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

Okay here I go...

Expand Messages
  • Aislinn-Sol Haven
    I m here also, but I haven t decided whether I will remain on either of these consortium lists. Regardless of my decision I will continue as I have always done
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm here also, but I haven't decided whether I will remain on either
      of these consortium lists. Regardless of my decision I will continue
      as I have always done to go to those events and support those groups
      where I can be most helpful.

      I would like to know however how will the new consortium be
      different than the other?

      I am all for me having the same rights as those individuals who's
      groups are still apart of the consortium. It is because of this that
      I have not posted for the past several months to the old consortium
      list. I have felt I did not have a say regarding consortium matters
      since the consensus of my local group decided to withdraw. With this
      new concept I, just as Yseult, would have the same privileges. This
      alone would eliminate a part of my concerns that I have been
      concerned with.

      My thoughts as to how the consortium needs to be restructured,
      simple… it needs to be brought back down to the basics. If it's not
      … it will eventually end up with far too many members and in the
      same situation as it is now.

      For example a new weard leader needs to be selected each year, my
      suggestion for this is to place all members names into a hat and
      draw a new leader each year. This would place the responsibility on
      every member to run the consortium-not those who feel obligated to
      volunteer for the job. This as well would ensure the position is not
      turned into a popularity contest or a power play amongst its members-
      which would also help in keeping any animosity amongst members down
      to a minimal. The consortium leader would organize a household
      gathering (Chalice Challenge) every year. As well s leading
      discussions and concerns about the household, maintaining the list
      and send alerts regarding upcoming events. All major decision
      regarding the consortium such as memberships would be left up to a
      majority vote from its members.

      I realize the above example is very basic but the more complicated
      it is the more risk you take of distorting the sole purpose of the
      consortium.

      Aislinn
    • marcobear1
      Well thats a good question. It was the intent that the House vs the Shires would allow those individuals that wanted to be Consortium be exactly that, no
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Well thats a good question. It was the intent that the House vs the
        Shires would allow those individuals that wanted to be Consortium be
        exactly that, no matter where you resided or move to. So if
        everything remains the same as was the concept at the last C&C then
        yes you get to vote and all those other things we do, enter A&S,
        fight for champion all that good ol Consortium stuff. You could even
        run for Weard though "we" thought changing it to House Stewart futher
        instilled the Household thought. That is all up to debate now.

        Marco

        --- In householdconsortium@yahoogroups.com, "Aislinn-Sol Haven"
        <aislinn999@...> wrote:
        >
        > I'm here also, but I haven't decided whether I will remain on
        either
        > of these consortium lists. Regardless of my decision I will
        continue
        > as I have always done to go to those events and support those
        groups
        > where I can be most helpful.
        >
        > I would like to know however how will the new consortium be
        > different than the other?
        >
        > I am all for me having the same rights as those individuals who's
        > groups are still apart of the consortium. It is because of this
        that
        > I have not posted for the past several months to the old consortium
        > list. I have felt I did not have a say regarding consortium matters
        > since the consensus of my local group decided to withdraw. With
        this
        > new concept I, just as Yseult, would have the same privileges. This
        > alone would eliminate a part of my concerns that I have been
        > concerned with.
        >
        > My thoughts as to how the consortium needs to be restructured,
        > simple… it needs to be brought back down to the basics. If it's not
        > … it will eventually end up with far too many members and in the
        > same situation as it is now.
        >
        > For example a new weard leader needs to be selected each year, my
        > suggestion for this is to place all members names into a hat and
        > draw a new leader each year. This would place the responsibility on
        > every member to run the consortium-not those who feel obligated to
        > volunteer for the job. This as well would ensure the position is
        not
        > turned into a popularity contest or a power play amongst its
        members-
        > which would also help in keeping any animosity amongst members
        down
        > to a minimal. The consortium leader would organize a household
        > gathering (Chalice Challenge) every year. As well s leading
        > discussions and concerns about the household, maintaining the list
        > and send alerts regarding upcoming events. All major decision
        > regarding the consortium such as memberships would be left up to a
        > majority vote from its members.
        >
        > I realize the above example is very basic but the more complicated
        > it is the more risk you take of distorting the sole purpose of the
        > consortium.
        >
        > Aislinn
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.