James wrote: Mistress Yesult. I would like to know what your mentioned consequences and concerns are. I would also like to hear what suggestions you have asMessage 1 of 15 , Jan 30, 2007View SourceJames wrote:
"Mistress Yesult. I would like to know what your mentioned consequences
and concerns are. I would also like to hear what suggestions you have
as to how to continue."
Certainly. I'm past bedtime, so I will be brief for now and only highlight
those things I find most vital.
The Consortium has always been a democratic organization. Unilateral
decisions (made by 5-10% of our total populace) belie our traditions, and
frankly, make some of us who were not consulted feel as if our opinions are
not wanted. Theahtyn said it best just now on our old list, so I will leave
this thought dangling.
I will, however, note that the comment: "Other important desicions were made
and they will be addressed later in individual posts" worries me immensely.
I *really* want to hear this clarified.
Wide-open membership allows that SCA members from any area of the Kingdom
(or perhaps even other Kingdoms) may join. It's a nice thought, but totally
impractical, given our goals. If our aim is one of support, the radius of
influence should be feasable.
In any political organization (which we are, household or not), clear rules
or traditions are important. I have seen no qualifiers for membership
location, goals of the group, voting procedures, etc. This decision and the
less-than-informative communications seem impulsive. Such methods will, in
my opinion and by my experience, lead us right back down the same path we're
trying to escape.
I would suggest rewording the original post to *ask* (not *tell*) about
these new ideas. Seek concensus.
I will talk with you privately about other concerns.
James wrote: Where as I do agree I should have been a little better informed about Consortium policy it is also my responsiblity to find out about it myself.Message 1 of 15 , Jan 30, 2007View SourceJames wrote:
"Where as I do agree I should have been a little better informed about
Consortium policy it is also my responsiblity to find out about it
myself. I made the choice to follow through with this because I also
concured with the rest of those present that this was a good idea. I
realized that toes would be stepped on. I still stand by the
decision that has been made but I am also open to suggestions and
comments on how we should continue."
I'd like to point out that there is a major difference between "toes being
stepped on" and stripping people of their rights. This creature that many
of us veterans have nurtured and fed and helped to evolve had, as its most
vital aspect, an inherent right at equal voice, and that has been suddenly
removed. Our organization and our rights within it seem to have been taken
away from us within a weekend.
I'd also like to point out that there is no decision if the majority of the
population disagrees. If the people choose to keep our Consortium and our
old list, no one can stop us from doing so. I could go to Flintmarsh (for
example) today and say, "your group doesn't exist anymore, and from now on
we will do things *this* way," but that doesn't make it so.
While I honestly like the new proposed changes, at least the cohort
involvement and individual-based membership, I will leave the Consortium in
a heartbeat if decisions continue to be made without concensus.