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

Shell without Ravenslake (was...)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.