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

Re: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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.