Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Actual wording of the letter of intent

Expand Messages
  • scribesquire
    Here it is. I have left off only the names of the seneschals since that woudl just be extra bandwidth. Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your
    Message 1 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Here it is. I have left off only the names of the seneschals
      since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.

      Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your seneschals (THAT
      IS A JOKE!!).....

      "This is to express the intent of the groups known as shires of Grey
      Gargoyles, (Incipient Shire of) Foxvale, Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
      and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to pursue becoming a
      shell barony together.
      Each group has informally polled their active members to show that
      there is an interest and a willingness to become cantons under a
      single baronial group. This includes the group currently known
      as "the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea" , who as a group feel that this is
      important for the sake of regional unity, to show that we each
      participate on a level playing field.
      We have been playing together in an informal fashion and have under
      the name 'Ayreton' ** have hosted 2 events together and are currently
      planning a third. Weekly dancing, calligraphy, singing, fighting and
      heraldry get togethers are held involving all 5 groups.
      Together, we wish to formalize this union, to facilitate
      representation of the area.

      We await your permission so that we can pursue the next step in this
      change."
    • scribesquire
      Sorry, I left off a footnote: **Ayreton is a name we feel we can neither document, nor would wish to use as a baronial name, but was chosen for fun, several
      Message 2 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Sorry, I left off a footnote:

        "**Ayreton is a name we feel we can neither document, nor would
        wish to use as a baronial name, but was chosen for fun, several years
        ago, as a play on "the windy city", as all groups are in the
        Chicagoland area."

        And to be completely honest, this footnote is being questioned as
        some research shows it may actual be documentable. Although whether
        it is a name people want is another question altogether. (and one I
        hope people will show up at Stone Dog and discuss).

        Henry


        --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "scribesquire" <Scribesquire@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Here it is. I have left off only the names of the seneschals
        > since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.
        >
        > Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your seneschals (THAT
        > IS A JOKE!!).....
        >
        > "This is to express the intent of the groups known as shires of
        Grey
        > Gargoyles, (Incipient Shire of) Foxvale, Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
        > and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to pursue becoming
        a
        > shell barony together.
        > Each group has informally polled their active members to show that
        > there is an interest and a willingness to become cantons under a
        > single baronial group. This includes the group currently known
        > as "the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea" , who as a group feel that this
        is
        > important for the sake of regional unity, to show that we each
        > participate on a level playing field.
        > We have been playing together in an informal fashion and have under
        > the name 'Ayreton' ** have hosted 2 events together and are
        currently
        > planning a third. Weekly dancing, calligraphy, singing, fighting
        and
        > heraldry get togethers are held involving all 5 groups.
        > Together, we wish to formalize this union, to facilitate
        > representation of the area.
        >
        > We await your permission so that we can pursue the next step in
        this
        > change."
        >
      • John Adams
        Henry, Everyone knows Seneschals aren t evil. Only committees are. -- Grimkirk ... From: scribesquire To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
        Message 3 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Henry,
           
          Everyone knows Seneschals aren't evil. Only committees are.
           
          -- Grimkirk

          ----- Original Message ----
          From: scribesquire <Scribesquire@...>
          To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:46:28 PM
          Subject: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

          Here it is. I have left off only the names of the seneschals
          since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.

          Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your seneschals (THAT
          IS A JOKE!!).....

          "This is to express the intent of the groups known as shires of Grey
          Gargoyles, (Incipient Shire of) Foxvale, Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
          and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to pursue becoming a
          shell barony together.
          Each group has informally polled their active members to show that
          there is an interest and a willingness to become cantons under a
          single baronial group. This includes the group currently known
          as "the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea" , who as a group feel that this is
          important for the sake of regional unity, to show that we each
          participate on a level playing field.
          We have been playing together in an informal fashion and have under
          the name 'Ayreton' ** have hosted 2 events together and are currently
          planning a third. Weekly dancing, calligraphy, singing, fighting and
          heraldry get togethers are held involving all 5 groups.
          Together, we wish to formalize this union, to facilitate
          representation of the area.

          We await your permission so that we can pursue the next step in this
          change."




          Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
        • John Adams
          Henry, et al, I find it peculiar that you have now seen fit to release this text to others (or publicly via this list) upon the request of another individual,
          Message 4 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Henry, et al,
             
            I find it peculiar that you have now seen fit to release this text to others (or publicly via this list) upon the request of another individual, in contrast to your committee's collective decision to decline a request directly from me earlier this week (see below).
             
            It seems a reasonable person could hardly feel that your previous ruling was anything but a personal decision to withhold this information from select individuals (in this case, me). Yet, based upon the published text (which is consistant with the text from your Chicago_Barony Yahoogroups list archives), I cannot fathom what information contained in it that might have required such safeguarding. As is plain, my request was both polite and timely, and I saw no cause for concern other than my known opposition. Resultantly, I'm sure you can understand that same reasonable person being concerned about any future decisions of a similar nature.
             
            Was the decision to release this today on the Ayreton list also the product of a vote of your committee?  If so, then perhaps you could explain on behalf of your committee what the distinction in the decision was, or why it wasn handled differently? And will your committee be making similar distinctions on requests from individuals in the future? 

            -- Grimkirk
             
            cc: MK Transitions Officer

            ----- Original Message ----
            From: scribesquire <Scribesquire@...>
            To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:55:12 PM
            Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent

            Sorry, I left off a footnote:

            "**Ayreton is a name we feel we can neither document, nor would
            wish to use as a baronial name, but was chosen for fun, several years
            ago, as a play on "the windy city", as all groups are in the
            Chicagoland area."

            And to be completely honest, this footnote is being questioned as
            some research shows it may actual be documentable. Although whether
            it is a name people want is another question altogether. (and one I
            hope people will show up at Stone Dog and discuss).

            Henry

            --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups .com, "scribesquire" <Scribesquire@ ...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Here it is. I have left off only the names of the seneschals
            > since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.
            >
            > Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your seneschals (THAT
            > IS A JOKE!!).....
            >
            > "This is to express the intent of the groups known as shires of
            > Grey Gargoyles, (Incipient
            Shire of) Foxvale, Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
            > and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to pursue becoming
            > a shell barony together.
            <snipped for brevity>

            ----- Forwarded Messages ----
            From: "spdesroches@..." <spdesroches@...>
            To: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
            Cc: Chicago_Barony@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:08:41 PM
            Subject: Re: 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere'

            Greetings

             

            I have spoken to the Transitions Officer as well as the local Seneschals on your request for a copy of the letter of intent. Although the T.O. feels there is no Kingdom law or custom prohibiting such, he wished that it would be agreed upon by the local seneschals to do so. Unfortunately a unanimous assent was not reached. As of this time we will be unable to provide you with the copy.

             

            In Service

             

            THL Etienne le Couteau des Roches

            Lord Mayor, Ayreton 


            ----- Original Message ----
            From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
            To: Etienne <spdesroches@...>
            Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:11:56 PM
            Subject: 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere'

            Etienne,

            As a resident potentially subject to the changes being requested by the committee, I would like to request a copy of the documents provided to Her Majesty on behalf of the 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere' for review.

            - Grimkirk



            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
          • Teleri
            I thought I remember the poll we took specifically asking if people wanted to become a member of a shell barony with all six Chicago area groups, and that is
            Message 5 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
               
              I thought I remember the poll we took specifically asking if people wanted to become a member of a shell barony with all six Chicago area groups, and that is the question I thought we answered.  That's not what this letter is now proposing. 
               
              Especially given the emphasis on "regional unity", how does the local picture change given the result of the poll?  We did not consider the question of whether people wanted to have one local group elevate to barony and the others form a shell barony.  If Ravenslake is becoming a barony, would it then make more sense for the other established local groups to follow suit?  The shell barony idea appealed to many because that would put all of the current groups on equal footing within the shell.  That is no longer the case.  Are we going to deal with this issue in the ongoing meetings and discussions?
               
              Teleri

               
              ----- Original Message ----
              From: scribesquire <Scribesquire@...>
              To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:46:28 PM
              Subject: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

              Here it is. I have left off only the names of the seneschals
              since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.

              Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your seneschals (THAT
              IS A JOKE!!).....

              "This is to express the intent of the groups known as shires of Grey
              Gargoyles, (Incipient Shire of) Foxvale, Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
              and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to pursue becoming a
              shell barony together.
              Each group has informally polled their active members to show that
              there is an interest and a willingness to become cantons under a
              single baronial group. This includes the group currently known
              as "the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea" , who as a group feel that this is
              important for the sake of regional unity, to show that we each
              participate on a level playing field.
              We have been playing together in an informal fashion and have under
              the name 'Ayreton' ** have hosted 2 events together and are currently
              planning a third. Weekly dancing, calligraphy, singing, fighting and
              heraldry get togethers are held involving all 5 groups.
              Together, we wish to formalize this union, to facilitate
              representation of the area.

              We await your permission so that we can pursue the next step in this
              change."




              Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
            • John Adams
              The observation about Ravenslake possibly going their own way toward a Barony was only text I cut and pasted. I suspect that was supposition unrelated to the
              Message 6 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                The observation about Ravenslake possibly going their own way toward a Barony was only text I cut and pasted. I suspect that was supposition unrelated to the poll at hand, and there may have been other reasons they elected to not participate in the proposal. I don't know. Only an officer from Ravenslake is honestly equipped to answer whether that is indeed the direction they're taking.
                 
                -- Grimkirk

                ----- Original Message ----
                From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@...>
                To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:57:34 PM
                Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

                 
                I thought I remember the poll we took specifically asking if people wanted to become a member of a shell barony with all six Chicago area groups, and that is the question I thought we answered.  That's not what this letter is now proposing. 
                 
                Especially given the emphasis on "regional unity", how does the local picture change given the result of the poll?  We did not consider the question of whether people wanted to have one local group elevate to barony and the others form a shell barony.  If Ravenslake is becoming a barony, would it then make more sense for the other established local groups to follow suit?  The shell barony idea appealed to many because that would put all of the current groups on equal footing within the shell.  That is no longer the case.  Are we going to deal with this issue in the ongoing meetings and discussions?
                 
                Teleri

                 
                ----- Original Message ----
                From: scribesquire <Scribesquire@ comcast.net>
                To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:46:28 PM
                Subject: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

                Here it is. I have left off only the names of the seneschals
                since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.

                Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your seneschals (THAT
                IS A JOKE!!).....

                "This is to express the intent of the groups known as shires of Grey
                Gargoyles, (Incipient Shire of) Foxvale, Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
                and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to pursue becoming a
                shell barony together.
                Each group has informally polled their active members to show that
                there is an interest and a willingness to become cantons under a
                single baronial group. This includes the group currently known
                as "the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea" , who as a group feel that this is
                important for the sake of regional unity, to show that we each
                participate on a level playing field.
                We have been playing together in an informal fashion and have under
                the name 'Ayreton' ** have hosted 2 events together and are currently
                planning a third. Weekly dancing, calligraphy, singing, fighting and
                heraldry get togethers are held involving all 5 groups.
                Together, we wish to formalize this union, to facilitate
                representation of the area.

                We await your permission so that we can pursue the next step in this
                change."




                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.



                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
              • Teleri
                Noted, but that still leaves us with a regional unity of local groups minus one, that is not going to be part of the shell barony regardless of their
                Message 7 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Noted, but that still leaves us with a "regional unity" of local groups minus one, that is not going to be part of the shell barony regardless of their eventual status.
                   
                  Teleri

                  ----- Original Message ----
                  From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
                  To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:01:15 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

                  The observation about Ravenslake possibly going their own way toward a Barony was only text I cut and pasted. I suspect that was supposition unrelated to the poll at hand, and there may have been other reasons they elected to not participate in the proposal. I don't know. Only an officer from Ravenslake is honestly equipped to answer whether that is indeed the direction they're taking.
                   
                  -- Grimkirk

                  ----- Original Message ----
                  From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@ yahoo.com>
                  To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                  Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:57:34 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

                   
                  I thought I remember the poll we took specifically asking if people wanted to become a member of a shell barony with all six Chicago area groups, and that is the question I thought we answered.  That's not what this letter is now proposing. 
                   
                  Especially given the emphasis on "regional unity", how does the local picture change given the result of the poll?  We did not consider the question of whether people wanted to have one local group elevate to barony and the others form a shell barony.  If Ravenslake is becoming a barony, would it then make more sense for the other established local groups to follow suit?  The shell barony idea appealed to many because that would put all of the current groups on equal footing within the shell.  That is no longer the case.  Are we going to deal with this issue in the ongoing meetings and discussions?
                   
                  Teleri

                   
                  ----- Original Message ----
                  From: scribesquire <Scribesquire@ comcast.net>
                  To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                  Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:46:28 PM
                  Subject: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

                  Here it is. I have left off only the names of the seneschals
                  since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.

                  Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your seneschals (THAT
                  IS A JOKE!!).....

                  "This is to express the intent of the groups known as shires of Grey
                  Gargoyles, (Incipient Shire of) Foxvale, Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
                  and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to pursue becoming a
                  shell barony together.
                  Each group has informally polled their active members to show that
                  there is an interest and a willingness to become cantons under a
                  single baronial group. This includes the group currently known
                  as "the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea" , who as a group feel that this is
                  important for the sake of regional unity, to show that we each
                  participate on a level playing field.
                  We have been playing together in an informal fashion and have under
                  the name 'Ayreton' ** have hosted 2 events together and are currently
                  planning a third. Weekly dancing, calligraphy, singing, fighting and
                  heraldry get togethers are held involving all 5 groups.
                  Together, we wish to formalize this union, to facilitate
                  representation of the area.

                  We await your permission so that we can pursue the next step in this
                  change."




                  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.



                  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.



                  Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                • Carrot Khan
                  Thank you for the posting. I m beginning to have a better understanding of some of the conflict going on and only today I discovered a Society precedent and
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thank you for the posting.

                    I'm beginning to have a better understanding of some of the conflict going on and only today I discovered a Society precedent and possible compromise to Tree-Girt-Sea loosing it's historical standing. 

                    http://cunnan.sca.org.au/wiki/Ostgardr

                    If the the hottest point to becoming a Barony is to have a representative of the Crown, then there is an alternative and Tree-Girt-Sea can remain a Province.

                    Caroline/Jadiwga
                  • David Roland
                    Teleri, At the Vanished Woods Event, All Souls Feast, this past November the announcment of who would join in their interest of a shell barony was announced.
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Teleri,

                      At the Vanished Woods Event, All Souls Feast, this past November the
                      announcment of who would join in their interest of a shell barony was
                      announced. The individual groups of the area, IIRC, posted the
                      results of their group polling onto this the Ayreton Yahoo! Group
                      prior to All Souls Feast. Ravenslake's polling,IIRC, was unanimous
                      in not being interested in joining in any barony that might be
                      created of the groups in the Chicagoland area.

                      The reasons for Ravenslake choosing not to be interested in any
                      barony that may be created of the groups in the Chicagoland area are
                      their own to explain, and I respect them. It is, in my opinion, good
                      evidence that no group in the area was forced into the accepting of
                      looking into becoming a part of a barony and that all groups took
                      their own look at the question and answered as they chose to in an
                      open and democratic manner.

                      I can say that when I was the Cryer, I knew a lot more about the day
                      to day ins and outs about this process than I do now. I know that I
                      and the current Honorable Lord Mayor encouraged people who had
                      stopped posting against looking into barony to continue posting their
                      thoughts and reasons in an amicable, polite manner as it is very
                      important for everyone to have their say.

                      I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
                      think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
                      their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
                      into forming a shell barony together. Our Seneschals did a wonderful
                      job with their groups and likely are continuing to do a wonderful job
                      if perhaps slow with getting out the wording of the letter of intent
                      out.

                      Just my thoughts

                      Ian




                      --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, Teleri <alta_gioiosa@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Noted, but that still leaves us with a "regional unity" of local
                      groups minus one, that is not going to be part of the shell barony
                      regardless of their eventual status.
                      >
                      > Teleri
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message ----
                      > From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
                      > To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:01:15 PM
                      > Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent
                      >
                      > The observation about Ravenslake possibly going their own way
                      toward a Barony was only text I cut and pasted. I suspect that was
                      supposition unrelated to the poll at hand, and there may have been
                      other reasons they elected to not participate in the proposal. I
                      don't know. Only an officer from Ravenslake is honestly equipped to
                      answer whether that is indeed the direction they're taking.
                      >
                      > -- Grimkirk
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message ----
                      > From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@ yahoo.com>
                      > To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                      > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:57:34 PM
                      > Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > I thought I remember the poll we took specifically asking if people
                      wanted to become a member of a shell barony with all six Chicago area
                      groups, and that is the question I thought we answered. That's not
                      what this letter is now proposing.
                      >
                      > Especially given the emphasis on "regional unity", how does the
                      local picture change given the result of the poll? We did not
                      consider the question of whether people wanted to have one local
                      group elevate to barony and the others form a shell barony. If
                      Ravenslake is becoming a barony, would it then make more sense for
                      the other established local groups to follow suit? The shell barony
                      idea appealed to many because that would put all of the current
                      groups on equal footing within the shell. That is no longer the
                      case. Are we going to deal with this issue in the ongoing meetings
                      and discussions?
                      >
                      > Teleri
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message ----
                      > From: scribesquire <Scribesquire@ comcast.net>
                      > To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                      > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:46:28 PM
                      > Subject: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent
                      >
                      >
                      > Here it is. I have left off only the names of the seneschals
                      > since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.
                      >
                      > Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your seneschals (THAT
                      > IS A JOKE!!).....
                      >
                      > "This is to express the intent of the groups known as shires of
                      Grey
                      > Gargoyles, (Incipient Shire of) Foxvale, Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
                      > and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to pursue becoming
                      a
                      > shell barony together.
                      > Each group has informally polled their active members to show that
                      > there is an interest and a willingness to become cantons under a
                      > single baronial group. This includes the group currently known
                      > as "the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea" , who as a group feel that this
                      is
                      > important for the sake of regional unity, to show that we each
                      > participate on a level playing field.
                      > We have been playing together in an informal fashion and have under
                      > the name 'Ayreton' ** have hosted 2 events together and are
                      currently
                      > planning a third. Weekly dancing, calligraphy, singing, fighting
                      and
                      > heraldry get togethers are held involving all 5 groups.
                      > Together, we wish to formalize this union, to facilitate
                      > representation of the area.
                      >
                      > We await your permission so that we can pursue the next step in
                      this
                      > change."
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
                      Try it now.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
                      Try it now.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      ______________________________________________________________________
                      ______________
                      > Be a better friend, newshound, and
                      > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                      http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                      >
                    • Scribesquire@comcast.net
                      It is simple really. All along we had planned on posting it for all to see BUT we had an event on Saturday where many of us put in time to help out. Then
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        It is simple really.   All along we had planned on posting it for all to see BUT we had an event on Saturday where many of us put in time to help out.   Then there is the mundane world that we all live in and that calls upon our time resources.   So today, Thursday, was the first chance to actually list the exact wording.  Like I said, we were going to do it all along, we just thought it wasn't a pressing issue.
                         
                        Henry
                         
                        -------------- Original message --------------
                        From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>

                        Henry, et al,
                         
                        I find it peculiar that you have now seen fit to release this text to others (or publicly via this list) upon the request of another individual, in contrast to your committee's collective decision to decline a request directly from me earlier this week (see below).
                         
                        It seems a reasonable person could hardly feel that your previous ruling was anything but a personal decision to withhold this information from select individuals (in this case, me). Yet, based upon the published text (which is consistant with the text from your Chicago_Barony Yahoogroups list archives), I cannot fathom what information contained in it that might have required such safeguarding. As is plain, my request was both polite and timely, and I saw no cause for concern other than my known opposition. Resultantly, I'm sure you can understand that same reasonable person being concerned about any future decisions of a similar nature.
                         
                        Was the decision to release this today on the Ayreton list also the product of a vote of your committee?  If so, then perhaps you could explain on behalf of your committee what the distinction in the decision was, or why it wasn handled differently? And will your committee be making similar distinctions on requests from individuals in the future? 

                        -- Grimkirk
                         
                        cc: MK Transitions Officer

                        ----- Original Message ----
                        From: scribesquire <Scribesquire@ comcast.net>
                        To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                        Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:55:12 PM
                        Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent

                        Sorry, I left off a footnote:

                        "**Ayreton is a name we feel we can neither document, nor would
                        wish to use as a baronial name, but was chosen for fun, several years
                        ago, as a play on "the windy city", as all groups are in the
                        Chicagoland area."

                        And to be completely honest, this footnote is being que stioned as
                        some research shows it may actual be documentable. Although whether
                        it is a name people want is another question altogether. (and one I
                        hope people will show up at Stone Dog and discuss).

                        Henry

                        --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups .com, "scribesquire" <Scribesquire@ ...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Here it is. I have left off only the names of the seneschals
                        > since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.
                        >
                        > Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your seneschals (THAT
                        > IS A JOKE!!).....
                        >
                        > "This is to express the intent of the groups known as shires of
                        > Grey Gargoyles, (Incipient Shire of) Foxvale, Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
                        > and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to pursue becoming
                        & gt; a shell barony together.
                        <snipped for brevity>

                        ----- Forwarded Messages ----
                        From: "spdesroches@ att.net" <spdesroches@ att.net>
                        To: John Adams <auldefarte@yahoo. com>
                        Cc: Chicago_Barony@ yahoogroups. com
                        Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:08:41 PM
                        Subject: Re: 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere'

                         

                        Greetings

                         

                        I have spoken to the Transitions Officer as well as the local Seneschals on your request for a copy of the letter of intent. Although the T.O. feels there is no Kingdom law or custom prohibiting such, he wished that it would be agreed upon by the local seneschals to do so. Unfortunately a unanimous assent was not reached. As of this time we will be unable to provide you with the copy.

                         

                        In Service

                         

                        THL Etienne le Couteau des Roches

                        Lord Mayor, Ayreton 


                        ----- Original Message ----
                        From: John Adams <auldefarte@yahoo. com>
                        To: Etienne <spdesroches@ att.net>
                        Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:11:56 PM
                        Subject: 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere'

                        Etienne,

                        As a resident potentially subject to the changes being requested by the committee, I would like to request a copy of the documents provided to Her Majesty on behalf of the 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere' for review.

                        - Grimkirk



                        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

                      • John Adams
                        Excerpt QUOTED from publicly available message #9 of 44 from mailing list Chicago_Barony [at] yahoogroups [dot] com dated 11/26/07. Timestamped PDF Screen
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Excerpt QUOTED from publicly available message #9 of
                          44 from mailing list 'Chicago_Barony [at] yahoogroups
                          [dot] com' dated 11/26/07.
                          Timestamped PDF Screen Shot from Yahoogroups website
                          available upon request.
                          <---- Begin Quote ---->
                          DRAFT__________________________________________________________
                          To: Regional Seneschal, the Transition Officer,
                          Kingdom Seneschal
                          Subject: Petition to Transition to Baronial Status
                          Date: January 1, 2008
                          This is to express the intent of the groups known as
                          shires of Grey Gargoyles, Foxvale, Rokkheldon,
                          Vanished Woods and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that
                          we wish to persue becoming a shell barony
                          together.
                          Each group has informally polled their active members
                          to show that there is an interest and a willingness to
                          become cantons under a single baronial group. This
                          includes the group currently known as "the Province of
                          Tree-Girt-Sea " , who as a group feel that this
                          is important for the sake of regional unity, to show
                          that we each participate on a level playing field.
                          We have been playing together in an informal fashion
                          and have under the name 'Ayreton' ** have hosted 2
                          events together and are currently planning a third.
                          Weekly dancing, calligraphy, singing, fighting and
                          heraldry get togethers are held involving all 5
                          groups.
                          Together, we wish to formalize this union, to
                          facilitate representation of the area.
                          We await your permission so that we can persue the
                          next step in this change.
                          Thank you for your attention ,
                          <---- End Quote ---->

                          Prudent spellchecking and the prefixing of 'Foxvale'
                          with "(Incipient Shire of)" notwithstanding, it would
                          seem the committee still took enough time last Monday
                          to contact the Kingdom Transition Officer after my
                          request, and then exchange information with each of
                          Seneschals and Etienne in order to decide to refuse my
                          request.

                          As a working grad student, I certainly appreciate the
                          demands of real life and the like. And still, several
                          (working) members of the committee had at least enough
                          time in the past few days to post other messages to
                          this list, including several yourself on Tuesday, in
                          fact discussing the request for the very document in
                          the first place. Only after a different individual
                          requested to see the very same document, today, was it
                          posted to this list, within an hour of that request. A
                          document that's been in electronic form since
                          November, and transmitted (ostensibly) since January
                          first.

                          Sadly, I must agree with you. From what I can tell, it
                          does seem quite simple, really.

                          -- Grimkirk


                          --- Scribesquire@... wrote:

                          > It is simple really. All along we had planned on
                          > posting it for all to see BUT we had an event on
                          > Saturday where many of us put in time to help out.
                          > Then there is the mundane world that we all live in
                          > and that calls upon our time resources. So today,
                          > Thursday, was the first chance to actually list the
                          > exact wording. Like I said, we were going to do it
                          > all along, we just thought it wasn't a pressing
                          > issue.
                          >
                          > Henry
                          >
                          > -------------- Original message --------------
                          > From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
                          > Henry, et al,
                          >
                          > I find it peculiar that you have now seen fit to
                          > release this text to others (or publicly via this
                          > list) upon the request of another individual, in
                          > contrast to your committee's collective decision to
                          > decline a request directly from me earlier this week
                          > (see below).
                          >
                          > It seems a reasonable person could hardly feel that
                          > your previous ruling was anything but a personal
                          > decision to withhold this information from select
                          > individuals (in this case, me). Yet, based upon the
                          > published text (which is consistant with the text
                          > from your Chicago_Barony Yahoogroups list archives),
                          > I cannot fathom what information contained in it
                          > that might have required such safeguarding. As is
                          > plain, my request was both polite and timely, and I
                          > saw no cause for concern other than my known
                          > opposition. Resultantly, I'm sure you can understand
                          > that same reasonable person being concerned about
                          > any future decisions of a similar nature.
                          >
                          > Was the decision to release this today on the
                          > Ayreton list also the product of a vote of your
                          > committee? If so, then perhaps you could explain on
                          > behalf of your committee what the distinction in the
                          > decision was, or why it wasn handled differently?
                          > And will your committee be making similar
                          > distinctions on requests from individuals in the
                          > future?
                          >
                          >
                          > -- Grimkirk
                          >
                          > cc: MK Transitions Officer
                          >
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message ----
                          > From: scribesquire <Scribesquire@...>
                          > To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:55:12 PM
                          > Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter
                          > of intent
                          >
                          > Sorry, I left off a footnote:
                          >
                          > "**Ayreton is a name we feel we can neither
                          > document, nor would
                          > wish to use as a baronial name, but was chosen for
                          > fun, several years
                          > ago, as a play on "the windy city", as all groups
                          > are in the
                          > Chicagoland area."
                          >
                          > And to be completely honest, this footnote is being
                          > questioned as
                          > some research shows it may actual be documentable.
                          > Although whether
                          > it is a name people want is another question
                          > altogether. (and one I
                          > hope people will show up at Stone Dog and discuss).
                          >
                          > Henry
                          >
                          > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups .com, "scribesquire"
                          > <Scribesquire@ ...>
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Here it is. I have left off only the names of the
                          > seneschals
                          > > since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.
                          > >
                          > > Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your
                          > seneschals (THAT
                          > > IS A JOKE!!).....
                          > >
                          > > "This is to express the intent of the groups known
                          > as shires of
                          > > Grey Gargoyles, (Incipient Shire of) Foxvale,
                          > Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
                          > > and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to
                          > pursue becoming
                          > > a shell barony together.
                          > <snipped for brevity>
                          >
                          > ----- Forwarded Messages ----
                          > From: "spdesroches@..." <spdesroches@...>
                          > To: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
                          > Cc: Chicago_Barony@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:08:41 PM
                          > Subject: Re: 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere'
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Greetings
                          >
                          > I have spoken to the Transitions Officer as well as
                          > the local Seneschals on your request for a copy of
                          > the letter of intent. Although the T.O. feels there
                          > is no Kingdom law or custom prohibiting such, he
                          > wished that it would be agreed upon by the local
                          > seneschals to do so. Unfortunately a unanimous
                          > assent was not reached. As of this time we will be
                          > unable to provide you with the copy.
                          >
                          > In Service
                          >
                          > THL Etienne le Couteau des Roches
                          > Lord Mayor, Ayreton
                          >
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message ----
                          > From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
                          > To: Etienne <spdesroches@...>
                          > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:11:56 PM
                          > Subject: 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere'
                          >
                          > Etienne,
                          >
                          > As a resident potentially subject to the changes
                          > being requested by the committee, I would like to
                          > request a copy of the documents provided to Her
                          > Majesty on behalf of the 'Greater Ayreton
                          > Co-Prosperity Sphere' for review.
                          >
                          > - Grimkirk



                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                          Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
                        • Scribesquire@comcast.net
                          A unanimous decision was not met because not all seneschals could be reached. That pesky real world again getting in the way of our fun. :) Grimkirk, you
                          Message 12 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                             
                            A unanimous decision was not met because not all seneschals could be reached.  That pesky real world again getting in the way of our fun.  :)
                             
                            Grimkirk, you have our apologies if it seemed like you were being ignored on purpose.  We value all the opinions of the residents of the Ayreton area and  encrouage everyone to continue the civilized and open discussion on the subject.
                             
                            Henry
                             
                             

                          • David Roland
                            I ve been to the Chicago_Barony Yahoo! Group site a few times since it was mentioned. I see no publicly available archives. Please let me know how you are
                            Message 13 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I've been to the Chicago_Barony Yahoo! Group site a few times since
                              it was mentioned. I see no publicly available archives. Please let
                              me know how you are accessing them.

                              Ian

                              --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, John Adams <auldefarte@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Excerpt QUOTED from publicly available message #9 of
                              > 44 from mailing list 'Chicago_Barony [at] yahoogroups
                              > [dot] com' dated 11/26/07.
                              > Timestamped PDF Screen Shot from Yahoogroups website
                              > available upon request.
                              > <---- Begin Quote ---->
                              > DRAFT__________________________________________________________
                              > To: Regional Seneschal, the Transition Officer,
                              > Kingdom Seneschal
                              > Subject: Petition to Transition to Baronial Status
                              > Date: January 1, 2008
                              > This is to express the intent of the groups known as
                              > shires of Grey Gargoyles, Foxvale, Rokkheldon,
                              > Vanished Woods and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that
                              > we wish to persue becoming a shell barony
                              > together.
                              > Each group has informally polled their active members
                              > to show that there is an interest and a willingness to
                              > become cantons under a single baronial group. This
                              > includes the group currently known as "the Province of
                              > Tree-Girt-Sea " , who as a group feel that this
                              > is important for the sake of regional unity, to show
                              > that we each participate on a level playing field.
                              > We have been playing together in an informal fashion
                              > and have under the name 'Ayreton' ** have hosted 2
                              > events together and are currently planning a third.
                              > Weekly dancing, calligraphy, singing, fighting and
                              > heraldry get togethers are held involving all 5
                              > groups.
                              > Together, we wish to formalize this union, to
                              > facilitate representation of the area.
                              > We await your permission so that we can persue the
                              > next step in this change.
                              > Thank you for your attention ,
                              > <---- End Quote ---->
                              >
                              > Prudent spellchecking and the prefixing of 'Foxvale'
                              > with "(Incipient Shire of)" notwithstanding, it would
                              > seem the committee still took enough time last Monday
                              > to contact the Kingdom Transition Officer after my
                              > request, and then exchange information with each of
                              > Seneschals and Etienne in order to decide to refuse my
                              > request.
                              >
                              > As a working grad student, I certainly appreciate the
                              > demands of real life and the like. And still, several
                              > (working) members of the committee had at least enough
                              > time in the past few days to post other messages to
                              > this list, including several yourself on Tuesday, in
                              > fact discussing the request for the very document in
                              > the first place. Only after a different individual
                              > requested to see the very same document, today, was it
                              > posted to this list, within an hour of that request. A
                              > document that's been in electronic form since
                              > November, and transmitted (ostensibly) since January
                              > first.
                              >
                              > Sadly, I must agree with you. From what I can tell, it
                              > does seem quite simple, really.
                              >
                              > -- Grimkirk
                              >
                              >
                              > --- Scribesquire@... wrote:
                              >
                              > > It is simple really. All along we had planned on
                              > > posting it for all to see BUT we had an event on
                              > > Saturday where many of us put in time to help out.
                              > > Then there is the mundane world that we all live in
                              > > and that calls upon our time resources. So today,
                              > > Thursday, was the first chance to actually list the
                              > > exact wording. Like I said, we were going to do it
                              > > all along, we just thought it wasn't a pressing
                              > > issue.
                              > >
                              > > Henry
                              > >
                              > > -------------- Original message --------------
                              > > From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
                              > > Henry, et al,
                              > >
                              > > I find it peculiar that you have now seen fit to
                              > > release this text to others (or publicly via this
                              > > list) upon the request of another individual, in
                              > > contrast to your committee's collective decision to
                              > > decline a request directly from me earlier this week
                              > > (see below).
                              > >
                              > > It seems a reasonable person could hardly feel that
                              > > your previous ruling was anything but a personal
                              > > decision to withhold this information from select
                              > > individuals (in this case, me). Yet, based upon the
                              > > published text (which is consistant with the text
                              > > from your Chicago_Barony Yahoogroups list archives),
                              > > I cannot fathom what information contained in it
                              > > that might have required such safeguarding. As is
                              > > plain, my request was both polite and timely, and I
                              > > saw no cause for concern other than my known
                              > > opposition. Resultantly, I'm sure you can understand
                              > > that same reasonable person being concerned about
                              > > any future decisions of a similar nature.
                              > >
                              > > Was the decision to release this today on the
                              > > Ayreton list also the product of a vote of your
                              > > committee? If so, then perhaps you could explain on
                              > > behalf of your committee what the distinction in the
                              > > decision was, or why it wasn handled differently?
                              > > And will your committee be making similar
                              > > distinctions on requests from individuals in the
                              > > future?
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > -- Grimkirk
                              > >
                              > > cc: MK Transitions Officer
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > ----- Original Message ----
                              > > From: scribesquire <Scribesquire@...>
                              > > To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                              > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:55:12 PM
                              > > Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter
                              > > of intent
                              > >
                              > > Sorry, I left off a footnote:
                              > >
                              > > "**Ayreton is a name we feel we can neither
                              > > document, nor would
                              > > wish to use as a baronial name, but was chosen for
                              > > fun, several years
                              > > ago, as a play on "the windy city", as all groups
                              > > are in the
                              > > Chicagoland area."
                              > >
                              > > And to be completely honest, this footnote is being
                              > > questioned as
                              > > some research shows it may actual be documentable.
                              > > Although whether
                              > > it is a name people want is another question
                              > > altogether. (and one I
                              > > hope people will show up at Stone Dog and discuss).
                              > >
                              > > Henry
                              > >
                              > > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups .com, "scribesquire"
                              > > <Scribesquire@ ...>
                              > > wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Here it is. I have left off only the names of the
                              > > seneschals
                              > > > since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.
                              > > >
                              > > > Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your
                              > > seneschals (THAT
                              > > > IS A JOKE!!).....
                              > > >
                              > > > "This is to express the intent of the groups known
                              > > as shires of
                              > > > Grey Gargoyles, (Incipient Shire of) Foxvale,
                              > > Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
                              > > > and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to
                              > > pursue becoming
                              > > > a shell barony together.
                              > > <snipped for brevity>
                              > >
                              > > ----- Forwarded Messages ----
                              > > From: "spdesroches@..." <spdesroches@...>
                              > > To: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
                              > > Cc: Chicago_Barony@yahoogroups.com
                              > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:08:41 PM
                              > > Subject: Re: 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere'
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Greetings
                              > >
                              > > I have spoken to the Transitions Officer as well as
                              > > the local Seneschals on your request for a copy of
                              > > the letter of intent. Although the T.O. feels there
                              > > is no Kingdom law or custom prohibiting such, he
                              > > wished that it would be agreed upon by the local
                              > > seneschals to do so. Unfortunately a unanimous
                              > > assent was not reached. As of this time we will be
                              > > unable to provide you with the copy.
                              > >
                              > > In Service
                              > >
                              > > THL Etienne le Couteau des Roches
                              > > Lord Mayor, Ayreton
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > ----- Original Message ----
                              > > From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
                              > > To: Etienne <spdesroches@...>
                              > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:11:56 PM
                              > > Subject: 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere'
                              > >
                              > > Etienne,
                              > >
                              > > As a resident potentially subject to the changes
                              > > being requested by the committee, I would like to
                              > > request a copy of the documents provided to Her
                              > > Majesty on behalf of the 'Greater Ayreton
                              > > Co-Prosperity Sphere' for review.
                              > >
                              > > - Grimkirk
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              _____________________________________________________________________
                              _______________
                              > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                              > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                              http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?
                              category=shopping
                              >
                            • David&Peg Cook
                              This possibility was explored by the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea many years ago and shot down by the BoD. There will be no more Crown Provinces. This topic was
                              Message 14 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                This possibility was explored by the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea many years ago and shot down by the BoD. There will be no more Crown Provinces. This topic was also raised as a part of this discussion some months ago. Which is reflective of no more than the circular nature of these discussions.
                                 
                                The "problem" of Tree-Girt-Sea's status (and I realize that people may take issue with my use of that word) is, to my thinking, a long-standing and separate, tho interlinked, issue of whether or not Ayreton should pursue shell barony status. The part of the story of the region that explains why there are six separate groups, instead of one barony and five cantons should, maybe, not be the driving factor in making decisions about what happens "today". I personally think that losing sight of that story is foolish, but that's merely one "ghost person's" opinion.
                                 
                                And while Ian's use of the term "ghost people" may rankle, speaking as one myself, I am forced to admit that Ian is right. IMO--if it matters to people what is happening in the region, then they should make some effort to participate--even if only to get to one local meeting to participate in a poll. If your mundane life or other hobby are taking so much priority for you that you can't manage to do so, then--IMO--let it go. Which is largely why I have been keeping my trap shut about these issues. I don't have the time in my life right now to back up my opinons wth some action. So I am opting to stay out of it. Lobbing opinion-grenades from the sidelines is not useful--IMO.
                                 
                                THL Evzenie Apolena Vitkovic
                                (who hopes to be able to do more than lob opinions from the sidelines--someday)
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                David&Peg Cook
                                "The things that are given, not won, are the things that you want" -- Gomez, "See the World"
                                 
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: 2/1/2008 7:57:57 AM
                                Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

                                Thank you for the posting.

                                I'm beginning to have a better understanding of some of the conflict going on and only today I discovered a Society precedent and possible compromise to Tree-Girt-Sea loosing it's historical standing. 

                                http://cunnan. sca.org.au/ wiki/Ostgardr

                                If the the hottest point to becoming a Barony is to have a representative of the Crown, then there is an alternative and Tree-Girt-Sea can remain a Province.

                                Caroline/Jadiwga

                              • Carrot Khan
                                ... ago and shot down by the BoD. There will be no more Crown Provinces. This topic was also raised as a part of this discussion some months ago. Which is
                                Message 15 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >This possibility was explored by the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea many years ago and shot down by the BoD. There will be no more Crown Provinces. This topic was also raised as a part of this discussion some months ago. Which is reflective of no more than the circular nature of these discussions.

                                  That's too bad, as it seemed a plausible compromise.  The Board will only accept a proposal for Shell and nothing else?

                                  Caroline/Jadwiga



                                   
                                  The "problem" of Tree-Girt-Sea's status (and I realize that people may take issue with my use of that word) is, to my thinking, a long-standing and separate, tho interlinked, issue of whether or not Ayreton should pursue shell barony status. The part of the story of the region that explains why there are six separate groups, instead of one barony and five cantons should, maybe, not be the driving factor in making decisions about what happens "today". I personally think that losing sight of that story is foolish, but that's merely one "ghost person's" opinion.
                                   
                                  And while Ian's use of the term "ghost people" may rankle, speaking as one myself, I am forced to admit that Ian is right. IMO--if it matters to people what is happening in the region, then they should make some effort to participate--even if only to get to one local meeting to participate in a poll. If your mundane life or other hobby are taking so much priority for you that you can't manage to do so, then--IMO--let it go. Which is largely why I have been keeping my trap shut about these issues. I don't have the time in my life right now to back up my opinons wth some action. So I am opting to stay out of it. Lobbing opinion-grenades from the sidelines is not useful--IMO.
                                   
                                  THL Evzenie Apolena Vitkovic
                                  (who hopes to be able to do more than lob opinions from the sidelines--someday)
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                  David&Peg Cook
                                  "The things that are given, not won, are the things that you want" -- Gomez, "See the World"
                                   
                                   
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: 2/1/2008 7:57:57 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

                                  Thank you for the posting.

                                  I'm beginning to have a better understanding of some of the conflict going on and only today I discovered a Society precedent and possible compromise to Tree-Girt-Sea loosing it's historical standing. 

                                  http://cunnan.sca.org.au/wiki/Ostgardr

                                  If the the hottest point to becoming a Barony is to have a representative of the Crown, then there is an alternative and Tree-Girt-Sea can remain a Province.

                                  Caroline/Jadiwga


                                • John Adams
                                  You will note, that I ve indicated that they are no longer publicly accessible . The screen shot captured into PDF indicates that at the time they were
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    You will note, that I've indicated that they are 'no
                                    longer publicly accessible'. The screen shot captured
                                    into PDF indicates that at the time they were viewed,
                                    the archives were indeed public, indicating that I was
                                    the reader logged into Yahoo, and that only some
                                    portions of that list were restricted to members only,
                                    the messages not been designated so.

                                    I will be happy to provide document that if you wish.

                                    -- Grimkirk

                                    --- David Roland <mystborne@...> wrote:

                                    > I've been to the Chicago_Barony Yahoo! Group site a
                                    > few times since it was mentioned. I see no
                                    > publicly available archives. Please let me know
                                    > how you are accessing them.
                                    >
                                    > Ian
                                    >
                                    > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, John Adams
                                    > <auldefarte@...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Excerpt QUOTED from publicly available message #9
                                    > of
                                    > > 44 from mailing list 'Chicago_Barony [at]
                                    > yahoogroups
                                    > > [dot] com' dated 11/26/07.
                                    > > Timestamped PDF Screen Shot from Yahoogroups
                                    > website
                                    > > available upon request.
                                    > > <---- Begin Quote ---->
                                    > >
                                    <snipped for brevity>


                                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                    Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                    http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                                  • Christian Fournier
                                    ... You ll pardon me if the following sounds kind of... fussy. I m trying to be as objective and informational as possible, without editorializing my own
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      That's too bad, as it seemed a plausible compromise.  The Board will only accept a proposal for Shell and nothing else?

                                      You'll pardon me if the following sounds kind of...  fussy.  I'm trying to be as objective and informational as possible, without editorializing my own opinion into this answer.  

                                      Corpora currently defines a Province as "equivalent of barony without ceremonial representative".
                                      So by definition, they won't allow an existing Province to create a ceremonial representative.  Ostgardr keeps its existing system, including the Viceroy as "ceremonial representative", because it's "grandfathered" in-- that is, it wasn't required to change its own structure or status, when the definitions were changed.

                                      That said, there are all sorts of other proposals that the Board would consider, including a transition from Province directly to Barony for TGS alone, or transition from Province to Barony of TGS with other groups under it, or the incorporation of TGS into a shell Barony as an equal partner (Canton) with other groups.

                                      The particular proposal that's being considered, by TGS, at this time is the last of these.  From my personal recollection of the meeting where that decision was made, the officers and population of TGS present at that time generally agreed that our interest was not in having a ceremonial representative, so much as it was having formal bonds with any of our neighboring groups who chose to be so bound to us.  As such, it was generally conceded that a proposal that made TGS an equal partner with our neighbors would be the most fair and just option.  

                                      Hope this helps-- 

                                       Christian
                                    • David Roland
                                      Thank you but no, what was posted was sufficient, I was merely curious. Ian ... _____________________________________________________________________
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Thank you but no, what was posted was sufficient, I was merely
                                        curious.

                                        Ian

                                        --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, John Adams <auldefarte@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > You will note, that I've indicated that they are 'no
                                        > longer publicly accessible'. The screen shot captured
                                        > into PDF indicates that at the time they were viewed,
                                        > the archives were indeed public, indicating that I was
                                        > the reader logged into Yahoo, and that only some
                                        > portions of that list were restricted to members only,
                                        > the messages not been designated so.
                                        >
                                        > I will be happy to provide document that if you wish.
                                        >
                                        > -- Grimkirk
                                        >
                                        > --- David Roland <mystborne@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > I've been to the Chicago_Barony Yahoo! Group site a
                                        > > few times since it was mentioned. I see no
                                        > > publicly available archives. Please let me know
                                        > > how you are accessing them.
                                        > >
                                        > > Ian
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, John Adams
                                        > > <auldefarte@> wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Excerpt QUOTED from publicly available message #9
                                        > > of
                                        > > > 44 from mailing list 'Chicago_Barony [at]
                                        > > yahoogroups
                                        > > > [dot] com' dated 11/26/07.
                                        > > > Timestamped PDF Screen Shot from Yahoogroups
                                        > > website
                                        > > > available upon request.
                                        > > > <---- Begin Quote ---->
                                        > > >
                                        > <snipped for brevity>
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        _____________________________________________________________________
                                        _______________
                                        > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                        > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                                        >
                                      • John Adams
                                        Henry, you are a well-respected leader, and I appreciate your candor. And yes, real world demands can be tedious, to be sure. Yet, as genial as your response
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Henry, you are a well-respected leader, and I
                                          appreciate your candor. And yes, real world demands
                                          can be tedious, to be sure. Yet, as genial as your
                                          response is, I think many would have to admit that
                                          there are too many detailed circumstances present for
                                          anyone to believe that you really can't see the point
                                          being made here.

                                          Having received a response of any kind, one could
                                          hardly interpret that as being ignored, in any way. I
                                          think some, maybe many, would agree that inaction or
                                          deferment, or even plain silence, would more
                                          accurately represent having been ignored. Yet, the
                                          response to the original request was none of those
                                          things.

                                          Let us suppose for a moment what things might give
                                          someone pause:

                                          A voluntary inquiry to the Kingdom when none really
                                          seemed needed to honor the request (your committee is
                                          the author and controlling agent of the document(s),
                                          and acts of its own accord);

                                          Followed by perhaps what might be construed by some as
                                          a resounding 'no', authorized by someone on the
                                          committee, since Etienne is not one of the Seneschals;

                                          Then followed by three days of what, under some
                                          conditions could be construed as no follow up (yet you
                                          managed to take time to discuss the subject on the
                                          list). Even if your stragglers weren't reached
                                          immediately, surely a quick and dirty 'yes or no'
                                          could have been completed in the ensuing time frame.

                                          Further add the coincidence of a request from someone
                                          who was not an open opponent being honored within the
                                          span of an hour.

                                          All this, wrapped up with a claim that there wasn't
                                          time to post the text of a document that's been in
                                          electronic format since November and anticipated to be
                                          in the wild effective 1/1/08 at that time.

                                          The response from Etienne as crafted, seemed to make
                                          clear that the decision of the committee (in its
                                          entirety) was simply unfavorable. There was really
                                          nothing to indicate that any follow up or revision of
                                          the response was pending, or to be expected. Even if
                                          complete unanimity were somehow manditory, a response
                                          could have been delayed briefly, or a more clear
                                          response provided (on the order of "Gee, we'd like to
                                          accomodate you but we require a unanimous decision and
                                          we can't reach everyone just yet. We'll get back to
                                          you in X timeframe"). But that wasn't the case.

                                          In the end, this isn't about me, but the apparent
                                          distinction between those who support the transition
                                          to Barony and those who don't or can't and how they're
                                          being viewed, considered and dealt with by the
                                          'committee'. Perhaps no response would have been
                                          better than what ultimately appears, on more than just
                                          the surface, to be a disingenuous one.

                                          Regretfully,

                                          -- Grimkirk

                                          --- Scribesquire@... wrote:
                                          > A unanimous decision was not met because not all
                                          > seneschals could be reached. That pesky real world
                                          > again getting in the way of our fun. :)
                                          >
                                          > Grimkirk, you have our apologies if it seemed like
                                          > you were being ignored on purpose. We value all the
                                          > opinions of the residents of the Ayreton area and
                                          > encrouage everyone to continue the civilized and
                                          > open discussion on the subject.
                                          >
                                          > Henry


                                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                          http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                                        • Scribesquire@comcast.net
                                          We have apologized, we have exlained what happened, and we will strive to not make the same mistakes in the future. There were no devious, evil intentions
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            We have apologized, we have exlained what happened, and we will strive to not make the same mistakes in the future.  There were no devious, evil intentions behind it.  I hope that resolves the issue for everyone and we can move on.
                                             
                                            This entire process is new and there will be obvious pitfalls along the way.  None of us are perfect which is why we conntinue to ask for everyone's input. Again we urge you to go to Stone Dog Inn and join us in the ongoing discussions.  The seneschals will be working on coming up with a meeting agenda and will post it here prior to the event.
                                             
                                            thanks for everyone's patience and understanding
                                            Henry
                                             
                                            -------------- Original message --------------
                                            From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>

                                            Henry, you are a well-respected leader, and I
                                            appreciate your candor. And yes, real world demands
                                            can be tedious, to be sure. Yet, as genial as your
                                            response is, I think many would have to admit that
                                            there are too many detailed circumstances present for
                                            anyone to believe that you really can't see the point
                                            being made here.

                                            Having received a response of any kind, one could
                                            hardly interpret that as being ignored, in any way. I
                                            think some, maybe many, would agree that inaction or
                                            deferment, or even plain silence, would more
                                            accurately represent having been ignored. Yet, the
                                            response to the original request was none of those
                                            things.

                                            Let us suppose for a moment what things might give
                                            someone pause:

                                            A voluntary inquiry to the Kingdom when none really
                                            seemed needed to honor the request (your committee is
                                            the author and controlling agent of the document(s),
                                            and acts of its own accord);

                                            Followed by perhaps what might be construed by some as
                                            a resounding 'no', authorized by someone on the
                                            committee, since Etienne is not one of the Seneschals;

                                            Then followed by three days of what, under some
                                            conditions could be construed as no follow up (yet you
                                            managed to take time to discuss the subject on the
                                            list). Even if your stragglers weren't reached
                                            immediately, surely a quick and dirty 'yes or no'
                                            could have been completed in the ensuing time frame.

                                            Further add the coincidence of a request from someone
                                            who was not an open opponent being honored within the
                                            span of an hour.

                                            All this, wrapped up with a claim that there wasn't
                                            time to post the text of a document that's been in
                                            electronic format since November and anticipated to be
                                            in the wild effective 1/1/08 at that time.

                                            The response from Etienne as crafted, seemed to make
                                            clear that the decision of the committee (in its
                                            entirety) was simply unfavorable. There was really
                                            nothin g to indicate that any follow up or revision of
                                            the response was pending, or to be expected. Even if
                                            complete unanimity were somehow manditory, a response
                                            could have been delayed briefly, or a more clear
                                            response provided (on the order of "Gee, we'd like to
                                            accomodate you but we require a unanimous decision and
                                            we can't reach everyone just yet. We'll get back to
                                            you in X timeframe"). But that wasn't the case.

                                            In the end, this isn't about me, but the apparent
                                            distinction between those who support the transition
                                            to Barony and those who don't or can't and how they're
                                            being viewed, considered and dealt with by the
                                            'committee'. Perhaps no response would have been
                                            better than what ultimately appears, on more than just
                                            the surface, to be a disingenuous one.

                                            Regretfully,

                                            -- Grimkirk

                                            --- Scribesquire@ comcast.net wrote:
                                            > A unanimous decision was not met because not a ll
                                            > seneschals could be reached. That pesky real world
                                            > again getting in the way of our fun. :)
                                            >
                                            > Grimkirk, you have our apologies if it seemed like
                                            > you were being ignored on purpose. We value all the
                                            > opinions of the residents of the Ayreton area and
                                            > encrouage everyone to continue the civilized and
                                            > open discussion on the subject.
                                            >
                                            > Henry

                                            ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                            Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                            http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs

                                          • Teleri
                                            Ian said I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has left the fold nor do I think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on their own in
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Ian said>>

                                              I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
                                              think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
                                              their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
                                              into forming a shell barony together.

                                              ***

                                              The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members.

                                              This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that slight possibility became a reality.

                                              Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

                                              I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

                                              Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not.

                                              I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

                                              Teleri


                                              ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                              Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                              http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                                            • Christian Fournier
                                              ... My recollection of those early meetings, before the straw polls began, includes a general response that the possibility of one or more groups opting out
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                > This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial
                                                > meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a
                                                > possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it
                                                > later if that slight possibility became a reality.
                                                >
                                                > Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going
                                                > to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

                                                My recollection of those early meetings, before the straw polls
                                                began, includes a general response that the possibility of one or
                                                more groups opting out was a real possibility, but that it would not
                                                necessarily mean that the remaining groups couldn't or oughtn't
                                                proceed. In fact, the one thing that I recall being seen as a "deal-
                                                breaker" would be if TGS wasn't in, because TGS shares borders will
                                                all of the local Shires, and so can form a contiguous land-mass with
                                                any subset thereof, whereas the "donut barony" wasn't as appealing...
                                                (It's very possible that I was at different meetings than you were,
                                                though-- I was mostly attending meetings at Grey Gargoyles, at that
                                                point).

                                                At the TGS business meeting, where the "straw poll" happened, I
                                                recall an unconfirmed report being given, that "Ravenslake is likely
                                                to pursue a Barony on their own," shortly BEFORE the straw poll took
                                                place-- so, if I remember that one meeting correctly, then the TGS
                                                membership voted to proceed, in full knowledge of Ravenslake not
                                                being party to the shell.

                                                So, from my perspective, there's nothing to "sweep under the rug"--
                                                it's just a thing that doesn't seem particularly relevant, to me.
                                                Knowing now that it's relevant to YOU, however, makes it more
                                                relevant to me, too-- since I'm primarily concerned that everyone has
                                                an opportunity to feel that their concerns have been heard, and are
                                                satisfied that those concerns are addressed.

                                                > There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the
                                                > shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates,
                                                > a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer
                                                > be the case.

                                                I don't think that I agree. Being five instead of six is, I think,
                                                no impediment to unity among those five.

                                                > The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections
                                                > between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

                                                On the contrary, Ravenslake has chosen not to join the other groups;
                                                they'll by no means be excluded, but have chosen not to share those
                                                formal connections. I'm not sure I understand why you think that
                                                five groups cannot unite, without the sixth, nor why you see
                                                exclusion in any of this-- can you elaborate, or enlighten me to your
                                                viewpoint?
                                                >
                                                > ...You cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups
                                                > when such structural boundaries are put in place.

                                                For my part, I certainly don't deny that a Barony with Ravenslake as
                                                a member will be considerably different than a Barony with Ravenslake
                                                as a neighbor. I think that either situation is viable.

                                                > When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards,
                                                > baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which
                                                > were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and
                                                > individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will
                                                > not.

                                                And it's right and fitting that each group (and each individual, by
                                                way of his or her voice within that group) has the choice to
                                                participate, or not. Ravenslake has *chosen* not to be part of the
                                                shell Barony. By all accounts I've heard, they've so chosen, in
                                                order to pursue their own Baronial advancement-- but whether that
                                                rumor is true or not is beside the point: they got to choose, and
                                                that's the important thing.

                                                > I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional
                                                > structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.
                                                >
                                                Sorry if you've felt like your concerns were brushed aside-- as I
                                                said above, I personally hadn't addressed them, because I didn't
                                                realize that you had such a different perspective on what "we" knew
                                                going into this process than you did, so I was much less surprised by
                                                Ravenslake's choice than you were...

                                                By all means, now that everyone knows that Ravenslake isn't part of
                                                the advancement proposal, let's talk about HOW that changes what we
                                                might become, so that everyone can follow their own conscience in
                                                terms of what's being done, and why, and how.

                                                Christian
                                              • marie_la_f
                                                BIG FURRY GLOWING SAFETY-ORANGE DISCLAIMER: I am speaking here solely for myself, a person who plays in Ravenslake, and not as an officer or representative of
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  BIG FURRY GLOWING SAFETY-ORANGE DISCLAIMER: I am speaking here solely
                                                  for myself, a person who plays in Ravenslake, and not as an officer
                                                  or representative of The Shire of Ravenslake.

                                                  That said...

                                                  --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, Teleri <alta_gioiosa@...> wrote:

                                                  > <snip> It will have a major affect on the regional structure of
                                                  this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members. <

                                                  Mrrr, no. (Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding your use of the
                                                  term, which is entirely possible!) The "region" is a purely
                                                  administrative device to facilitate report collection. Whether a
                                                  group is an independent Shire, an independent Barony, or a part of a
                                                  collective such as a shell barony, does not affect the regional
                                                  structure.

                                                  Ravenslake isn't packing its bags and moving to Constellation or
                                                  Northshield or Lochac. It's staying right here in the Midlands where
                                                  it belongs.

                                                  > <snip> I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in
                                                  the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the
                                                  initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional
                                                  disadvantages. <

                                                  What are the disadvantages of 5 instead of 6? I ask this sincerely, I
                                                  would like to know what problems you're seeing. Would you kindly
                                                  elaborate?

                                                  > <snip> The new proposed structure will institutionalize the
                                                  connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups. <

                                                  That would indeed be the case if a group were being excluded against
                                                  their will. As commented in a previous post, the Ravenslake poll was
                                                  0 in favor and 19 against joining the shell barony. That sounds like
                                                  a choice from within, not an exclusion by the rest.

                                                  > Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a
                                                  certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield,
                                                  now that it has become it's own kingdom. <

                                                  Indeedy. I don't think you'll see fewer Ravenslakers at Ayreton
                                                  events, nor will Ayreton folk be "un-invited" to Ravenslake doings,
                                                  regardless of the size or name or structure of our groups. We'd miss
                                                  out on too much fun!

                                                  > However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between
                                                  groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it
                                                  comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial
                                                  championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were
                                                  proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and
                                                  individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will
                                                  not. <

                                                  Absolutely true. That's part of the choices you make when you decide
                                                  whether to participate in a barony.

                                                  > I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional
                                                  structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside. <

                                                  I'm sorry you feel these concerns are (or were) being brushed aside.
                                                  I've felt that the entire process has been quite open so far. But I
                                                  also appreciate your bringing up your questions--I hope we can come
                                                  to a friendly understanding and resolution on all of them.

                                                  Marie la Fauconniere
                                                  just some Lady who plays in Ravenslake
                                                • AlexdeSet@aol.com
                                                  Greetings! ???? Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony,
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Feb 2, 2008
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Greetings!
                                                         Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
                                                         In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will also be a good thing.
                                                         While I think it is good that others are concerned that Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and Barony, or Barony and Barony.
                                                    Is mise le meas,
                                                    Alexander de Seton,
                                                    Some Guy From Ravenslake


                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@...>
                                                    To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17 pm
                                                    Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent

                                                    Ian said>>

                                                    I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
                                                    think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
                                                    their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
                                                    into forming a shell barony together.

                                                    ***

                                                    The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members.

                                                    This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that slight possibility became a reality.

                                                    Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

                                                    I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

                                                    Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not.

                                                    I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

                                                    Teleri

                                                    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                                    Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                                    http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs

                                                    More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
                                                  • Valerie
                                                    Even though I no longer live in the area I must say I for one look forward with excitement to the prospect of the Ayreton Barony and I really look forward with
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Even though I no longer live in the area I must say I for one look
                                                      forward with excitement to the prospect of the Ayreton Barony and I
                                                      really look forward with hope that Ravenslake will become one as well.
                                                      Having spoken to a number of folk from Ravenslake before I left the
                                                      area about the barony issue I'd know of their decision to go a
                                                      different path 7 months ago and some of the reason's sited to me at
                                                      the time was in part the distance Ravenslake was from everyone else.
                                                      Some of the other reasons was a desire to form their own barony. This
                                                      led to the discussion of what if there was TWO baronies in the
                                                      area.....Ahh the schitck to be had with border skirmish between the
                                                      groups and friendly rivaleries. It opens up room for even greater
                                                      banter and lets face it it's not like they wont still help out with
                                                      events and the like. Imagine events potentially being hosted by two
                                                      baronies. Quite Impressive really and opens the door for many fun
                                                      interactions between the groups while still giving Chicago it's more
                                                      cohesive feel.

                                                      I look forward to the day when I may attend event in the barony of
                                                      Ayreton.

                                                      Moira O'Dorran
                                                      Formerly of Ayreton.

                                                      --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, AlexdeSet@... wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Greetings!
                                                      >
                                                      > ???? Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when
                                                      the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a
                                                      Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we
                                                      decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
                                                      >
                                                      > ???? In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are
                                                      baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a
                                                      bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will
                                                      also be a good thing.
                                                      >
                                                      > ???? While I think it is good that others are concerned that
                                                      Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still
                                                      here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a
                                                      slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and
                                                      Barony, or Barony and Barony.
                                                      >
                                                      > Is mise le meas,
                                                      >
                                                      > Alexander de Seton,
                                                      >
                                                      > Some Guy From Ravenslake
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                    • Teleri
                                                      The fact that the people Ravenslake chose to remain independent of their own will, and have every right to do so is not at issue. My concern is the affect
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008
                                                      • 0 Attachment

                                                        The fact that the people Ravenslake chose to remain independent of their own will, and have every right to do so is not at issue.  My concern is the affect that has on the logic of forming a shell barony out of the remaining five groups in the local area.

                                                         

                                                        Maybe my perspective is different because I have been happily thinking of myself as a citizen of Ayreton (meaning all 6 groups in the greater Chicago area) for the last several years.  With the efforts spent by so many people to promote the unity between groups, it has been wonderful to be able to participate in the activities and events of all groups, without worrying about what geographic location it is in, or which group it "belongs" to.

                                                         

                                                        I was not especially in favor of the Ayreton entity of all six groups advancing to barony status, but I at least understood the logic of the folks proposing it.  It would have maintained the unity of the area that we had all been working toward.  The newly proposed shell consisting of only part of the greater Chicago area groups has no such obvious logic to it.

                                                         

                                                        During the initial advancement discussions, many argued against individual groups advancing in status because of the barriers to unity that such structures could impose.  The newly proposed area-wide organization will have to deal with these issues of division.  I am now looking at the prospect of ending up quite close to the boundary of the Barony of Five and the Whatever of Ravenslake, which is quite unappealing.  While, of course, no wall will go up, and we won't stop talking to each other, my experience with the Midrealm is that people take Baronial boundaries much more seriously.  During the polling process, I already had people question my right to express an opinion outside my geographic zip code.  While the majority of people in the area did not support that type of exclusion, such attitudes only become stronger under a baronial organization structure.

                                                         

                                                        Regardless of what happens to the name Ayreton, how do we plan to maintain the unity of the greater Chicago entity, or is that no longer considered important?  My experience with the advancement process is that takes so much effort and resources from the group involved, there is little to spare for other matters for a long time.  If we want to maintain the larger area cohesion, will we now need a Governor instead of a Mayor to represent the larger entity comprising the Shell Barony and Ravenslake?  Are things like this mailing list and the Carnival event going to continue to represent the larger group or become the purview of just the Shell Barony?  Will we now need a new separate email list and new baronial events to promote the unity of the five groups without Ravenslake?  How does it make sense to try and form this shell of five, if we have been stressing for so long the cohesion of the entire set of six groups?

                                                         

                                                        Yours in Service,

                                                        Teleri



                                                        ----- Original Message ----
                                                        From: "AlexdeSet@..." <AlexdeSet@...>
                                                        To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                                                        Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2008 8:00:18 AM
                                                        Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent

                                                        Greetings!
                                                             Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
                                                             In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will also be a good thing.
                                                             While I think it is good that others are concerned that Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and Barony, or Barony and Barony.
                                                        Is mise le meas,
                                                        Alexander de Seton,
                                                        Some Guy From Ravenslake


                                                        -----Original Message-----
                                                        From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@ yahoo.com>
                                                        To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                                                        Sent: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17 pm
                                                        Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent

                                                        Ian said>>

                                                        I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
                                                        think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
                                                        their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
                                                        into forming a shell barony together.

                                                        ***

                                                        The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members.

                                                        This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that slight possibility became a reality.

                                                        Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

                                                        I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

                                                        Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not.

                                                        I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

                                                        Teleri

                                                        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                                        Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                                        http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs
                                                        More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!



                                                        Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                                                      • Christian Fournier
                                                        Thank you, Teleri, for clarifying your feelings. You raise some excellent questions, and I wouldn t want to belittle them by immediately countering them in
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Thank you, Teleri, for clarifying your feelings.  You raise some excellent questions, and I wouldn't want to belittle them by immediately "countering" them in turn.  

                                                          Rather, for my part, I'll plan to consider the questions you raise, and see what difference they make in my thoughts about the Baronial issue.  I encourage others to do the same-- give some real thought to the questions below, and let's take them up as we continue discussions at the next Towne Hall.  Some of these questions are interwoven tightly, with each other and with the already open questions of what happens to the Ayreton infrastructure we already have in place.

                                                          Thanks again, Teleri and all,

                                                           Christian

                                                          Regardless of what happens to the name Ayreton, how do we plan to maintain the unity of the greater Chicago entity, or is that no longer considered important?  My experience with the advancement process is that takes so much effort and resources from the group involved, there is little to spare for other matters for a long time.  If we want to maintain the larger area cohesion, will we now need a Governor instead of a Mayor to represent the larger entity comprising the Shell Barony and Ravenslake?  Are things like this mailing list and the Carnival event going to continue to represent the larger group or become the purview of just the Shell Barony?  Will we now need a new separate email list and new baronial events to promote the unity of the five groups without Ravenslake?  How does it make sense to try and form this shell of five, if we have been stressing for so long the cohesion of the entire set of six groups?

                                                           

                                                          Yours in Service,

                                                          Teleri



                                                          ----- Original Message ----
                                                          From: "AlexdeSet@..." <AlexdeSet@...>
                                                          To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                                                          Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2008 8:00:18 AM
                                                          Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent


                                                          Greetings!
                                                               Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
                                                               In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will also be a good thing.
                                                               While I think it is good that others are concerned that Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and Barony, or Barony and Barony.
                                                          Is mise le meas,
                                                          Alexander de Seton,
                                                          Some Guy From Ravenslake


                                                          -----Original Message-----
                                                          From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@ yahoo.com>
                                                          To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                                                          Sent: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17 pm
                                                          Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent

                                                          Ian said>>

                                                          I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I 
                                                          think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on 
                                                          their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look 
                                                          into forming a shell barony together. 

                                                          ***

                                                          The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members. 

                                                          This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that slight possibility became a reality. 

                                                          Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

                                                          I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups. 

                                                          Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not. 

                                                          I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

                                                          Teleri

                                                          ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                                          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. 
                                                          http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs
                                                          More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!



                                                          Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 

                                                        • Galen of Bristol
                                                          Having been at the Ravenslake meeting at which it was agreed that we would not join the Ayreton shell barony, I would just like to point out, in case it hasn t
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Feb 4, 2008
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Having been at the Ravenslake meeting at which it was agreed that we
                                                            would not join the Ayreton shell barony, I would just like to point
                                                            out, in case it hasn't been made clear, that Ravenslake never intended
                                                            to make or imply any statement of opposition to the remaining Ayreton
                                                            groups forming a barony.

                                                            We have no wish to veto, prevent, impede, undermine or discourage the
                                                            advancement of the other five groups.

                                                            Sometimes, growth doesn't happen quite the way you might want or
                                                            expect. That's just life.

                                                            - Galen of Bristol
                                                            another guy in Ravenslake

                                                            --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, Teleri <alta_gioiosa@...> wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            > The fact that the people Ravenslake chose to remain independent of
                                                            their own will, and have every right to do so is not at issue. My
                                                            concern is the affect that has on the logic of forming a shell barony
                                                            out of the remaining five groups in the local area.
                                                            >
                                                            > Maybe my perspective is different because I have been happily
                                                            thinking of myself as a citizen of Ayreton (meaning all 6 groups in
                                                            the greater Chicago area) for the last several years. With the
                                                            efforts spent by so many people to promote the unity between groups,
                                                            it has been wonderful to be able to participate in the activities and
                                                            events of all groups, without worrying about what geographic location
                                                            it is in, or which group it "belongs" to.
                                                            >
                                                            > I was not especially in favor of the Ayreton entity of all six
                                                            groups advancing to barony status, but I at least understood the logic
                                                            of the folks proposing it. It would have maintained the unity of the
                                                            area that we had all been working toward. The newly proposed shell
                                                            consisting of only part of the greater Chicago area groups has no such
                                                            obvious logic to it.
                                                            >
                                                            > During the initial advancement discussions, many argued against
                                                            individual groups advancing in status because of the barriers to unity
                                                            that such structures could impose. The newly proposed area-wide
                                                            organization will have to deal with these issues of division. I am
                                                            now looking at the prospect of ending up quite close to the boundary
                                                            of the Barony of Five and the Whatever of Ravenslake, which is quite
                                                            unappealing. While, of course, no wall will go up, and we won't stop
                                                            talking to each other, my experience with the Midrealm is that people
                                                            take Baronial boundaries much more seriously. During the polling
                                                            process, I already had people question my right to express an opinion
                                                            outside my geographic zip code. While the majority of people in the
                                                            area did not support that type of exclusion, such attitudes only
                                                            become stronger under a baronial organization structure.
                                                            >
                                                            > Regardless of what happens to the name Ayreton, how do we plan to
                                                            maintain the unity of the greater Chicago entity, or is that no longer
                                                            considered important? My experience with the advancement process is
                                                            that takes so much effort and resources from the group involved, there
                                                            is little to spare for other matters for a long time. If we want to
                                                            maintain the larger area cohesion, will we now need a Governor instead
                                                            of a Mayor to represent the larger entity comprising the Shell Barony
                                                            and Ravenslake? Are things like this mailing list and the Carnival
                                                            event going to continue to represent the larger group or become the
                                                            purview of just the Shell Barony? Will we now need a new separate
                                                            email list and new baronial events to promote the unity of the five
                                                            groups without Ravenslake? How does it make sense to try and form
                                                            this shell of five, if we have been stressing for so long the cohesion
                                                            of the entire set of six groups?
                                                            >
                                                            > Yours in Service,
                                                            > Teleri
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > ----- Original Message ----
                                                            > From: "AlexdeSet@..." <AlexdeSet@...>
                                                            > To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                                                            > Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2008 8:00:18 AM
                                                            > Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent
                                                            >
                                                            > Greetings!
                                                            > Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when
                                                            the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a
                                                            Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we
                                                            decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
                                                            > In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are
                                                            baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a
                                                            bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will
                                                            also be a good thing.
                                                            > While I think it is good that others are concerned that
                                                            Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still
                                                            here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a
                                                            slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and
                                                            Barony, or Barony and Barony.
                                                            > Is mise le meas,
                                                            > Alexander de Seton,
                                                            > Some Guy From Ravenslake
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > -----Original Message-----
                                                            > From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@ yahoo.com>
                                                            > To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                                                            > Sent: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17 pm
                                                            > Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > Ian said>>
                                                            >
                                                            > I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
                                                            > think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
                                                            > their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
                                                            > into forming a shell barony together.
                                                            >
                                                            > ***
                                                            >
                                                            > The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for
                                                            the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now
                                                            changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining
                                                            independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect
                                                            on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a
                                                            major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact
                                                            all 6 local groups and their members.
                                                            >
                                                            > This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial
                                                            meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a
                                                            possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it
                                                            later if that slight possibility became a reality.
                                                            >
                                                            > Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going
                                                            to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?
                                                            >
                                                            > I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the
                                                            shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the
                                                            initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional
                                                            disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major
                                                            advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of
                                                            intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that
                                                            will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will
                                                            institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and
                                                            exclude other groups.
                                                            >
                                                            > Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a
                                                            certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield,
                                                            now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that
                                                            it changes the relationships between groups when such structural
                                                            boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial
                                                            events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing
                                                            lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell
                                                            barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to
                                                            participate and some will not.
                                                            >
                                                            > I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional
                                                            structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.
                                                            >
                                                            > Teleri
                                                            >
                                                            > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                                            > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                                            > http://www.yahoo com/r/hs
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                                            > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                                            > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                                                            >
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.