERY destructive... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 10:48:44 +0100 From: Janna.Spanne@kansli.lth.se To: arthur@cnj.digex.net Subject: Re: GC CHAIR VOTE:ARTHUR CANDIDACY >FROM ARTHUR: >out as a single post so we can compare them... heres mine for what its worth> > >Thanks Doing my best, see what comes out of it before the weekend. Thank *you*. /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 08:47:52 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 24 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 06:26:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Multiple topics To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'm concerned about how many topics would be discussed at once. Typically, I scan the daily digest when I receive it and then file it until the weekend when I have more time to read and act on what is being discussed. I have trouble now following discussions and things have been pretty focused over the last few weeks. If we were discussing multiple topics, I'm sure that many of us (including me) would filter out too much and only focus on what we're particularly interested in. That would make it difficult to bring topics to a close because not enough people will vote and because people will tend to jump in at the end and disagree when the interested people have hashed out most of their disagreements and reached a consenus. If we did not limit the number of topics open at once, I would suggest that the person who originated the topic be responsible for gathering all the posts on their topic over the previous week and reposting them as one message. That will make it much easier for the rest of us to follow the discussion. regards, Sir Myrdin the Just Michael G. Potter - http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/potterm From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 08:56:08 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 08:24:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: VOTE RE: Hossein Org Proposal: NAY (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L NAY I feel there is a great deal of elaboration that needs to be done before the ideas you've posted can be considered a complete set of rules for operating the GC. With sufficent details filled in they could be fine. I feel VERY STRONGLY that we shuld discuss and fill in the vague bits BEFORE it we vote onit. I gues you caould say this is a 'nay' until some more of the dtails are added... like is voting simple majority, and by what positng method? what about dissenting opinions? is there any form of Veto? *WHO* does the exec committee solicit proposals from? I also think the 'unified chair ballot' and 'unified organization propasal ballot' that didnt happen are two reliable indications that relying on well intentioned volunteerism, WITHOUT eliciting specific public commmitments isnt going to work... ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 11:14:07 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 378 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 10:48:34 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: GC Vote: Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512050352.WAA09443@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> from "Greg Rose" at Dec 4, 95 10:52:14 pm Since I have heard only two objections, and have received four votes already and Finnvarr's suggestion that we get on with it as well as private mail from other GC members suggesting that I proceed, I am opening the vote on my organizational proposal. I vote Aye. The small reservations I have involve ancillary issues that can build upon this as a firm base. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 11:49:02 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 11:22:42 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: GC Vote: Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512050352.WAA09443@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> (message from Greg Rose on Mon, 4 Dec 1995 22:52:14 -0500) Hmm. While I think it may prove incomplete, I don't have any objections to Hossein's proposal, and it can at least get us going. I vote yes; if we find problems, we can fix them as we go... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Hi, I'm Lorne Greene. As a formally dead person, I know about the boredom and uncomfortable nature of the afterlife. But now that I've joined the Legions of the Dead, and been brought back to life by Pluto, I'm all set to do the BONANZA reunion TV-movie for next year -- Yup, Dan's returned with me..." -- Olympian Marketing Agency (via Moriarty) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 12:32:19 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 6340 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 11:51:22 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: GC as Think Tank (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [Forwarded for Gareth of Stonemarche. I edited out a short personal note. -- Tibor] Forwarded message: From dearborn@ctron.com Tue Dec 5 11:23 EST 1995 From: "Gregory D. Dearborn" Message-Id: <199512051609.LAA10679@cerebus.ctron.com> Subject: GC as Think Tank To: schuldy@ABEL.MATH.HARVARD.EDU Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 11:09:32 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5698 [Snip -- Tibor] Greetings to the Grand Council from Gareth of Stonemarche (Greg Dearborn) I've been reading the various proposals about voting procedures and I'm now wondering if you are on the right track. Here is an excerpt from the charter: [Start of Excerpt] PURPOSE The Grand Council will examine the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.'s corporate and organizational structure, incorporating discussions from throughout the Society and make recommendations for changes necessary to carry out the Society's mission as a global organization. This Grand Council is empowered by the Board of Directors to independently conduct this examination and to make the most appropriate recommendations. Recommendations will be made no later than the Winter (January) 1997 meeting of the Board of Directors. SCOPE Broadly, the GC scope is to examine all facets of the SCA, Inc., from the Bylaws to waivers to the level of centralization. Narrowing this focus will enable the GC to provide the best possible recommendations to the Board. The GC will initially focus on the areas below. Focus Areas * Mutual relationships between branches and the Corporation * Mutual relationships between participants and the Corporation * Goals of the Corporation (strategy) * Methods of the Corporation (tactics) The GC is charged with managing discussions and providing recommendations on these focus areas to have them completed by the Winter (January) 1997 Board meeting. The project schedule to achieve this timetable will be presented at the April 1995 Board meeting. Completing the projects before the Winter (January) 1997 meeting, if possible, is encouraged. [End of Excerpt] It seems to me that the GC should be in the business of writing white papers and reports on the various topic areas in its scope. Perhaps instead of organizing yourself in the model of a legislature, you should be organizing yourself in the model of a think tank or a consulting firm. There are several ideas out there that are already sufficiently developed to be worked on. Perhaps you should define a small set of projects, each headed by a project leader and "staffed" by a project team. The goal of each team would be to develop a proposal for the Board to consider enacting. Each project would generate one or more white papers that presented the research done by the project team, the proposal generated by the project team, and a summary of the comments the GC members not on the team. Finally, each individual GC member could be listed as either endorsing, not endorsing, or abstaining from endorsing the proposal. I think you should elect a leader or coordinator. I see the job of the coordinator to be keeping track of the project, getting derailed project teams back on track, and being the primary liason to the Board. I think this approach is best because it has worked in the past. When Tibor saw a potential problem with our tax status, he recruited his team of experts, did the research, wrote up the results, and made a proposal. Bertram did pretty much the same thing with the outsourcing. Cariadoc wrote up proposal for a way to restructure the Society. This similar to the way the Internet Engineering Task Force comes up with the standards that permit the growth of the internet: they organize into project teams, they do the research, hash out the details, and present the results. What if you disagree with a proposal generated by a project group? Try to convince them your way is better. If you can't form a project group to come up with an alternate proposal. I don't see any problem at all with coming up with contradictory proposals. One project group, for example, could work on a plan to strengthen SCA, Inc. Another group could come up with a plan to dissolve SCA, Inc. Submit both proposals to the Board when they are ready. Voting on which proposal is to give the GC seal of approval to doesn't add value, imho. What would add value is a collection of the proposal in print, available from the Stock Clerk. The GC would make an excellent think tank, but it needs to make its results easily available to the people of the Society. The proposals need to well formulated, but then disseminated so there is grass-roots support for them. Let the people decide what they want, and let the Board enact the will of the people. In summation, I think the Board is going to reserve the final decision making to themselves, no matter what the GC proposes and how it votes. I think the GC could serve the Society well by collecting the facts, summarizing the data, and making the proposals. There is too much on the Board's plate; they can't make good decisions because there is too much for them to consider. Chew their food for them and spit out the bad parts and they will swallow. Your servant, Gareth of Stonemarche Appendix A list of projects that the GC could work on Bertram's outsourcing proposal Cariadoc's reorganization proposal A budget based on outsourcing (perhaps as a follow on project of the outsourcing group) A budget based on not outsourcing A proposal to make the SCA a membership corporation (The CSOS proposal) A proposed rewrite of Corpora so it deals exclusively with the Medieval (Game) rules. A proposal to eliminate unnecessary Corporate officers A proposal to add a "Bill of Rights" of Kingdoms to the Governing Docs A proposal to add a "Bill of Rights" of Local Groups to the G.D. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 13:42:27 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 12:52:48 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Hossein's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Modius... -- Justin >From: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 09:30:09 -0500 >Subject: Hossein's Proposal As I mentioned before, any unifying influence gets my VOTE. To put it more clearly, Yes to the Chaiman, Yes to Hossein's Proposal. Also I do not agree that we should keep down the number of thoughts, proposals, or discussions on the floor of the GC. We need brainstorming. Free thinking. So, I do not support limiting topics. How about a vote amongst the GC members re:centralized or decentralized, what form should the SCA take. Yes, I know this may be too broad. The details or the degree to which specific functions of the central body would be farmed out to the Kingdoms can be hashed out later. So what about it folks, Centralized or decentralized? I vote some sort of Centralized organization. Have a safe and wonderful holiday season - Modius (modius@dobharchu.org) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 16:20:20 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1762 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 14:22:41 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Morgan: Point of Order? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> > To: Grand Council Discussion List > Subject: Morgan: Point of Order? > > I have kept quiet of late because there has been nothing on whihc I care to > weigh in. Also, I believe that if the issue is organization of the GC, it is > for the GC members to discuss, and not non-members such as myself. > > My question is whether non-members should be voting. I know that there are two > different sets of persons involved in this list: those on the GC, and those > guests (such as myself) who receive it but may not directly post. Our replies > and comments are posted through others, such as Justin, Terras, Tibor, and > Hossein. As I understand it, ALL true GC members are able to post directly to > the list, and their messages need not be forwarded. > > If I am incorrect on this point, I would appreciate clarification. I recall > that ont he last vote, however, at least three were invalidated because the > persons casting them are not GC members, merely recipients on the list. > > Note that I am NOT suggesting that nonmembers be precluded from commentsing or > making suggestions, only that our ability or inability to cast votes be > clarified. > > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 16:20:50 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 12:45:34 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: GC Vote: Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- In message Mon, 4 Dec 1995 22:52:14 -0500, Greg Rose writes: >[trimm bits...] > > 5. Once an issue has been on the agenda for one month, the executive > committee will solicit proposals on that subject, if no proposals are > previously forthcoming. > > 6. Once a proposal is presented to the GC, discusssion on that proposal > will continue for one month. At that time the executive committee will > conduct a vote on that proposal unless five GC members request > continuation of debate. Debate cannot be continued for more than one > additional month. [We have to stop talking and make decisions at some > point.] > End of Proposal. This does not provide for an indication of what vote is necessary to report a proposal out to the Board, what fraction of the members need to vote to make it valid, or who will write or when dissenting opinions will be reported out as well. Since it doesn't specify, I would expect simple majority and no mechanism for dissenting opinions. If this is the intent of the proposal, then I vote loudly and very much, NO! --------------- If this is an oversight, I would like to see it rectified with something like the following (this is an example: exact numbers could be dickered.) 7. Votes: A proposal will be passed to the Board for consideration if the vote in favor meets the following criteria: a. More than 60% of the members of the GC cast votes on the matter. (Explicitly stated abstentions count as votes.) b. The measure passed by a 2/3 majority of the votes cast. 8. Close Votes: A proposal may be passed to the Board for consideration with a dissenting opinion attached, if the proposal gets more than 50% of th votes cast but less than 2/3rds, and the proponents do not wish to attempt to reconcile the differences. Those opposed to the proposal will be expected to write the dissenting opinon. 9. Dissent: Notwithstanding the above, a dissenting opinion on any proposal may be written and presented to the Board by any member of the GC on any proposal sent to the Board by the GC. --------------- Commentary: If we can't get a solid percentage of people voting, the proposal is probably not important. If too many people are either opposed or ambivalent, then there is something wrong with the proposal (possibly something that people have not yet figured out how to state). Only if a solid (2/3) majority of people are in favor is the proposal likely to have any chance of being seen by the Board or the people as a "good thing". On the other hand, putting out both views to the Board in the case of close votes allows us to do something, possibly just to demonstrate that there is much division on a given subject. Finally, dissenting opinions, if strongly held, need to be presented to the Board as well, even if they are held only by a minority. This protects the parallax view. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 16:52:21 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 16:17:31 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Morgan: Point of Order? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I am vetting the votes against the GC Masterlist. GC members will have their votes tallied; non-members will not. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 17:12:02 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 16:21:22 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: GC Vote: Organizational Proposal Comments: To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg, Maybe it's just my Muslim prejudices, but the decision rule I followed in crafting the proposal was: whatever is not prohibited is permitted.* I see nothing which forbids minority and dissenting reports >from being submitted (not to mention that's its your 1st Amendment right to speak your mind). Hossein/Greg *-This dictum is a loose translation of an ayat of Qur'an. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 18:17:15 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 317 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 17:14:55 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Morgan: Point of Order? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512052022.OAA95636@gold.missouri.edu> from "Joseph Heck" at Dec 5, 95 02:22:41 pm Greetings from Tibor. Morgan asked: Note that I am NOT suggesting that nonmembers be precluded from commentsing or making suggestions, only that our ability or inability to cast votes be clarified. As I understand it, you MAY not vote, and if the technology is working, you CAN not vote, either. Tibor (:-) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 20:26:58 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 14 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 19:26:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Flieg's concerns To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I think that for ordinary business a majority of those voting is necessary and sufficient. For final reports, however, I think something like Flieg proposes will be necessary. Long ago I told this list that the most important thing that happened at Board meetings when I was on it was the hashing out of proposals that looked straightforward and sensible to some members but which evoked holy dread and cries of "unclean" from members from other kingdoms. It was very clear to all of us then that anything important had to have very strong support inside the room, or there was no chance that anyone outside the room would pay any attention to our decision. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 20:34:45 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 17:29:50 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Morgan: Point of Order? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512052022.OAA95636@gold.missouri.edu> (message from Joseph Heck on Tue, 5 Dec 1995 14:22:41 -0600) Morgan writes: > My question is whether non-members should be voting. This actually has a long-standing policy, from the creation of the Council -- non-members may speak as much as the Councillors feel like passing it on, but a vote is solely of the members of the Council. That's necessary; otherwise, it's *much* too easy to stack a vote. I'm not sure if this ever got written down formally; it certainly was the understanding of us admin types when we were setting things up. (Tibor, Caroline -- correct me if I'm wrong here...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Ohwa... Tajer... Kayam." -- Tibetan Mantra for Self-Realization From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 20:39:40 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 19:48:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Vote: Hossein's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl: Re Hossein's Organizational proposal: AYE Any problems members have noted or that come up as time goes by can be dealt with then. For now, this will do just fine. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 21:44:56 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1406 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 17:34:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: GC Vote: Organizational Proposal Comments: To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <45935.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> from "Flieg Hollander" at Dec 5, 95 12:45:34 pm Greetings from Tibor. Flieg wrote, about Hossein's proposal. This does not provide for an indication of what vote is necessary to report a proposal out to the Board, what fraction of the members need to vote to make it valid, or who will write or when dissenting opinions will be reported out as well. Since it doesn't specify, I would expect simple majority and no mechanism for dissenting opinions. If this is the intent of the proposal, then I vote loudly and very much, Flieg, perhaps it's been a long time since you read the charter? It may go a long way to answering some of your concerns. Tibor PROPOSALS TO THE BOARD Recommendations and proposals will be made to the Board when the GC feels the recommendation or proposal is ready. Final determination of readiness will be at the discretion of the Coordinator with the assistance of the GC Board Ombudsman. [Snip] REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The GC will report to the Board at each of the Board's quarterly meetings. Reports, proposals, and recommendations may be presented at any of these meetings. Interim reports will be presented to the appointed liaison and the GC Ombudsman at appropriate intervals. Proposals and recommendations will contain both majority and minority opinions of the GC, if applicable, and recommendations for implementation. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 22:43:56 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 10 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 21:51:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: GC as Think Tank (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The idea of think tank is attractive, but without any method of focussing our discussion, we were not having any luck doing anything as a group. I expect that we will have a variety of reports, some of them contradictory, some of them majority/minority reports on the same issue. However, I expect that voting and having an elected chair will expedite this. Not having them hasn't noticably helped. It's not just legislatures that take votes. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 5 23:48:15 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 23:04:19 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: flieg's majority/minority To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L following up on flieg's simple majority, 2/3 majority, and dissenting reports: this presumes the GC will provide A Report to the Board. there's another way, which is to present two or three suggestions, all supported by appropriate reasoning, per action. we wouldn't present a grand structure; we would present the board with a variety of choices, and let them make the final decision. in other words, we'd act as a thinktank, not as a final decision-making body. this'd get around some of flieg's objections; allow for a multitude of ideas to float to the top, and so forth, and so on. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 00:19:53 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 23:49:02 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Morgan: Point of Order? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Well, if we are now oficially opening the voting on the org proposal, and, I assume shutting off further amendments, I have to vote No. Among other things, I'm not happy with the "simple majority" votes, and I'm not happy leaving rules unsaid. I would stongly support the proposal of flieg's as regards 2/3 votes, and etc. Frankly, MY big issue is how few members seem to want to vote. I beleive we got 1/2 of the total GC on the last proposal ? Carol, Tibor and (despite what one member thinks) myself put lots of time and effort into selecting the GC membership; the goal was not just to have another comittee to make a bunch of decisions, but rather to have one that was as representative as possible, so that the decisions would not simply be another isolated but vocal minority with some agenda or another - as was the case with the decisions of the past board. It is very frustrating to see what has happened to that membership. As flieg said: >Commentary: If we can't get a solid percentage of people voting, the >proposal is probably not important. >If too many people are either opposed or >ambivalent, then there is something wrong with the proposal (possibly >something that people have not yet figured out how to state). > Only if a solid (2/3) majority of people are in favor is the proposal >likely to have any chance of being seen by the Board or the people as a >"good thing". I would suggest that the fact that we can't effectively poll a solid majority of the GC suggests that perhaps we may be on the way to becoming another "non-representative minority group". Folks, this whole problem began when a small group of SCA members (the board, plus TP) got together and made a bunch of important decisions for the "good" of the SCA-and it was a disaster. Let's not repeat it. I strongly support a 2/3 minimum majority (of all members) for any proposal to pass. I'm also not happy with the speed of this decision, but that's another issue. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 00:25:46 1995 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 20:31:37 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: GC Vote: Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Fiacha, On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Flieg Hollander wrote: > If this is an oversight, I would like to see it rectified with something > like the following (this is an example: exact numbers could be dickered.) > > 7. Votes: A proposal will be passed to the Board for consideration if the > vote in favor meets the following criteria: > a. More than 60% of the members of the GC cast votes on the matter. > (Explicitly stated abstentions count as votes.) > b. The measure passed by a 2/3 majority of the votes cast. Given that we are an advisory council, it is my feeling that all votes are reported to the board together with all summary opinions. It is not our job to make changes, nor do we have the ability to do so. Thus, if I get to be chairman and so responsible for the report to the board, the report will list every vote taken, and attached to the report will be a set of summary opinions with list of those GC members who endorse those opinions. I believe that it would be improper for us to vote on some issue and not report that vote because it failed to win support. Please rethink your stance on this point. > 8. Close Votes: A proposal may be passed to the Board for consideration > with a dissenting opinion attached, if the proposal gets more than 50% of > th votes cast but less than 2/3rds, and the proponents do not wish to > attempt to reconcile the differences. Those opposed to the proposal will be > expected to write the dissenting opinon. Close votes are the times we need dissenting opinions, and preferably a single dissenting opinion endorsed by all of the dissenters. I can request that this happends but I cannot twist anyones arm into writing the opinion or endorsing it once it is written. All I can do is write such an opinion when I am a dissenter. > 9. Dissent: Notwithstanding the above, a dissenting opinion on any > proposal may be written and presented to the Board by any member of the GC > on any proposal sent to the Board by the GC. I don't think this needs to be formally stated although posting a reminder every three months might not be a bad idea. > Commentary: If we can't get a solid percentage of people voting, the > proposal is probably not important. > If too many people are either opposed or > ambivalent, then there is something wrong with the proposal (possibly > something that people have not yet figured out how to state). > Only if a solid (2/3) majority of people are in favor is the proposal > likely to have any chance of being seen by the Board or the people as a > "good thing". Equally a solid majority opposed to a proposal should be seen a indicating that the proposal will be seen as a really bad idea. > On the other hand, putting out both views to the Board in the case of > close votes allows us to do something, possibly just to demonstrate that > there is much division on a given subject. > Finally, dissenting opinions, if strongly held, need to be presented to > the Board as well, even if they are held only by a minority. This protects > the parallax view. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 01:11:09 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 00:33:18 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Vote: Amendment and Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I have thought carefully about Flieg's concerns and, after a phone conversation with him this afternoon, have accepted two friendly amendments: 7. All final reports of proposals submitted to the Board will include a copy of the vote tally (aye, nay, abstain, not voting). 8. Minority reports by GC members regarding final proposals are permitted and will be submitted to the Board with the relevant final proposal. I think that both are entailed by the charter of the GC adopted by the Board. If anyone who has voted either for or against my organizational proposal wishes to change his or her vote because of these amendments, please advise me ASAP. As of today, I have received the following votes on my organizational proposal: AYE - 12 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Terras/Joseph Heck Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans NAY - 3 Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander ABSTAIN - 1 Gareth ap Tancred/Roy Gathercoal NOT YET VOTING - 21 Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The "Not Voting" list reflects three resignations which have been submitted by GC members: Duke Olaf, Duke Gyrth, and Crown Prince Galen. Gunwaldt privately suggested that adding the "Not Voting" category would allow us to monitor the extent of participation in the voting. I think it's a good idea and have, thus, included it. The voting will continue for one week, until 2400 hrs., 12/11/95; we will all tally the votes since they must be posted to the GC list (excepting postal members who can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278; or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every two days until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 07:33:49 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 04:00:09 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Why some sort of parliamentary procedure? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Why some sort of formalized procedure? 1. Who can offer motions for actions? Who can amend them? Does this require the approval of the originator? Or can there be hostile amendments, if they can carry a majority? 2. Is there any case in which debate can be extended, or cut off? Who can propose such a thing, and can it carry by simple majority? 3. Will simple plurality carry every action (if there are more than two options), or are there actions that require a majority? Is this to be a majority of eligible voters, or simply a majority of those voting? 4. Is there some requirement for a quorum, for a certain number of members to be active in order for a vote to count? For example, is it legitimate for the non-Pennsic goers to wait until Pennsic to move, second and pass something? 5. Once an action has been concluded, under what circumstances, if any, can it be revisited? If we move to a voting system, especially one in which a simple majority of those voting can carry, we need to decide in advance about these criteria. It is near certain, given the diversity of opinions among this group, the weight and import of the issues before us, the nature of the electronic medium, and the history of some of these debates, that as soon as we develop a system that creates clear winners and losers we will see coalitions emerge in order to push through certain positions. I hope it is clear that I am not in support of a voting system. Nonetheless, if we do decide to go that way, and it appears that we have (via a vote carried by the slimmest of pluralities) we should begin by making overt decisions about what protections, if any, a minority might have against the majority, and the majority against a minority. I would consider it ill-advised to wade into the morass of issues we face without prior and explicit agreement on these (and other) procedural issues. Once we abandon the concept of consensus for that of the vote, we no longer have the structural support of procedure to ensure the minority voice is even heard. Thus, we must create such support. The trust that is required in order to bypass formal protections has not been established within this group (barbs still fly fairly regularly) and given the nature of the medium, is not likely to emerge as the issues become more difficult. This is not like most committees, in breadth, in complexity of issues, of diversity of talents and perspectives and in fora. Roberts' Rules, of course, is not adopted to electronic media. But the benefits and protections of those rules is not limited to mass meetings of hundreds of people. In fact, rules similar to Roberts' are required to keep the distinguished people who serve in the various parliaments and congresses of modern nations from duelling each other. Even with these rules, an occasional fist fight cannot seem to be prevented. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 09:42:12 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1263 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:07:06 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Morgan: Point of Order? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan, Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > Date: 05 Dec 95 19:50:45 EST > From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: Morgan: Point of Order? (fwd) > > Tibor said: > > >> Morgan asked: > >> Note that I am NOT suggesting that nonmembers be precluded from commenting > >> or making suggestions, only that our ability or inability to cast votes be > >> clarified. > > And he replied: > > >> As I understand it, you MAY not vote, and if the technology is working, you > >> CAN not vote, either. > > I see that a number of nonmembers have included votes in their messages. (At > least, I assume they are nonmembers because the messages are forwarded instead > of being directly posted.) So I don't think the technology is working, except > for Hossein's vetting. > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 10:16:03 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 12 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 07:41:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: A chance to meet To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Last night I had a chance to renew acquaintances or to meet Arthur, Tibor, Justin, and Hossein. Although we still disagree on many things and have a different mindset on the current situation in the SCA, we at least had a chance to talk face-to-face. I'm going to be in the Middle Kingdom at the Boar's Head event in Milwaukee Dec 16th. If there are any GC members that will be there that want a chance to meet me, please send an e-mail. regards, Michael G. Potter Sir Myrdin the Just From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 10:35:42 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:04:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Forwarded for Ian O'Donnell To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I have been asked to forward the following for the GC's consideration by Ian O'Donnell. Hossein/Greg >From cturner@smtp.cnsy-ian.navy.mil Wed Dec 6 09:59:56 1995 >Received: from NS00.cnsy-ian.navy.mil by bronze.lcs.mit.edu (Sendmail 8.6.10/950531.CACTUS) with SMTP id JAA25603; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:59:16 -0500 >Received: by NS00.cnsy-ian.navy.mil; Wed, 6 Dec 95 10:00:13 EST >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 10:00:11 EST >Message-ID: >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >To: >From: "LTjg, USN 3-8401 ext 167 Bldg 8 Rm 207" >Return-Receipt-To: >Subject: Voting and Purpose >Status: R > >Greetings unto Hossein Ali Qomi, please forward this if you feel it is >worthwhile. > >Greetings unto the Members of the GC from Ian O'Donnell, > > It is my understanding that the GC is to come up with ideas to >assist the board in bettering the society and its relations. If this is >the case, should they not know what you think will not work as well as >what you think will. I would recommend that you send all proposals >to the board with a tally of votes and possibly a recommended method of >implementation attached. Also, allow any member to attach their own >comments as an appendix to the proposal. The GC is not the body actually >making the decisions and should be helping the board to make informed >decisions. To make a good informed decision they need to know what >alternatives you have considered as well as what actions the group >supports. If you just present one idea to the board on each topic >they may think of an alternative that sounds good at the moment but >that you have already discussed and found problems with. Please do not >leave the board in the dark in the name of perfection, they can most >likely handle the bad with the good. > > Thank you for your time, > Ian O'Donnell > >Chris D. Turner Ian O'Donnell >Charleston S.C. Barony of Hidden Mountain, Atlantia >Work: cturner@smtp.cnsy-ian.navy.mil (803) 743-8401 x167 >Home: cturner@awod.com (803) 572-8803 From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 11:27:17 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:48:29 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: You are here* To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun Until we have an official person in charge of this, I will attempt to provide a periodic summary of where we are and what loose ends may be hanging around. For details go to the originals. (Don't jump on me if I misread your messages--I'm doing the best I can! This first one--11/30 to a.m. 12/6--is pretty rough.) Starting 11/30 Alysoun requested reposts of org. proposals: Hossein reposted 11/30 as Hossein's Organizational Proposal [reposted 12/5 as GC Vote: Organizational Proposal; amended 12/6 GC Vote: Amendment and Tally update] Fiacha lost archive in computer move, needs copy of his Arthur has not reposted his 12/5 Forwarded: GC as Think-tank The majority of discussion has centered on Hossein's proposal: The main concerns center around the number of topics which are up for discussion at any one time, the level of detail that should be set up in advance, and voting procedure under the plan. Amendments were made on the voting issue (see Fleig's post Re: GC vote and Hossein's GC Vote: Amendment). Hossein is running the tally. Related discussion: Maghnuis, To business: Topics of Discussion 11/30, asked for discussion topics as motions with seconds and more clear procedure like Robert's Rules. Discussion on the pros and cons of parliamentary procedure has gotten mixed up with Hossein's proposal (which does not have this). Fiacha and Arthur are candidates for chair Other discussion: Morgan asked about non-members voting and was answered by Hossein, Tibor, and Justin--the non-member votes on Arthur's plan were due to someone posting the proposal on other lists (which we trust will not happen again) and were later discounted. Housekeeping: Tibor is trying to contact all members--reports that 3 (Gyrth, Galen, and Olaf) have dropped out. 5 members are participating by mail. Concern about participation was expressed by several members. Modius has advanced the topic of centralization vs decentralization. Bertram has advanced the question of the nature of the corporation. Brian and Alysoun have advanced the question of purpose of the SCA (not the corp) as a prior consideration. THIS WILL GO BETTER IF YOU WATCH YOUR SUBJECT LINES! From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 13:48:01 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 13:12:03 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Morgan: Point of Order? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Magnus... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 22:22:53 -0600 >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Re: Morgan: Point of Order? (fwd) At 05:29 PM 12/5/95 EST, you wrote: >Morgan writes: >I'm not sure if this ever got written down formally; it certainly >was the understanding of us admin types when we were setting things >up. (Tibor, Caroline -- correct me if I'm wrong here...) > > -- Justin > That is the general understanding, put my strong impession is that NOTHING is currently set down formally except our charge from the BoD. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 14:07:37 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:33:12 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: GC Vote: Amendment and Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Wed, 6 Dec 1995 00:33:18 -0500, Greg Rose writes: > I have thought carefully about Flieg's concerns and, after a phone > conversation with him this afternoon, have accepted two friendly > amendments: > > 7. All final reports of proposals submitted to the Board will include a > copy of the vote tally (aye, nay, abstain, not voting). > > 8. Minority reports by GC members regarding final proposals are permitted > and will be submitted to the Board with the relevant final proposal. > > I think that both are entailed by the charter of the GC adopted by the > Board. > If anyone who has voted either for or against my organizational proposal > wishes to change his or her vote because of these amendments, please > advise me ASAP. > Given this, and other comments made to me here on this list, including references to the Charter, I change my vote to Yes Although I am still not completely satisfied with the proposals, finding them altogether too bureaucratic for my tastes. * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ================== Old Used Duke ================= [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 14:23:08 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 13:51:25 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: VOTE RE: Hossein Org Proposal: YEA To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Michael... -- Justin >Date: Wed 06 Dec 1995 09:27 CT >From: UDSD007@DSIBM.OKLADOT.STATE.OK.US (Mike.Andrews ) >Subject: VOTE RE: Hossein Org Proposal: YEA Yea. It is well past time for us as a body to produce something. Hossein's proposal is the least bad that I've seen to date, and I accordingly vote _for_ it. -- udsd007@dsibm.okladot.state.ok.us Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews) Namron, Ansteorra Pray, I beseech you, for the repose of the soul of Kathleen Anna Young Lister, once known as Baroness Caitlin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 14:42:03 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:03:58 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <30C50FDD@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Tue, 5 Dec 1995 19:26:00 PST) Folks, I think we are getting *way* the hell carried away about this process. People seem to be forgetting what this group really is. Look, we are *not* a legislature. We *are* a think tank; arguing about that is pointless. We are drafting *recommendations*, not laws. The Board makes the laws. The purpose of a vote is simply to show the depth of support for a motion, *not* to enact it into law. That being the case, I think it's silly to worry about 1/2 vs. 2/3 majorities, and suchlike. (Indeed, the notion of "passed" vs. "rejected" is relevant solely in that it gives us some gauge of whether it's worth bothering the Board with at all.) The Board will be taking the recommendations, and the vote tallies, and looking at them. If a measure passed by a bare majority, that will be noticeable. The Board is going to have to figure out what *they* consider an acceptable level of support for a given motion; what we decide in that regard is largely irrelevant. The buck does *not* stop here. If we treat it as if it does, we're going to bog ourselves down in a lot of weight and excess structure, with no particular gain, since a 95% positive vote here *still* doesn't mean that the Board will do as we suggest. What's important is simply giving some clue as to how deep the support or opposition is, and presenting all the important sides of an issue. We can then only hope that the Board will take that, and treat it sensibly... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: February "Ah, sweeps month. When the network TV execs come out of their holes, look at their ratings, and look for a way to pander to their audience in an even more explicit manner than usual." -- Moriarty From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 14:51:09 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:09:18 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: VOTE RE: Fiacha for Chair: YEA To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Michael... -- Justin >Date: Wed 06 Dec 1995 12:25 CT >From: UDSD007@DSIBM.OKLADOT.STATE.OK.US (Mike.Andrews ) >Subject: VOTE RE: Fiacha for Chair: YEA I vote "Yea" for Fiacha for Chairperson. -- udsd007@dsibm.okladot.state.ok.us Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews) Namron, Ansteorra Pray, I beseech you, for the repose of the soul of Kathleen Anna Young Lister, once known as Baroness Caitlin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 15:33:39 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:43:09 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: A chance to meet To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L It is my intent to be at Boarshead as well. Hope to see some of you there. James D. McManus Magnus Maguire aka Maghnuis MagUidhr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 15:34:06 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 12:00:59 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- In message Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:03:58 EST, Mark Waks writes: [trimmm...] > The buck does *not* stop here. If we treat it as if it does, we're > going to bog ourselves down in a lot of weight and excess structure, > with no particular gain, since a 95% positive vote here *still* > doesn't mean that the Board will do as we suggest. What's important > is simply giving some clue as to how deep the support or opposition > is, and presenting all the important sides of an issue. We can then > only hope that the Board will take that, and treat it sensibly... > > -- Justin ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL! Ri....ght! Su....re! Unless we present recommendations with pretty detailed implementations we ain't gonna get any action at all. The Board doesn't have the time to come up with implementations and I wouldn't trust some other people to come up with ones that I could live with, even if I liked the policy. * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ================== Old Used Duke ================= [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 15:36:52 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:49:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hmmmm. Good point Justin. I think that perhaps I *was* too worried about us being a legislative body. This also gives me cause to rethink my worries about the GC becoming overly insulated and isolated. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 15:42:58 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 12:02:38 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: VOTE RE: Fiacha for Chair: YEA To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- > >>Date: Wed 06 Dec 1995 12:25 CT >> From: UDSD007@DSIBM.OKLADOT.STATE.OK.US (Mike.Andrews ) >> Subject: VOTE RE: Fiacha for Chair: YEA >> > > I vote "Yea" for Fiacha for Chairperson. > > -- > udsd007@dsibm.okladot.state.ok.us > Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews) Namron, Ansteorra > Pray, I beseech you, for the repose of the soul of > Kathleen Anna Young Lister, once known as Baroness Caitlin > Hunh? Are we voting for Coordinator yet? (Note that the BoD charge to us says Coordinator -- we may as well use that instead of Chairman.) Who all is nominated (self or otherwise???) * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ================== Old Used Duke ================= [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 16:29:15 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 7 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:44:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Vote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Of course we are not a legislature. I regard Hossein's proposal as merely a way of giving some shape to our discussions and marking where we are in them. I vote YES. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 6 17:23:57 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1255 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:26:36 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: GC Vote: Amendment and Tally Update (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan > Date: 06 Dec 95 16:03:51 EST > From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> > To: Grand Council Discussion List , > Greg Rose > Subject: Re: GC Vote: Amendment and Tally Update > > Hossein said: > > >> Gunwaldt privately suggested that adding the "Not Voting" > >> category would allow us to monitor the extent of participation > >> in the voting. I think it's a good idea and have, thus, > >> included it. > > >> The voting will continue for one week, until 2400 hrs., > >> 12/11/95;......... > > How does this take into account the fact that somemembers are unable to vote? I > know that Nathan Adelaar has finals; Cariadoc previously posted that he is away > until January; etc. > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 7 18:51:21 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:46:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: get in gear To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Dear GC, I can see that you are no closer to being able to accomplish something now than you were on Nov.6,7 when I posted my "who'd like to be boss". Can this be reposted from the archives? I don't seem to be able to find mine. I would like people to READ this posting. It states what I think the GC should do. It also states the three main topics that "I" believe the GC should look into. I know that I had stated that this was only a suggestion... BUt maybe you all should read that as "Suggestion".... I was hoping that I didn't hav to make it a directive. I "AM" willing to do that. In fact consider it so.... I also stated that I wanted a concise report of how you were going to be set up "BEFORE" the JAN Meeting. I was hoping that 40 adults, could read the Charter, see what type of group you're supposed to be and go from there. If you can't even choose someone to chair (co-chair, triple chair), be poobah, Grand Exhalted Inquirer, how can you possibly advise me and the BOD on anything. If this isn't done, I'm gonna have to rethink the whole GC thing. YOu got problems with my attitude??? Fine. Write me. Not a veiled threat, just facts. E. F. Morrill, President SCA INC. Ombudsman, GC -- 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 Dec 7 19:30:51 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 16:15:47 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Frithiof's vote on Hosseins proposal: AYE To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Frithiof Sigvardsson Skaegge votes AYE to Hosseins Organizational Proposal. Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 7 19:41:18 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 304 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 10:45:40 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: VOTE RE: Fiacha for Chair: YEA Comments: To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <43358.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> from "Flieg Hollander" at Dec 6, 95 12:02:38 pm Flieg wrote: Hunh? Are we voting for Coordinator yet? (Note that the BoD charge to us says Coordinator -- we may as well use that instead of Chairman.) Who all is nominated (self or otherwise???) I thought I had been nominated. I too thought we were not yet voting for a coordinator. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 7 19:49:22 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 11:01:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Picking new GC members. Comments: To: Mark Schuldenfrei Comments: cc: morrill To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512071547.KAA17365@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Dec 7, 95 10:47:45 am > > Edward (and the original nominating team) > > I still haven't heard back from you about the various resignations. > I haven';t seen any resignations.... officially that is. It may not matter. If the GC can't get it together with 40, maybe less will help. after all, 16 is the minimum... 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 Dec 7 19:51:08 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1093 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 11:16:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Picking new GC members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Tibor. Background information. I'd received a note from an Atlantian, asking about getting on the GC, because there had been two Atlantian resignations. The note specified that the Kingdom Seneschal of Atlantia was accepting resumes for the open seats. I'd sent a heads up to Edward: because a little pro-active mention to the Kingdom Seneschal might prevent some headaches later. I'd also pointed out that we didn't quite have a process for dealing with it. (That was also why I'd notified the other original members of the nominating sub-committee.) While re-reading the charter (from when I responded to Flieg) I'd noticed that the GC has the right to pick replacement members, and I forwarded that section to my original distribution. You've seen Edward's answer. I can accept that answer, and think we should. Let's not confuse too many issues at one time: once we can conduct ourselves, then we can consider how we can, or whether we should, add replacement members. In the mean time, if Edward has not received resignations, there are no resignations. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 7 19:52:53 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 11:56:41 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: VOTE RE: Fiacha for Chair: YEA To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'll vote for Fiacha as well. Magnus Can someone repost the amended version of Hossein's motion again From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 7 19:53:11 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 11:56:47 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: Hossein's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I vote Nay on this proposal. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 7 20:20:27 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 13:35:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: edwards postings To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I do not have a copy of "who'd like to be boos?" thread. Could someone post it again> I think that sums up my position. I have asked. Please don't make me tell. 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 Dec 7 20:37:32 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 15:36:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: is this getting out? Comments: cc: morrill To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I am wondering if this is getting out? I have posted 2 messages that seem to not have shown up. 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 Dec 7 20:39:12 1995 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, 7 Dec 1995 19:42:55 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: A chance to meet To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L in re meeting at boarshead (which is what, exactly?), i'd like to know what the chances are of meeting at estrella? alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 7 21:10:30 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:35:30 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: A chance to meet To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Thu, 7 Dec 1995 19:42:55 -0500, "Alban St. Albans" writes: > in re meeting at boarshead (which is what, exactly?), i'd like to know > what the chances are of meeting at estrella? > > alban > I dunno -- I'll be there * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ================== Old Used Duke ================= [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 8 03:41:42 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 02:22:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As of today, I have received the following votes on my organizational proposal: AYE - 16 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Terras/Joseph Heck Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren NAY - 3 Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus ABSTAIN - 1 Gareth ap Tancred/Roy Gathercoal NOT YET VOTING - 17 John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The voting will continue for one week, until 2400 hrs., 12/11/95; we will all tally the votes since they must be posted to the GC list (excepting postal members who can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278; or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every two days until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 8 10:04:34 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:36:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Carole Roos to E.F. Morrill To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Here is a reposting of the Boss message: Hello, I would like anyone of you who would like to fill the Job/task of Moderator of the Grand Council(MGC), to please email me, hopefully by thursday this week. Here's how "I" would like to have the GC work. EACH QUARTER: (for now let's say 1st Qua., 1996 ; Jan, FEB, March) 1st two weeks in JANuary: THe MGC would pick five topics (either from general concensus, directives >from the BOD, out of their own mind). Split the Committee into five committees, each taking a topic. 2nd two weeks in January, first three weeks in February,,the committees battle back and forth, find facts, find fiction, call each other,"My esteemed colleague" finally coming to a committee report: Last week in February, first two weeks in March, the reports are submitted to the entire GC for comment. Third and forth weeks in March, final reports are written and submitted to the MGC who then prepares the Final Quarterly report. The process starts all over again. - - - - - - - - - - - - Report form would be Uncle Edwards, "Tell it to me in one page" method, in the sense that the first page(s) of the \Final Report would have: THE GRAND COUNCIL REPORT FOR THIS HERE QUARTER Ignaz Summerville, MGC Dear BOD, THis month the GC has debated the following topics: 1) - SHould Edward be drawn and quartered? 2) - Who is a member? 3) - Possible Election processes forthe BOD 4) - Membership qualifications for Officers 5) - Possible legal recourse our Outsourcing Company . Page 2 - 6 would list each topic, solutions and recommnedations for action/non-action on each topic. THe rest of the report would have all the background info the GC would care to send. -------- Well? I Will be sending this to the BOD and will Bring it up in the COnferance Call on Wednesday. TO see if the rest of the BOD concurs. **************************** The difficulty experienced by the Council accurately reflects the state of the SCA and is informative as an example whether or not any specific recommendations are forthcoming. The Board should study this carefully and take heed. If the Board wants specific recommendations on a specific topic (insurance, membership, etc.) from the view of the corporation, it should form specific advisory committees with expert members to work within those parameters. (The financial handbook is a good example.) This is not the task of the Council. SCAinc does not reflect the understanding of all of the SCA membership. Defining the areas of tension is a massive task. If the Council in its second year can define those areas and outline the points of disagreement, the SCA will be in a better position for future planning. A demand for short and sweet answers ignores the reality of the situation. It may be that the Council will not be able to "get in gear." This in itself is an important message to both the Board and the Society. I would warn the Board that direct interference will also send a message, one that will not promote better understanding and future harmony. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 8 10:29:57 1995 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 06:50:29 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Picking new GC members. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512071601.LAA29760@panix.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, E. F. MORRILL wrote: > I haven';t seen any resignations.... officially that is. > > It may not matter. If the GC can't get it together with 40, maybe less > will help. after all, 16 is the minimum... I seems we need a formal proceedure for resigning from the GC although a message to the council would be formal enough for me. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 8 10:38:28 1995 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 07:08:46 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: VOTE RE: Fiacha for Chair: YEA To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512071545.KAA17293@abel.math.harvard.edu> Greetings from Fiacha, On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Mark Schuldenfrei wrote: > Flieg wrote: > Hunh? Are we voting for Coordinator yet? (Note that the BoD charge to us > says Coordinator -- we may as well use that instead of Chairman.) Who all is > nominated (self or otherwise???) > > I thought I had been nominated. I too thought we were not yet voting for a > coordinator. > > Tibor I've asked Edward to post a list of those who responded to his 'boss' message. The people I am aware of volunteering for chair are Tibor, Korwyn, Arthur and myself. Initially the vote for chair was supposed to run at the beginning of November, the last date proposed being November 11. However, noone has admitted to collecting the votes or setting a closing date. Thus, it is my feeling that the votes cast are valid but risk being overlooked. I would like to see a volunteer offer to collect the votes for the chair and post regular updates but I am content to wait until we have an accepted organization first. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 8 11:20:59 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 614 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:55:45 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Picking new GC members. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Nigel Haslock" at Dec 8, 95 06:50:29 am Fiacha wrote: I seems we need a formal proceedure for resigning from the GC although a message to the council would be formal enough for me. >From the Charter: If a member resigns from the GC by notifying the Coordinator in writing or by email, another will be appointed by the GC and confirmed by the Board, keeping in mind the then-current needs of and for diversity within the GC. This appointee will join as soon as appointed and will be noted in the next report to the Board for confirmation. In the absence of an active coordinator, I suspect the ombudsman will do. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Dec 10 02:28:53 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 02:06:12 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: I'd be happy with hossiens proposal if...(proposed ammendments) Comments: To: Greg Rose To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512050352.WAA09443@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> While I realize that Hossiens proposal is going to pass as is, I belieive the following would make it a more workable system, adn would address conerns I doubt are mine alone: That the facilitator and co facilitators be elected by a vote taken Dec 15 through 30, The candidate recieving the most votes be the facilitator, and thos recieving the second and third most be co facilitators. That the GC have no more than one discussion item, one committee report, and one voting item on the floor at any one time. That Votes taken AFTER the deadline for teh next OBD meeting last one month, and that votes are considered final five days after the last ammendment to the motion voted on, or the end of the voting period, whichever is later. That any item being voted on be tallied once per week or evey five votes, whichever is soonest, that the subject line include a distinct identifier for the motion as well as the count of aye's/nays/abstentions, and the the full wording of the motion AS AMENDED appear in the tally postings with ammendments annotated by date. ***************REASONING****************** I strongly suggest we limit ourselves to ONE DISCUSSION item and one VOTING item on the floor of the GC as a whole at a time. When we've shown we can produce reults on that THEN we can think about raising the number gradually... Besides keeping us focused this would also encourage people to work things out in subcommittes... I also believe that ammending the motion DURING the vote will be a ritical part of the process unless you LIKE voting on the same old SLIGHTLY differtn proposal over , and over , and over.... frankly I think its likely to result in healthy compormises much faster , especially since MUCH of the input seems to come DURING the voting, and I doubt thats going to change. I think voting should be seen as part of the discusion, should be allowed a full MONTH, so that the motion can be compromised into a shape we can all work with if there is any chance of doing so AND that votes should be considered final no sooner than five days after the most recent ammendment. That way if the bill gets radically altered on the last day of the scheduled polls people can take their votes back... ( Or we could call it a three week election, and then allow five days after the last amendement to change votes.) I also strongly feel that any tally should include a copy of the motion (with date anntated amendments) so we dont have to keep refering back to it... I like the 'not yet voted' catagory being there. How 'bout we give each GC member one vote and make the chairman the one with the mot votes and the co-chairs the ones with the second and third most? We may as well admit we've GOT factions and handing the chair and deputies over to just one of them might not be a happy thing... If no one objects, I'll agree to tally the election voting despite being a candidate... It would be better if someone else would cuz, I'll be switching e-mail adresses any day now and that could leave a lacuna in my particiption... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Dec 10 12:09:45 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 11:48:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: VOTE RE: Fiacha for Chair: YEA To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Nigel Haslock" at Dec 8, 95 07:08:46 am > > Greetings from Fiacha, > > On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Mark Schuldenfrei wrote: > > > Flieg wrote: > > Hunh? Are we voting for Coordinator yet? (Note that the BoD charge to us > > says Coordinator -- we may as well use that instead of Chairman.) Who all is > > nominated (self or otherwise???) > > > > I thought I had been nominated. I too thought we were not yet voting for a > > coordinator. > > > > Tibor > > I've asked Edward to post a list of those who responded to his 'boss' > message. The people I am aware of volunteering for chair are Tibor, > Korwyn, Arthur and myself. Tha't pretty much it. 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 Sun Dec 10 12:57:32 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 12:36:00 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: edwards thoughts To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hello GC, Well my mail has been running about half and half as to my "interferance" with the GC. To those who feel that I have overstepped my bounds, I am sorry. To those who think that my "proddings are the greatest thing since sliced bread, I am also sorry. My whole intent has been to get the GC moving along. THis is not to say that it wasn't moving. But is seems to have come into two or three camps that seem to be spending more time taking swipes at eachother thatn trying to help me and the other members of the BOD. It is unfortunate that better direction was not given or thought out when the GC was formed. I was hoping that I could show the GC, wht I felt it should be. I am waiting to see what is in place by January. It is very difficult to plan what items you should look into, without a working process in place to present the items to you. As you may tell, I do not believe that a "free collective of concensus seeking people" is the way to go. Yes some things may be able to be reached by concensus, but the SCA will never be allthings to all people. If it was, you'd all be Normans, except you people from the Middle, who;d be the Saxons...:-) 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 Sun Dec 10 18:24:30 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 6 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 17:56:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Edward's thoughts To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >but the SCA will never be allthings to all people. Nor will the GC be an Althing to all people. F. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 11 00:24:21 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 23:44:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: I'd be happy with hossiens proposal if...(proposed ammendments) Comments: To: arthur@cnj.digex.net To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I have carefully read Arthur's objections and I frankly don't understand why he thinks there are problems of this sort to be solved. First, assuming that my proposal is passed (which seems likely, given the vote totals at present), the chairman and his assistants fulfill purely administrative functions. They cannot block issues from coming to the agenda, they cannot block proposals from being submitted. They are there simply to keep track and inform us of what is on the table and what its current status is. I gave careful thought to the question and came to conclusion that the most important thing is that the chairman and his assistants can keep track of what they need to and can work together easily. That's why I framed the proposal the way I did. The idea of holding a three- or four-person election and then simply coopting the top three vote-getters ignores the fact that someone may want to be chairman, but not do the nitty-gritty work of the assistants, nor that there may be abrasiveness between the assistants and the chairman. If what we want is an efficient means of administratively keping track of what we are doing, that is a recipe for disaster. It isn't a matter of factions; what advantage does it give one faction over another to have it doing the scut work of keeping track of when issues are raised, when proposals are made, and when votes are taken? Particularly given the fact that the proposal which we have adopted (I hope) specifies exact schedules for when proposals are to be solicited and when votes are to be taken. It's not a system which is much open to manipulation, particularly since we see all the traffic about proposing agenda items and submitting proposals (i.e., the executive collates it from traffic on the net and prepares a biweekly report). If the exec committee misses something, all it takes is the proposer of the agenda item or the submitter of the written proposal to raise the situation in front of all of us to get it fixed. Second, I think it unnecessarily restrictive to limit the GC to one agenda item, one proposal under discussion, and one proposal under voting at any given time. A number of our members digest the discussion and I expect would prefer to limit the number of times they have to post, which they would need do only once or twice in a week if there are multiple issues on the agenda. I also think that such a restriction carries some assumptions about the attention-span of GC members with which I fundamentally disagree. Third, I don't see that the amendment process needs to be nearly as complex as Arthur suggests. Our previous experience with both Arthur's proposal and mine was that reasonable friendly amendments were accepted as a matter of course. If there are truly serious disagreements over amendments, then we really do need to vote on each one individually. But that hasn't been our past experience and I don't see that it will happen all that often in the future. We have proven that we can work together thus far and I don't see the need to overbureaucratize the process. I suppose that my bottom line is that we need to elect a chairman and let the board know as soon as possible, in acordance with Edward's request. I don't think that we need another round of discussion of how we are going to get organized. We have a framework in my proposal and we have precedent to fill in any potential gaps. And we can change our minds if things don't work well. Let's not prepare for problems which have not yet reared their heads and discussion of which will delay our concretely getting a chairman. Let's work for a month or so under the system which we are on the verge of adopting and _then_ see if we need to tinker with it. Since Arthur appeared to offer to tally the chairman vote reluctantly, given the fact that he is a candidate (correct me if I have read that wrongly), I am entirely willing to do so. I have the relevant GC masterlist files to compile the lists of voting and not-voting. At present we have Arthur, Fiacha, Corwyn, and Tibor as candidates. The voting on my proposal will end at 2400 hrs. on Monday. I suggest that any other candidates who want to do so declare their candidacies by 2400 hrs. on Friday, Dec. 15. At that time, if there are no serious objections, voting for chairman will open and continue until 2400 hrs. Dec. 25, or all members have voted, which comes first. This will get us a chairman by the end of December, which is what Edward has repeatedly sought of us. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 11 06:05:51 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 05:43:13 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: hossiens proposal:chair and co chair selection Comments: To: Greg Rose To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512110444.XAA08807@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> I gave careful thought to the question and > came to conclusion that the most important thing is that the chairman > and his assistants can keep track of what they need to and can work > together easily. That's why I framed the proposal the way I did. The > idea of holding a three- or four-person election and then simply coopting > the top three vote-getters ignores the fact that someone may want to be > chairman, but not do the nitty-gritty work of the assistants, Accoriding to what you wrote, its *ALL* scut work, but how the scutwork is done *CAN* have an effect, and no group more than the SCA should know that title ("executive commitee") and position imply and can produce leadership even without specific power... >nor that > there may be abrasiveness between the assistants and the chairman. If > what we want is an efficient means of administratively keping track of what > we are doing, that is a recipe for disaster. There is much to what you say here, and you may be right. I can however foresee a perception , right or wrong, of the chair and cronies advancing an agenda. that percetion is going to cause problems. >It isn't a matter of factions; > what advantage does it give one faction over another to have it doing > the scut work of keeping track of when issues are raised, when proposals > are made, and when votes are taken? > Particularly given the fact that the > proposal which we have adopted (I hope) specifies exact schedules for > when proposals are to be solicited and when votes are to be taken. It's > not a system which is much open to manipulation, particularly since we > see all the traffic about proposing agenda items and submitting proposals > (i.e., the executive collates it from traffic on the net and prepares a > biweekly report). If the exec committee misses something, all it takes is > the proposer of the agenda item or the submitter of the written proposal > to raise the situation in front of all of us to get it fixed. Tracking when a 'topic' starts, especially with the free form agenda you propose will probably be a lot trickier ,subject to interpretation, AND argument than any of us will like. deciding what topics are SEPARATE may be tricky enough. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 11 06:32:52 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 06:10:31 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: I'd be happy with hossiens proposal if...(proposed ammendments) Comments: To: Greg Rose To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512110444.XAA08807@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Greg Rose wrote: > > Second, I think it unnecessarily restrictive to limit the GC to one agenda > item, one proposal under discussion, and one proposal under voting at > any given time. A number of our members digest the discussion and I expect > would prefer to limit the number of times they have to post, which they > would need do only once or twice in a week if there are multiple issues on > the agenda. I also think that such a restriction carries some assumptions > about the attention-span of GC members with which I fundamentally disagree. For the eight or ten GC members we see the most of , you are rigth. If you want more participationthatn that (?) , then you're goingto have to slow it down so less Net-bound folk can feel like they have a clue and can therefor add somthingreleventto the discussion... besides. one discussion topic in his crowd can, if brod enough, cover a lot of territory. I'd like to ammend my suggestion to allow voting on unlimited number of motions , just that they be related to the topic on the floor. > Third, I don't see that the amendment process needs to be nearly as complex > as Arthur suggests. Our previous experience with both Arthur's proposal > and mine was that reasonable friendly amendments were accepted as a matter > of course. If there are truly serious disagreements over amendments, then > we really do need to vote on each one individually. But that hasn't been > our past experience and I don't see that it will happen all that often in > the future. We have proven that we can work together thus far and I don't > see the need to overbureaucratize the process. pretty much all I said was 'if you change your motion, I want it posted clearly what changed when, AND i get five days to decide if I want to take my vote back' I'm getting a mite tired of being accused of 'overbeauracrtizing' for making simple, PRECISE suggestions. > I suppose that my bottom line is that we need to elect a chairman and let > the board know as soon as possible, in acordance with Edward's request. I > don't think that we need another round of discussion of how we are going to > get organized. We have a framework in my proposal and we have precedent to > fill in any potential gaps. And we can change our minds if things don't > work well. Let's not prepare for problems which have not yet reared their > heads and discussion of which will delay our concretely getting a chairman. > Let's work for a month or so under the system which we are on the verge of > adopting and _then_ see if we need to tinker with it. the feeling I keep getting from this is 'your concerns are irrelevant and wrong and my motion is going to pass anyway'. I feel like I'm riding a railroad. I dont like that feeling but I canlive with it because of this 'emergency get something to the board now' thats VERY ill timed. SOMEBODY should have stopped us cold to get organized A YEAR AGO. There are too different impulses here ONE says 'get organized' the other says 'GO NOW, GO! GO! GO!'. reachng for results too fast to take time to come to agreemnt had kept us from acheiving ANYTHING up to now, and once we have anything like a structure in place no one is going to want to take time out from our imporant work to address it. what we get now is probably what we've got to live with warts and all... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 11 10:35:36 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:58:27 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: need to co-operate To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L It appears that three main threads are going on at this time: (1) prodding >from Edward Z, (2) confusion of the vote for chairman, and (3) discussion of Hossein's proposal along with votes on it. (1) is fairly straightforward. (2) A brief replay (as I remember it) might help with the confusion. We had planned to vote for a chairman and Janna was going to tally. We were waiting until after the Oct. Board meeting--having heard that the GC might be discussed and what was said might be relevant to our vote. We also had requests that those volunteering for chair offer some sort of statement of what they planned to do (I hate to call it a platform). Fiacha did so and so did Arthur. Corwyn has not, and I don't recall any detailed statement from Tibor at that time. Arthur called for a vote on Procedure discussion and Edward Z also asked for more organization which put the leadership question on the back burner. Fiacha also said that Tibor was a running mate--which I at least interpreted as Tibor not running separately. Arthur and Fiacha have both reasserted their willingness to serve. 3. Hossein's proposal: The Council did spend time at the beginning discussing procedure; however much of what was decided was not enforced and some of it does not fit with the new list.serve format. On this issue, I do not think we have factions so much as varying sensibilities and we are not being specific enough in explaining them. I find Arthur's suggestions overly complicated, but I think the concerns he is addressing are valid and serious. (a) Number of threads going at one time: It is clear that people are having trouble keeping up with the discussion. It is not clear if this is because of the volume (so much mail to read) or the number of topics or the way individuals process their mail. Limiting the number of threads does not necessarily limit the volume of postings. Even if we are all talking about the same topic, individual points about that topic can get lost. Having someone keep track of the discussion and post summaries seems vital. Encouraging individuals to do the same on their own also seems wise (and once more, I suggest watching your subject lines to help your fellow members!) (b) Amendments: We have already seen a problem with members being confused by proposed amendments (parliamentary procedure and Hossein's proposal). What happens is a pyramid effect. A makes a proposal; B, C, and D suggest amendments; E comments on the original proposal, F comments on the proposal with B's amendment, G comments on D's amendment . . . etc. We should not assume that any amendment has been accepted unless it is reposted as accepted by the person who made the original proposal (as in the case of Hossein amending his proposal after Fleig's suggestions.) Each council member must accept responsibility for keeping suggested amendments and the original proposal separate and making it clear what he or she is commenting on. As Justin has pointed out, some of our discussion must be in a non-proposal format. Arthur's concern about how topics are defined by the executive committee is valid because what is picked up from the discussion for the summary would shape that discussion. I felt pretty rotten when the discussion ran off after vampires when I was trying to illustrate a more abstract problem about membership. Because we are not working with simple, cut-and-dried topics and because we do have different views of the ideal SCA, there will be this element of confusion. It cannot be solved by Council structure alone. We will not be able to find any way to serve the topics up in clear and easy format. Each member is going to have to work at it and we are going to have to cooperate--set aside our personal druthers out of respect for our fellows. Those people who like to hit the reply button need to stop and think if they have changed the subject. Personal suggestions should not be taken amiss--tell me if I am talking too much, my posts are too long, etc.--I will not take this as an attempt to suppress my view, but as a way to make it more user-friendly. Figure out your own best way to monitor the discussion: how to file postings so you can look back over the discussion; how to keep a log on particular threads. Someone needs to compare on-line discussion with the digest to catch any problems there. It takes some time to develop a personal system, but it saves time in the long run. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 11 12:33:47 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 12:06:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Hossains proposal vote change: yea Comments: cc: greg@bronze.lcs.mit.edu To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hmmm. for what it's worth, judging by the last vote tally, my vote change never got posted to the GC list. basically, what i said was that given the amendments, i could live with it. Plus, we DO need to decide somthing. So, change me to "yea" Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 11 13:25:25 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2140 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 12:54:03 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Alysoun: need to co-operate To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951211095826_69737159@mail04.mail.aol.com> from "Carole C. Roos" at Dec 11, 95 09:58:27 am Alysoun comments on three thread, Edward's note, the chairmanship election, and Hossein's proposals. I'd like to do the same. (1) I'm glad that Edward is turning up the heat. It might keep us from remaining a dilletante factory. (2) I think we can let the chairmanship issue rest, just as Hossein suggested. (3)(a) Alysoun wrote, about confusion and overload: "Number of threads going at one time: It is clear that people are having trouble keeping up with the discussion. It is not clear if this is because of the volume (so much mail to read) or the number of topics or the way individuals process their mail." It is not at all uncommon for people to keep up several threads at once on mailing lists, as well as having several mailing lists active at once. I think this is a red herring. The few minor points of confusion so far have been easily addressed. I doubt I am more adroit than most of our members, and I have been involved in at least a dozen threads at once, at times. (3)(b) Alysoun wrote about Amendments: "Each council member must accept responsibility for keeping suggested amendments and the original proposal separate and making it clear what he or she is commenting on." Agreed. "As Justin has pointed out, some of our discussion must be in a non-proposal format. Arthur's concern about how topics are defined by the executive committee is valid because what is picked up from the discussion for the summary would shape that discussion." Such organizational work would remain passive, however. You will note that well written commentary stays on track. Other doom-crying deleted, but suffice it to say: we will be no worse off than we are now, and quite a bit better. The confusion that seems prevalent is because Arthur, and others, seem to think of the Chairmanship as some kind of authority figure. This is, perhaps, a matter of nomenclature. I tend to think of it as more of janitorial services... I suspect it will be time-consuming, but hardly controlling, if the position simply keeps track of what has been raised for discussion, and what has been said. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 11 20:12:28 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 11 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 17:04:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Vote on Hossein's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This is a slightly dangerous vote for me because internet messages have been slow to reach me the last few days (mail delays internal to my network) and it may have been modified. I vote yes even though I think that one topic for discussion is plenty. regards, Sir Myrdin the Just Michael G. Potter From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 12 00:44:32 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 00:16:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The following is the final tally on my organizational proposal: AYE - 18 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Terras/Joseph Heck Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter NAY - 2 Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus ABSTAIN - 1 Gareth ap Tancred/Roy Gathercoal NOT YET VOTING - 16 John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The proposal, thus, passes. In order to implement its first provision, I would ask that any candidates other than Arthur, Corwyn, Fiacha or Tibor who wish to be on the ballot post notice of it here before Friday, Dec. 15 at 2400 hrs. At that time balloting can begin. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 12 04:15:06 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 15:17:27 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Hossains proposal vote change: yea Comments: To: CORWYN@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Corwyn, It's just a matter of time-lag in message distribution. I didn't get your message on my machine until after the last posted tally update. It will be noted on tonight's update. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 12 13:05:53 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 12:39:18 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Chair To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Modius... -- Justin >From: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 09:35:13 -0500 >Subject: Chair Greetings GCers. Thanks to Alysoun for putting together the periodic summary on what we have on tap. Also, to those who were there at Pensic. We were told what we were to do by our BoD liason. WHen he posted his suggestion we should have taken it as our marching orders. Let us do so now. Also, I vote for Fiacha for chair and Arthur Dent as assistant chair. In regards tochair. I propose that a simple vote be able to remove the Chair if necessary. Now that we have voted on our org how bout considering the topic I laid on the floor, centralization vs. decentralization? -Modius (modius@dobharchu.org) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 12 22:12:04 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 09:46:05 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Responses To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Modius... -- Justin >From: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 95 15:03:56 -0500 >Subject: Responses Greetings Fellow GCers. My thoughts on some ongoing discussions. Yes to Caroline' proposal on how to structure reports. Yest to Dents facilitator proposal (ie most votes becomes facilitator, second most - assistant factl. etc.). NONONONONONONONONONO to a single topic discussion format!!!! -Modius (modius@dobharchu.org) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 12 22:47:46 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 22:21:03 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: I'd be happy with hossiens proposal if...(proposed ammendments) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 95-12-11 00:00:54 EST, you write: >. I also think that such a restriction carries some assumptions >about the attention-span of GC members with which I fundamentally disagree. > I must agree with Arthur, it seems obviousthat peopleare not following the way proposals are made, discussed and voted on. It is either that or they don't give a damn. Procdure can be very critical. If we required 51% of the GC members to pass Hosseins plan it would be very far from passing. Count the votes... >Third, I don't see that the amendment process needs to be nearly as complex >as Arthur suggests. Our previous experience with both Arthur's proposal >and mine was that reasonable friendly amendments were accepted as a matter >of course. If there are truly serious disagreements over amendments, then >we really do need to vote on each one individually. But that hasn't been >our past experience and I don't see that it will happen all that often in >the future. We have proven that we can work together thus far and I don't >see the need to overbureaucratize the process. > We have proven that we can not work together. The level of input is disastrous. What have we successfully agreed on? What is this silent majority? Is this what we need to advise the BoD? That even we hand picked volunteers don't care? I suggest polling those who have not been voting find out what the problem is. Then we can address the problems we have in house. On the other hand, I have zero problem with a chair being selected. Hopefully this will give some structure and impetus. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 12 23:13:37 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 22:44:09 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: I'd be happy with hossiens ..(proposed ammendments) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I second arthur's proposed ammendment of 12/10 Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 12 23:33:38 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 22:58:38 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: I'd be happy with hossiens proposal if...(proposed ammendments) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Magnus writes: >I must agree with Arthur, it seems obviousthat peopleare not following the >way proposals are made, discussed and voted on. It is either that or they >don't give a damn. Procdure can be very critical. If we required 51% of the >GC members to pass Hosseins plan it would be very far from passing. Count >the votes... I have counted the votes. 18 votes for the proposal are 48.65 percent of the thirty-seven current members of the GC and 45.00 percent of the original forty. It requires one further vote with 37 members (i.e., 2.7% per vote) for an absolute majority of 52.35 percent. It requires three further votes with 40 members (i.e., 2.5% per vote) for an absolute majority of 52.5 percent. 1-3 votes of 37-40 is not by any arithmetic by which I am familiar "very far from passing." >We have proven that we can not work together. The level of input is >disastrous. >What have we successfully agreed on? What is this silent majority? Is this >what we need to advise the BoD? That even we hand picked volunteers don't >care? I don't have the foggiest clue how to make the GC more salient to the non-participating appointees. I suspect that, in some cases, when the Board asked the Crowns to make nominations, the people nominated were more often doing a favor for the king than actually volunteering a serious time investment. We seem to have a core of 20-25 people who care about working on the GC and are able to work together reasonably well. I wish to God there were more, but I don't think it has to do much with how the GC internally organizes itself, since the apathy was there since the beginning. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 12 23:37:55 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 23:08:38 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Amending Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein. Less than 24 hours ago an organizational proposal was passed. We are about to vote on the chairmanship. If Arthur and Magnus want amendments to the organizational proposal, I am certain that whoever is elected chairman will conduct a vote on it. However, there is a serious point I would like to raise here. We have barely gotten an organizational structure in place and already there are calls to change it. If we are not to become bogged down in round after round of fine-tuning (to the exclusion of any substantive work), I believe strongly that we should operate a month or two under the procedures we just adopted before we start entertaining motions to amend them. That will at least give us an empirical basis for judging what needs to be fixed and what doesn't. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 13 03:53:43 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 03:25:45 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Not a candidate, really, really, really To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hi all. I was catching up on the GC mail, and I was horrified to discover that I'm still listed as a candidate. I'm not. My original inclusion was due to an earlier offer to help Caroline out, and I kind of got included in the list of candidates from there on out. When the election issues came up last month, I didn't send in a position statement because I didn't want to be considered, not because I was not following thru. I guess that wasn't clear. I'm taking a mini academic semi hemi demi sabbatical to get several papers and grants submitted, and between that and my other commitments, I would be unable to give the position appropriate attention, which I think it DESPERATELY needs. Thanks for your consideration, and to those who encouraged me ! Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 13 06:42:26 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 11:55:22 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Amending Organizational Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >... I believe strongly that we should >operate a month or two under the procedures we just adopted before we >start entertaining motions to amend them. That will at least give us an >empirical basis for judging what needs to be fixed and what doesn't. I'll second that. Isn't there some saying about the best being the enemy=20 of the good?=20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 13 10:26:03 1995 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 06:45:54 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Voting and such. (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Jean-Louis Vifran, ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 12:17:14 -0800 (PST) From: Luxueil To: Nigel Haslock Subject: Voting and such. Fiacha, I would like the Grand Council to consider modified voting structures. It strikes me that while consensus might be the best path of decision making, it is unlikely going to be reachable on many of the issues that the GC should consider. Some sort of tallying of GC member=92s thoughts seems to be necessary.=20 One of the problems with simple yes/no voting is that it doesn'=92t measure depth of agreement/opposition. A system based upon a -5 to +5 vote would allow the vote to be a closer approximation of what the GC felt, as well as allowing a neutral (0) vote, although it would still be countable as yeas (+) and nays (-). A system such as this might be better suited for proposals under consideration, whereas a simple yes/no vote (2/3 majority?) might be best for procedural questions such as whether to submit various proposals to the Board. (In other cases a simple plurality might be best, such as a vote for chairman etc.) One thing such a voting system doesn'=92t do well is to allow amendments on the fly, as, if they are effective amendments, they would likely make most of the previously cast votes change; it strikes me just as easy to start a fresh vote the following week. Also this will encourage proposals to be initially better composed.=20 It strikes me that there might be several competing proposals, and that they should be considered one final time prior to, or as a means of choosing which one(s) to submit to the Corporation. In this case having people actually rank them as to their preference, might serve useful.=20 I think that voting in these cases is a pretty trivial thing, as it is essentially expressing a very brief opinion. I think that voting should be relatively mandatory (abstentions would be allowed), and that GC members who fail to vote over a given period (6 weeks?) should be considered to have resigned.=20 For clarity, proposals subject to voting should be numbered. Also, voters should be required to respond directly to the person tallying them via private (e)mail, rather than the tally person having to collect them out=20 of general posts. I hope some of this helps, Jean Louis de Chambertin jlv@halcyon.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Blessed are those of us who can laugh at ourselves, for we shall never=20 cease to be amused. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 13 13:40:57 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 32 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 08:40:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Participation and moving along To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Magnus said: >What is this silent majority? Is this what we need to advise the BoD? That >even we hand picked volunteers don't care? This is too sweeping. The problem is obviously that people signed up not knowing exactly what they were getting into. In fact, none of us did. Keeping up with the bare outlines of our not-yet-fruitful discussions has turned out to be a rather difficult job. Consider what has happened -- about a 50% dropout rate -- just another stage of the selection process. People have selected themselves out of active participation. >I suggest polling those who have not been voting find out what the problem >is. Then we can address the problems we have in house. Why waste our time? Will we give them computers and free time on-line if that's the problem? Will we give them a paid leave of absence from work if that's the problem? Will we do up Corwyn's grant proposals so he can do more GC stuff? We can't, in fact, do anything except talk with the people who want to talk. Let's get on with it. I am against any changes in Hossein's proposal at this time. As I've said before, I consider the "strictures" of his structures merely markers to indicate where we are in our discussion, and the chair position as a traffic manager's job. Let's get our traffic manager and get on with it. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 13 20:31:12 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:14:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Fiacha for Chair: Yea To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl. It does seem as if there was no real announcement of the start of voting for a chair, but as it seems to have started anyway, I will place my vote for Fiacha. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 13 20:56:14 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 20:23:56 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Fiacha for Chair: Yea To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In the announcement of the final tally on my proposal I suggested that I would begin tallying votes for chair on Friday, Dec. 15. If people want to begin voting earlier, I have kept record of votes already expressed and can begin posting tallies this evening. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 14 01:10:20 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:37:43 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Since people are already voting (and I am concerned about votes being misplaced if not tallied immediately), it makes sense to open the balloting for chairman now. Since Corwyn has withdrawn, there are three candidates. As of today, I have received the following votes for chairman: FOR ARTHUR THE DENTED/ARTHUR DENT - 0 FOR FIACHA MACNEILL/NIGEL HASLOCK - 5 Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose FOR TIBOR OF ROCK VALLEY/MARK SCHULDENFREI - 0 NOT YET VOTING - 32 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos Terras/Joseph Heck Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Gareth ap Tancred/Roy Gathercoal John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The voting will continue until 2400 hrs., 12/25/95, or everyone has voted, whichever comes first. Postal members can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278 or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every day until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 14 02:45:37 1995 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, 14 Dec 1995 02:22:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L it doesn't matter to me which of the three candidates becomes head honcho, so can i vote either 1/3 for each, or once for each, or go ahead and abstain? (this goes in the "as long as we have someone up there" category) alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 14 03:13:32 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 02:51:18 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alban, Under the organizational structure we adopted we have decided to elect a chairman. That means one vote for a candidate. We've operated on the principle "one man-one vote." I'd take it as a favor if you'd make a decision and vote for one, since tallying fractional votes is an unncessary complication and I can't give you any more votes than anyone else here. Or abstain, if you prefer. Just, please, don't complicate a job I volunteered for. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 14 04:51:32 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:52:25 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Fiacha for chairman To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I vote for Fiacha as chariman of the GC. /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 14 17:57:38 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1076 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:06:51 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512140537.AAA11714@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> from "Greg Rose" at Dec 14, 95 00:37:43 am Hossein wrote: Since people are already voting (and I am concerned about votes being misplaced if not tallied immediately), it makes sense to open the balloting for chairman now. Since Corwyn has withdrawn, there are three candidates. I'd like to withdraw my name from the running, and throw what little weight I have firmly behind Fiacha. I feel that the amount of time that chairmanship would call for, would interfere with my ability to do actual research and work for the GC. Furthermore, the requirement that a Chairman should appear fair minded, would hamper my willingness to engage is some of the exchanges that add to our ability to examine all sides of an issue. Finally, my mis-handling of the Tax Status letter (both the clumsy way it was written, and the clumsy way I introduced it) detract from my credibility as a Chairman. I would ask anyone that might have considered voting for me, to vote for Fiacha instead. I have every faith in his ability to follow through, and to work well with others. And, Hossein, please tally my vote for him. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 14 19:15:13 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 18:40:31 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Vote for chair To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I vote for Fiacha as chair. Alysoun From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 14 19:18:58 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal Approved-By: Marci Haw Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:19:08 -0500 Reply-To: MarciH@medicine.dmed.iupui.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Marci Haw Organization: IU Department of Medicine Subject: Chair Vote & Moving Along To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I will support Fiacha for chair. As to changes and admendments to Hossein's Proposal. I will stand with Finvarr on this one. We need to get moving on the work we were charged with doing. Hossein's proposal is at least a place to start, lets use it as a benchmark. If we find something to be annoying or better way to do something lets look at implementing it after we've had some practical experience. I will not support changes to our working structure until we have at least tried with what we have. John of Sternfeld From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 14 19:44:58 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 13:27:13 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Participation and moving along To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr writes: >Will we do up Corwyn's grant proposals so he can do more >GC stuff? Gosh, thanks for the offer, but I've got that covered.... >We can't, in fact, do anything except talk with the people who want to talk. >Let's get on with it. Just so you all know I wasn't resigning, just intentionally declining to be overcomitted. I'm still here...so, yes, lets get on with it. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 14 19:54:37 1995 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, 14 Dec 1995 19:16:47 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L in the vote for chairman, i officially abstain. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 14 20:31:04 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:00:06 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Since Tibor has withdrawn his candidacy, we have two candidates for chairman. As of today, I have received the following votes for chairman: FOR ARTHUR THE DENTED/ARTHUR DENT - 0 FOR FIACHA MACNEILL/NIGEL HASLOCK - 9 Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos John of Sternfeld/John Elmore ABSTAIN - 1 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein NOT YET VOTING - 27 Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Terras/Joseph Heck Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Gareth ap Tancred/Roy Gathercoal Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The voting will continue until 2400 hrs., 12/25/95, or everyone has voted, whichever comes first. Postal members can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278 or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every day until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 15 12:33:15 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:54:29 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512150100.UAA19759@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> (message from Greg Rose on Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:00:06 -0500) Hmm. All right, I'll toss in a vote for Fiacha as well... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "`I must carry this burden myself!' said Jesus crossly." -- Thant Tessman From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 15 12:38:55 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 4 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 12:00:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Vote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I vote for Arthur. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 15 13:51:14 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 13:26:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I vote for Fiacha. This bit is for the candidates: do you have any thoughts about who your seconds will be ? Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 15 14:03:12 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 13:28:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L "`I must carry this burden myself!' said Jesus crossly." -- Thant Tessman Ohboy. Biblical Tom swifities. Well, I know some people at my work who are going to regret that you had this in your sig.:) Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 15 22:35:43 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 22:13:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Seminfinal Tally:ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=13 No=12 Abstain=3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511300647.BAA25077@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> er... have you checked the posting marked "FINAL TALLY", which occured after the non-meber mess was straigthend out?. I see no reason to reopen the vote on this, I suspect it will be countermanded by another one-day-wonder-vote or merely ignored in the stampede, but reopend, No. Arthur ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 15 22:40:20 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 22:16:41 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: REPOST:FINAL Tally:ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=11 No=10 Abstain=2 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 08:27:28 -0500 From: arthur dent To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Subject: FINAL Tally:ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=11 No=10 Abstain=2 AYE:11 --------------------------------- Arthur The Dented :11/06/95 Janna Span/Caitrin:11/06/95 Chuck Hack/Serwyl :11/06/95 Alyson/carol Roose:11/07/95 Alban St Alban :11/09/95 Justin :11/09/95 Finvarr :11/11/95 John of Sternfield:11/11/95 Magnus :11/11/95 Kyle kincora1@aol :11/21/95 Bart Orbons :11/28/95 NAY:10 -------------------------------- Frederick of Holland:11/06/95 Hossien :11/06/95 Cariadoc/David :11/07/95 Sven Noren/Frithiof :11/07/95 Joseph Heck :11/07/95 Corwyn :11/09/95 Tibor :11/09/95 Eichling :11/11/95 Bertrum :11/11/95 Fiacha :11/27/95 ABSTAIN:2 -------------------------------- Proxy for Isabeau of the wild wood:11/09/95 roy gathercoal :11/21/95 (faicha changed his vote on the 21st from yeah to nay) (another member requested to change thier vote from Nay to Yeah, but after the polls closed (declined but thank you...)) -----------------OCT 8 GC ORG PROPOSAL AS AMMENDED----------------------- I motion that *THE* topic on the floor of the Grand Council From December 1 to December 31 1995 be grand council procedure, organizations, etc. To include discrete procedures for 1) placing a topic on the floor of the GC and both focusing discussion upon it and limiting the length of that discussion 2) closing an item of discussion with an official GC position 'and disenting positions' '3) determining necessary offices (Secretary, facilitator etc), a means of Filling and vacating those offices, and determining thier duties and minimum performance.' '4) that voting on this measure be closed on Noveber 28th and results be determined by a simple majority of votes recieved by that date' From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 15 22:49:28 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 22:24:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Seminfinal Tally:ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=13 No=12 Abstain=3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Arthur, I just received a message referring to your rejection of a reopening of a vote. There isn't enough context in the message to know about what you are writing. Was this meant for the GC list as a whole? If so, please let us know what you're talking about. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 16 05:37:21 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 05:14:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As of today, I have received the following votes for chairman: FOR ARTHUR THE DENTED/ARTHUR DENT - 1 Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger FOR FIACHA MACNEILL/NIGEL HASLOCK - 11 Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa ABSTAIN - 1 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein NOT YET VOTING - 24 Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Terras/Joseph Heck Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys Gareth ap Tancred/Roy Gathercoal Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The voting will continue until 2400 hrs., 12/25/95, or everyone has voted, whichever comes first. Postal members can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278 or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every day until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 16 18:42:56 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 18:16:39 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Seminfinal Tally:ARTHUR:10/08 Yes=13 No=12 Abstain=3 Comments: To: Greg Rose To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199511300647.BAA25077@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> BELIEVE IT OR NOT: this message got to me YESTEREDAY... some funky stuff is happening on the net, or with ourlist. this is 15 days old and just showed up in my inbox on the 14th... I'm responding to Hossiens understandably puzzled note regareding my reply to a note of his I recieved half a month LATE.... I'll read the headers more carefully in the future, but any one who thinks this is an instantaneous media, and that a week is a long time can take note and wonder.... On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Greg Rose wrote: > Greetings from Hossein. > > There is a problem with the vote on Arthur's motion. I > have compared the listed votes to the GC Masterlist > which Justin, our secretary, circulated when we went > over to the listserver. Two persons who are not listed > as GC members are counted as voting for the motion, two > who are not listed as GC members are counted as voting > against the motion. One not listed as a GC member is > recorded as abstaining. That gives the motion a > majority with 11 ayes, 10 nays, 3 abstentions, and 17 not > voting. Since 42.5 percent of our colleagues have not > voted, I strongly suggest keeping the balloting open at > least until 2400 hrs., Monday, Dec. 4 to give them one > final chance to vote. If that is not acceptable, I can > live with the motion passing by one vote. > > Hossein/Greg > > THE REVISED TOTALS ARE: > > REVISED TOTAL, AYE:11 > --------------------------------- > Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys > Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne > Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack > Alyson de Ros/Carole C. Roos > Alban St Albans/Edward Eisenstein > Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks > Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger > John of Sternfeld/John Elmore > Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus > Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith > Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons > > LISTED AS VOTING AYE, BUT NOT ON GC MASTERLIST: > Bruce erikson :11/28/95 > Chiara Francesca Arianna D'Onofro:11/28/95 > > REVISED TOTAL, NAY:10 > -------------------------------- > Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander > Hossein Ali Qomi/Gregory F. Rose > Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman > Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren > Terras/Joseph Heck > Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa > Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei > Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault > Bertram of Bearington/P. David Schroeder > Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock > > LISTED AS VOTING NAY, BUT NOT ON GC MASTERLIST: > Duncan Macconacher of Dunheath:11/28/95 > Rhian Ferch Muirgheal:11/28/95 > > > REVISED TOTAL, ABSTAIN: 2 > -------------------------------- > Proxy for Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh > Gareth ap Tancred/Roy Gathercoal > > LISTED AS ABSTAINING, BUT NOT ON GC MASTERLIST: > Dierdre O'faighetaigh of Ansteorra:11/28/95 > > TOTAL, GC MEMBERS NOT VOTING: 17 > --------------------------------- > Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear > Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox > Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price > Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith > Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom > Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson > Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner > Galen Eadwin Kirchenbauer/Galen Bevel > Gyrth Oldcastle/Gerald O'Leary > Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews > Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans > Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter > Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg > Olaf Askoldssonn/Charles Curtis > Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart > Sarah/Karen Penn > Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Dec 17 05:28:08 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 02:00:44 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: vote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I wish to abstain. By the way, my SCA name is Gareth Tancred Wilfrith Not a big deal, but there might be an ap Tancred out there somewhere. . . Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Dec 17 05:30:19 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 05:07:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As of today, I have received the following votes for chairman: FOR ARTHUR THE DENTED/ARTHUR DENT - 1 Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger FOR FIACHA MACNEILL/NIGEL HASLOCK - 11 Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa ABSTAIN - 2 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Gareth Tancred Wilfrith/Roy Gathercoal NOT YET VOTING - 23 Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Terras/Joseph Heck Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The voting will continue until 2400 hrs., 12/25/95, or everyone has voted, whichever comes first. Postal members can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278 or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every day until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Dec 17 08:43:13 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: David Schroeder Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 08:15:24 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Schroeder Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Okay, sorry for the delay.... sign me up as a vote for Fiacha. Many thanks -- Bertram From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 18 00:50:39 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 00:22:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: a itty bitty vote: To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: what the heck I,ll be the other vote for me... Arthur, Who believes the current fastrack faction will result in a lot of the "would love to participate but dont feel I can keep up and intelligently contribute at this pace" GC members giving up, if they havent already, and hopes this is only a by product of haste and not one of its purposes... ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 18 01:44:27 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 01:23:29 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As of today, I have received the following votes for chairman: FOR ARTHUR THE DENTED/ARTHUR DENT - 2 Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys FOR FIACHA MACNEILL/NIGEL HASLOCK - 13 Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder ABSTAIN - 2 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Gareth Tancred Wilfrith/Roy Gathercoal NOT YET VOTING - 20 Terras/Joseph Heck Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The voting will continue until 2400 hrs., 12/25/95, or everyone has voted, whichever comes first. Postal members can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278 or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every day until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 18 09:52:44 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 08:20:43 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Morgan to Magnus and Finnvarr re: Dropouts (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > From 72672.2312@compuserve.com Wed Dec 13 13:18:54 1995 > Date: 13 Dec 95 14:19:49 EST > From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> > To: Grand Council Discussion Group > Subject: Morgan to Magnus and Finnvarr re: Dropouts > Message-ID: <951213191948_72672.2312_FHP57-1@CompuServe.COM> > > Weighing in again: > > I agree with Finnvarr that some people may be self-selecting off the GC by not > voting. However, you should check with them, and if replacement is necessary, > take that action. There should be a mechanism for people to indicate that they > are not able to participate (three have formally resigned, or attempted to, > correct?) but those who are simply not voting need not be kicked off. Some may > have very good reasons for not voting, either now or at a future time. > > Magnus, you must remember that some people have good reasons for not voting at > this time: travel away from the computer, finals, illness. Others are members > who don't have email and therefore are not on this list, so their votes will be > delayed until they get the hardcopy and respond to the tallyier. > > Off to buy candy canes, > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 18 10:11:28 1995 Return-Path: X-Openmail-Hops: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="Message text" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@NPD.COM Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:24:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com Subject: Isabeau's Proposal & Master Topic List To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Yule Greetings GCers! No to Isabeaus ammended proposal (I do not support limiting topics) I propose we each post at leat three topics we want to focus on. This will give us an idea on where our individual heads are. Let's then complile a master list of topics and use this as a starting point. -Modius (modius@dobharchu.org) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 18 10:31:04 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:07:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Morgan to Magnus and Finnvarr re: Dropouts (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512181420.IAA223446@black.missouri.edu> from "Joseph Heck" at Dec 18, 95 08:20:43 am Morgan sent us: There should be a mechanism for people to indicate that they are not able to participate (three have formally resigned, or attempted to, correct?) but those who are simply not voting need not be kicked off. >From the original charter: Should a member not participate in GC discussions for a period of two consecutive months, the member will be reminded of his or her non- participation by the communications coordinator. At that time, the member will be given the option to resign from the Council. Two such periods of non-communication will result in replacement. I don't know if Justin has been doing that part of the job. I know I wasn't active for a two month period, and I heard nothing. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 18 12:40:56 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:11:04 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: GC Chairman Vote:Flieg To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I vote for Fiacha * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ================== Old Used Duke ================= [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Dec 18 20:24:36 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 11:25:07 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Morgan to Magnus and Finnvarr re: Dropouts (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512181507.KAA09699@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:07:05 -0500) Tibor points out, from the GC charter: > Should a member not participate in GC discussions for a period of two > consecutive months, the member will be reminded of his or her non- > participation by the communications coordinator. At that time, the > member will be given the option to resign from the Council. Two such > periods of non-communication will result in replacement. Hmm. Y'know, I had totally forgotten about that. While I was putting the Chronicle together by hand, that was occupying most of my attention, and along the way I simply forgot that I *had* this particular responsibility. Of course, things have changed a fair bit since the Charter was written; we should think about whether that affects this provision. I suspect not, though -- this still seems like a reasonable idea, given that the point of the Council is to serve as a think-tank. Opinions? Do people think we should start enforcing this? While I'm mundanely busier than I used to be, I can probably manage this, since I no longer need to assemble the Chronicles themselves... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "and in the beginning there was nothing and then god said "let there be light" and there was still nothing. but you could see it." -- mark pfaff From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 19 01:54:56 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 01:26:51 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As of today, I have received the following votes for chairman: FOR ARTHUR THE DENTED/ARTHUR DENT - 2 Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys FOR FIACHA MACNEILL/NIGEL HASLOCK - 14 Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander ABSTAIN - 2 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Gareth Tancred Wilfrith/Roy Gathercoal NOT YET VOTING - 19 Terras/Joseph Heck Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The voting will continue until 2400 hrs., 12/25/95, or everyone has voted, whichever comes first. Postal members can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278 or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every day until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 19 05:19:52 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:07:55 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Morgan to Magnus and Finnvarr re: Dropouts (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >> Should a member not participate in GC discussions for a period of two >> consecutive months, ... > >Opinions? Do people think we should start enforcing this?=20 Yes. Or something along those lines, maybe giving people a chance to be=20 passive for a while and come back. ("I'm finishing my thesis right now, so= =20 I won't be very active for the next three months, but I'll be back then."=20 In which situation it may not be too much work to say "abstain" when we're= =20 having a vote.) It's a bad thing if people just sit around and say nothing, not even to vot= e=20 - someone more interested and less busy may be willing to take their seat. Let it be a part of our "new order" and a job for the chairman or his=20 deputy, or whoever they appoint. /Catrin =20 Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 19 08:28:29 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 13:55:57 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Frithiofs' chairman vote: Fiacha To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Please tally my vote for Fiacha as chairman of the GC. Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 19 10:22:57 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 220 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 08:26:39 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Abstain vote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I abstain Terras -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 19 12:32:20 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 12:06:24 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Replacements To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Magnus... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 09:44:44 -0600 >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Replacements At 10:07 AM 12/19/95 +0100, you wrote: >>> Should a member not participate in GC discussions for a period of two >>> consecutive months, ... >> >>Opinions? Do people think we should start enforcing this? > > I agree! The question could also be. "Should we have any rules?" or "Should we ignore the rules and instructions we have and run things however we feel like without accountability? If we are to be taken with any seriousness or respect I think we must. If the Communications director, or Chair or whoevere wishes to elicit excuses and/or participation before it comes to this point, then all the better. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 19 16:39:53 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CAROL L SMITH Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 14:35:35 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: CAROL L SMITH Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I abstain. Caroline Forbes of Oxfordshire From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 19 18:02:10 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 17:31:46 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Morgan to Magnus and Finnvarr re: Dropouts To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Bertrik... -- Justin >From: Bart Orbons >Subject: Re: Morgan to Magnus and Finnvarr re: Dropouts >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 22:01:08 +0100 (MET) >In-Reply-To: <9512181625.AA21704@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Dec > 18, 95 11:25:07 am Justin Wrote on this list, concerning the subject of dropouts... > Of course, things have changed a fair bit since the Charter was written; > we should think about whether that affects this provision. I suspect not, > though -- this still seems like a reasonable idea, given that the point > of the Council is to serve as a think-tank. > > Opinions? Do people think we should start enforcing this? While I'm Yes, as one of the not active participants for a while (a way too large backlog due to holidays and studies) I think we should try to maintain this standard. We should try to get people actively participating in the discussions... The more discussion on a subject, the better it cristalises to the best sollution... The four month timelimit might maybe smoothened up somewhat... That the person involved gets another reminder that he is ideling away from the list... And whether he wants to continue his membership... And after no respons to that mailing... I would remove him/her from the active list. Oh well.. Just my thoughts... Bertrik -- Bart Orbons orbons@pi.net From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 20 04:25:16 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 01:30:29 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As of today, I have received the following votes for chairman: FOR ARTHUR THE DENTED/ARTHUR DENT - 2 Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys FOR FIACHA MACNEILL/NIGEL HASLOCK - 15 Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren ABSTAIN - 4 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Gareth Tancred Wilfrith/Roy Gathercoal Terras/Joseph Heck Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith NOT YET VOTING - 16 Terras/Joseph Heck Isabeau of the Wylde Woode/Angie Eves-Welsh Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The voting will continue until 2400 hrs., 12/25/95, or everyone has voted, whichever comes first. Postal members can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278 or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every day until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 20 09:49:18 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 09:29:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: Revised GC posting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 95-11-30 17:34:25 EST, you write: > In my opinion, the central part of the organization should > be kept poor and should focus on performing a minimal set > of tasks that are best done centrally. A great many > obstacles should be put in place of the central organization > trying to increase membership dues, add functions, assume > new responsibilities, and so on, to avoid over-bureaucratization. > > I must agree that this is my opinion also. Perhaps a good general position for us to investigate amongst ourselves. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 20 10:05:24 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 209 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 09:45:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512200630.BAA29614@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> from "Greg Rose" at Dec 20, 95 01:30:29 am Greetings from Tibor. I've notified Greg that he forgot to remove the two newest abstentions from the not-voted list. The counts and other data are correct. (Yes, I have been shadowing the voting.) Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 20 13:08:41 1995 Return-Path: X-Openmail-Hops: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="Message text" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@NPD.COM Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:12:45 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com Subject: Replacements To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I propose we stop chatting about replacing GC members (either inactive or have resigned). Let the Chairman deal with this issue working in conjunction with the BoD GC liason or have Justin deal with it. Let's get to work people! If our group is smaller than our max number, so be it. -Modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 20 13:59:32 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 13:26:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I have been assuming that the headers on most machines show the date. Is this an erroneous assumption? Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 20 15:17:03 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 367 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:48:47 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512201826.NAA06395@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> from "Greg Rose" at Dec 20, 95 01:26:17 pm Hossein wrote: I have been assuming that the headers on most machines show the date. Is this an erroneous assumption? [This is in reply to private mail, where I suggested he date each message.] On most machines they do. CC:Mail is teaching me not to make any assumptions that a mail reader has to be useful to be installed, however. Tibor (Note, no smiley) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 20 18:35:25 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:49:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As of today, I have received the following votes for chairman: FOR ARTHUR THE DENTED/ARTHUR DENT - 2 Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys FOR FIACHA MACNEILL/NIGEL HASLOCK - 15 Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren ABSTAIN - 5 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Gareth Tancred Wilfrith/Roy Gathercoal Terras/Joseph Heck Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Isabeau of the Wylde Wood/Angie Eves-Welsh NOT YET VOTING - 15 Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The voting will continue until 2400 hrs., 12/25/95, or everyone has voted, whichever comes first. Postal members can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278 or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every day until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 21 08:47:24 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 00:12:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As of today, I have received the following votes for chairman: FOR ARTHUR THE DENTED/ARTHUR DENT - 3 Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter FOR FIACHA MACNEILL/NIGEL HASLOCK - 15 Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren ABSTAIN - 5 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Gareth Tancred Wilfrith/Roy Gathercoal Terras/Joseph Heck Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Isabeau of the Wylde Wood/Angie Eves-Welsh NOT YET VOTING - 14 Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby The voting will continue until 2400 hrs., 12/25/95, or everyone has voted, whichever comes first. Postal members can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278 or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every day until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 21 08:47:38 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 6 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 13:53:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Voting for Chairman To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Since I know Arthur and have some sense of who I'm voting for, I'm casting my vote for Arthur for chairman. Sir Myrdin the Just Michael G. Potter From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 21 10:38:11 1995 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 07:08:42 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Morgan to Magnus and Finnvarr re: Dropouts (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9512181625.AA21704@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Mark Waks wrote: > Tibor points out, from the GC charter: > > Should a member not participate in GC discussions for a period of two > > consecutive months, the member will be reminded of his or her non- > > participation by the communications coordinator. At that time, the > > member will be given the option to resign from the Council. Two such > > periods of non-communication will result in replacement. > > Hmm. Y'know, I had totally forgotten about that. > > Opinions? Do people think we should start enforcing this? > > -- Justin I do think that we should start enforcing this but I think we need to sort out how we pick the replacements first. Should we reconstitute the appointments committee? Does anyone have any better ideas? Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 21 14:50:58 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 11:55:51 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: GC chairman vote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Titus (via Kevin)... -- Justin >From: clarkd@holly.ColoState.EDU (Dennis Clark) >Subject: GC chairman vote >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:09:46 -0700 (MST) Kevin here for Sir Titus, Titus notes that you have lost membership because people have real work to do and this council has done nothing but spin wheels and those out there without internet access can't spin as fast as those who do. But he will vote for Fiacha "to light a candle rather than curse the darkness", and get this group moving forward. Kevin (for Titus, who may soon get net access without proxy) -- ========================================================================== | Dennis Clark clarkd@holly.colostate.edu | | Be well, do good work, and stay in touch -- Garrison Keillor | ========================================================================== From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 21 15:40:42 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 15:11:31 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Vote for chair To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Brian... -- Justin >Subject: Vote for chair >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 09:42:02 -0800 >From: Guy Cox I vote for Fiacha as chair. Brian O'Seabac From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 21 15:50:40 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 11 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 15:12:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Replacements To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I don't think *intensive* interaction with this list is necessary for continued membership. However, some kind of show of interest and awareness is necessary. On the other hand, I wonder if bringing in replacements at this stage would be useful. Anyone else have a thought on this? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 21 17:13:54 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 350 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 16:43:55 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Replacements To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <30D9EB97@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Dec 21, 95 03:12:00 pm Finnvarr asked: On the other hand, I wonder if bringing in replacements at this stage would be useful. Anyone else have a thought on this? I'd like to see us do as well as we can with whomever we have, and then work forward from there. Bringing in other people as the workload requires. I would hope that we could remain flexible. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 21 18:28:48 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 17:39:46 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Replacements To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Michael... -- Justin >Date: Thu 21 Dec 1995 16:20 CT >From: UDSD007@DSIBM.OKLADOT.STATE.OK.US (Mike.Andrews ) >Subject: Re: Replacements Tibor wrote: > Finnvarr asked: > On the other hand, I wonder if bringing in replacements at this stage woul > be useful. > > Anyone else have a thought on this? > > I'd like to see us do as well as we can with whomever we have, and then work > forward from there. Bringing in other people as the workload requires. I > would hope that we could remain flexible. Yes. I suspect Brooks' Law (from _The Mythical Man-Month_) applies: "Adding programmers to a late software project only makes it later." While this is not programming, I don't think that we've set any record for speed of action, and I hesitate to try to bring others in and up (or down) to speed at this late date. On the gripping hand, however, if our charter requires it, then we should do it or present a truly compelling reason to the BOD for _not_ doing it. -- udsd007@dsibm.okladot.state.ok.us Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews) Namron, Ansteorra Pray, I beseech you, for the repose of the soul of Kathleen Anna Young Lister, once known as Baroness Caitlin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 21 19:32:53 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 19:05:30 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: GC Chairman Vote: Tally Update To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As of today, I have received the following votes for chairman: FOR ARTHUR THE DENTED/ARTHUR DENT - 3 Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter FOR FIACHA MACNEILL/NIGEL HASLOCK - 17 Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby ABSTAIN - 5 Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Gareth Tancred Wilfrith/Roy Gathercoal Terras/Joseph Heck Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Isabeau of the Wylde Wood/Angie Eves-Welsh NOT YET VOTING - 12 Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn The voting will continue until 2400 hrs., 12/25/95, or everyone has voted, whichever comes first. Postal members can vote by mail to me at: 95 Varga Rd., #231, Ashford, CT 06278 or by telephone at (203) 429-8178). I will post vote tally updates every day until voting is closed. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 21 19:51:42 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 13 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 19:22:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: disadvantages of replacements To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >On the gripping hand, however, if our charter requires it, then we >should do it or present a truly compelling reason to the BOD for >_not_ doing it. If only all of our problems were so easy. How about, "It will slow us down without likely adding anything to our deliberations." After tomorrow, my phone link to work may go down, for lack of someone to fix it when it inevitably screws up at the work end. Thus I may be silent for a while. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 22 11:06:30 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal Approved-By: Marci Haw Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 10:31:33 -0500 Reply-To: MarciH@medicine.dmed.iupui.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Marci Haw Organization: IU Department of Medicine Subject: Replacements - John of Sternfeld To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Subject line; Replacements - John of Sternfeld >From the response we are getting to the last three calls for votes it appears there are 20-25 active members on the council. If we are not going to tackle more that 2 or 3 ideas at a time that is a workable discussion group. Does our charter demand a size to the council? If not I suggest we stay with what we have instead of going thru the selection process repeatedly to maintain an unrequired population. If we find we need more hands later could we not assemble a committee and search for folks interested in participating at that time? John of Sternfeld From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 22 14:20:59 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 13:47:44 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Proposal: Budget Study Comments: cc: Carolyn_Richardson@notes.cch.com, gendy@panix.com, justin@inmet.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L A current discussion on the reform mailing list has gotten me thinking about a project that we could do, and which the corporation *desperately* needs: a detailed, in-depth examination of What We're Spending Our Money On. It's obvious from the past couple of years that we do *not* currently have any clear picture of where the SCA's money is going; this alone probably accounts for most of the perpetual feeling of financial crisis, and our inability to tame the budget. I believe the Board would *like* to have this detailed information, but I've seen no indication that anyone has really sat down and done it to the depth needed. There's a severe problem here: without this information, not just of what we're spending on, but *why*, we are incapable of budgeting sensibly. The result is that the corporation has tended to simply take in numbers of how much we're spending, and uncritically try to find the money for it all. If we are going to live within our means, we need information to enable us to *prioritize* those expenses, to say, "Yes, that's important, but it's not important *enough*". That's really what budgeting is all about -- figuring out how much money one has, and establishing the priorities for what to spend it on. Thus, a proposal: -- That the GC quickly create a Budget Study Working Group. The purpose of this group is to truly understand where the money is going -- not just what it's being spent on, but *why*. It would, for example, write to all of the Corporate Officers and ask them for their input on what their jobs accomplish, and what expenses are actually *necessary* in order to accomplish that job, as well as what money is being spent. The idea is to get enough information so that we can actually start making intelligent decisions about our priorities. -- This Working Group should be given a definite, finite schedule, and a concrete goal. I suggest a tight schedule, to give it some sense of urgency: that a detailed examination should be ready for the April Board meeting. I believe that this is feasible; any numbers or information we can't get in two months probably isn't going to come easily, no matter the timeframe. -- The Working Group should be composed of people willing to do some real legwork, drawn from both within and without the GC. As a number of people have done some of this study before, we should draw those people into the group and work with them. (Examples include the Treasurer's Budget subcommittee (assuming that still exists), the Marketing Committee, and the various people who have prepared independent analyses of the budget.) This is not a group intended for philosophizing, but for hard research. It should be prepared to work closely with the Corporate Treasurer, and I hope that the Treasurer's office would be willing to help. -- The group should also attempt to identify income streams, and correlate them with the expenses. This isn't always going to be possible, but is extremely useful; there is a qualitative difference between expenses that are being paid for from specific income, and those that are coming from overhead. One element of successful budgeting in any corporation is untangling the web of income and expense, and separating streams as much as possible. -- The group is not intended for promulgating opinions or agendas, but simply to amass facts. Opinions *are* important, but should be balanced -- for each budget item, there should be "pro and con" lists if appropriate, and the justifications for that budget item. Any reasons found, either in favor or against the given spending, should be included in this report; this Working Group shouldn't get into the business of trying to decide which justifications are reasonable and necessary. -- Once the group has prepared the report, it should be put before the full GC for commentary, and a vote of approval should be held. If the group does its job right, this should be an uncontroversial vote, since this report should mainly be advancing facts, and include all opinions on all "sides" (clearly identified as opinions). *After* this crucial first step, we can get into the hard part; the second phase should probably be to prepare a second report, prioritizing all of the various expenses. That *will* involve real politics and opinion, and will probably be more contentious. But I think this first step is useful in and of itself -- even if the GC bogs down in the second step, the Board will have that concrete report to think about itself. And, frankly, I think we need something like this, with a concrete objective, to prove both to ourselves and the Board that the GC is useful. (And yes, I recognize that obtaining some of these facts *will* be difficult; I'm quite cognizant of the problems the Marketing Committee has faced. We should be as tough as we can be here, and should be prepared to highlight instances where people are unwilling or unable to account for their spending. From a business standpoint, I personally find this unacceptable, and hope that the Board will take such matters seriously.) Opinions? Does anyone think this study is a bad idea, or inappropriate to the GC? (While I *like* to argue the Big Philosophical Issues, I think we need to accomplish practical goals like this as well.) Who wants to work on this? (While I have a few specific people that I plan on inviting into it, due to their clear interest in it, I would also like to welcome in anyone who is willing to do the work, regardless of whether they're on the Council or not.) Does anyone want to chair it? I'm willing to, but not markedly enthusiastic since I'm heavily committed myself right now -- if someone else wants to chair, and has the right attitude (hard-nosed hard work, but not pushing an agenda), I'd be happy to step aside. The chair would probably need to delegate out the research tasks, do a fair bit of the legwork himself, and collate the final report. Do we need a vote in order to set up this Working Group? It seems silly to me unless someone objects to the formation of the study. (Note that I am assuming that a vote *will* be required for acceptance of the study, to provide a check on the group getting hijacked by an agenda.) I should be clear about my own long-term agenda here -- I firmly believe that the Society *desperately* needs to get the budget under control, that we should be strictly cutting our spending instead of raising more money. But the first step in that process is to understand what we *are* spending, and I can't see how one can object to collecting that information. While I have strong opinions about what should be cut, this isn't the time to advance them; first, we need the relevant information, both in breadth and depth. BTW, there is another, closely related project that suggests itself here -- understanding and trimming the Society's bureaucracy. I think we've gotten to a ludicrous extreme, with a large number of top-level officers who are unnecessary or even harmful. I'd say the right approach to dealing with this is a similar one -- first collect all the arguments, both pro and con, for each office, and afterwards discuss and debate which ones are actually useful. I'd be interested in opinions about whether this is an appropriate and useful task, and whether it belongs folded in with the budget examination. (The argument for folding them together is simply so that we don't pester the officers too much -- put together one letter, asking both about the purpose and utility of the office, and its expenditure...) -- Justin Trying to learn some lessons from the Membership WG... Random Quote du Jour: "Okay. everyone around the demon for a group picture!" -- from Secrets of the Necronomicon From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 22 18:49:31 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 18:12:58 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Replacements To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'm not sure we need to worry about solicting replacement members. The effort to recruit would just slow down an already overdelayed process. On the other hand, why not look to those individuals who have consistantly offered input to the council, even though they were not 'members'. I see no reason why those people who have been active in the debates thus far shouldn't be offered seats if there are vacancies. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 23 10:43:54 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 46 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 10:12:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Justin's Budget Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here: When I was on the Board, we did an evaluation of the officers of the SCA through a procedural review committee. The exercise eliminated one whole office (By combining Arts and Sciences at the Corporate Level) and tried to simplify life (and improve the authenticity of our heraldry) by declaring the SCA an independent heraldic jurisdiction, and telling the College of Arms to eliminate most checking against non-SCA arms. The way this latter reform was subverted and ignored by the College of Arms until a later Laurel re-invented that particular wheel makes me a little pessimistic about the chances of the GC doing what Justin wants it to do. Doing a procedural review at the Board level (with all the advantages of the legal power of the corporation and a lot of willing cooperation from the officers) took a quarter an office. I do not think a meaningful review of all the corporate offices can be done in a single quarter. Not if the committee wants to have time to look over the facts from all angles and come up with a proposal that may gain the approval of the full Council and the Board. And this is assuming that you get full and prompt cooperation from the officers. Either a procedural review (meaning: what does this office do and does it really need to be done at all) or a budgetary review (where does the money go and why) would be extremely worth doing. However, they are big projects that we can pursue only with the enthusiastic backing of the Board. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KEY POINT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My suggestion is that if there are willing members of the Council and backing >from the Board, that a committee restrict itself to a budgetary review, doing only so much as can be done in a two month period after the relevant material is handed over to that committee. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I give this priority because it is clear that lack of money or perceived lack of money has caused a lot of the turmoil of the past. Also, there are lots of decentralizers on this Council; a procedural review might help make the argument for decentralization, but if decentralization wins the argument, much of the investigation might end up being beside the point and a waste of time. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all! Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 23 10:50:04 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 16 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 10:16:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Decentralization To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Has it ever occurred to you all that a great deal of decentralization could be accomplished simply by eliminating all duplicate reporting? I.e., by having officers on level X report only to level X+1 and never to officers on level X+2? Of course it has! Is there any way this can be accomplished by the Corporation? Ah, good question; in my experience of the Corporate level, it was always someone farther down the hierarchy who was fanatical about assembling reams of documentation. We Board members cared very little about it. Just a merry holiday thought for you to mull over. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 23 13:13:10 1995 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, 23 Dec 1995 12:50:54 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Decentralization To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L you jnow, i've always wondered why the arts&sciences officers have to do any reporting at all to the next level up. it's not as if that's a mundanely necessary office, or that the arts&scienes will disappear if the corporate office disappears... er, why _is_ there a corporate arts&sciences office? alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 23 14:37:56 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 25 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 14:09:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Multiple reporting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Morgan, I'm in the Midrealm, and I have to do multiple reporting as a marshal. Why? I dunno, and I was once Earl Marshal. (I refuse to look back in my files and find out how many useless reports I used to require! Too soon old and too late smart!) Alban, I think the theory of A&S reporting has something to do proving our educational purpose. I've never found that particularly convincing. Did anyone ever listen to me? No, not even when I was on the Board and when all the Board members agreed with me. My perspective on the problems of the SCA is shaped in part by the fact that when I was on the Board we combined Arts and Sciences Offices to cut down on bureaucracy, but most Kingdoms insisted that they needed both offices and lots of reports anyway. And by the fruitless (at least in the short term) effort by the Board to make our heraldry more authentic and less costly in paperwork by doing things the medieval way; which the book heralds in their religious zeal for uniqueness entirely ignored. "You say that it's the Constitution, well-ell you know -- you better change your mind instead..." Back to Christmas cleaning and baking... Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 23 20:22:07 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 18:57:34 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Morgan to Finnvarr: Multiple reporting (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L forwarded for morgan Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > From 72672.2312@compuserve.com Sat Dec 23 14:12:29 1995 > Date: 23 Dec 95 15:12:52 EST > From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> > To: Steve Muhlberger , > Terras > Subject: Re: Morgan to Finnvarr: Multiple reporting > Message-ID: <951223201251_72672.2312_FHP42-1@CompuServe.COM> > > Since my posts are usually routed through Terras, who has been online > irregularly if at all the last month (COIN has had a lot of problems, for one > thing), I think my post in response to Finnvarrs' (yours) did not get > circulated. Can you forward it to the list, so they know what I was saying, and > why? > =============================================================================== > > Finnvarr pointed out: "Morgan, I'm in the Midrealm, and I have to do multiple > reporting as a marshal. Why? I dunno, and I was once Earl Marshal." > > When I became listmistress for our College, it was to ensure that the reporting > was done, because the Marshall wasn't doing it. I haven't kept up on the > multiples, but I think it would make a LOT of sense to have the individuals > report to Regional, and Regional to Kingdom, whatever the office. The only > problem is if the Regional flakes out, but there should be safeguards for this. > > Finnvarr also noted that: "....when I was on the Board we combined Arts and > Sciences Offices to cut down on bureaucracy, but most Kingdoms insisted that > they needed both offices and lots of reports anyway." > > I think this is due in part ot the fact that Kingdoms have separate midlevel > awards for the Arts and Sciences. Therefore, they feel that they need two > offices to keep them straight -- even though either would lead to a Laurel. > > Finnvarr closed by quoting: "You say that it's the Constitution, well-ell you > know -- you better changeyour mind instead..." > > And as it turns out, in the same batch of mail was the following from a friend; > it may be apocryphal, this is not the first time I've heard it: > > ====================================================================== > Actual radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations, > 10-10-95. > ====================================================================== > > #1: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a > collision. > > #2: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to South to avoid a > collision. > > #1: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR > course. > > #2: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course. > > #1. THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER ENTERPRISE, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF > THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW! > > #2. This is a lighthouse. Your call. > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > With that in mind, I return to my cleaning and sewing and knitting and ...... > > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 02:12:02 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 01:44:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Fiacha Elected GC Chairman: Final Tally To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I have received the following votes for chairman, as of the close of voting: FOR ARTHUR THE DENTED/ARTHUR DENT - 3 (8.11% of total GC, 12% of those voting) Finnvarr de Taahe/Steve Muhlberger Arthur the Dented/Scott Keys Myrdin the Just/Michael Potter FOR FIACHA MACNEILL/NIGEL HASLOCK - 17 (45.95% of total GC, 68% of those voting) Michael Fenwick/Michael Andrews Magnus Maquire/James D. McManus Modius Monsdraconis/Erik Langhans Serwyl ap Morgan/Chuck Hack Hossein Ali Qomi/Greg Rose Catrin Gwynstlum/Janna Spanne Tibor of Rock Valley/Mark Schuldenfrei Alysoun de Ros/Carole C. Roos John of Sternfeld/John Elmore Justin du Coeur/Mark Waks Corwyn Da Costa/Manuel Costa Fiacha Mac Neill/Nigel Haslock Bertram of Bearington/David Schroeder Frederick of Holland/Frederick J. Hollander Frithiof Skagge/Sven Noren Brian O'Seabac/Guy M. Cox Titus Claudius/Tod Huckaby ABSTAIN - 5 (13.51% of total GC, 20% of those voting) Alban St. Albans/Edward Eisenstein Gareth Tancred Wilfrith/Roy Gathercoal Terras/Joseph Heck Caroline Forbes/Carol Smith Isabeau of the Wylde Wood/Angie Eves-Welsh NOT VOTING - 12 (32.43%) Kyle of Kincora/Rolland Smith Bertrik van Triecht/Bart Orbons Cariadoc of the Bow/David Friedman Eichling von Amrum/Janet Chennault Alienor Llanfaes/Colette Goodyear Brion Thornbird ap Rhys/Brian R. Price Edric Aaron Hartwood/Kristofer L. Hellstrom Edward the Discalceate/Phil Anderson Eric Bearsbane/Eric Wagner Nathan Adelaar/Nathan Clarenburg Randell Raye of Crianlarich/Laureen Hart Sarah/Karen Penn 67.57% of the GC participated in the election. Thatnk you for your participation. Congratulations to Fiacha! Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 10:35:34 1995 Return-Path: X-Openmail-Hops: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="Message text" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@NPD.COM Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 09:54:48 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com Subject: Topic x3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings GCers! Now that we have gotten our procedure and our coordinator all squared away (Thanks Hossein!) let's start talking topics. Edward (our Boss") layed out some direction. I think the most important topics are: Should the SCA be Centralized or Decentralized, and to what extent? As I have stated before I feel the SCA should be some sort of Centralized entity. I propose we gather the GC's opionion on which structure we should focus on. Nothing more specific than some sort of Centralized organization or some sort of Decentralized organization. Any seconds. The second topic concerns money, specifically how to minimize membership fee increases. I propose we look into the viability of selling limited access to the SCA mailing list while at the same time allowing those members who are not interested in recieving this type of mail to opt out via phone call or mail in card. Any seconds? The third topic near and dear to my heart is the Interkingdom Advisory Council. I propose we look into whether it should remain in existance, should the BoD delegate some responsibilities to it, or should it be dissolved? Thoughts? Any seconds? -Modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 11:36:54 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 11:14:25 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Replacements To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Bearkiller... -- Justin >From: LLUTHERFULTO@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 06:13:32 -0600 (CST) >Subject: Re: Replacements >From: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" "SCA Grand Council Discussion list" 21-DEC-1995 16:20:48.93 >Subj: RE: Replacements > >Finnvarr asked: > On the other hand, I wonder if bringing in replacements at this stage would > be useful. > > Anyone else have a thought on this? > >I'd like to see us do as well as we can with whomever we have, and then work >forward from there. Bringing in other people as the workload requires. I >would hope that we could remain flexible. > > Tibor Please post this for me. Thanks in advance. I might suggest that you find out exactly who is inactive and, if they are a direct Kingdom rep, inform the Kingdom. If the Kingdom wants to offer a replacement, fine. If not, at least your group has made the effort to keep Society-wide balance on the committee. This might head off criticism in the future that the GC had openings and didn't try hard enough to fill them. It also might not take up too much of your valuable time, which is very important, too. Thanks, Bearkiller the civilian John Fulton From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 13:10:57 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 12:48:38 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Topic x3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com) Modius makes a few proposals; I'm afraid I have problems with all of them: >Should the SCA be Centralized or Decentralized, and to what extent? > > As I have stated before I feel the SCA should be some sort of > Centralized entity. I propose we gather the GC's opionion on which > structure we should focus on. Nothing more specific than some sort > of Centralized organization or some sort of Decentralized > organization. Any seconds. No, I'm afraid. I think you're greatly oversimplifying here. "Centralized" and "Decentralized" aren't realistic models, they're ends of a huge and complex scale. I doubt that anyone on the GC believes that the SCA should be completely centralized, that everything should run through the center. (At least, I hope not.) And while there are some of us who wouldn't mind seeing the SCA wholly decentralized, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hades of it actually happening, so I'm not inclined to waste a lot of time on it. We might be able to have a fruitful discussion about what *aspects* of the Society are best centralized or decentralized, and to what degree. That is, I think we *do* need to talk about specifics here; otherwise, we're just going to have a long religious discussion with no possible resolution. I mean, honestly -- there's no more chance that I'm going to convince you of the absolute virtues of decentralization, than you're going to convince me that centralization is always the way to go. On concrete issues, though, we might find some middle ground. >The second topic concerns money, specifically how to minimize membership >fee increases. > > I propose we look into the viability of selling limited access to > the SCA mailing list while at the same time allowing those members > who are not interested in recieving this type of mail to opt out > via phone call or mail in card. Any seconds? Absolutely not, as stated. If there is *positive* permission given -- that is, if there is a space on the membership form saying, "I give permission for my name to be passed on", then I would have no objection to the idea. But as described, this is smarmy -- the fact is that, when this is done, the vast majority never find out that their names are being sold until it's long since done. It's a common practice; it's also a repulsive one, IMO. Generalize the topic here; if it's to talk about the concept of selling the mailing list, and the pros and cons, I'll discuss it. But I'm personally unwilling to countenance the idea as stated; I think it's a bad approach. >The third topic near and dear to my heart is the Interkingdom Advisory >Council. > > I propose we look into whether it should remain in existance, should > the BoD delegate some responsibilities to it, or should it be > dissolved? Thoughts? Any seconds? I think this verges dangerously on getting out of our scope. I *do* think this needs to be discussed, but the IAC is *supposed* to be an in-game body, whereas we're the mundane one. I think one could argue that this is getting above ourselves. Also, I'm not sure there's much we could do. I wouldn't object to talking about it, but I'm not going to second it, unless the BoD specifically wants advice on this; I think it's a distraction, that isn't likely to produce practical results. (In the long run, we may have to talk about it, as part of overall structures, but I don't think that talking about it in a vacuum has much purpose.) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "... since i am writing for myself, i only write the interesting parts -- the beginnings, the character conflicts, and the inevitable reconciliation and subsequent sex." -- gypsy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 14:11:02 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 45 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 13:39:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Decentralization To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Modius: >>The second topic concerns money, specifically how to minimize membership >>fee increases. An important topic, but it presupposes that things will continue on much the way they are now, not a safe assumption. Modius: >>The third topic near and dear to my heart is the Interkingdom Advisory >>Council. >> >> I propose we look into whether it should remain in existance, should >> the BoD delegate some responsibilities to it, or should it be >> dissolved? Thoughts? Any seconds? Justin's reply >I think this verges dangerously on getting out of our scope. I *do* >think this needs to be discussed, but the IAC is *supposed* to be an >in-game body, whereas we're the mundane one. I think one could argue >that this is getting above ourselves. I disagree with Justin here. I've never been able to see such a clear-cut distinction between mundane and Current Middle Ages. Have a look at the regs on banishment, for instance. I believe that a certain amount of decentralization is inevitable. If it is, then we will need to have some body to sort out disagreements about both the game and administrative relations between legal entities (corporations). I do not think that leaving it to the Board of the SCA, USA is viable in the long term. So who else? Some thought is needed. I am NOT in favor of leaving this simply to Kingdom reps, as though the SCA were a federation of Kingdoms. I can spell out why I feel this way, but I've done it before and it may be fairly obvious. But in the future, when there are issues that affect the entire SCA in all kingdoms and all countries, we will need some Court of Appeal, if the Board is no longer going to do that job. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 14:17:07 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 13:53:44 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Topic x3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Magnus... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 12:10:42 -0600 >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Re: Topic x3 >No, I'm afraid. I think you're greatly oversimplifying here. "Centralized" >and "Decentralized" aren't realistic models, they're ends of a huge and >complex scale. >We might be able to have a fruitful discussion about what *aspects* of >the Society are best centralized or decentralized, and to what degree. >That is, I think we *do* need to talk about specifics here; otherwise, I find myself agreeing entirely with Justin on this. Specifically, what duties, jobs or rights should be taken away from the Centralized BoD and Office? What should be added to them/ >>The second topic concerns money, specifically how to minimize membership >>fee increases. >> > >Absolutely not, as stated. If there is *positive* permission given -- >that is, if there is a space on the membership form saying, "I give >permission for my name to be passed on", then I would have no >objection to the idea. But as described, this is smarmy Again I agree wholeheartedly with Justin. How about this for a money savor... Cut the Budget for TI in half... >>The third topic near and dear to my heart is the Interkingdom Advisory >>Council. >> >> I propose we look into whether it should remain in existance, should >> the BoD delegate some responsibilities to it, or should it be >> dissolved? Thoughts? Any seconds? > >I think this verges dangerously on getting out of our scope. I *do* >think this needs to be discussed, but the IAC is *supposed* to be an >in-game body, whereas we're the mundane one. > Here i disagree with justin as far as theory, but agreewith him in result. Nothing is beyond our scope... we are here to advise the BoD on anything that needs change. I personally don't believe that the IAC needs to be dismantled. I don't see enough of what they do to know if an overhaul is required, bu they don't need to be taken apart... Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 15:53:47 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 915 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 15:12:06 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Replacements To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9512261614.AA25403@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Dec 26, 95 11:14:25 am Duke John wrote: I might suggest that you find out exactly who is inactive and, if they are a direct Kingdom rep, inform the Kingdom. If the Kingdom wants to offer a replacement, fine. If not, at least your group has made the effort to keep Society-wide balance on the committee. This might head off criticism in the future that the GC had openings and didn't try hard enough to fill them. It also might not take up too much of your valuable time, which is very important, too. Criticism cannot be avoided. Boy, do I wish it could. John, I'm afraid I don't take your point. Can you lay out for me how balance of that sort is going to enhance the Grand Council? I'm not sure that I see what remains as out of balance. Or, rather, what sorts of problems would arise from the current roster, that such representation would correct? A few hypothetical examples would help me understand. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 15:54:12 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1981 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 15:09:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Topic x3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com" at Dec 26, 95 09:54:48 am Greetings from Tibor Modius offered several topics for discussion: 1. Should the SCA be Centralized or Decentralized, and to what extent? I don't know that this is a productive approach to the issues at hand. Could you, perhaps, explicate this a bit? What I've discovered over the last year or so, is that the Society CANNOT be centralized to any great level. Administratively, volunteers cannot handle the centralized workload. Legally, ther are internationl issues to contend with. And socially, there are more games being played at once under our current structure than I had ever suspected, and centralization would almost certainly enshrine a very few of them, at the expense of others. 2. [H]ow to minimize membership fee increases. I propose we look into the viability of selling limited access to the SCA mailing list while at the same time allowing those members who are not interested in recieving this type of mail to opt out via phone call or mail in card. Any seconds? Not a chance of a second from me, my friend. I am a privacy bigot of a major sort. More to the point, I look at the SCA right now, and I see a sodden financial mess. We have no sense of where the money is, where it is going, or value for dollar expended. Like trying to cool the house by opening the refrigerator door, I think throwing more money into the corporation before it controls it's own habits, would be ideal. 3. Interkingdom Advisory Council. I propose we look into whether it should remain in existance, should the BoD delegate some responsibilities to it, or should it be dissolved? Thoughts? Any seconds? Unlike the Grand Council, the IAC seems to be producing well thought out proposals, and doing a fine job. I wouldn't mess with it. Besides, even if it were the worst waste of effort in the world, it certainly is not the first place effort should be expended. It consumes so little in terms of resources. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 16:31:46 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 744 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 16:02:43 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Proposal: Budget Study To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9512221847.AA00624@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Dec 22, 95 01:47:44 pm Greetings from Tibor. Justin, whenever you want, I am sure we can get a copy of the documents from the Mandamus discovery to you... and you will discover that meaningful information cannot be gleaned from Milpitas' records in finite time. Counterproposal: We ask those of our members who have decent financial controls background to produce a simple list of officers and their organization, and what documents we ought to be tracking. Before we can fish for data, we really should have a fishing pole, and know where the lake is. I've posted a rough cut of what I think should happen a number of times (including about 10 minutes ago on the reform list.) I'd be happy to start there, with my unoriginal notions, if people agree. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 16:35:49 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1860 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 16:07:59 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Why selling the mailing list is not a hot subject. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [Forwarded for Galleron. -- Tibor] Forwarded message: From WMclean290@aol.com Tue Dec 26 16:05 EST 1995 From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 16:03:46 -0500 Message-ID: <951226160345_99496133@mail04.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Galleron: Why selling the mailing list is not a hot subject. Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1300 Please forward to the GC Modius has suggested selling the SCA mailing list as a source of revenue. While we could probably get some money that way, we probably wouldn't get a lot. Here's why: Most advertisers who might want to use our list can reach the same people for less money by buying an Ad in TI. As lists go, ours is pretty small. At $40 per thousand (a typical list rental fee) for some sixteen thousand households, (smaller than the membership count because of address duplication) we might hope for something under seven hundred dollars for renting the list. Even if several companies decide that direct mail to our list would work better than the cheaper TI ad, we aren't talking about enough money to make a big difference in the overall SCA budget. Even renting the list twenty times a year would come to only about 50 cents a member. And some of that revenue would be cannibalized from TI advertising revenues. Some members will not want their name sold. Unless you ignore their wishes, keeping track of those people will impose extra record keeping costs. This will further reduce the amount you can expect to net from list rental. In short, while there might be the potential for some revenue, the GC has many more pressing issues to discuss. Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy [Tibor here: Generally, I prefer to avoid decorating other people's forwarded comments. But I must add: Here, Here!] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 16:42:06 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1732 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 16:06:27 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: List of Concerns Separate from Agenda To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [Forwarded for Galleron. -- Tibor] Forwarded message: From WMclean290@aol.com Tue Dec 26 16:04 EST 1995 From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 16:03:44 -0500 Message-ID: <951226160343_99496120@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Galleron: List of Concerns Separate from Agenda Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1297 Please forward to the GC: Galleron here. Holiday greetings and congratulations on selecting a chair. Good luck, Fiacha. You are all doubtless eager to get back to the business of the Council, after settling your procedural questions for the time being. May I make one suggestion? Hossein's Organizational Proposal that the GC recently passed says that an Agenda will be regularly published by the Executive Committee, and any member of the Council may add items to the agenda. I suggest that the Executive Committee also maintain a List of Concerns, separate from the agenda. This will list the subjects that the GC may wish to address eventually, but doesn't want to discuss just yet. There are several reasons why this might be a good idea. The possible issues the Council may wish to address is large, but the number it seems to be able to deal with well at one time is small. If the Council is currently discussing subjects a, b, c and d, a councilor may be hesitant to bring up subject e. On the other hand, it is still worthwhile to keep track of subjects that may be sitting on the back burner. A List of Concerns would help to maintain a record of the subjects not yet under discussion without unduly crowding the agenda. Seasons Greetings, Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Dec 26 21:15:23 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 20:52:21 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Topic x3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Bertrik... -- Justin >From: Bart Orbons >Subject: Re: Topic x3 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 23:55:10 +0100 (MET) >In-Reply-To: <9512261748.AA25766@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Dec > 26, 95 12:48:38 pm Justin writes in the GC mailing list: > >Should the SCA be Centralized or Decentralized, and to what extent? > > > > As I have stated before I feel the SCA should be some sort of > > Centralized entity. I propose we gather the GC's opionion on which > > structure we should focus on. Nothing more specific than some sort > > of Centralized organization or some sort of Decentralized > > organization. Any seconds. > > No, I'm afraid. I think you're greatly oversimplifying here. "Centralized" > and "Decentralized" aren't realistic models, they're ends of a huge and > complex scale. I doubt that anyone on the GC believes that the SCA should > be completely centralized, that everything should run through the center. > (At least, I hope not.) And while there are some of us who wouldn't mind > seeing the SCA wholly decentralized, I don't think there's a snowball's > chance in Hades of it actually happening, so I'm not inclined to waste a > lot of time on it. Yes, i agree wholehartedly.. We have been discussing to much 'in the air' >from genereal principles and not in down to earth terms. The Diuscussion mainly fall down to close to religious point of views, and nobody appears to convince nobody, because it doesn't deal with anything substantial. The GC has been brought alive to prediscuss the concequences of change and bring that forth to the BOD. This means something. They want to put more focus on the current activities, while the GC is there to think out the changes and their effect. BUT, They still need to effectuate the thought out changes. So, that means that we have to come up with concrete proposals, and their (long term) effect as we see it. Bart Orbons Bertrik -- bart@holding.pi.net From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 27 00:40:19 1995 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, 27 Dec 1995 00:14:36 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Topic x3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L 1) decentralized. 2) hate, loathe, despise selling membershiplist. 3) we do not have the purview to recommend _anything_ relating to the interkingdom advisory council; this subject should be removed. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 27 11:12:02 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 12:24:42 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Topic x3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Modius offered several topics for discussion: ... and Tibor commented. >1. Should the SCA be Centralized or Decentralized, and to what extent? > >I don't know that this is a productive approach... >What I've discovered over the last year or so, is that the Society CANNOT = be >centralized to any great level. ... Yes.=20 >2. =C4H=C5ow to minimize membership fee increases. > > I propose we look into the viability of selling limited access to > the SCA mailing list ... > >Not a chance of a second from me, my friend. I am a privacy bigot of a >major sort. I'll gladly second *that* one! (i.e. Tibor's comment) >More to the point, I look at the SCA right now, and I see a sodden financi= al >mess. ... Yes. Figuring out methods for throwing good money after bad doesn't look li= ke=20 top priority to me.=20 >3. Interkingdom Advisory Council. > > I propose we look into whether it should remain in existance, ... > >Unlike the Grand Council, the IAC seems to be producing well thought out >proposals, and doing a fine job. ... It seems Tibor knows something on this subject that the rest of the GC (or = at=20 least people like Modius and yours truly) doesn't know, hence Modius' origi= nal=20 proposal. The IAC and the GC maybe ought to communicate some, so we know wh= at -=20 if anything - the other guys are doing.=20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 27 11:12:54 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 16 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 07:12:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: My proposed topic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I would like to propose that our first topic for discussion be selection of the BoD. Many other topics (such as centralization/decentralization) may take major changes and quite a long time to implement, but a BoD selection method may cause changes quickly. In regards, to selling our mailing list, I would be for it as long as there was a way to opt out. I usually have little problem with junk mail that comes from magazines I subscribe to (submit your name a little different to each one and you can track this) because it tends to be on topics/products I'm interested in. regards, Sir Myrdin the Just Michael G. Potter From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 27 11:55:03 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 09:05:37 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Topic x3 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L forwarded for Morgan Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > From 72672.2312@compuserve.com Tue Dec 26 21:22:09 1995 > Date: 26 Dec 95 22:21:32 EST > From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> > To: Grand Council Discussion List > Subject: Re: Topic x3 > Message-ID: <951227032131_72672.2312_FHP28-2@CompuServe.COM> > > Morgan here, weighing in: > > I agree with Galleron and Tibor that selling the SCA mailing list is A Bad > Thing. One of the organizations with which I am deeply involved has had this > discussion for some months (we meet monthly). We decided agin it, for many > reasons, including privacy, risk of competition (not an SCA concern, but one of > ours), and the possibility that the purchaser would reproduce the list and so > eliminate the need to rebuy for future mailings. > > As I recall, when the list was going to be distributed before, a number of > persons opted off. This includes when the mandamus plaintiffs wanted to obtain > labels to send a mailing of their own to all members, to his those not online. > > I agree with Tibor that the GC should not touch the IAC. The guidelines for the > GC did not include it, and I think the GC's time and energy could be better > spent on other matters. The GC and IAC were designed to be separate entities > with separate charges, and I think they should leave each other alone. How > would Justin and other GC members feel is the IAC suggested the GC be done away > with? > > Especially as, from Tibor's indication, the IAC is actually getting somewhere > while the GC has been spinning its wheels for the last months. > > I like Galleron's suggestion of keeping a list of concerns by the by. This can > be a useful way to monitor discussions, when you look over and say, "we've been > running this to death, why don't we retire it for a while and bring up something > off the 'B' list, then come back to this with hopefully some fresh insights?" > > Having obtained my own copies of a lot of the Corporation's financial documents, > I agree with Tibor that they can be a headache for the unprepared. I'd be > interested to see his suggestion for looking into the financial matters. > > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 27 13:13:23 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 12:35:08 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: My proposed topic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <30E1631D@tmpgw951.allied.com> (POTTERM@mtomp004.allied.com) Myrdin suggests: >I would like to propose that our first topic for discussion be selection of >the BoD. Hmm. It's clearly a necessary topic, and one that probably cuts across the usual conservative/reform lines -- most (although not all) people seem to agree that some changes are needed, although there are a number of different options that have been suggested. With the caveat that we may find ourselves slopping over into the bigger question of what the Board's responsibilities should be (a clearly related topic), I'll second the proposal... So -- anyone got an organized list of possible methods we could use, as a starting point? I've heard many ideas, but I've never seen them collated... (BTW, we should bear in mind that this week will inevitably be a little quiet -- a lot of people are away for the holidays...) -- Justin Strongly in favor of realistic and practical discussions for the moment... Random Quote du Jour: Re: Anthropologists & the SCA "I Think I begin to understand why there's so much academic interest in the SCA. It's not that they're necessarily interested in us, but air fare to Kenya or Borneo is *so* expensive, and you have to learn a language other than English. :)" -- Tibicen From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 27 15:33:25 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 13:45:46 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Election of BoD Members (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: >From 72672.2312@compuserve.com Wed Dec 27 13:16:28 1995 Date: 27 Dec 95 14:14:54 EST From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> To: Grand Council Discussion Group Subject: Re: Election of BoD Members Message-ID: <951227191453_72672.2312_FHP45-2@CompuServe.COM> Myrdin suggested that the first topic for discussion be election of Board members, and Justin asked for a list of methods. I don't remember them all, but I remember most, and maybe Hossein or more likely Tibor has the fuller list. First, one point which may be answered separately is whether to require all Kingdoms to use the same method of election. In the earlier discussions (correct me if I'm wrong, Tibor, since ths happened mosting on CIS but I think spilled over into CSOS and the Rialto) there was no agreement as to method, so the suggestion was to allow Kingdoms to choose from among a short list of methods. Best as I recall, these were: 1) Direct election by populace. 2) Nomination by populace, selection by Curia/Royalty. 3) Nomination by populace/Royalty, selection by Board. [This is similar to the currnet method, but instead of people being self-nominated the candidates would be vetted before the list reaches the Board.] Now we have the issue that there are fewer seats than Board members. It was suggested that there be a rotation, with Board members from each Kingdom take office in turn as vacancies come open. Alphabetically by Kingdom seems fair. A concern arose for those Kingdoms where Curia is very insular, even incestuous. There was concern that a straight nominate-by-Crown allowance would result in The Same Old Folks living on the Board from a Kingdom, esposing one narrow viewpoint. (I get to suggest such things as I have lived in more than one Kingdom and make no pretentions of office.) This should be factored in to the election options. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin