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

15Re: [householdconsortium] Re: OK, I'm here, the party can begin

Expand Messages
  • Greg & Audrey Epple
    Jan 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      James wrote:
      "Mistress Yesult. I would like to know what your mentioned consequences
      and concerns are. I would also like to hear what suggestions you have
      as to how to continue."

      Certainly. I'm past bedtime, so I will be brief for now and only highlight
      those things I find most vital.

      The Consortium has always been a democratic organization. Unilateral
      decisions (made by 5-10% of our total populace) belie our traditions, and
      frankly, make some of us who were not consulted feel as if our opinions are
      not wanted. Theahtyn said it best just now on our old list, so I will leave
      this thought dangling.

      I will, however, note that the comment: "Other important desicions were made
      and they will be addressed later in individual posts" worries me immensely.
      I *really* want to hear this clarified.

      Wide-open membership allows that SCA members from any area of the Kingdom
      (or perhaps even other Kingdoms) may join. It's a nice thought, but totally
      impractical, given our goals. If our aim is one of support, the radius of
      influence should be feasable.

      In any political organization (which we are, household or not), clear rules
      or traditions are important. I have seen no qualifiers for membership
      location, goals of the group, voting procedures, etc. This decision and the
      less-than-informative communications seem impulsive. Such methods will, in
      my opinion and by my experience, lead us right back down the same path we're
      trying to escape.

      I would suggest rewording the original post to *ask* (not *tell*) about
      these new ideas. Seek concensus.

      I will talk with you privately about other concerns.
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic