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

Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent (::sigh::)

Expand Messages
  • David Roland
    Thank you but no, what was posted was sufficient, I was merely curious. Ian ... _____________________________________________________________________
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.