From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Sat Dec 4 12:26:01 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 12:26:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] DEADLINE Sunday 5th Message-ID: <444425.42038.qm@web56905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Hello Co-Cos! As per our last call, we need to put forward sample Strategy suggestions / questions so that the CC can review. I've been invited to their conference call Monday night to go over the Strategy Proposal.? I'll be?considering my?top "3" and posting that tonight or tomorrow.? My thinking is to have at least 10 - no more than 20?. We don't want to overwhelm the locals....keep it simple but cover all the bases. Shane has already contributed 10 (thank? you Shane), so please review those (below) so we don't duplicate. Additionally, Marnie Glickman just sent a Strategy Plan to the Finance Cmte, which I'm assuming is from her specifically and/or that local...I will forward it for review. Let us PLEASE post all of these items to the Strategy Listserve - if you have not already, please subscribe, link is just below. Anyone wanting to contribute to this effort can subscribe on the info page: ? http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin approval to subscribe. The address to send a message to this list is strategyplan at cagreens.org. Shane's Strategy Questions:?? Subject: [StrategyPlan] My sample questions in Post to the Strategy Listserve/\Co-Cos List From: shane que hee squehee at ucla.edu *1. Should GPCA focus on local"NON-PARTISAN"? elections? > *2. If focus to be on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST > "winnable seats"? WHAT FUNDING AND EFFORT SPLIT IS DESIRABLE? > *3. Due to the passage of Prop 14, what should our strategy be relating > to the Primary BEGINNING 2014? *4. SHOULD GPCA CONTINUE TO BE PART OF THE LAWSUIT AGAINST PROP 14?? ? WILL WE RAISE > FUNDS FOR IT? > *5.SHOULD GPCA FOLD? Delete? > *6. SHOULD GPCA CONTINUE TO BE A MEMBER OF GPUS? Delete? > *7. SHOULD GPCA HAVE CLOSER TIES WITH THE PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS OF THE CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY? *8. WHAT KIND OF REPRESENTATION DO COUNTIES/REGIONS/LOCALS WANT IN GPCA? > *9. WHAT SERVICES/MUTUAL AGREEMENTS WOULD COUNTIES/REGIONS/LOCALS WANT FROM GPCA? ....Shane Que Hee, Nov 28 2010 _______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing list gpca-cocos at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan From jims at greens.org Sat Dec 4 17:09:04 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 17:09:04 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] Discussion Guide for Goals & Strategy Discussions Message-ID: <4CFAE630.9030003@greens.org> I had hoped to make something a little more detailed and grand, but other things are using up my time these days. This at least shows the types of discussions I'd like to foster. Jim ==================================================================== What should the GPCA accomplish in five years and ten years? What goals can we set that *realistically* can be accomplished in five years? ? in ten years? Categories of Political Goals Partisan and non-partisan candidates Campaigns and ballot proposition Election reforms Categories of Internal / Party Goals Voter registration Developing Locals Fundraising Internal structure and process SUGGESTED DISCUSSION TOPICS Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, should we adopt a ?survival plan? until recovery is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals and strategies? What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a small party? What caused the Green registration decline of the past six years, can it be reversed? Given that we have less than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic electoral strategies for a party of our size? How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? Do we continue attempts in partisan races? Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? The GPCA?s decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process is an experiment that we?ve carried on for 20 years. Is it working well enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal business to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable plan for growth? What factors have created viable, stable Locals? What factors have caused Locals to deteriorate? What resources do Locals need from the state party? What resources does the state party need from Locals? From squehee at ucla.edu Sun Dec 5 01:16:33 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 01:16:33 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] DEADLINE Sunday 5th Message-ID: <201012050916.oB59GVHh027883@mail.ucla.edu> >Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 01:12:58 -0800 >To: Kendra Gonzales , GPCA Cocos >, Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >From: shane que hee >Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] DEADLINE Sunday 5th [StrategyPlan] > >Kendra: > >To keep everything together here are Jim' Stauffer's questions: > >Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, should >we adopt a "survival plan" until recovery is tangible (e.g. unemployment below >8%)? How would this affect all goals and strategies? > > >What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a small >party? What caused the Green registration decline of the past six years, can >it be reversed? > > >Given that we have less than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic >electoral strategies for a party of our size? How do we recruit/develop >electable candidates for non-partisan offices? Do we continue attempts in >partisan races? Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should we make a >real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting (i.e. Instant Runoff >Voting and proportional representation)? > > >The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process is >an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well enough? >Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party and the >county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal business >to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable >plan for growth? > > >What factors have created viable, stable Locals? What factors have caused >Locals to deteriorate? What resources do Locals need from the state party? >What resources does the state party need from Locals? > > >Putting the two sets together results in the following consensus >question list for GPCA: > >1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on >fundraising, should GPCA and its locals adopt a "survival plan" >until recovery is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would >this affect all goals and strategies? > >2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts >people to a small party? What caused the California Green >registration decline of the past six years, can it be reversed? Was >the 2010 election new registrations of about 1,000 too unambitious? > >3. Given that we have less than 1% of registered voters, what are >realistic electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we >continue attempts in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? >If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus >on MOST"winnable seats"? What funding and effort split is desirable? > >4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan >offices? > >5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > >6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue >to be part of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > >7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote >ranked-choice voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional >representation)? > >8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of >the California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level >of the locals? > >9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking >decision process is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 >years. Is it working well enough? Is there a good balance of >responsibilities between the state party and the >county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over >internal business to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely >on volunteer labor a viable plan for growth? > >10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in >GPCA? How should the current system be changed for the better? > >11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals? What factors >have caused Locals to deteriorate? > >12. What resources do Locals need from the state party? What >resources does the state party need from Locals? What specific >services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from >GPCA? How should the current system be changed? > >13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what >should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > >.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 5 2010 > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >At 12:26 PM 12/4/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>Hello Co-Cos! >> >>As per our last call, we need to put forward sample Strategy >>suggestions / questions so that the CC can review. I've been >>invited to their conference call Monday night to go over the >>Strategy Proposal. >> >>I'll be considering my top "3" and posting that tonight or tomorrow. >> >>My thinking is to have at least 10 - no more than 20?. We don't >>want to overwhelm the locals....keep it simple but cover all the >>bases. Shane has already contributed 10 (thank you Shane), so >>please review those (below) so we don't duplicate. >> >>Additionally, Marnie Glickman just sent a Strategy Plan to the >>Finance Cmte, which I'm assuming is from her specifically and/or >>that local...I will forward it for review. >> >>Let us PLEASE post all of these items to the Strategy Listserve - >>if you have not already, please subscribe, link is just below. >> >> >>Anyone wanting to contribute to this effort can subscribe on the info page: >> >> >>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >>The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin >>approval to subscribe. >> >>The address to send a message to this list is >>strategyplan at cagreens.org. >> >>Shane's Strategy Questions: >> >>Subject: [StrategyPlan] My sample questions in Post to the Strategy >>Listserve/\Co-Cos List >>From: shane que hee squehee at ucla.edu >>*1. Should GPCA focus on local"NON-PARTISAN" elections? >> > >>*2. If focus to be on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST >> > "winnable seats"? WHAT FUNDING AND EFFORT SPLIT IS DESIRABLE? >> > >>*3. Due to the passage of Prop 14, what should our strategy be relating >> > to the Primary BEGINNING 2014? >> >>*4. SHOULD GPCA CONTINUE TO BE PART OF THE LAWSUIT AGAINST PROP >>14? WILL WE RAISE >> > FUNDS FOR IT? >> > >>*5.SHOULD GPCA FOLD? Delete? >> > >>*6. SHOULD GPCA CONTINUE TO BE A MEMBER OF GPUS? Delete? >> > >>*7. SHOULD GPCA HAVE CLOSER TIES WITH THE PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS OF THE >>CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY? >> >>*8. WHAT KIND OF REPRESENTATION DO COUNTIES/REGIONS/LOCALS WANT IN GPCA? >> > >>*9. WHAT SERVICES/MUTUAL AGREEMENTS WOULD COUNTIES/REGIONS/LOCALS >>WANT FROM GPCA? >> >>....Shane Que Hee, Nov 28 2010 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>gpca-cocos mailing list >>gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >>http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>StrategyPlan mailing list >>StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >>_______________________________________________ >>gpca-cocos mailing list >>gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >>http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Fri Dec 10 16:00:18 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:00:18 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] Goals and Strategy Exercise Message-ID: <4D02BF12.7000209@greens.org> The "strategy" discussions on the coco list have been centered around developing a list of issues to send to the Locals. I've never been clear on what the Locals are suppose to do with that list -- discuss the issues verbatim or just use them as a reference for local discussions. I've not favored a 'list' approach, preferring to hear what the Locals come up with on their own, but emphasizing the need to be realistic (as opposed to wish-list brainstorming). Also, there doesn't seem to be agreement on the duration and composition of the counties' strategy meetings. I still advocated the one-day, multi-counties structure. I've put together a draft of an announcement to send to the Locals. It's centered around the approach I've advocated. However, I did take the issues list that was developed and added it as a reference of what cocos had suggested. (Actually, that list is primarily Shane's contributions plus a few of mine.) Comments on this plan are welcome. But I would like to hear whether or not people are generally in favor of this approach. However, this announcement will be received in the counties with no forewarning or prior discussions on the topic. This is one of the conditions I wanted to avoid. It would be far better to discuss this plan with the counties at a GA prior to sending them an actionable item. Should we send this now, or wait until after the next GA? Also, this plan assumes that the CC will be actively involved with facilitating this project by being in touch with their Locals and encouraging their participation, and helping to organize the meetings. Jim ======================================================================= GPCA GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR LONG-TERM PLANNING A Participatory Exercise Green Party Locals: We would like to engage all GPCA county Locals in an exercise to establish long-term goals for the party. By agreeing on a set of goals, we give the party definition and purpose. From those goals we develop strategies for their implementation. This creates projects for our Working Groups and Standing Committees (WG/SC), and it helps attract volunteers and donations. It?s important to be realistic when setting goals. Brainstorming exercises encourage free-thinking with no critique or analysis of suggested issues. Goal setting is different; it?s intended to derive projects that are achievable, not just desirable. We all have a list of favorite issues and a wish-list of what we?d like the party to be. But we must focus on what we can actually accomplish ? realistic goals. We encourage Locals to get together with your neighboring counties for this exercise. Gathering into a group from a few counties helps the thought process. It gets us outside of our normal monthly meeting crowd and provides the synergy of a larger group. The Coordinating Committee (CC) will gather the reports from this exercise and present the results at next General Assembly. The CC would like all county responses by the end of February. PROCESS We are proposing an afternoon meeting of up to four hours for this exercise. A venue should be selected that allows participants to attend and return home in one day. Contact your neighboring counties and get an estimate of attendance. Find a meeting room or a house of sufficient size. Consider traveling distance for all attendees. Take notes of the goals discussed and rank or categorize them by the level of agreement or support. Submit the report to your CC Regional Rep, or to the CC list (gpca-cc at cagreens.org). Please identify which counties participated in the exercise and how many people attended. DISCUSSION We want to hear what Locals think our long-term goals should be. This requires some degree of open discussion, but the exercise must remain moderated by the theme of realistic goals. For every suggested goal, the presenter should have some idea of a strategy to implement that goal. Basically, the question to answer is, ?What should the GPCA accomplish in five years and in ten years?? Some organizing may help the discussion: Political Goals Partisan and non-partisan candidates Campaigns and ballot proposition Election reforms Internal / Party Goals Voter registration Developing county Locals Fundraising Internal structure and process REFERENCES The WG/SC coordinators have been discussing this subject and have come up with their list of issues. These are being provided here just as a reference, they should not be used as guidance for your discussions. Its purpose is to provide input as to what volunteers at the state level see as our long-term issues. 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, should GPCA and its locals adopt a ?survival plan? until recovery is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals and strategies? 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the past six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 new registrations of about 1,000 too unambitious? 3. Given that we have less than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? If there is to be focus on State-wide offices, then should GPCA focus on the MOST "winnable seats"? What funding and effort split is desirable? This should be ?partisan offices.? Is there a realistic strategy for winning partisan races? 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? This should be ?partisan offices.? Is there a realistic strategy for winning partisan races? 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be part of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? Are we part of a lawsuit against Prop 14? I don?t recall any discussion of us joining a lawsuit. 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals? 9. The GPCA?s decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process is an experiment that we?ve carried on for 20 years. Is it working well enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal business to the state party? 10. Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable plan for growth? 11. What kind of representation do counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? How should the current system be changed for the better? 12. What factors have created viable, stable Locals? What factors have caused Locals to deteriorate? 13. What resources do Locals need from the state party? What resources does the state party need from Locals? What specific services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How should the current system be changed? 14. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? From civillib at comcast.net Fri Dec 10 16:05:16 2010 From: civillib at comcast.net (civillib) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:05:16 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] Goals and Strategy Exercise In-Reply-To: <4D02BF12.7000209@greens.org> References: <4D02BF12.7000209@greens.org> Message-ID: <4D02C03C.7060706@comcast.net> So, just for example, Sacramento County could host neighboring counties - El Dorado, Placer, Davis, etc. for a one-day (4 hours or so) to discuss these general areas, and come with a transmittal report to the GA? If that's the case, the value of counties getting together is, in itself, very worthwhile. Thanks, Jim, for doing this. Cres Sac County Greens On 12/10/2010 4:00 PM, Jim Stauffer wrote: > The "strategy" discussions on the coco list have been centered around > developing a list of issues to send to the Locals. I've never been clear > on what the Locals are suppose to do with that list -- discuss the > issues verbatim or just use them as a reference for local discussions. > > I've not favored a 'list' approach, preferring to hear what the Locals > come up with on their own, but emphasizing the need to be realistic (as > opposed to wish-list brainstorming). > > Also, there doesn't seem to be agreement on the duration and composition > of the counties' strategy meetings. I still advocated the one-day, > multi-counties structure. > > I've put together a draft of an announcement to send to the Locals. It's > centered around the approach I've advocated. However, I did take the > issues list that was developed and added it as a reference of what cocos > had suggested. (Actually, that list is primarily Shane's contributions > plus a few of mine.) > > Comments on this plan are welcome. But I would like to hear whether or > not people are generally in favor of this approach. > > However, this announcement will be received in the counties with no > forewarning or prior discussions on the topic. This is one of the > conditions I wanted to avoid. It would be far better to discuss this > plan with the counties at a GA prior to sending them an actionable item. > Should we send this now, or wait until after the next GA? > > Also, this plan assumes that the CC will be actively involved with > facilitating this project by being in touch with their Locals and > encouraging their participation, and helping to organize the meetings. > > > Jim > ======================================================================= > > > GPCA GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR LONG-TERM PLANNING > A Participatory Exercise > > > Green Party Locals: > > We would like to engage all GPCA county Locals in an exercise to > establish long-term goals for the party. By agreeing on a set of goals, > we give the party definition and purpose. From those goals we develop > strategies for their implementation. This creates projects for our > Working Groups and Standing Committees (WG/SC), and it helps attract > volunteers and donations. > > It?s important to be realistic when setting goals. Brainstorming > exercises encourage free-thinking with no critique or analysis of > suggested issues. Goal setting is different; it?s intended to derive > projects that are achievable, not just desirable. We all have a list of > favorite issues and a wish-list of what we?d like the party to be. But > we must focus on what we can actually accomplish ? realistic goals. > > We encourage Locals to get together with your neighboring counties for > this exercise. Gathering into a group from a few counties helps the > thought process. It gets us outside of our normal monthly meeting crowd > and provides the synergy of a larger group. > > The Coordinating Committee (CC) will gather the reports from this > exercise and present the results at next General Assembly. The CC would > like all county responses by the end of February. > > > > PROCESS > > We are proposing an afternoon meeting of up to four hours for this > exercise. A venue should be selected that allows participants to attend > and return home in one day. > > Contact your neighboring counties and get an estimate of attendance. > Find a meeting room or a house of sufficient size. Consider traveling > distance for all attendees. > > Take notes of the goals discussed and rank or categorize them by the > level of agreement or support. Submit the report to your CC Regional > Rep, or to the CC list (gpca-cc at cagreens.org). Please identify which > counties participated in the exercise and how many people attended. > > > DISCUSSION > > We want to hear what Locals think our long-term goals should be. This > requires some degree of open discussion, but the exercise must remain > moderated by the theme of realistic goals. For every suggested goal, the > presenter should have some idea of a strategy to implement that goal. > > Basically, the question to answer is, ?What should the GPCA accomplish > in five years and in ten years?? > > Some organizing may help the discussion: > > Political Goals > Partisan and non-partisan candidates > Campaigns and ballot proposition > Election reforms > > Internal / Party Goals > Voter registration > Developing county Locals > Fundraising > Internal structure and process > > > > > REFERENCES > > The WG/SC coordinators have been discussing this subject and have come > up with their list of issues. These are being provided here just as a > reference, they should not be used as guidance for your discussions. Its > purpose is to provide input as to what volunteers at the state level see > as our long-term issues. > > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on > fundraising, should GPCA and its locals adopt a ?survival plan? until > recovery is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect > all goals and strategies? > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to > a small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of > the past six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 new registrations > of about 1,000 too unambitious? > > 3. Given that we have less than 1% of registered voters, what are > realistic electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue > attempts in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? If there is > to be focus on State-wide offices, then should GPCA focus on the MOST > "winnable seats"? What funding and effort split is desirable? This > should be ?partisan offices.? Is there a realistic strategy for winning > partisan races? > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? This > should be ?partisan offices.? Is there a realistic strategy for winning > partisan races? > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be > part of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > Are we part of a lawsuit against Prop 14? I don?t recall any discussion > of us joining a lawsuit. > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice > voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the > Locals? > > 9. The GPCA?s decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision > process is an experiment that we?ve carried on for 20 years. Is it > working well enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between > the state party and the county parties? Should we examine giving more > authority over internal business to the state party? > > 10. Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable plan for > growth? > > 11. What kind of representation do counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? > How should the current system be changed for the better? > > 12. What factors have created viable, stable Locals? What factors have > caused Locals to deteriorate? > > 13. What resources do Locals need from the state party? What resources > does the state party need from Locals? What specific services/mutual > agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How should the > current system be changed? > > 14. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Sun Dec 12 12:16:43 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward In-Reply-To: References: <93738065F02B43619B18FC9B75A614AC@wltres.org> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm@web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) Hi Gloria, Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is GPCA specific, and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the GPCA has been available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks who's addresses I have. I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in the next 72 hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And I'll keep the survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on CAGreens-Test also very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It will "point to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If all goes well the domain registration will allow people to web search for things like this survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't know is there. BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I discovered just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! Potentially one can look at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their site.? Check it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or www.cagreenideas.org . Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward San Francisco -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Sun Dec 12 12:42:18 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm@web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Hello all, I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its not at all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items or questions for their consideration. The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed when reading it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we use?it for the larger picture stuff too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own platform: CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or www.cagreenideas.org . I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best approach. Kendra Gonzales -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Mon Dec 13 19:42:43 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:42:43 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing In-Reply-To: <181530.58966.qm@web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <181530.58966.qm@web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D06E7B3.4030102@greens.org> Kendra - Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to send a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of topics we want discussed. The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to the CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't want to spend a lot of time on it. I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after the Spring GA. Jim On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > Hello all, > I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its not > at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really > simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items or > questions for their consideration. > The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found > that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach because > its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the > same problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's > sake! > Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items > so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do we > document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created > one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can we use it > for the larger picture stuff too? > http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own > platform: > CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > www.cagreenideas.org . > I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was > going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best > approach. > Kendra Gonzales > From civillib at comcast.net Mon Dec 13 21:48:40 2010 From: civillib at comcast.net (civillib) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:48:40 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing In-Reply-To: <4D06E7B3.4030102@greens.org> References: <181530.58966.qm@web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4D06E7B3.4030102@greens.org> Message-ID: <4D070538.8050206@comcast.net> Just a thought...what if we try it BOTH WAYS. Give them some ideas and also ask for their ideas in addition to commenting on our queries. Can't hurt. We can use responses, if any, for talk over at the GA as Jim suggests. It'll be a start, and if nothing else, may keep our counties engaged... Cres On 12/13/2010 7:42 PM, Jim Stauffer wrote: > Kendra - > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to > send a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con > statements on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think > are the issues we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling > the counties what issues the state party thinks we should work on and > see if they agree. > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of > topics we want discussed. > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects > like this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list > of issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to > the CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I > don't want to spend a lot of time on it. > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. > > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from > the CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until > after the Spring GA. > > > Jim > > > > > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > >> Hello all, > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County >> Contacts....its not >> at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we >> really >> simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items or >> questions for their consideration. > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach >> because >> its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the >> same problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's >> sake! > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items >> so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do we >> document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created >> one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can we >> use it >> for the larger picture stuff too? >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her >> own >> platform: > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a >> best >> approach. > >> Kendra Gonzales >> > > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Mon Dec 13 21:08:31 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:08:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing In-Reply-To: <4D06E7B3.4030102@greens.org> References: <181530.58966.qm@web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4D06E7B3.4030102@greens.org> Message-ID: <45644.39067.qm@web56901.mail.re3.yahoo.com> my responses in yellow below ? Kendra Gonzales ________________________________ From: Jim Stauffer To: GPCA Strategy Planning Sent: Mon, December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, just as a starting point...just as?some kind of reference?or example of what a Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are?asking locals to do is ?consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out as being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we?also ask?for their ideas. The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the whittling down The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to the CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't want to spend a lot of time on it. So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are responsible for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you propose that would be?.? I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can have an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they don't, then fine...the CC can do it for them. I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: ? - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. ? - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send 10 "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for?THEIR ideas too. That's the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 (or so) items are just suggestions. My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after the Spring GA. I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and simply opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first quarter of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our locals represented there. One of the?benefits of this proposal happening now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of opportunity for locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time for?us to?do follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s).? ? I would also like to hear back from?others please.?The 10 suggested items and Wiki?seem to be the only thing we disagree on. Getting close!? On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > Hello all, > I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its not > at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really >? simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items or > questions for their consideration. > The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found > that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach because > its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the > same problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's > sake! > Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items > so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do we > document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created > one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can we use it > for the larger picture stuff too? > http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own >? platform: > CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > www.cagreenideas.org . > I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was > going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best > approach. > Kendra Gonzales > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan Kendra - Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to send a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From squehee at ucla.edu Tue Dec 14 07:12:23 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:12:23 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 Message-ID: <201012141512.oBEFCIoo028321@mail.ucla.edu> > >Kendra/Jim: > >I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. > >I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail >listserve by the end of January. > >We might then do a wiki. > > >All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts is: > >"The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils >and Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > >.In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like >your written response by January 31 2011 to the following questions >that we hope you can formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as >appropriate: > >1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on >fundraising, should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a >"survival plan" until recovery is tangible (e.g. unemployment below >8%)? How would this affect all goals and strategies? > >2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts >people to a small party? What caused the California Green >registration decline of the past six years, can it be reversed? Was >the 2010 election new registrations of about 1,000 too unambitious? > >3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are >realistic electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we >continue attempts in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? >If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus >on MOST "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and >effort split is desirable? > >4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > >5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > >6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue >to be part of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > >7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote >ranked-choice voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional >representation)? > >8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of >the California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level >of the Locals and Counties? > >9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking >decision process is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 >years. Is it working well enough? Is there a good balance of >responsibilities between the state party and the >county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over >internal business to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely >on volunteer labor a viable plan for growth? > >10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in >GPCA? How should the current system be changed for the better? > >11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? >What factors have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > >12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state >party? What resources does the state party need from Locals and >Counties? What specific services/mutual agreements do >Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How should the current >system be changed? > >13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what >should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > >Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org. > >We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting >proposed GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General >Assembly Plenary packet for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG >Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" > >....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: >>Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >> strategyplan at cagreens.org >> >>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> >>You can reach the person managing the list at >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >> >>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >> >> >>Today's Topics: >> >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Message: 1 >>Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) >>From: Kendra Gonzales >>To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >>Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward >>Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >>For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: >> >>(by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) >> >> >>Hi Gloria, >> >>Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. >> >>FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is >>GPCA specific, >>and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the >>GPCA has been >>available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks who's >>addresses I have. >> >>I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in >>the next 72 >>hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And >>I'll keep the >>survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. >> >>Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on CAGreens-Test also >>very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. >> >>I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? >>It will "point >>to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If >>all goes well >>the domain registration will allow people to web search for things like this >>survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't >>know is there. >> >>BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature >>I discovered >>just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! Potentially >>one can look >>at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site >>builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their >>site.? Check >>it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. >> >>CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >>CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>www.cagreenideas.org . >> >>Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward >>San Francisco >> >> >> >>-------------- next part -------------- >>An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>URL: >> >> >>------------------------------ >> >>Message: 2 >>Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) >>From: Kendra Gonzales >>To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >>Cc: Barry Hermanson , Barry Hermanson >> >>Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >>Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >>Hello all, >> >>I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County >>Contacts....its not at >>all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really >>simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items >>or questions >>for their consideration. >> >>The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed when reading >>it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that email >>communication warrants a short and to the point approach because its just too >>easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same >>problem myself >>and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! >> >>Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >>items so we >>can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we document >>everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one >>but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we >>use?it for the >>larger picture stuff too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? >> >> >>Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >>Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own >>platform: >> >> >>CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >>CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>www.cagreenideas.org . >> >>I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said >>he was going >>to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a >>best approach. >> >> >>Kendra Gonzales >> >> From squehee at ucla.edu Tue Dec 14 07:37:46 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:37:46 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012141537.oBEFbfot029493@mail.ucla.edu> EVERYONE: To incorporate Cres's excellent and logical idea: Question 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not covered above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your assessments/perspectives.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 07:12 AM 12/14/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: >Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > strategyplan at cagreens.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (civillib) > 3. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) > 4. Re: StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 (shane que hee) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:42:43 -0800 >From: Jim Stauffer >To: GPCA Strategy Planning >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >Message-ID: <4D06E7B3.4030102 at greens.org> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Kendra - > >Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's the >same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to >send a list >of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements on each. >I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues we should >concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what issues the >state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. > >The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of topics >we want discussed. > >The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA >proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that counties >do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like this. The >only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of issues, but I >assumed we would whittle that down. > >The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion >to the CC. >I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't want to >spend a lot of time on it. > >I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. > > >My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no >forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first discussed >at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the CC to promote >it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after the Spring GA. > > >Jim > > > > > >On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its not > > at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really > > simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items or > > questions for their consideration. > > > The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > > reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found > > that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach because > > its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the > > same problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's > > sake! > > > Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items > > so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do we > > document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created > > one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can we use it > > for the larger picture stuff too? > > http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > > > Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > > > Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own > > platform: > > > CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > > CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > > www.cagreenideas.org . > > > I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was > > going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best > > approach. > > > Kendra Gonzales > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:48:40 -0800 >From: civillib >To: GPCA Strategy Planning >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >Message-ID: <4D070538.8050206 at comcast.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Just a thought...what if we try it BOTH WAYS. Give them some >ideas and also ask for their ideas in addition to commenting >on our queries. Can't hurt. > >We can use responses, if any, for talk over at the GA as Jim suggests. >It'll be a start, and if nothing else, may keep our counties >engaged... > >Cres > >On 12/13/2010 7:42 PM, Jim Stauffer wrote: > > Kendra - > > > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's > > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to > > send a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con > > statements on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think > > are the issues we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling > > the counties what issues the state party thinks we should work on and > > see if they agree. > > > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of > > topics we want discussed. > > > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA > > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that > > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects > > like this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list > > of issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. > > > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to > > the CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I > > don't want to spend a lot of time on it. > > > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > > > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > > > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. > > > > > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no > > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first > > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from > > the CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until > > after the Spring GA. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > >> Hello all, > > > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > >> Contacts....its not > >> at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we > >> really > >> simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items or > >> questions for their consideration. > > > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found > >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach > >> because > >> its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the > >> same problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's > >> sake! > > > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items > >> so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do we > >> document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created > >> one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can we > >> use it > >> for the larger picture stuff too? > >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > > > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > > > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her > >> own > >> platform: > > > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > > > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was > >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > >> best > >> approach. > > > >> Kendra Gonzales > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:08:31 -0800 (PST) >From: Kendra Gonzales >To: GPCA Strategy Planning >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >Message-ID: <45644.39067.qm at web56901.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >my responses in yellow below >? >Kendra Gonzales > > > >________________________________ > >From: Jim Stauffer >To: GPCA Strategy Planning >Sent: Mon, December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > > >Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, just as a >starting point...just as?some kind of reference?or example of what a >Strategic >Plan might include - just as you suggest. > > >The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds >of topics we >want discussed. > >Again, exactly my point. All we are?asking locals to do is ?consider >the issues >we raise. They may throw them right out as being irrelevent, though I doubt >that. Of course, we?also ask?for their ideas. > > >The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most >GA proposals, >and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that counties do respond >(relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like this. The only lengthy >section of the message is the reference list of issues, but I >assumed we would >whittle that down. > >I agree with the whittling down > >The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion >to the CC. I >don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't want to >spend a lot of time on it. > >So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are responsible for >putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you >propose that would >be?.? I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can have an >opportunity >to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they don't, then >fine...the CC >can do it for them. > > >I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > >? - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > >? - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. > >Why not do both?. Send 10 "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask >for?THEIR ideas too. > >That's the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. >The 10 (or so) >items are just suggestions. > > >My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no >forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first >discussed at >a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the CC to promote it >through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after the Spring GA. > > >I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and simply >opening up lines of communication. >We would waste the entire first quarter of 2011 waiting for the GA >and then we >certainly don't have all of our locals represented there. One of >the?benefits of >this proposal happening now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to >offer plenty of >opportunity for locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time >for?us to?do follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s).? >? >I would also like to hear back from?others please.?The 10 suggested items and >Wiki?seem to be the only thing we disagree on. Getting close!? > > > > >On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its not > > at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really > >? simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items or > > questions for their consideration. > > > The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > > reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found > > that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach because > > its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the > > same problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's > > sake! > > > Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items > > so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do we > > document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created > > one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can we use it > > for the larger picture stuff too? > > http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > > > Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > > > Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own > >? platform: > > > CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > > CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > > www.cagreenideas.org . > > > I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was > > going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best > > approach. > > > Kendra Gonzales > > > >_______________________________________________ >StrategyPlan mailing list >StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >Kendra - > >Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's the >same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to >send a list >of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements >on each. I'm >proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues we should >concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what >issues the state >party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:12:23 -0800 >From: shane que hee >To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >Message-ID: <201012141512.oBEFCIoo028321 at mail.ucla.edu> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > > > > >Kendra/Jim: > > > >I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. > > > >I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail > >listserve by the end of January. > > > >We might then do a wiki. > > > > > >All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts is: > > > >"The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils > >and Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > >.In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like > >your written response by January 31 2011 to the following questions > >that we hope you can formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as > >appropriate: > > > >1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on > >fundraising, should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a > >"survival plan" until recovery is tangible (e.g. unemployment below > >8%)? How would this affect all goals and strategies? > > > >2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts > >people to a small party? What caused the California Green > >registration decline of the past six years, can it be reversed? Was > >the 2010 election new registrations of about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > >3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are > >realistic electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we > >continue attempts in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > >If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus > >on MOST "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and > >effort split is desirable? > > > >4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > > >5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > >6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue > >to be part of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for > the lawsuit? > > > >7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote > >ranked-choice voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional > >representation)? > > > >8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of > >the California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level > >of the Locals and Counties? > > > >9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking > >decision process is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 > >years. Is it working well enough? Is there a good balance of > >responsibilities between the state party and the > >county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over > >internal business to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely > >on volunteer labor a viable plan for growth? > > > >10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in > >GPCA? How should the current system be changed for the better? > > > >11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? > >What factors have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > >12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state > >party? What resources does the state party need from Locals and > >Counties? What specific services/mutual agreements do > >Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How should the current > >system be changed? > > > >13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what > >should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > >Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org. > > > >We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting > >proposed GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General > >Assembly Plenary packet for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG > >Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" > > > >....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: > >>Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org > >> > >>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >> > >>You can reach the person managing the list at > >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >> > >>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >>than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > >> > >> > >>Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) > >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) > >> > >> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >>Message: 1 > >>Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) > >>From: Kendra Gonzales > >>To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >>Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward > >>Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com> > >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> > >>For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: > >> > >>(by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) > >> > >> > >>Hi Gloria, > >> > >>Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. > >> > >>FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is > >>GPCA specific, > >>and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the > >>GPCA has been > >>available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks who's > >>addresses I have. > >> > >>I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in > >>the next 72 > >>hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And > >>I'll keep the > >>survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. > >> > >>Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on > CAGreens-Test also > >>very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. > >> > >>I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? > >>It will "point > >>to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If > >>all goes well > >>the domain registration will allow people to web search for > things like this > >>survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't > >>know is there. > >> > >>BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature > >>I discovered > >>just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! Potentially > >>one can look > >>at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site > >>builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their > >>site.? Check > >>it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. > >> > >>CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >>CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >>www.cagreenideas.org . > >> > >>Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward > >>San Francisco > >> > >> > >> > >>-------------- next part -------------- > >>An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >>URL: > >> 1212/096bcb59/attachment-0001.html> > >> > >>------------------------------ > >> > >>Message: 2 > >>Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) > >>From: Kendra Gonzales > >>To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >>Cc: Barry Hermanson , Barry Hermanson > >> > >>Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > >>Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> > >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> > >>Hello all, > >> > >>I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > >>Contacts....its not at > >>all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really > >>simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items > >>or questions > >>for their consideration. > >> > >>The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed > when reading > >>it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that email > >>communication warrants a short and to the point approach because > its just too > >>easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same > >>problem myself > >>and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! > >> > >>Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action > >>items so we > >>can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we document > >>everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one > >>but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we > >>use?it for the > >>larger picture stuff too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? > >> > >> > >>Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > >>Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own > >>platform: > >> > >> > >>CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >>CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >>www.cagreenideas.org . > >> > >>I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said > >>he was going > >>to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > >>best approach. > >> > >> > >>Kendra Gonzales > >> > >> > > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >StrategyPlan mailing list >StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 5 >****************************************** From jims at greens.org Tue Dec 14 19:24:10 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <201012141506.oBEF6ufK027520@mail.ucla.edu> References: <201012141506.oBEF6ufK027520@mail.ucla.edu> Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106@greens.org> I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. Jim On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: > Kendra/Jim: > > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. > > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail listserve > by the end of January. > > We might then do a wiki. > > > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts is: > > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your written > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until recovery > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals and > strategies? > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the past > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is > desirable? > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be part > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals > and Counties? > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party > and the > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal business > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable > plan for growth? > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? How > should the current system be changed for the better? > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What factors > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How > should the current system be changed? > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org. > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary packet > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" > > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >> strategyplan at cagreens.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) >> From: Kendra Gonzales >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: >> >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) >> >> >> Hi Gloria, >> >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. >> >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is GPCA specific, >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the GPCA has been >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks who's >> addresses I have. >> >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in the next 72 >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And I'll keep >> the >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. >> >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on CAGreens-Test also >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. >> >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It will >> "point >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If all goes >> well >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for things like this >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't know is there. >> >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I >> discovered >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! Potentially one can >> look >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their site.? >> Check >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. >> >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >> www.cagreenideas.org . >> >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward >> San Francisco >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) >> From: Kendra Gonzales >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >> Cc: Barry Hermanson , Barry Hermanson >> >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Hello all, >> >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its not at >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items or questions >> for their consideration. >> >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed when reading >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that email >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because its just too >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same problem >> myself >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! >> >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items so we >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we document >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we use?it for the >> larger picture stuff too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? >> >> >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own >> platform: >> >> >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >> www.cagreenideas.org . >> >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was going >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best approach. >> >> >> Kendra Gonzales >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> StrategyPlan mailing list >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >> ****************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > gpca-cocos mailing list > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > From jims at greens.org Tue Dec 14 20:10:08 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing In-Reply-To: <45644.39067.qm@web56901.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <181530.58966.qm@web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4D06E7B3.4030102@greens.org> <45644.39067.qm@web56901.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707@greens.org> We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 issues (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, you've just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for this exercise. That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is for them to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas they have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the referenced list of issues, then they're telling us they agree. If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of issues, let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than asking for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and documenting. You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we raise." I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking about. As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility to produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at a GA. We haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and analyze the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for you. Whether by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We may get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual responses. We need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the number of years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in the response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Locals before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to postponing this to the Summer. Jim On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > my responses in yellow below > > Kendra Gonzales > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Jim Stauffer > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning *Sent:* Mon, > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to > Strategizing > > Kendra - > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to send > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, _just > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example of what a > Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking locals > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out as > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask for their > ideas. > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the > whittling down > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to the > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't > want to spend a lot of time on it. > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are responsible > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you propose > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can have > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they don't, > then fine...the CC can do it for them. > > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send 10 > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. That's > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 (or so) > items are just suggestions. > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after > the Spring GA. > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and simply > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first quarter > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this proposal happening > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of opportunity for > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time for us to do > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I would also like > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki seem to be > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! > > > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > >> Hello all, > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items >> or questions for their consideration. > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for >> simplicity's sake! > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >> items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her >> own platform: > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a >> best approach. > >> Kendra Gonzales >> > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan From squehee at ucla.edu Wed Dec 15 12:08:16 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:08:16 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012152008.oBFK88f2008476@mail.ucla.edu> Jim: What do you disagree with?....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: >Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > strategyplan at cagreens.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > (Jim Stauffer) > 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 >From: Jim Stauffer >To: GPCA Strategy Planning >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, > Issue 4 >Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. > >Jim > > > > > >On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: > > Kendra/Jim: > > > > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. > > > > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E > mail listserve > > by the end of January. > > > > We might then do a wiki. > > > > > > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts is: > > > > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like > your written > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" > until recovery > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect > all goals and > > strategies? > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a > > small party? What caused the California Green registration > decline of the past > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what > are realistic > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA > focus on MOST > > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is > > desirable? > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue > to be part > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals > > and Counties? > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking > decision process > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party > > and the > > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over > internal business > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer > labor a viable > > plan for growth? > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want > in GPCA? How > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? > What factors > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What > > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific > > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How > > should the current system be changed? > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should > > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org. > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA > > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly > Plenary packet > > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" > > > > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >> > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > >> > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) > >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward > >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> > >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: > >> > >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) > >> > >> > >> Hi Gloria, > >> > >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. > >> > >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is > GPCA specific, > >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the > GPCA has been > >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks who's > >> addresses I have. > >> > >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that > in the next 72 > >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? > And I'll keep > >> the > >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. > >> > >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on > CAGreens-Test also > >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. > >> > >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It will > >> "point > >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? > If all goes > >> well > >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for > things like this > >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't > know is there. > >> > >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I > >> discovered > >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! > Potentially one can > >> look > >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site > >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their site.? > >> Check > >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. > >> > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >> > >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward > >> San Francisco > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: > >> > > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 2 > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson , Barry Hermanson > >> > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> > >> Hello all, > >> > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > Contacts....its not at > >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really > >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic > items or questions > >> for their consideration. > >> > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed > when reading > >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found > that email > >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because > its just too > >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same problem > >> myself > >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! > >> > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and > action items so we > >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we document > >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one > >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we > use?it for the > >> larger picture stuff too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? > >> > >> > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own > >> platform: > >> > >> > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >> > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry > said he was going > >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > best approach. > >> > >> > >> Kendra Gonzales > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: > >> > > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> StrategyPlan mailing list > >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >> > >> > >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > >> ****************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gpca-cocos mailing list > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 >From: Jim Stauffer >To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 issues >(each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, you've >just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for this exercise. >That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by >itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is for them >to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? > >Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas they >have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the referenced list of >issues, then they're telling us they agree. > >If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of issues, >let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than asking >for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and documenting. > >You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we raise." >I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking about. > >As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility to >produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at a GA. We >haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and analyze >the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for >you. Whether >by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We may >get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual responses. We >need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official >responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. > >As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the number of >years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in the >response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Locals >before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to >postponing this to the Summer. > >Jim > > > >On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > my responses in yellow below > > > > Kendra Gonzales > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >*From:* Jim Stauffer > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning *Sent:* Mon, > > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to > > Strategizing > > > > Kendra - > > > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's > > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to send > > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements > > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues > > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what > > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. > > > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, _just > > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example of what a > > Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. > > > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of > > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking locals > > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out as > > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask for their > > ideas. > > > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA > > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that > > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like > > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of > > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the > > whittling down > > > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to the > > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't > > want to spend a lot of time on it. > > > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are responsible > > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you propose > > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can have > > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they don't, > > then fine...the CC can do it for them. > > > > > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > > > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > > > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send 10 > > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. That's > > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 (or so) > > items are just suggestions. > > > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no > > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first > > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the > > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after > > the Spring GA. > > > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and simply > > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first quarter > > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our > > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this proposal happening > > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of opportunity for > > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time for us to do > > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I would also like > > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki seem to be > > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! > > > > > > > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > >> Hello all, > > > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its > >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we > >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items > >> or questions for their consideration. > > > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found > >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach > >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I > >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for > >> simplicity's sake! > > > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action > >> items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do > >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has > >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can > >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? > >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > > > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > > > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her > >> own platform: > > > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > > > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was > >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > >> best approach. > > > >> Kendra Gonzales > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >StrategyPlan mailing list >StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >****************************************** From squehee at ucla.edu Wed Dec 15 13:26:23 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:26:23 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012152126.oBFLQG5M027665@mail.ucla.edu> Everyone: Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your written response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until recovery is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals and strategies? 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the past six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of about 1,000 too unambitious? 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is desirable? 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be part of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals and Counties? 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal business to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable plan for growth? 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? How should the current system be changed for the better? 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What factors have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How should the current system be changed? 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not covered above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your assessments/perspectives.. Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org. We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary packet for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: >Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > strategyplan at cagreens.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > (Jim Stauffer) > 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 >From: Jim Stauffer >To: GPCA Strategy Planning >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, > Issue 4 >Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. > >Jim > > > > > >On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: > > Kendra/Jim: > > > > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. > > > > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E > mail listserve > > by the end of January. > > > > We might then do a wiki. > > > > > > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts is: > > > > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like > your written > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" > until recovery > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect > all goals and > > strategies? > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a > > small party? What caused the California Green registration > decline of the past > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what > are realistic > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA > focus on MOST > > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is > > desirable? > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue > to be part > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals > > and Counties? > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking > decision process > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party > > and the > > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over > internal business > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer > labor a viable > > plan for growth? > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want > in GPCA? How > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? > What factors > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What > > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific > > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How > > should the current system be changed? > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should > > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org. > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA > > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly > Plenary packet > > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" > > > > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >> > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > >> > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) > >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward > >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> > >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: > >> > >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) > >> > >> > >> Hi Gloria, > >> > >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. > >> > >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is > GPCA specific, > >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the > GPCA has been > >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks who's > >> addresses I have. > >> > >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that > in the next 72 > >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? > And I'll keep > >> the > >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. > >> > >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on > CAGreens-Test also > >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. > >> > >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It will > >> "point > >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? > If all goes > >> well > >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for > things like this > >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't > know is there. > >> > >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I > >> discovered > >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! > Potentially one can > >> look > >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site > >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their site.? > >> Check > >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. > >> > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >> > >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward > >> San Francisco > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: > >> > > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 2 > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson , Barry Hermanson > >> > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> > >> Hello all, > >> > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > Contacts....its not at > >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really > >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic > items or questions > >> for their consideration. > >> > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed > when reading > >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found > that email > >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because > its just too > >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same problem > >> myself > >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! > >> > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and > action items so we > >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we document > >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one > >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we > use?it for the > >> larger picture stuff too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? > >> > >> > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own > >> platform: > >> > >> > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >> > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry > said he was going > >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > best approach. > >> > >> > >> Kendra Gonzales > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: > >> > > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> StrategyPlan mailing list > >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >> > >> > >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > >> ****************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gpca-cocos mailing list > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 >From: Jim Stauffer >To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 issues >(each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, you've >just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for this exercise. >That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by >itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is for them >to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? > >Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas they >have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the referenced list of >issues, then they're telling us they agree. > >If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of issues, >let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than asking >for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and documenting. > >You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we raise." >I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking about. > >As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility to >produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at a GA. We >haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and analyze >the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for >you. Whether >by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We may >get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual responses. We >need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official >responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. > >As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the number of >years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in the >response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Locals >before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to >postponing this to the Summer. > >Jim > > > >On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > my responses in yellow below > > > > Kendra Gonzales > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >*From:* Jim Stauffer > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning *Sent:* Mon, > > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to > > Strategizing > > > > Kendra - > > > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's > > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to send > > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements > > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues > > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what > > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. > > > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, _just > > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example of what a > > Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. > > > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of > > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking locals > > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out as > > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask for their > > ideas. > > > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA > > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that > > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like > > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of > > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the > > whittling down > > > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to the > > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't > > want to spend a lot of time on it. > > > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are responsible > > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you propose > > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can have > > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they don't, > > then fine...the CC can do it for them. > > > > > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > > > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > > > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send 10 > > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. That's > > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 (or so) > > items are just suggestions. > > > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no > > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first > > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the > > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after > > the Spring GA. > > > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and simply > > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first quarter > > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our > > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this proposal happening > > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of opportunity for > > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time for us to do > > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I would also like > > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki seem to be > > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! > > > > > > > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > >> Hello all, > > > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its > >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we > >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items > >> or questions for their consideration. > > > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found > >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach > >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I > >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for > >> simplicity's sake! > > > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action > >> items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do > >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has > >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can > >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? > >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > > > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > > > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her > >> own platform: > > > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > > > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was > >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > >> best approach. > > > >> Kendra Gonzales > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >StrategyPlan mailing list >StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >****************************************** From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Wed Dec 15 16:05:21 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:05:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] revisit of approach In-Reply-To: <201012152126.oBFLQG5M027665@mail.ucla.edu> References: <201012152126.oBFLQG5M027665@mail.ucla.edu> Message-ID: <769085.86832.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Honestly,?we are wasting too much time?trying to agree on?the right questions.?? Though these are?very relevent issues to?raise and thank you Jim and Shane (and others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will glaze over....mine are!?? Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask he locals?ONE question: "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?" But,?we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how?the locals give us the answer(s)! Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it out.?If it doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from locals and documenting them?somewhere ourselves. We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've been bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with from this one very simple question. How about it? ? Kendra Gonzales www.vccool.org www.cagreens.org/ventura "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas ?is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned Scientists ________________________________ From: shane que hee To: strategyplan at cagreens.org Sent: Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 Everyone: Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your written response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until recovery is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals and strategies? 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the past six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of about 1,000 too unambitious? 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is desirable? 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be part of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals and Counties? 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal business to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable plan for growth? 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? How should the current system be changed for the better? 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What factors have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How should the current system be changed? 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not covered above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your assessments/perspectives.. Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org. We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary packet for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: > Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >? ? ? ? strategyplan at cagreens.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >? ? ? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >? ? ? ? strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at >? ? ? ? strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >? ? 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >? ? ? (Jim Stauffer) >? ? 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 > From: Jim Stauffer > To: GPCA Strategy Planning > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, >? ? ? ? Issue 4 > Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. > > Jim > > > > > > On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: > > Kendra/Jim: > > > > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. > > > > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail listserve > > by the end of January. > > > > We might then do a wiki. > > > > > > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts is: > > > > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your written > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until >recovery > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals and > > strategies? > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a > > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the >past > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST > > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is > > desirable? > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be part > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals > > and Counties? > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party > > and the > > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal >business > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable > > plan for growth? > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? How > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >factors > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What > > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific > > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How > > should the current system be changed? > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should > > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org. > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA > > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary >packet > > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" > > > > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >> > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > >> > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) > >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward > >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> > >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: > >> > >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) > >> > >> > >> Hi Gloria, > >> > >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. > >> > >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is GPCA >specific, > >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the GPCA has >been > >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks who's > >> addresses I have. > >> > >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in the next >72 > >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And I'll keep > >> the > >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. > >> > >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on CAGreens-Test >also > >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. > >> > >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It will > >> "point > >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If all goes > >> well > >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for things like this > >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't know is >there. > >> > >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I > >> discovered > >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! Potentially one can > >> look > >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site > >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their site.? > >> Check > >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. > >> > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >> > >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward > >> San Francisco > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: > >> > > > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 2 > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson , Barry Hermanson > >> > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> > >> Hello all, > >> > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its not >at > >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really > >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items or >questions > >> for their consideration. > >> > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed when >reading > >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that email > >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because its just >too > >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same problem > >> myself > >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! > >> > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items so >we > >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we document > >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one > >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we use?it for >the > >> larger picture stuff too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? > >> > >> > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own > >> platform: > >> > >> > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >> > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was >going > >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best >approach. > >> > >> > >> Kendra Gonzales > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: > >> > > > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> StrategyPlan mailing list > >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >> > >> > >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > >> ****************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gpca-cocos mailing list > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 > From: Jim Stauffer > To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 issues > (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, you've > just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for this exercise. > That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by > itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is for them > to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? > > Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas they > have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the referenced list of > issues, then they're telling us they agree. > > If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of issues, > let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than asking > for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and documenting. > > You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we raise." > I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking about. > > As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility to > produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at a GA. We > haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and analyze > the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for you. Whether > by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We may > get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual responses. We > need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official > responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. > > As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the number of > years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in the > response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Locals > before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to > postponing this to the Summer. > > Jim > > > > On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > my responses in yellow below > > > > Kendra Gonzales > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > *From:* Jim Stauffer > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning *Sent:* Mon, > > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to > > Strategizing > > > > Kendra - > > > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's > > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to send > > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements > > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues > > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what > > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. > > > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, _just > > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example of what a > >? Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. > > > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of > > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking locals > > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out as > > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask for their > > ideas. > > > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA > > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that > > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like > > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of > > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the > > whittling down > > > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to the > > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't > > want to spend a lot of time on it. > > > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are responsible > > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you propose > > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can have > > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they don't, > > then fine...the CC can do it for them. > > > > > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > > > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > > > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send 10 > > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. That's > > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 (or so) > > items are just suggestions. > > > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no > > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first > > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the > > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after > > the Spring GA. > > > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and simply > > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first quarter > > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our > > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this proposal happening > > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of opportunity for > > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time for us to do > > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I would also like > > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki seem to be > > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! > > > > > > > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > >> Hello all, > > > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its > >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we > >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items > >> or questions for their consideration. > > > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found > >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach > >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I > >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for > >> simplicity's sake! > > > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action > >> items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do > >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has > >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can > >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? > >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > > > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > > > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her > >> own platform: > > > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > > > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was > >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > >> best approach. > > > >> Kendra Gonzales > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > ****************************************** _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Wed Dec 15 17:01:29 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:01:29 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] Subscribers Message-ID: <4D0964E9.3090109@greens.org> A couple of people mentioned that they don't know who's subscribed to this list. The link automatically attached to the bottom of every message takes you to the list's info page. Towards the bottom of the info page is a link that displays the subscribers. Jim From truekahuna at comcast.net Thu Dec 16 07:50:23 2010 From: truekahuna at comcast.net (Bert) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 07:50:23 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] revisit of approach In-Reply-To: <769085.86832.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <201012152126.oBFLQG5M027665@mail.ucla.edu> <769085.86832.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D0A353F.5010305@comcast.net> To all, Two points: I volunteered to handle the wiki work and I asked for direction. I don't see that anyone else is handling this, so I will. If someone ELSE wants to do the wiki thing, or if there is some wiki other than wiki.cagreens.org, then say so. Otherwise I am moving forward. OK, on to the directions. I am going to ask questions of the CO-CO's on this list. The time right now it is 12/16/10 0645. If you have answers or opinions, please get them to me within 36 hours. Definition: Just so we have names for stuff, I am going to call the entries in the Main Page "Categories" and each page within an category (other than the Table of Contents - a.k.a. first page beneath the category) is a "topic". Example categories: "Green 2012", "Props 2010", and "IT" are all existing "categories" in the GPCA wiki. Example topics: within the Props 2010 article, are the "topics" Props2010/18, Props2010/19, etc. Please digest the above. Also, I think my names for these things suck. So if someone has a better set of names for use in conversations just like this one, then say so and we'll use them. Step 1: Am I creating a new category? Or am I extending the Green 2012 category? Unless I hear otherwise: I will create a new category named "Moving Forward: A Party Strategy" (or something hifalutin like that). Why? Because Green 2012 is a two year plan and this "strategy thing" seems to have different horizons. Step 2: Throughout all of the email threads, there have been a number of questions suggested. So the next decision is: (a) Do we want one big topic for the whole thing (broken into sections), OR (b) Do we want to break the discussion up into separate topics (ex: one for each of the questions posed by various co-co's) Unless I hear otherwise: I will assume a separate topic for each question. Why? Because I am anal-retentive that way. Also I see it as helping "people who contribute" to stay focused (see "direction" below). And so that "people who collate" have an easier time of it. Step 3: Who do we expect to contribute? County councilpersons? State party Co-co's? CC members? Any CA registered Green? Any Green at all? Any person at all? I will get in touch with IT and we'll see about logins and rights and such like. Step 4: I can/will read back through all of the email and create a "question list". I can present the "question list" to THIS list for comment. Note the "question list" is needed w/o regard to the decision in Step 2. Really Note: the "question list" could be just the one question posed by Jim. Though I agree with Kendra: if we ask one question w/o any additional direction, I fear we will receive responses that are "all over the map". Really Really Note: If someone else wants to do Step 4, then say so and I won't spend MY time on it. Step 5: Assuming I am doing the work, I want to create the wiki category and topic page(s) next weekend (12/18..12/19). That is when I have the time. So, if I don't hear anything, or if what I do hear are equivocations and ambiguity, then what work I do will be subject to my mind-reading skills (and all overly-harsh passive-aggressive post-facto armchair quarterbacking will be met with Bert's Standard Two Word Response). Please get back to me ASAP; let's get this done together, Bert Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the right > questions. > Though these are very relevent issues to raise and thank you Jim and > Shane (and others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will glaze > over....mine are! > > Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask he > locals ONE question: > > "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?" > > But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the > answer(s)! > Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it out. If > it doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from locals > and documenting them somewhere ourselves. > > We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've > been bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with > from this one very simple question. > > How about it? > > > > > Kendra Gonzales > www.vccool.org > www.cagreens.org/ventura > "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas > is matched by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of > Concerned Scientists > > > *From:* shane que hee > *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org > *Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM > *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > > Everyone: > > Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the > Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your written > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until > recovery > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all > goals and > > strategies? > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a > > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of > the past > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on > MOST "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is > > desirable? > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be part > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals > > and Counties? > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party > > and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over > internal business > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable > > plan for growth? > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? How > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What > factors > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? > What resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What > specific services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from > GPCA? How should the current system be changed? > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not > covered above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your > assessments/perspectives.. > > > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org > . > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed > GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly > Plenary packet for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: > > Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > > strategyplan at cagreens.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > > (Jim Stauffer) > > 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 > > From: Jim Stauffer > > > To: GPCA Strategy Planning > > > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, > > Issue 4 > > Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: > > > Kendra/Jim: > > > > > > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. > > > > > > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail > listserve > > > by the end of January. > > > > > > We might then do a wiki. > > > > > > > > > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County > Contacts is: > > > > > > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County > Councils and > > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > > > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like > your written > > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope > you can > > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > > > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on > fundraising, > > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" > until recovery > > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all > goals and > > > strategies? > > > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts > people to a > > > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline > of the past > > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new > registrations of > > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are > realistic > > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue > attempts in > > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA > focus on MOST > > > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is > > > desirable? > > > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan > offices? > > > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue > to be part > > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice > voting > > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of > the Locals > > > and Counties? > > > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking > decision process > > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the > state party > > > and the > > > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over > internal business > > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor > a viable > > > plan for growth? > > > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in > GPCA? How > > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? > What factors > > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state > party? What > > > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What > specific > > > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from > GPCA? How > > > should the current system be changed? > > > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what > should > > > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org > . > > > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting > proposed GPCA > > > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly > Plenary packet > > > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" > > > > > > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > wrote: > > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org > > >> > > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > > >> > > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > > >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > > >> > > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > >> > > >> > > >> Today's Topics: > > >> > > >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) > > >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) > > >> > > >> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > >> Message: 1 > > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) > > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > > > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > > > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward > > >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com > > > > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > >> > > >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: > > >> > > >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi Gloria, > > >> > > >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. > > >> > > >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is > GPCA specific, > > >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the > GPCA has been > > >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA > folks who's > > >> addresses I have. > > >> > > >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in > the next 72 > > >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And > I'll keep > > >> the > > >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. > > >> > > >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on > CAGreens-Test also > > >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. > > >> > > >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? > It will > > >> "point > > >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If > all goes > > >> well > > >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for things > like this > > >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't > know is there. > > >> > > >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I > > >> discovered > > >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! > Potentially one can > > >> look > > >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site > > >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to > their site.? > > >> Check > > >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. > > >> > > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > > >> > > >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward > > >> San Francisco > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -------------- next part -------------- > > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > >> URL: > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> > > >> Message: 2 > > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) > > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > > > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > > > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson >, Barry Hermanson > > >> > > > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > > >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com > > > > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > >> > > >> Hello all, > > >> > > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > Contacts....its not at > > >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we > really > > >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items > or questions > > >> for their consideration. > > >> > > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed > when reading > > >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found > that email > > >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because > its just too > > >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same > problem > > >> myself > > >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! > > >> > > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and > action items so we > > >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we > document > > >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one > > >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we > use?it for the > > >> larger picture stuff > too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? > > >> > > >> > > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on > her own > > >> platform: > > >> > > >> > > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > > >> > > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said > he was going > > >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > best approach. > > >> > > >> > > >> Kendra Gonzales > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -------------- next part -------------- > > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > >> URL: > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> StrategyPlan mailing list > > >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >> > > >> > > >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > > >> ****************************************** > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > gpca-cocos mailing list > > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 > > From: Jim Stauffer > > > To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > > Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 > issues > > (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, > you've > > just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for this > exercise. > > That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by > > itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is > for them > > to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? > > > > Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas > they > > have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the > referenced list of > > issues, then they're telling us they agree. > > > > If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list > of issues, > > let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather > than asking > > for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and > documenting. > > > > You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we > raise." > > I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking > about. > > > > As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated > responsibility to > > produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at > a GA. We > > haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and > analyze > > the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for > you. Whether > > by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. > We may > > get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual > responses. We > > need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official > > responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. > > > > As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the > number of > > years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in the > > response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the > Locals > > before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to > > postponing this to the Summer. > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > my responses in yellow below > > > > > > Kendra Gonzales > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > *From:* Jim Stauffer > > > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning > *Sent:* Mon, > > > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our > approach to > > > Strategizing > > > > > > Kendra - > > > > > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say > it's > > > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was > to send > > > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con > statements > > > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the > issues > > > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties > what > > > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. > > > > > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, > _just > > > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example of > what a > > > Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. > > > > > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of > > > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are > asking locals > > > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out as > > > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask for their > > > ideas. > > > > > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA > > > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that > > > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct > projects like > > > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of > > > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the > > > whittling down > > > > > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion > to the > > > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I > don't > > > want to spend a lot of time on it. > > > > > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are > responsible > > > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you > propose > > > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals > can have > > > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If > they don't, > > > then fine...the CC can do it for them. > > > > > > > > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > > > > > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > > > > > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. > Send 10 > > > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas > too. That's > > > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 > (or so) > > > items are just suggestions. > > > > > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no > > > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first > > > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support > from the > > > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until > after > > > the Spring GA. > > > > > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and > simply > > > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first > quarter > > > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our > > > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this proposal > happening > > > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of > opportunity for > > > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time for us to do > > > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I would > also like > > > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki > seem to be > > > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > > > >> Hello all, > > > > > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > Contacts....its > > >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I > suggest we > > >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic > items > > >> or questions for their consideration. > > > > > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > > >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've > found > > >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach > > >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this > email, I > > >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for > > >> simplicity's sake! > > > > > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action > > >> items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". > How do > > >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has > > >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part of > 2011. Can > > >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? > > >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > > > > > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > > > > > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her > > >> own platform: > > > > > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > > > > > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said > he was > > >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > > >> best approach. > > > > > >> Kendra Gonzales > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan > mailing list > > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > > > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan > mailing list > > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > > ****************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gpca-cocos mailing list > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Thu Dec 16 10:05:41 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:05:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategizing In-Reply-To: <4D0A353F.5010305@comcast.net> References: <201012152126.oBFLQG5M027665@mail.ucla.edu> <769085.86832.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4D0A353F.5010305@comcast.net> Message-ID: <456217.94594.qm@web56908.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Bert!? Thank you! Sorry you'll get this 3 times... I love where?you are going with this...exactly what I've been envisioning and I hope we can just move forward already!. I also have some time starting?fri and thru the weekend to look things over and answer some of?Bert's questions and?brainstorm...hope others?can?do the same. I hope we can?get?a preliminary email out to County Contacts very soon.? Shane - your?suggestion to give the locals a deadline of Jan 31 is much too short...though I really appreciate that we need to give some kind of deadline.?However, we should?open the time frame to?allow a fair and realistice window?of review,?digestion, discussion, and documentation...not to mention the follow-up that will have to be done to light a fire under?peoples bums. Plus....Jan 31 is the deadline for our working groups to get our workplans completed...its just too much to add in this deadline at the same time. This project?will keep evolving over the next 3 months...the deadline should be shortly before the Plenary for a first draft. Even then, a GPCA Strategic Action Plan (I?hope we'll adopt this title) is an always evolving thing. There really is no absolute "end product" - this is a framework we are creating that needs to be flexible enough to accept societal, fiscal, electoral, and structural changes?from within our party and from without. Our Platform is also always evolving...same sort of thing, but?a specifically?Stragetic Plan, in my mind, is the nuts & bolts of the HOW we implement what our Platform says and of course grow larger and stronger.? Sorry....I do go on!.? Lets get this started! ? Kendra Gonzales www.vccool.org www.cagreens.org/ventura "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas ?is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned Scientists ________________________________ From: Bert To: Kendra Gonzales Cc: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 ; GPCA Cocos Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 7:50:23 AM Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] revisit of approach To all, Two points: I volunteered to handle the wiki work and I asked for direction. I don't see that anyone else is handling this, so I will. If someone ELSE wants to do the wiki thing, or if there is some wiki other than wiki.cagreens.org, then say so. Otherwise I am moving forward. OK, on to the directions. I am going to ask questions of the CO-CO's on this list. The time right now it is 12/16/10 0645.? If you have answers or opinions, please get them to me within 36 hours. ??? Definition: Just so we have names for stuff, I am going to call the entries in the Main Page "Categories" and each page within an category (other than the Table of Contents - a.k.a. first page beneath the category) is a "topic". Example categories: "Green 2012", "Props 2010", and "IT" are all existing "categories" in the GPCA wiki. Example topics: within the Props 2010 article, are the "topics" Props2010/18, Props2010/19, etc. Please digest the above. Also, I think my names for these things suck. So if someone has a better set of names for use in conversations just like this one, then say so and we'll use them. ??? Step 1: Am I creating a new category? Or am I extending the Green 2012 category? Unless I hear otherwise: I will create a new category named "Moving Forward: A Party Strategy" (or something hifalutin like that). Why? Because Green 2012 is a two year plan and this "strategy thing" seems to have different horizons. ??? Step 2: Throughout all of the email threads, there have been a number of questions suggested. So the next decision is: (a) Do we want one big topic for the whole thing (broken into sections), OR (b) Do we want to break the discussion up into separate topics (ex: one for each of the questions posed by various co-co's) Unless I hear otherwise: I will assume a separate topic for each question. Why? Because I am anal-retentive that way. Also I see it as helping "people who contribute" to stay focused (see "direction" below). And so that "people who collate" have an easier time of it. ??? Step 3: Who do we expect to contribute? County councilpersons? State party Co-co's? CC members? Any CA registered Green? Any Green at all? Any person at all? I will get in touch with IT and we'll see about logins and rights and such like. ??? Step 4: I can/will read back through all of the email and create a "question list". I can present the "question list" to THIS list for comment. Note the "question list" is needed w/o regard to the decision in Step 2. Really Note: the "question list" could be just the one question posed by Jim. Though I agree with Kendra: if we ask one question w/o any additional direction, I fear we will receive responses that are "all over the map". Really Really Note: If someone else wants to do Step 4, then say so and I won't spend MY time on it. ??? Step 5: Assuming I am doing the work, I want to create the wiki category and topic page(s) next weekend (12/18..12/19). That is when I have the time. So, if I don't hear anything, or if what I do hear are equivocations and ambiguity, then what work I do will be subject to my mind-reading skills (and all overly-harsh passive-aggressive post-facto armchair quarterbacking will be met with Bert's Standard Two Word Response). Please get back to me ASAP; let's get this done together, Bert Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the right questions.? >Though these are? very relevent issues to raise and thank you Jim and Shane (and >others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will glaze over....mine are!? >Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask he locals ONE >question: >? "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?" >? But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the >answer(s)! > Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it out. If it >doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from locals and >documenting them somewhere ourselves. >? We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've been >bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with from this one >very simple question. >? How about it? >? >? > Kendra Gonzales > www.vccool.org > www.cagreens.org/ventura > "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas >? is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned >Scientists > > > *From:* shane que hee > *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org > *Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM > *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > > Everyone: > > Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the >Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- > > > > The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your written > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until recovery > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals and > > strategies? > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a > > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the past > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST >"winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is > > desirable? > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be part > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals > > and Counties? > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party > > and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal >business > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable > > plan for growth? > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? How > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What factors > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What >resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific >services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How should >the current system be changed? > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should >replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not covered >above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your >assessments/perspectives.. > > > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org >. > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA >strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary packet >for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- > > > > > > t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: >? > Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan at cagreens.org >? > >? > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >? >? ? ? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >? > >? > You can reach the person managing the list at >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >? > >? > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >? > than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >? > >? > >? > Today's Topics: >? > >? >? ? 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >? >? ? ? (Jim Stauffer) >? >? ? 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >? > >? > >? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >? > >? > Message: 1 >? > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 >? > From: Jim Stauffer > >? > To: GPCA Strategy Planning > >? > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, >? >? ? ? ? Issue 4 >? > Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org >> >? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >? > >? > I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. >? > >? > Jim >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: >? > > Kendra/Jim: >? > > >? > > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. >? > > >? > > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail >listserve >? > > by the end of January. >? > > >? > > We might then do a wiki. >? > > >? > > >? > > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts is: >? > > >? > > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and >? > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. >? > > >? > > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your >written >? > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you >can >? > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: >? > > >? > > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, >? > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until >recovery >? > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals >and >? > > strategies? >? > > >? > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a >? > > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the >past >? > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of >? > > about 1,000 too unambitious? >? > > >? > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are >realistic >? > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in >? > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? >? > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on >MOST >? > > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is >? > > desirable? >? > > >? > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan >offices? >? > > >? > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >? > > >? > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be >part >? > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? >? > > >? > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting >? > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >? > > >? > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the >? > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the >Locals >? > > and Counties? >? > > >? > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision >process >? > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well >? > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state >party >? > > and the >? > > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal >business >? > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a >viable >? > > plan for growth? >? > > >? > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? >How >? > > should the current system be changed for the better? >? > > >? > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >factors >? > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >? > > >? > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What >? > > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What >specific >? > > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How >? > > should the current system be changed? >? > > >? > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should >? > > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >? > > >? > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org >. >? > > >? > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA >? > > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary >packet >? > > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" >? > > >? > > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 >? > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > wrote: >? > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >? > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org >? > >> >? > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >? > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >? > >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >? > >> >? > >> You can reach the person managing the list at >? > >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >? > >> >? > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >? > >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> Today's Topics: >? > >> >? > >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) >? > >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >? > >> >? > >> Message: 1 >? > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) >? > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > >? > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >? > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward >? > >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com >> >? > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >? > >> >? > >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: >? > >> >? > >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> Hi Gloria, >? > >> >? > >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. >? > >> >? > >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is GPCA >specific, >? > >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the GPCA has >been >? > >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks who's >? > >> addresses I have. >? > >> >? > >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in the >next 72 >? > >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And I'll >keep >? > >> the >? > >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. >? > >> >? > >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on CAGreens-Test >also >? > >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. >? > >> >? > >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It will >? > >> "point >? > >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If all >goes >? > >> well >? > >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for things like >this >? > >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't know is >there. >? > >> >? > >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I >? > >> discovered >? > >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! Potentially one >can >? > >> look >? > >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site >? > >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their >site.? >? > >> Check >? > >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. >? > >> >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . >? > >> >? > >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward >? > >> San Francisco >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> -------------- next part -------------- >? > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >? > >> URL: >? > >> > > >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> ------------------------------ >? > >> >? > >> Message: 2 >? > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) >? > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > >? > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >? > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson >, Barry Hermanson >? > >> > >? > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >? > >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com >> >? > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >? > >> >? > >> Hello all, >? > >> >? > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its >not at >? > >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really >? > >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items or >questions >? > >> for their consideration. >? > >> >? > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed when >reading >? > >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that >email >? > >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because its just >too >? > >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same problem >? > >> myself >? > >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! >? > >> >? > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items >so we >? > >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we >document >? > >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one >? > >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we use?it >for the >? > >> larger picture stuff too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her >own >? > >> platform: >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . >? > >> >? > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was >going >? > >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best >approach. >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> Kendra Gonzales >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> -------------- next part -------------- >? > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >? > >> URL: >? > >> > > >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> ------------------------------ >? > >> >? > >> _______________________________________________ >? > >> StrategyPlan mailing list >? > >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >? > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >? > >> ****************************************** >? > > >? > > _______________________________________________ >? > > gpca-cocos mailing list >? > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >? > > >? > >? > >? > ------------------------------ >? > >? > Message: 2 >? > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 >? > From: Jim Stauffer > >? > To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >? > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >? > Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org >> >? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >? > >? > We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 issues >? > (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, you've >? > just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for this exercise. >? > That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by >? > itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is for them >? > to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? >? > >? > Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas they >? > have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the referenced list >of >? > issues, then they're telling us they agree. >? > >? > If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of >issues, >? > let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than >asking >? > for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and >documenting. >? > >? > You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we >raise." >? > I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking about. >? > >? > As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility to >? > produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at a GA. >We >? > haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and analyze >? > the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for you. >Whether >? > by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We may >? > get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual responses. We >? > need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official >? > responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. >? > >? > As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the number >of >? > years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in the >? > response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Locals >? > before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to >? > postponing this to the Summer. >? > >? > Jim >? > >? > >? > >? > On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >? > > my responses in yellow below >? > > >? > > Kendra Gonzales >? > > >? > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >? > > >? > > >? > *From:* Jim Stauffer > >? > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning > *Sent:* Mon, >? > > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to >? > > Strategizing >? > > >? > > Kendra - >? > > >? > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's >? > > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to >send >? > > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements >? > > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues >? > > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what >? > > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. >? > >? > > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, _just >? > > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example of what a >? > >? Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. >? > > >? > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of >? > > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking >locals >? > > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out as >? > > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask for their >? > > ideas. >? > > >? > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA >? > > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that >? > > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like >? > > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of >? > > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the >? > > whittling down >? > > >? > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to the >? > > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't >? > > want to spend a lot of time on it. >? > >? > > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are responsible >? > > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you propose >? > > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can have >? > > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they >don't, >? > > then fine...the CC can do it for them. >? > > >? > > >? > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: >? > > >? > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. >? > > >? > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send 10 >? > > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. >That's >? > > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 (or so) >? > > items are just suggestions. >? > > >? > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no >? > > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first >? > > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the >? > > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after >? > > the Spring GA. >? > >? > > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and simply >? > > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first quarter >? > > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our >? > > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this proposal happening >? > > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of opportunity for >? > > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time for us to do >? > > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I would also like >? > > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki seem to >be >? > > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >? > > >? > >> Hello all, >? > > >? > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its >? > >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we >? > >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items >? > >> or questions for their consideration. >? > > >? > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when >? > >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found >? > >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach >? > >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I >? > >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for >? > >> simplicity's sake! >? > > >? > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >? > >> items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do >? > >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has >? > >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can >? > >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? >? > >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. >? > > >? > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >? > > >? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her >? > >> own platform: >? > > >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . >? > > >? > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was >? > >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a >? > >> best approach. >? > > >? > >> Kendra Gonzales >? > >> >? > > >? > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list >? > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list >? > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > >? > >? > ------------------------------ >? > >? > _______________________________________________ >? > StrategyPlan mailing list >? > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >? > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > >? > >? > End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >? > ****************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gpca-cocos mailing list > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Thu Dec 16 15:40:01 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:40:01 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 In-Reply-To: <201012152008.oBFK88f2008476@mail.ucla.edu> References: <201012152008.oBFK88f2008476@mail.ucla.edu> Message-ID: <4D0AA351.4020001@greens.org> Shane - Try to put yourself inside the head of the reader. They've not heard anything about the party attempting to set long-term goals and strategies. They just get this email one day asking them to answer a list of 13 questions, with little context as to why. I don't believe this is a scenario that will elicit response or participation. You're asking all this be done in just a couple of weeks. That is not enough time for a Local to respond, much less a regional meeting that first has to be organized. There is only a vague reference to "Locals/County/Regional meetings." One of the main tenets of my plan is getting counties together, and there are several reasons why that is a healthy action. These are my main objections. Jim On 12/15/2010 12:08 PM, shane que hee wrote: > Jim: > > What do you disagree with?....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > At 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >> strategyplan at cagreens.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >> (Jim Stauffer) >> 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 >> From: Jim Stauffer >> To: GPCA Strategy Planning >> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, >> Issue 4 >> Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: >> > Kendra/Jim: >> > >> > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. >> > >> > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail listserve >> > by the end of January. >> > >> > We might then do a wiki. >> > >> > >> > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts is: >> > >> > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and >> > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. >> > >> > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your written >> > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can >> > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: >> > >> > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, >> > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until >> recovery >> > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals and >> > strategies? >> > >> > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a >> > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the >> past >> > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of >> > about 1,000 too unambitious? >> > >> > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic >> > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in >> > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? >> > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST >> > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is >> > desirable? >> > >> > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? >> > >> > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >> > >> > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be part >> > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? >> > >> > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting >> > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >> > >> > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the >> > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals >> > and Counties? >> > >> > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process >> > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well >> > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party >> > and the >> > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal >> business >> > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable >> > plan for growth? >> > >> > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? How >> > should the current system be changed for the better? >> > >> > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >> factors >> > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >> > >> > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What >> > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific >> > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How >> > should the current system be changed? >> > >> > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should >> > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >> > >> > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org. >> > >> > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA >> > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary >> packet >> > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" >> > >> > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > >> > >> > >> > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: >> >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >> >> strategyplan at cagreens.org >> >> >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> >> >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >> >> >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >> >> >> >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> >> >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) >> >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> Message: 1 >> >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) >> >> From: Kendra Gonzales >> >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >> >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward >> >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> >> >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: >> >> >> >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Gloria, >> >> >> >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. >> >> >> >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is GPCA >> specific, >> >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the GPCA has >> been >> >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks who's >> >> addresses I have. >> >> >> >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in the >> next 72 >> >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And I'll keep >> >> the >> >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. >> >> >> >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on CAGreens-Test >> also >> >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. >> >> >> >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It will >> >> "point >> >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If all goes >> >> well >> >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for things like this >> >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't know is >> there. >> >> >> >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I >> >> discovered >> >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! Potentially one can >> >> look >> >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site >> >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their site.? >> >> Check >> >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. >> >> >> >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >> >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >> >> www.cagreenideas.org . >> >> >> >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward >> >> San Francisco >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> >> URL: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Message: 2 >> >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) >> >> From: Kendra Gonzales >> >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >> >> Cc: Barry Hermanson , Barry Hermanson >> >> >> >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >> >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> >> >> Hello all, >> >> >> >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its >> not at >> >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really >> >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items or >> questions >> >> for their consideration. >> >> >> >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed when >> reading >> >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that email >> >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because its just >> too >> >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same problem >> >> myself >> >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! >> >> >> >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items >> so we >> >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we document >> >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one >> >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we use?it >> for the >> >> larger picture stuff too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? >> >> >> >> >> >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >> >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own >> >> platform: >> >> >> >> >> >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >> >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >> >> www.cagreenideas.org . >> >> >> >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was >> going >> >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best >> approach. >> >> >> >> >> >> Kendra Gonzales >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> >> URL: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> StrategyPlan mailing list >> >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> >> >> >> >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >> >> ****************************************** >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > gpca-cocos mailing list >> > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >> > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >> > >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 >> From: Jim Stauffer >> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >> Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 issues >> (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, you've >> just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for this exercise. >> That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by >> itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is for them >> to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? >> >> Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas they >> have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the referenced list of >> issues, then they're telling us they agree. >> >> If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of issues, >> let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than asking >> for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and documenting. >> >> You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we raise." >> I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking about. >> >> As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility to >> produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at a GA. We >> haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and analyze >> the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for you. Whether >> by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We may >> get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual responses. We >> need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official >> responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. >> >> As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the number of >> years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in the >> response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Locals >> before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to >> postponing this to the Summer. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >> > my responses in yellow below >> > >> > Kendra Gonzales >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> > >> *From:* Jim Stauffer >> > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning *Sent:* Mon, >> > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to >> > Strategizing >> > >> > Kendra - >> > >> > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's >> > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to send >> > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements >> > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues >> > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what >> > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. >> >> > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, _just >> > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example of what a >> > Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. >> > >> > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of >> > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking locals >> > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out as >> > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask for their >> > ideas. >> > >> > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA >> > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that >> > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like >> > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of >> > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the >> > whittling down >> > >> > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to the >> > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't >> > want to spend a lot of time on it. >> >> > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are responsible >> > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you propose >> > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can have >> > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they don't, >> > then fine...the CC can do it for them. >> > >> > >> > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: >> > >> > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. >> > >> > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send 10 >> > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. That's >> > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 (or so) >> > items are just suggestions. >> > >> > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no >> > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first >> > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the >> > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after >> > the Spring GA. >> >> > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and simply >> > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first quarter >> > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our >> > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this proposal happening >> > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of opportunity for >> > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time for us to do >> > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I would also like >> > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki seem to be >> > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! >> > >> > >> > >> > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >> > >> >> Hello all, >> > >> >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its >> >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we >> >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items >> >> or questions for their consideration. >> > >> >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when >> >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found >> >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach >> >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I >> >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for >> >> simplicity's sake! >> > >> >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >> >> items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do >> >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has >> >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can >> >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? >> >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. >> > >> >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >> > >> >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her >> >> own platform: >> > >> >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >> >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >> >> www.cagreenideas.org . >> > >> >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was >> >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a >> >> best approach. >> > >> >> Kendra Gonzales >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list >> > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list >> > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> StrategyPlan mailing list >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >> ****************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > From jims at greens.org Thu Dec 16 16:43:56 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:43:56 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] revisit of approach In-Reply-To: <4D0A353F.5010305@comcast.net> References: <201012152126.oBFLQG5M027665@mail.ucla.edu> <769085.86832.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4D0A353F.5010305@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4D0AB24C.1040303@greens.org> Bert - Thanks for volunteering. I was going to work on this over the weekend, but I would much prefer someone else doing it. My first suggestion is to wait until we finalize what the project sent to the counties will be. Second, this is a project for long-term planning (at least what I've been advocating). Planing for 2011/12 is something different. They do intersect, but I'd like to keep the two projects separate for now. I don't know what kind of responses we're going to get. My project envisions a formal response from the groups that meet, and possibly some individual responses. I was thinking of a main branch for the official responses and any individual responses that address the project as a whole. If someone wants to discuss one particular topic, that should be a sub-branch with a link on the main branch. But until we see what kind of responses we get it's hard to guess what structure we'll need. Jim On 12/16/2010 7:50 AM, Bert wrote: > To all, > > Two points: I volunteered to handle the wiki work and I asked for > direction. > > I don't see that anyone else is handling this, so I will. If someone ELSE > wants to do the wiki thing, or if there is some wiki other than > wiki.cagreens.org, then say so. Otherwise I am moving forward. > > OK, on to the directions. I am going to ask questions of the CO-CO's on > this list. The time right now it is 12/16/10 0645. If you have answers or > opinions, please get them to me within 36 hours. > > Definition: > > Just so we have names for stuff, I am going to call the entries in the Main > Page "Categories" and each page within an category (other than the Table > of Contents - a.k.a. first page beneath the category) is a "topic". > > Example categories: "Green 2012", "Props 2010", and "IT" are all existing > "categories" in the GPCA wiki. > > Example topics: within the Props 2010 article, are the "topics" > Props2010/18, Props2010/19, etc. > > Please digest the above. Also, I think my names for these things suck. So > if someone has a better set of names for use in conversations just like > this one, then say so and we'll use them. > > Step 1: > > Am I creating a new category? Or am I extending the Green 2012 category? > > Unless I hear otherwise: I will create a new category named "Moving > Forward: A Party Strategy" (or something hifalutin like that). Why? Because > Green 2012 is a two year plan and this "strategy thing" seems to have > different horizons. > > Step 2: > > Throughout all of the email threads, there have been a number of questions > suggested. So the next decision is: > > (a) Do we want one big topic for the whole thing (broken into sections), > > OR > > (b) Do we want to break the discussion up into separate topics (ex: one for > each of the questions posed by various co-co's) > > Unless I hear otherwise: I will assume a separate topic for each question. > Why? Because I am anal-retentive that way. Also I see it as helping > "people who contribute" to stay focused (see "direction" below). And so > that "people who collate" have an easier time of it. > > Step 3: > > Who do we expect to contribute? County councilpersons? State party Co-co's? > CC members? Any CA registered Green? Any Green at all? Any person at all? > > I will get in touch with IT and we'll see about logins and rights and such > like. > > Step 4: > > I can/will read back through all of the email and create a "question list". > I can present the "question list" to THIS list for comment. > > Note the "question list" is needed w/o regard to the decision in Step 2. > > Really Note: the "question list" could be just the one question posed by > Jim. Though I agree with Kendra: if we ask one question w/o any additional > direction, I fear we will receive responses that are "all over the map". > > Really Really Note: If someone else wants to do Step 4, then say so and I > won't spend MY time on it. > > Step 5: > > Assuming I am doing the work, I want to create the wiki category and topic > page(s) next weekend (12/18..12/19). That is when I have the time. So, if > I don't hear anything, or if what I do hear are equivocations and > ambiguity, then what work I do will be subject to my mind-reading skills > (and all overly-harsh passive-aggressive post-facto armchair quarterbacking > will be met with Bert's Standard Two Word Response). > > Please get back to me ASAP; let's get this done together, > > Bert > > > Kendra Gonzales wrote: >> >> Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the right >> questions. Though these are very relevent issues to raise and thank you >> Jim and Shane (and others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will >> glaze over....mine are! Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your >> approach and ask he locals ONE question: >> >> "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 >> years?" >> >> But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the >> answer(s)! Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it >> out. If it doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from >> locals and documenting them somewhere ourselves. >> >> We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've >> been bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with from >> this one very simple question. >> >> How about it? >> >> >> >> >> Kendra Gonzales www.vccool.org www.cagreens.org/ventura "All the energy >> stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas is matched >> by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned Scientists >> >> >> *From:* shane que hee *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org >> *Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] >> StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >> >> Everyone: >> >> Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the >> Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and >> >> Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. >> >> >> >> In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your >> written >> >> response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you >> can >> >> formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: >> >> >> >> 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on >> fundraising, >> >> should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until >> recovery >> >> is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals >> and >> >> strategies? >> >> >> >> 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to >> a >> >> small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the >> past >> >> six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations >> of >> >> about 1,000 too unambitious? >> >> >> >> 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are >> realistic >> >> electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in >> >> partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? >> >> If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on >> MOST "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split >> is >> >> desirable? >> >> >> >> 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan >> offices? >> >> >> >> 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >> >> >> >> 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be >> part >> >> of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? >> >> >> >> 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice >> voting >> >> (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >> >> >> >> 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the >> >> California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the >> Locals >> >> and Counties? >> >> >> >> 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision >> process >> >> is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well >> >> enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state >> party >> >> and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over >> internal business >> >> to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a >> viable >> >> plan for growth? >> >> >> >> 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? >> How >> >> should the current system be changed for the better? >> >> >> >> 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >> factors >> >> have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >> >> >> >> 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What >> resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What >> specific services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from >> GPCA? How should the current system be changed? >> >> >> >> 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should >> replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >> >> >> >> 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not >> covered above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your >> assessments/perspectives.. >> >> >> >> Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org >> . >> >> >> >> We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed >> GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly >> Plenary packet for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 >> 2010 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: >>> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to strategyplan at cagreens.org >>> >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan or, via email, >>> send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >>> >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >>> >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 (Jim Stauffer) >>> 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer >>> > To: GPCA Strategy Planning >>> > > >>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, >>> Issue 4 Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org >> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>> >>> I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: >>>> Kendra/Jim: >>>> >>>> I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail >> listserve >>>> by the end of January. >>>> >>>> We might then do a wiki. >>>> >>>> >>>> All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts >>>> is: >>>> >>>> "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils >>>> and Locals in charting our way forward following the November >>>> elections. >>>> >>>> .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your >>>> >> written >>>> response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope >>>> you can formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: >>>> >>>> 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on >>>> fundraising, should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a >>>> "survival plan" until >> recovery >>>> is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all >> goals and >>>> strategies? >>>> >>>> 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people >>>> to a small party? What caused the California Green registration >>>> decline of >> the past >>>> six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new >>>> registrations of about 1,000 too unambitious? >>>> >>>> 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are >> realistic >>>> electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts >>>> in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? If there is to be >>>> focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on >> MOST >>>> "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split >>>> is desirable? >>>> >>>> 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan >>>> offices? >>>> >>>> 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >>>> >>>> 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to >>>> be >> part >>>> of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? >>>> >>>> 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice >>>> voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >>>> >>>> 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of >>>> the California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of >>>> the Locals and Counties? >>>> >>>> 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision >>>> >> process >>>> is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working >>>> well enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the >>>> state party and the county parties? Should we examine giving more >>>> authority over internal >> business >>>> to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a >>>> >> viable >>>> plan for growth? >>>> >>>> 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in >>>> GPCA? >> How >>>> should the current system be changed for the better? >>>> >>>> 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? >>>> What >> factors >>>> have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >>>> >>>> 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? >>>> What resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? >>>> What specific services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals >>>> want from GPCA? How should the current system be changed? >>>> >>>> 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what >>>> should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >>>> >>>> Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org >> . >>>> >>>> We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed >>>> GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly >>>> Plenary >> packet >>>> for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" >>>> >>>> ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 >>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> wrote: >>>>> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >>>>> strategyplan at cagreens.org >>>>> >>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan or, via >>>>> email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> >>>>> >>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>>> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more >>>>> specific than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>> >>>>> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) 2. our approach >>>>> to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Message: 1 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) From: Kendra >>>>> Gonzales > > >>>>> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > > >>>>> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward Message-ID: >>>>> <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com >> > >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>>> >>>>> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: >>>>> >>>>> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Gloria, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. >>>>> >>>>> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is >>>>> GPCA >> specific, >>>>> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the >>>>> GPCA >> has been >>>>> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks >>>>> who's addresses I have. >>>>> >>>>> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in >>>>> the >> next 72 >>>>> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And >>>>> I'll >> keep >>>>> the survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. >>>>> >>>>> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on >> CAGreens-Test also >>>>> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. >>>>> >>>>> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? >>>>> It will "point to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not >>>>> registered.? If all >> goes >>>>> well the domain registration will allow people to web search for >>>>> things like >> this >>>>> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't >>>>> know is >> there. >>>>> >>>>> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature >>>>> I discovered just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY >>>>> COOL! Potentially one >> can >>>>> look at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the >>>>> web site builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" >>>>> to their site.? Check it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the >>>>> left hand side Main Menu. >>>>> >>>>> CAGreens-Test is reached at: >>>>> www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. CAGreenIDEAS.org will be >>>>> reachable at either cagreenideas.org or www.cagreenideas.org . >>>>> >>>>> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward San Francisco >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>>>> scrubbed... URL: >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 2 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) From: Kendra >>>>> Gonzales > > >>>>> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > > >>>>> Cc: Barry Hermanson > >, Barry Hermanson >>>>> > Subject: >>>>> [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing Message-ID: >>>>> <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com >> > >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County >>>>> Contacts....its >> not at >>>>> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we >>>>> really simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic >>>>> items or >> questions >>>>> for their consideration. >>>>> >>>>> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed >>>>> when >> reading >>>>> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found >>>>> that >> email >>>>> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because >>>>> its >> just too >>>>> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same >>>>> problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's >>>>> sake! >>>>> >>>>> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >>>>> >> items so we >>>>> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we >>>>> document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has >>>>> created one but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of >>>>> 2011. Can we use?it >> for the >>>>> larger picture stuff >>>>> too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >>>>> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on >>>>> her own platform: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CAGreens-Test is reached at: >>>>> www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. CAGreenIDEAS.org will be >>>>> reachable at either cagreenideas.org or www.cagreenideas.org . >>>>> >>>>> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said >>>>> he >> was going >>>>> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a >>>>> best >> approach. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kendra Gonzales >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>>>> scrubbed... URL: >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan >>>>> mailing list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >>>>> ****************************************** >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing >>>> list gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >>>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer >>> > To: >>> strategyplan at cagreens.org Subject: >>> Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing Message-ID: >>> <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org >> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>> >>> We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 >>> issues (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on >>> each, you've just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed >>> for this exercise. That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, >>> it's a major task by itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all >>> you're asking is for them to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to >>> them? >>> >>> Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas >>> they have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the >>> referenced >> list of >>> issues, then they're telling us they agree. >>> >>> If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of >>> >> issues, >>> let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than >>> asking for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and >>> documenting. >>> >>> You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we >>> raise." I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are >>> thinking about. >>> >>> As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated >>> responsibility to produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have >>> to present it at a >> GA. We >>> haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and >>> analyze the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses >>> for you. >> Whether >>> by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We >>> may get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual >>> responses. We need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see >>> the official responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC >>> prefers. >>> >>> As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the >> number of >>> years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in >>> the response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with >>> the Locals before sending them the project. But there are definitely >>> drawbacks to postponing this to the Summer. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>>> my responses in yellow below >>>> >>>> Kendra Gonzales >>>> >>>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >>>> >>> *From:* Jim Stauffer > >>>> *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning > > *Sent:* Mon, >>>> December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our >>>> approach to Strategizing >>>> >>>> Kendra - >>>> >>>> Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say >>>> it's the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal >>>> was to send a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write >>>> pro/con statements on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what >>>> they think are the issues we should concentrate on in the long term. >>>> Not telling the counties what issues the state party thinks we should >>>> work on and see if they agree. >>> >>>> Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, >>>> _just as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or >>>> example of what a Strategic Plan might include - just as you >>>> suggest. >>>> >>>> The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds >>>> of topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are >>>> asking locals to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw >>>> them right out as being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, >>>> we also ask for their ideas. >>>> >>>> The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most >>>> GA proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been >>>> that counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct >>>> projects like this. The only lengthy section of the message is the >>>> reference list of issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I >>>> agree with the whittling down >>>> >>>> The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion >>>> to the CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness >>>> so I don't want to spend a lot of time on it. >>> >>>> So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are >>>> responsible for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. >>>> What do you propose that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not >>>> useful. Also, locals can have an opportunity to post their responses >>>> and ideas themselves. If they don't, then fine...the CC can do it for >>>> them. >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: >>>> >>>> - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. >>>> >>>> - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. >>>> Send 10 "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR >>>> ideas too. That's the main focus of what this project - the local >>>> viewpoint. The 10 (or so) items are just suggestions. >>>> >>>> My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with >>>> no forewarning. There's better participation when the project is >>>> first discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active >>>> support from the CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put >>>> this off until after the Spring GA. >>> >>>> I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and >>>> simply opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire >>>> first quarter of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't >>>> have all of our locals represented there. One of the benefits of this >>>> proposal happening now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer >>>> plenty of opportunity for locals to receive, digest, discuss, and >>>> respond. And, time for us to do follow-up from those who don't >>>> respond to the email(s). I would also like to hear back from others >>>> please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki seem to be the only thing we >>>> disagree on. Getting close! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>>> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County >>>>> Contacts....its not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. >>>>> However, I suggest we really simplify the email, offer just a >>>>> handful of suggested topic items or questions for their >>>>> consideration. >>>> >>>>> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed >>>>> when reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but >>>>> I've found that email communication warrants a short and to the >>>>> point approach because its just too easy to hit "delete". As >>>>> evidenced by this email, I have the same problem myself and need to >>>>> really edit things down for simplicity's sake! >>>> >>>>> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and >>>>> action items so we can record and organize them together into the >>>>> "Plan". How do we document everything? I have suggested >>>>> Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one but specific to her >>>>> proposal for the first part of 2011. Can we use it for the larger >>>>> picture stuff too? http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. >>>> >>>>> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >>>> >>>>> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on >>>>> her own platform: >>>> >>>>> CAGreens-Test is reached at: >>>>> www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. CAGreenIDEAS.org will be >>>>> reachable at either cagreenideas.org or www.cagreenideas.org . >>>> >>>>> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said >>>>> he was going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can >>>>> create a best approach. >>>> >>>>> Kendra Gonzales >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>>> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>>> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> >>> >>> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >>> ****************************************** >> >> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing list >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > _______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing list > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > From squehee at ucla.edu Thu Dec 16 16:06:17 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:06:17 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Strategizing In-Reply-To: <456217.94594.qm@web56908.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <201012152126.oBFLQG5M027665@mail.ucla.edu> <769085.86832.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4D0A353F.5010305@comcast.net> <456217.94594.qm@web56908.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <201012170006.oBH06CJS032311@mail.ucla.edu> Kendra: If we intend to have a draft strategy plan for the March Budget General Assembly in the plenary packet, a Jan 31 deadline is reasonable since all of us (or in this case probably mostly you) need to consider and digest the replies to formulate the draft strategic plan.---not a short process. I also deliberately chose the budget deadline because the co-cos should see beforehand any suggested innovations that are in their areas and propose a budget for them. I suppose the strategic plan could be slated to begin the next budget year---that is, 2012--but that is too long to wait in my opinion. What is your specific alternative time line? It sounds as if you intend to present the March General Assembly with a draft plan cold turkey---something that has much less chance of succeeding. We need to get people in the locals and Counties thinking immediately so they can reply in a substantive manner. A month (January) should be long enough to be able to answer one question. I have also attached the latest version of the 14 questions we had for general use....Shane Que Hee, Dec 16 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 10:05 AM 12/16/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >Bert! Thank you! > >Sorry you'll get this 3 times... > >I love where you are going with this...exactly what I've been >envisioning and I hope we can just move forward already!. > >I also have some time starting fri and thru the weekend to look >things over and answer some of Bert's questions and >brainstorm...hope others can do the same. I hope we can get a >preliminary email out to County Contacts very soon. > >Shane - your suggestion to give the locals a deadline of Jan 31 is >much too short...though I really appreciate that we need to give >some kind of deadline. However, we should open the time frame to >allow a fair and realistice window of review, digestion, discussion, >and documentation...not to mention the follow-up that will have to >be done to light a fire under peoples bums. > >Plus....Jan 31 is the deadline for our working groups to get our >workplans completed...its just too much to add in this deadline at >the same time. > >This project will keep evolving over the next 3 months...the >deadline should be shortly before the Plenary for a first draft. >Even then, a GPCA Strategic Action Plan (I hope we'll adopt this >title) is an always evolving thing. There really is no absolute "end >product" - this is a framework we are creating that needs to be >flexible enough to accept societal, fiscal, electoral, and >structural changes from within our party and from without. Our >Platform is also always evolving...same sort of thing, but a >specifically Stragetic Plan, in my mind, is the nuts & bolts of the >HOW we implement what our Platform says and of course grow larger >and stronger. > >Sorry....I do go on!. Lets get this started! > > >Kendra Gonzales >www.vccool.org >www.cagreens.org/ventura >"All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas > is matched by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of > Concerned Scientists > > > >From: Bert >To: Kendra Gonzales >Cc: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 ; GPCA >Cocos >Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 7:50:23 AM >Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] revisit of approach > >To all, > >Two points: I volunteered to handle the wiki work and I asked for direction. > >I don't see that anyone else is handling this, so I will. If someone >ELSE wants to do the wiki thing, or if there is some wiki other than >wiki.cagreens.org, then say so. Otherwise I am moving forward. > >OK, on to the directions. I am going to ask questions of the CO-CO's >on this list. The time right now it is 12/16/10 0645. If you have >answers or opinions, please get them to me within 36 hours. > > Definition: > >Just so we have names for stuff, I am going to call the entries in >the Main Page "Categories" and each page within an category (other >than the Table of Contents - a.k.a. first page beneath the category) >is a "topic". > >Example categories: "Green 2012", "Props 2010", and "IT" are all >existing "categories" in the GPCA wiki. > >Example topics: within the Props 2010 article, are the "topics" >Props2010/18, Props2010/19, etc. > >Please digest the above. Also, I think my names for these things >suck. So if someone has a better set of names for use in >conversations just like this one, then say so and we'll use them. > > Step 1: > >Am I creating a new category? Or am I extending the Green 2012 category? > >Unless I hear otherwise: I will create a new category named "Moving >Forward: A Party Strategy" (or something hifalutin like that). Why? >Because Green 2012 is a two year plan and this "strategy thing" >seems to have different horizons. > > Step 2: > >Throughout all of the email threads, there have been a number of >questions suggested. So the next decision is: > >(a) Do we want one big topic for the whole thing (broken into sections), > >OR > >(b) Do we want to break the discussion up into separate topics (ex: >one for each of the questions posed by various co-co's) > >Unless I hear otherwise: I will assume a separate topic for each >question. Why? Because I am anal-retentive that way. Also I see it >as helping "people who contribute" to stay focused (see "direction" >below). And so that "people who collate" have an easier time of it. > > Step 3: > >Who do we expect to contribute? County councilpersons? State party >Co-co's? CC members? Any CA registered Green? Any Green at all? Any >person at all? > >I will get in touch with IT and we'll see about logins and rights >and such like. > > Step 4: > >I can/will read back through all of the email and create a "question >list". I can present the "question list" to THIS list for comment. > >Note the "question list" is needed w/o regard to the decision in Step 2. > >Really Note: the "question list" could be just the one question >posed by Jim. Though I agree with Kendra: if we ask one question w/o >any additional direction, I fear we will receive responses that are >"all over the map". > >Really Really Note: If someone else wants to do Step 4, then say so >and I won't spend MY time on it. > > Step 5: > >Assuming I am doing the work, I want to create the wiki category and >topic page(s) next weekend (12/18..12/19). That is when I have the >time. So, if I don't hear anything, or if what I do hear are >equivocations and ambiguity, then what work I do will be subject to >my mind-reading skills (and all overly-harsh passive-aggressive >post-facto armchair quarterbacking will be met with Bert's Standard >Two Word Response). > >Please get back to me ASAP; let's get this done together, > >Bert > > >Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > > Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the > right questions. Though these are very relevent issues to raise > and thank you Jim and Shane (and others) for all of the input, its > too much...eyes will glaze over....mine are! Jim....hold on to > your hat....lets go with your approach and ask he locals ONE question: > > "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?" > > But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give > us the answer(s)! > > Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it > out. If it doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers > from locals and documenting them somewhere ourselves. > > We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues > we've been bringing up and then combine that with what locals > respond with from this one very simple question. > > How about it? > > > > > > Kendra Gonzales > > www.vccool.org > > www.cagreens.org/ventura > > "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and > natural gas > > is matched by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of > Concerned Scientists > > > > > > *From:* shane que hee <squehee at ucla.edu> > > *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org > > *Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > > > > Everyone: > > > > Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the > Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > > > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > > > > > In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like > your written > > > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can > > > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > > > > > 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, > > > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" > until recovery > > > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect > all goals and > > > > strategies? > > > > > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a > > > > small party? What caused the California Green registration > decline of the past > > > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of > > > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what > are realistic > > > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > > > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA > focus on MOST "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding > and effort split is > > > > desirable? > > > > > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > > > > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue > to be part > > > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting > > > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals > > > > and Counties? > > > > > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking > decision process > > > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > > > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party > > > > and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority > over internal business > > > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer > labor a viable > > > > plan for growth? > > > > > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want > in GPCA? How > > > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? > What factors > > > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state > party? What resources does the state party need from Locals and > Counties? What specific services/mutual agreements do > Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How should the current > system be changed? > > > > > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what > should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > > > > > 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our > future not covered above in the previous 13 questions? Please > provide your assessments/perspectives.. > > > > > > > > Please send the responses to > strategyplan at cagreens.org > . > > > > > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting > proposed GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget > General Assembly Plenary packet for discussion "....Kendra > Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: > > > Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > > > > strategyplan at cagreens.org > > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > > than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > > > (Jim Stauffer) > > > 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 > > > From: Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org > > > > > To: GPCA Strategy Planning > <strategyplan at cagreens.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, > > > Issue 4 > > > Message-ID: > <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: > > > > Kendra/Jim: > > > > > > > > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. > > > > > > > > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy > E mail listserve > > > > by the end of January. > > > > > > > > We might then do a wiki. > > > > > > > > > > > > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County > Contacts is: > > > > > > > > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County > Councils and > > > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > > > > > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would > like your written > > > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that > we hope you can > > > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > > > > > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on > fundraising, > > > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival > plan" until recovery > > > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this > affect all goals and > > > > strategies? > > > > > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What > attracts people to a > > > > small party? What caused the California Green registration > decline of the past > > > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new > registrations of > > > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, > what are realistic > > > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue > attempts in > > > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should > GPCA focus on MOST > > > > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and > effort split is > > > > desirable? > > > > > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for > non-partisan offices? > > > > > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA > continue to be part > > > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote > ranked-choice voting > > > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the > level of the Locals > > > > and Counties? > > > > > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking > decision process > > > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it > working well > > > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between > the state party > > > > and the > > > > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over > internal business > > > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on > volunteer labor a viable > > > > plan for growth? > > > > > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals > want in GPCA? How > > > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and > Counties? What factors > > > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the > state party? What > > > > resources does the state party need from Locals and > Counties? What specific > > > > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want > from GPCA? How > > > > should the current system be changed? > > > > > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, > what should > > > > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > > > > > Please send the responses to > strategyplan at cagreens.org > . > > > > > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting > proposed GPCA > > > > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General > Assembly Plenary packet > > > > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" > > > > > > > > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > wrote: > > > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > > > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org > > > > >> > > > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > >> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > >> > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > > > >> > > > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > > > >> > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > > > >> > > > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > > >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Today's Topics: > > > >> > > > >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) > > > >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > >> Message: 1 > > > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) > > > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > <earthworks_works at yahoo.com > > > > > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > <strategyplan at cagreens.org > > > > > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward > > > >> Message-ID: > <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com > > > > > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > >> > > > >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: > > > >> > > > >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Hi Gloria, > > > >> > > > >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. > > > >> > > > >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so > it is GPCA specific, > > > >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey > for the GPCA has been > > > >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the > GPCA folks who's > > > >> addresses I have. > > > >> > > > >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do > that in the next 72 > > > >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web > site.? And I'll keep > > > >> the > > > >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. > > > >> > > > >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on > CAGreens-Test also > > > >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. > > > >> > > > >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, > CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It will > > > >> "point > > > >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not > registered.? If all goes > > > >> well > > > >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for > things like this > > > >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w > don't know is there. > > > >> > > > >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I > > > >> discovered > > > >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! > Potentially one can > > > >> look > > > >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though > the web site > > > >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" > to their site.? > > > >> Check > > > >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. > > > >> > > > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > > > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > > > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > > > >> > > > >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward > > > >> San Francisco > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -------------- next part -------------- > > > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > >> URL: > > > >> > <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan/attachments/20101212/096bcb59/attachment-0001.html> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ------------------------------ > > > >> > > > >> Message: 2 > > > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) > > > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > <earthworks_works at yahoo.com > > > > > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > <strategyplan at cagreens.org > > > > > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson > <barry at barryhermanson.org > >, Barry Hermanson > > > >> <barry at hermansons.com > > > > > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > > > >> Message-ID: > <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com > > > > > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > >> > > > >> Hello all, > > > >> > > > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > Contacts....its not at > > > >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I > suggest we really > > > >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic > items or questions > > > >> for their consideration. > > > >> > > > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel > overwhelmed when reading > > > >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've > found that email > > > >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach > because its just too > > > >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have > the same problem > > > >> myself > > > >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! > > > >> > > > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas > and action items so we > > > >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How > do we document > > > >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one > > > >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. > Can we use?it for the > > > >> larger picture stuff > too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > > > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual > space on her own > > > >> platform: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > > > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > > > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > > > >> > > > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and > Barry said he was going > > > >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can > create a best approach. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Kendra Gonzales > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -------------- next part -------------- > > > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > >> URL: > > > >> > <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan/attachments/20101212/f9cf4a9f/attachment-0001.html> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ------------------------------ > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> StrategyPlan mailing list > > > >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > > > >> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > > > >> ****************************************** > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > gpca-cocos mailing list > > > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > > > > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 > > > From: Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org > > > > > To: > strategyplan at cagreens.org > > > > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > > > Message-ID: > <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a > list of 10 issues > > > (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements > on each, you've > > > just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for > this exercise. > > > That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by > > > itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're > asking is for them > > > to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? > > > > > > Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us > what ideas they > > > have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the > referenced list of > > > issues, then they're telling us they agree. > > > > > > If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the > list of issues, > > > let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, > rather than asking > > > for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion > and documenting. > > > > > > You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the > issues we raise." > > > I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are > thinking about. > > > > > > As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated > responsibility to > > > produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to > present it at a GA. We > > > haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to > organize and analyze > > > the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses > for you. Whether > > > by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the > data. We may > > > get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual > responses. We > > > need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official > > > responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. > > > > > > As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only > restate the number of > > > years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable > difference in the > > > response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue > with the Locals > > > before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to > > > postponing this to the Summer. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > > my responses in yellow below > > > > > > > > Kendra Gonzales > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org > > > > > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning > <strategyplan at cagreens.org > > *Sent:* Mon, > > > > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] > our approach to > > > > Strategizing > > > > > > > > Kendra - > > > > > > > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different > you say it's > > > > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last > proposal was to send > > > > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write > pro/con statements > > > > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think > are the issues > > > > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the > counties what > > > > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. > > > > > > > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for > pros/cons, _just > > > > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or > example of what a > > > > Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. > > > > > > > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of > > > > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we > are asking locals > > > > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them > right out as > > > > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also > ask for their > > > > ideas. > > > > > > > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA > > > > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that > > > > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct > projects like > > > > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of > > > > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the > > > > whittling down > > > > > > > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their > discussion to the > > > > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its > usefulness so I don't > > > > want to spend a lot of time on it. > > > > > > > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they > are responsible > > > > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What > do you propose > > > > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, > locals can have > > > > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. > If they don't, > > > > then fine...the CC can do it for them. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > > > > > > > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > > > > > > > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do > both?. Send 10 > > > > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR > ideas too. That's > > > > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. > The 10 (or so) > > > > items are just suggestions. > > > > > > > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no > > > > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first > > > > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active > support from the > > > > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off > until after > > > > the Spring GA. > > > > > > > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic > request and simply > > > > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire > first quarter > > > > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our > > > > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this > proposal happening > > > > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of > opportunity for > > > > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time > for us to do > > > > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I > would also like > > > > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and > Wiki seem to be > > > > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hello all, > > > > > > > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > Contacts....its > > > >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, > I suggest we > > > >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of > suggested topic items > > > >> or questions for their consideration. > > > > > > > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > > > >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, > but I've found > > > >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach > > > >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by > this email, I > > > >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for > > > >> simplicity's sake! > > > > > > > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action > > > >> items so we can record and organize them together into the > "Plan". How do > > > >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has > > > >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part > of 2011. Can > > > >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? > > > >> > http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > > > > > > > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > > > > > > > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual > space on her > > > >> own platform: > > > > > > > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > > > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > > > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > > > > > > > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and > Barry said he was > > > >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > > > >> best approach. > > > > > > > >> Kendra Gonzales > > > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan > mailing list > > > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > > > > > > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan > mailing list > > > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > > > > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > StrategyPlan mailing list > > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > > > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > > > > End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > > > ****************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > > StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gpca-cocos mailing list > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > >_______________________________________________ >gpca-cocos mailing list >gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GPCA CC LETTER 121510.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30720 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jims at greens.org Thu Dec 16 18:11:41 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:11:41 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] Fwd: Re: [gpca-cocos] Strategizing Message-ID: <4D0AC6DD.7030000@greens.org> This got got in the spam filter for too many recipients. Shane - you just need to send to the strategy and coco lists, not individuals. Jim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] Strategizing Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:06:17 -0800 From: shane que hee To: Kendra Gonzales , Bert CC: GPCA Cocos , Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 Kendra: If we intend to have a draft strategy plan for the March Budget General Assembly in the plenary packet, a Jan 31 deadline is reasonable since all of us (or in this case probably mostly you) need to consider and digest the replies to formulate the draft strategic plan.---not a short process. I also deliberately chose the budget deadline because the co-cos should see beforehand any suggested innovations that are in their areas and propose a budget for them. I suppose the strategic plan could be slated to begin the next budget year---that is, 2012--but that is too long to wait in my opinion. What is your specific alternative time line? It sounds as if you intend to present the March General Assembly with a draft plan cold turkey---something that has much less chance of succeeding. We need to get people in the locals and Counties thinking immediately so they can reply in a substantive manner. A month (January) should be long enough to be able to answer one question. I have also attached the latest version of the 14 questions we had for general use....Shane Que Hee, Dec 16 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 10:05 AM 12/16/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > Bert! Thank you! > > Sorry you'll get this 3 times... > > I love where you are going with this...exactly what I've been envisioning > and I hope we can just move forward already!. > > I also have some time starting fri and thru the weekend to look things over > and answer some of Bert's questions and brainstorm...hope others can do > the same. I hope we can get a preliminary email out to County Contacts very > soon. > > Shane - your suggestion to give the locals a deadline of Jan 31 is much too > short...though I really appreciate that we need to give some kind of > deadline. However, we should open the time frame to allow a fair and > realistice window of review, digestion, discussion, and documentation...not > to mention the follow-up that will have to be done to light a fire under > peoples bums. > > Plus....Jan 31 is the deadline for our working groups to get our workplans > completed...its just too much to add in this deadline at the same time. > > This project will keep evolving over the next 3 months...the deadline > should be shortly before the Plenary for a first draft. Even then, a GPCA > Strategic Action Plan (I hope we'll adopt this title) is an always evolving > thing. There really is no absolute "end product" - this is a framework we > are creating that needs to be flexible enough to accept societal, fiscal, > electoral, and structural changes from within our party and from without. > Our Platform is also always evolving...same sort of thing, but a > specifically Stragetic Plan, in my mind, is the nuts & bolts of the HOW we > implement what our Platform says and of course grow larger and stronger. > > Sorry....I do go on!. Lets get this started! > > > Kendra Gonzales www.vccool.org > www.cagreens.org/ventura "All the energy > stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas is matched by > the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned Scientists > > > > *From:* Bert *To:* Kendra Gonzales > *Cc:* Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > ; GPCA Cocos *Sent:* > Thu, December 16, 2010 7:50:23 AM *Subject:* Re: [gpca-cocos] revisit of > approach > > To all, > > Two points: I volunteered to handle the wiki work and I asked for > direction. > > I don't see that anyone else is handling this, so I will. If someone ELSE > wants to do the wiki thing, or if there is some wiki other than > wiki.cagreens.org, then say so. Otherwise I am moving forward. > > OK, on to the directions. I am going to ask questions of the CO-CO's on > this list. The time right now it is 12/16/10 0645. If you have answers or > opinions, please get them to me within 36 hours. > > Definition: > > Just so we have names for stuff, I am going to call the entries in the Main > Page "Categories" and each page within an category (other than the Table > of Contents - a.k.a. first page beneath the category) is a "topic". > > Example categories: "Green 2012", "Props 2010", and "IT" are all existing > "categories" in the GPCA wiki. > > Example topics: within the Props 2010 article, are the "topics" > Props2010/18, Props2010/19, etc. > > Please digest the above. Also, I think my names for these things suck. So > if someone has a better set of names for use in conversations just like > this one, then say so and we'll use them. > > Step 1: > > Am I creating a new category? Or am I extending the Green 2012 category? > > Unless I hear otherwise: I will create a new category named "Moving > Forward: A Party Strategy" (or something hifalutin like that). Why? Because > Green 2012 is a two year plan and this "strategy thing" seems to have > different horizons. > > Step 2: > > Throughout all of the email threads, there have been a number of questions > suggested. So the next decision is: > > (a) Do we want one big topic for the whole thing (broken into sections), > > OR > > (b) Do we want to break the discussion up into separate topics (ex: one for > each of the questions posed by various co-co's) > > Unless I hear otherwise: I will assume a separate topic for each question. > Why? Because I am anal-retentive that way. Also I see it as helping > "people who contribute" to stay focused (see "direction" below). And so > that "people who collate" have an easier time of it. > > Step 3: > > Who do we expect to contribute? County councilpersons? State party Co-co's? > CC members? Any CA registered Green? Any Green at all? Any person at all? > > I will get in touch with IT and we'll see about logins and rights and such > like. > > Step 4: > > I can/will read back through all of the email and create a "question list". > I can present the "question list" to THIS list for comment. > > Note the "question list" is needed w/o regard to the decision in Step 2. > > Really Note: the "question list" could be just the one question posed by > Jim. Though I agree with Kendra: if we ask one question w/o any additional > direction, I fear we will receive responses that are "all over the map". > > Really Really Note: If someone else wants to do Step 4, then say so and I > won't spend MY time on it. > > Step 5: > > Assuming I am doing the work, I want to create the wiki category and topic > page(s) next weekend (12/18..12/19). That is when I have the time. So, if > I don't hear anything, or if what I do hear are equivocations and > ambiguity, then what work I do will be subject to my mind-reading skills > (and all overly-harsh passive-aggressive post-facto armchair quarterbacking > will be met with Bert's Standard Two Word Response). > > Please get back to me ASAP; let's get this done together, > > Bert > > > Kendra Gonzales wrote: >> >> Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the right > questions. Though these are very relevent issues to raise and thank you Jim > and Shane (and others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will > glaze over....mine are! Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your > approach and ask he locals ONE question: >> "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 >> years?" But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us >> the > answer(s)! >> Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it out. If it >> > doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from locals and > documenting them somewhere ourselves. >> We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've >> been > bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with from this > one very simple question. >> How about it? >> >> >> Kendra Gonzales www.vccool.org >> www.cagreens.org/ventura "All the >> energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas is >> matched by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned > Scientists >> >> >> *From:* shane que hee > *To:* >> strategyplan at cagreens.org *Sent:* Wed, >> December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan >> Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >> >> Everyone: >> >> Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the > Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> >> >> The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and >> >> Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. >> >> >> >> In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your >> written >> >> response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you >> can >> >> formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: >> >> >> >> 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on >> fundraising, >> >> should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until >> recovery >> >> is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals >> and >> >> strategies? >> >> >> >> 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to >> a >> >> small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the >> past >> >> six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations >> of >> >> about 1,000 too unambitious? >> >> >> >> 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are >> realistic >> >> electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in >> >> partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? >> >> If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on > MOST "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split > is >> >> desirable? >> >> >> >> 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan >> offices? >> >> >> >> 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >> >> >> >> 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be >> part >> >> of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? >> >> >> >> 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice >> voting >> >> (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >> >> >> >> 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the >> >> California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the >> Locals >> >> and Counties? >> >> >> >> 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision >> process >> >> is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well >> >> enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state >> party >> >> and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over > internal business >> >> to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a >> viable >> >> plan for growth? >> >> >> >> 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? >> How >> >> should the current system be changed for the better? >> >> >> >> 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >> factors >> >> have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >> >> >> >> 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What >> > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How > should the current system be changed? >> >> >> >> 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should >> > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >> >> >> >> 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not > covered above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your > assessments/perspectives.. >> >> >> >> Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org > . >> >> >> >> We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed >> GPCA > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary > packet for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> >> >> >> >> t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: >>> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to strategyplan at cagreens.org >>> > >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan or, via email, >>> send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >>> > >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 (Jim Stauffer) >>> 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer >>> > > >>> To: GPCA Strategy Planning > >>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, >>> Issue 4 Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>> >>> I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: >>>> Kendra/Jim: >>>> >>>> I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail > listserve >>>> by the end of January. >>>> >>>> We might then do a wiki. >>>> >>>> >>>> All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts >>>> is: >>>> >>>> "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils >>>> and Locals in charting our way forward following the November >>>> elections. >>>> >>>> .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your >>>> > written >>>> response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope > you can >>>> formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: >>>> >>>> 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on >>>> fundraising, should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a >>>> "survival plan" until > recovery >>>> is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all > goals and >>>> strategies? >>>> >>>> 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people >>>> to a small party? What caused the California Green registration >>>> decline of > the past >>>> six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new >>>> registrations of about 1,000 too unambitious? >>>> >>>> 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are > realistic >>>> electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts >>>> in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? If there is to be >>>> focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus > on MOST >>>> "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split >>>> is desirable? >>>> >>>> 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan > offices? >>>> >>>> 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >>>> >>>> 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to >>>> > be part >>>> of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? >>>> >>>> 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice >>>> voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >>>> >>>> 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of >>>> the California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of >>>> the > Locals >>>> and Counties? >>>> >>>> 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision >>>> > process >>>> is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working >>>> well enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the >>>> state > party >>>> and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over >>>> internal > business >>>> to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a >>>> > viable >>>> plan for growth? >>>> >>>> 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in > GPCA? How >>>> should the current system be changed for the better? >>>> >>>> 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? >>>> What > factors >>>> have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >>>> >>>> 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? >>>> What resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? >>>> What > specific >>>> services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? >>>> How should the current system be changed? >>>> >>>> 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what >>>> should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >>>> >>>> Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org > . >>>> >>>> We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed >>>> GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly >>>> > Plenary packet >>>> for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" >>>> >>>> ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 >>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > wrote: >>>>> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >>>>> strategyplan at cagreens.org > >>>>> >>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan or, via >>>>> email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > >>>>> >>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>>> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > >>>>> >>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more >>>>> specific than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>> >>>>> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) 2. our approach >>>>> to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Message: 1 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) From: Kendra >>>>> Gonzales > >>>>> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >>>>> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward Message-ID: >>>>> <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com > > > >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>>> >>>>> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: >>>>> >>>>> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Gloria, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. >>>>> >>>>> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is >>>>> GPCA > specific, >>>>> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the >>>>> GPCA > has been >>>>> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks >>>>> who's addresses I have. >>>>> >>>>> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in >>>>> > the next 72 >>>>> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And >>>>> > I'll keep >>>>> the survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. >>>>> >>>>> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on > CAGreens-Test also >>>>> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. >>>>> >>>>> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? >>>>> It will "point to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not >>>>> registered.? If > all goes >>>>> well the domain registration will allow people to web search for >>>>> things > like this >>>>> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't >>>>> know > is there. >>>>> >>>>> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature >>>>> I discovered just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY >>>>> COOL! Potentially > one can >>>>> look at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the >>>>> web site builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" >>>>> to their > site.? >>>>> Check it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main >>>>> Menu. >>>>> >>>>> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test >>>>> > . >>>>> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>>>> www.cagreenideas.org . >>>>> >>>>> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward San Francisco >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>>>> scrubbed... URL: >>>>> > >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 2 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) From: Kendra >>>>> Gonzales > >>>>> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >>>>> Cc: Barry Hermanson >, Barry > Hermanson >>>>> > > >>>>> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing Message-ID: >>>>> <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com > > > >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > Contacts....its not at >>>>> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we >>>>> really simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic >>>>> items or > questions >>>>> for their consideration. >>>>> >>>>> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed >>>>> when > reading >>>>> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found >>>>> that > email >>>>> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because >>>>> its > just too >>>>> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same >>>>> problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's >>>>> sake! >>>>> >>>>> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >>>>> > items so we >>>>> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we > document >>>>> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created >>>>> one but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we >>>>> > use?it for the >>>>> larger picture stuff >>>>> too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >>>>> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on >>>>> > her own >>>>> platform: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test >>>>> > . >>>>> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>>>> www.cagreenideas.org . >>>>> >>>>> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said >>>>> he > was going >>>>> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a >>>>> best > approach. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kendra Gonzales >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>>>> scrubbed... URL: >>>>> > >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan >>>>> mailing list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>>>> > >>>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >>>>> ****************************************** >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing >>>> list gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >>>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer >>> > > >>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > >>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing Message-ID: >>> <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>> >>> We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 >>> issues (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on >>> each, you've just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed >>> for this exercise. That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, >>> it's a major task by itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all >>> you're asking is for them to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to >>> them? >>> >>> Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas >>> they have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the >>> referenced > list of >>> issues, then they're telling us they agree. >>> >>> If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of >>> > issues, >>> let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than >>> > asking >>> for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and > documenting. >>> >>> You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we > raise." >>> I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking >>> about. >>> >>> As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated >>> responsibility to produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have >>> to present it at a > GA. We >>> haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and >>> analyze the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses >>> for you. > Whether >>> by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We >>> may get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual >>> responses. We need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see >>> the official responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC >>> prefers. >>> >>> As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the > number of >>> years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in >>> the response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with >>> the Locals before sending them the project. But there are definitely >>> drawbacks to postponing this to the Summer. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>>> my responses in yellow below >>>> >>>> Kendra Gonzales >>>> >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> >>>> >>> *From:* Jim Stauffer > > >>>> *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning > > *Sent:* Mon, >>>> December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our >>>> approach to Strategizing >>>> >>>> Kendra - >>>> >>>> Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say >>>> it's the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal >>>> was to > send >>>> a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con >>>> statements on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they >>>> think are the issues we should concentrate on in the long term. Not >>>> telling the counties what issues the state party thinks we should >>>> work on and see if they agree. >>> >>>> Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, >>>> _just as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or >>>> example of what a Strategic Plan might include - just as you >>>> suggest. >>>> >>>> The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds >>>> of topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are >>>> asking > locals >>>> to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out >>>> as being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask for >>>> their ideas. >>>> >>>> The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most >>>> GA proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been >>>> that counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct >>>> projects like this. The only lengthy section of the message is the >>>> reference list of issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I >>>> agree with the whittling down >>>> >>>> The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion >>>> to the CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness >>>> so I don't want to spend a lot of time on it. >>> >>>> So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are >>>> responsible for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. >>>> What do you propose that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not >>>> useful. Also, locals can have an opportunity to post their responses >>>> and ideas themselves. If they > don't, >>>> then fine...the CC can do it for them. >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: >>>> >>>> - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. >>>> >>>> - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. >>>> Send 10 "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR >>>> ideas too. > That's >>>> the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 (or >>>> so) items are just suggestions. >>>> >>>> My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with >>>> no forewarning. There's better participation when the project is >>>> first discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active >>>> support from the CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put >>>> this off until after the Spring GA. >>> >>>> I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and >>>> simply opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire >>>> first quarter of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't >>>> have all of our locals represented there. One of the benefits of this >>>> proposal happening now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer >>>> plenty of opportunity for locals to receive, digest, discuss, and >>>> respond. And, time for us to do follow-up from those who don't >>>> respond to the email(s). I would also like to hear back from others >>>> please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki seem > to be >>>> the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>>> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County >>>>> Contacts....its not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. >>>>> However, I suggest we really simplify the email, offer just a >>>>> handful of suggested topic items or questions for their >>>>> consideration. >>>> >>>>> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed >>>>> when reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but >>>>> I've found that email communication warrants a short and to the >>>>> point approach because its just too easy to hit "delete". As >>>>> evidenced by this email, I have the same problem myself and need to >>>>> really edit things down for simplicity's sake! >>>> >>>>> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and >>>>> action items so we can record and organize them together into the >>>>> "Plan". How do we document everything? I have suggested >>>>> Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one but specific to her >>>>> proposal for the first part of 2011. Can we use it for the larger >>>>> picture stuff too? http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. >>>> >>>>> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >>>> >>>>> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on >>>>> her own platform: >>>> >>>>> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test >>>>> > . >>>>> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>>>> www.cagreenideas.org . >>>> >>>>> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said >>>>> he was going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can >>>>> create a best approach. >>>> >>>>> Kendra Gonzales >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>>> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>>> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> >>> >>> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >>> ****************************************** >> >> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing list >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > _______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing list > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GPCA CC LETTER 121510.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30720 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jims at greens.org Thu Dec 16 18:55:36 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:55:36 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] revisit of approach In-Reply-To: <769085.86832.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <201012152126.oBFLQG5M027665@mail.ucla.edu> <769085.86832.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D0AD128.30400@greens.org> I agree that these have not been the most productive discussions. I've been wondering if this project is worth continuing. Shane - I see by your last post that you're still promoting the project to be centered around a growing list of issues to which Locals should respond. And as to your perceived need to get this done by the budget cycle, it's clear you're looking at short-term goals for the immediate years, since long-term goals have little to do with our 2011 budget. As I've stated, I'm firmly against this approach. Kendra's 'one question' also contains planning for the immediate years. I believe that short-term and long-term strategies need to be handled separately, like I've seen in other organizations. I think it's time for me to bow out of this project. This is a busy time for me and I don't see where continuing to advocate my idea for setting long-term goals with local input will be productive. But I will caution you again that the bylaws specify the CC is responsible for developing strategy plans. So anything you send out on this really should have their approval. Jim On 12/15/2010 4:05 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the right > questions. Though these are _very_ relevent issues to raise and thank you > Jim and Shane (and others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will > glaze over....mine are! > Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask he locals > ONE question: > "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?" > But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the > answer(s)! Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it > out. If it doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from > locals and documenting them somewhere ourselves. > We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've been > bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with from this > one very simple question. > How about it? > > > Kendra Gonzales www.vccool.org www.cagreens.org/ventura "All the energy > stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas is matched by > the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned Scientists > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* shane que hee > *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org *Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM > *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > > Everyone: > > Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the > Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your > written > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you > can > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until > recovery > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals > and > > strategies? > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a > > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the > past > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are > realistic > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on > MOST "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split > is > > desirable? > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan > offices? > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be > part > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the > Locals > > and Counties? > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision > process > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state > party > > and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over > internal business > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a > viable > > plan for growth? > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? > How > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What > factors > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How > should the current system be changed? > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not > covered above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your > assessments/perspectives.. > > > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org > . > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary > packet for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to strategyplan at cagreens.org >> >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan or, via email, >> send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than >> "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 (Jim Stauffer) 2. >> Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer >> > To: GPCA Strategy Planning >> > >> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, >> Issue 4 Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org >> > Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: >>> Kendra/Jim: >>> >>> I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. >>> >>> I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail >>> listserve by the end of January. >>> >>> We might then do a wiki. >>> >>> >>> All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts >>> is: >>> >>> "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils >>> and Locals in charting our way forward following the November >>> elections. >>> >>> .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your >>> written response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we >>> hope you can formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as >>> appropriate: >>> >>> 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on >>> fundraising, should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival >>> plan" until > recovery >>> is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all >>> goals and strategies? >>> >>> 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to >>> a small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of >>> the > past >>> six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations >>> of about 1,000 too unambitious? >>> >>> 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are >>> realistic electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue >>> attempts in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? If there is >>> to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST >>> "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split >>> is desirable? >>> >>> 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan >>> offices? >>> >>> 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >>> >>> 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be >>> part of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the >>> lawsuit? >>> >>> 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice >>> voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >>> >>> 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the >>> California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the >>> Locals and Counties? >>> >>> 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision >>> process is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it >>> working well enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities >>> between the state party and the county parties? Should we examine >>> giving more authority over internal > business >>> to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a >>> viable plan for growth? >>> >>> 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in >>> GPCA? How should the current system be changed for the better? >>> >>> 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >>> > factors >>> have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >>> >>> 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? >>> What resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What >>> specific services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want >>> from GPCA? How should the current system be changed? >>> >>> 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what >>> should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >>> >>> Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org > . >>> >>> We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed >>> GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly >>> Plenary > packet >>> for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" >>> >>> ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >>> >>> >>> At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > wrote: >>>> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >>>> strategyplan at cagreens.org >>>> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan or, via >>>> email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >>>> >>>> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >>>> >>>> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >>>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) 2. our approach to >>>> Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> >>> >>>> Message: 1 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) From: Kendra >>>> Gonzales > >>>> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >>>> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward Message-ID: >>>> <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com > > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>> >>>> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: >>>> >>>> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Gloria, >>>> >>>> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. >>>> >>>> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is GPCA >>>> > specific, >>>> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the GPCA >>>> > has been >>>> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks >>>> who's addresses I have. >>>> >>>> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in >>>> the > next 72 >>>> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And >>>> I'll keep the survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. >>>> >>>> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on >>>> CAGreens-Test > also >>>> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. >>>> >>>> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It >>>> will "point to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not >>>> registered.? If all goes well the domain registration will allow >>>> people to web search for things like this survey as well as find >>>> other content on the site they o/w don't know is > there. >>>> >>>> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature >>>> I discovered just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! >>>> Potentially one can look at ANY Green web site in any of 52 >>>> languages, even though the web site builder/maintainers never added >>>> "translation of web pages" to their site.? Check it out in the "Web >>>> Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. >>>> >>>> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >>>> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>>> www.cagreenideas.org . >>>> >>>> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward San Francisco >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>>> scrubbed... URL: >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 2 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) From: Kendra >>>> Gonzales > >>>> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >>>> Cc: Barry Hermanson >, Barry Hermanson >>>> > Subject: >>>> [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing Message-ID: >>>> <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com > > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County >>>> Contacts....its > not at >>>> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we >>>> really simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic >>>> items or > questions >>>> for their consideration. >>>> >>>> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed when >>>> > reading >>>> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that >>>> email communication warrants a short and to the point approach >>>> because its > just too >>>> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same >>>> problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's >>>> sake! >>>> >>>> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action > items so we >>>> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we >>>> document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has >>>> created one but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. >>>> Can we use?it > for the >>>> larger picture stuff >>>> too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? >>>> >>>> >>>> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? Jenni >>>> Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own >>>> platform: >>>> >>>> >>>> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >>>> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>>> www.cagreenideas.org . >>>> >>>> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he >>>> was > going >>>> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best >>>> > approach. >>>> >>>> >>>> Kendra Gonzales >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>>> scrubbed... URL: >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>>> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>> >>>> >>>> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >>>> ****************************************** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing >>> list gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer >> > To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our >> approach to Strategizing Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org >> > Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 >> issues (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on >> each, you've just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for >> this exercise. That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a >> major task by itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're >> asking is for them to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? >> >> Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas >> they have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the >> referenced list of issues, then they're telling us they agree. >> >> If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of >> issues, let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather >> than asking for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion >> and documenting. >> >> You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we >> raise." I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are >> thinking about. >> >> As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility >> to produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at >> a GA. We haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize >> and analyze the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses >> for you. Whether by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and >> work the data. We may get 'official' response from the meeting and some >> individual responses. We need to distinguish between the two. I would >> like to see the official responses go to the CC, or to this list if the >> CC prefers. >> >> As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the >> number of years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable >> difference in the response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the >> issue with the Locals before sending them the project. But there are >> definitely drawbacks to postponing this to the Summer. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>> my responses in yellow below >>> >>> Kendra Gonzales >>> >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> >>> >> *From:* Jim Stauffer > >>> *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning > *Sent:* Mon, >>> December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach >>> to Strategizing >>> >>> Kendra - >>> >>> Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say >>> it's the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal >>> was to send a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write >>> pro/con statements on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what >>> they think are the issues we should concentrate on in the long term. >>> Not telling the counties what issues the state party thinks we should >>> work on and see if they agree. >> >>> Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, >>> _just as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example >>> of what a Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. >>> >>> The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of >>> topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking >>> locals to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right >>> out as being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask >>> for their ideas. >>> >>> The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA >>> proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that >>> counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects >>> like this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference >>> list of issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with >>> the whittling down >>> >>> The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to >>> the CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I >>> don't want to spend a lot of time on it. >> >>> So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are >>> responsible for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What >>> do you propose that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. >>> Also, locals can have an opportunity to post their responses and ideas >>> themselves. If they don't, then fine...the CC can do it for them. >>> >>> >>> I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: >>> >>> - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. >>> >>> - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send >>> 10 "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. >>> That's the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The >>> 10 (or so) items are just suggestions. >>> >>> My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no >>> forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first >>> discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from >>> the CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until >>> after the Spring GA. >> >>> I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and >>> simply opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire >>> first quarter of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't >>> have all of our locals represented there. One of the benefits of this >>> proposal happening now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer >>> plenty of opportunity for locals to receive, digest, discuss, and >>> respond. And, time for us to do follow-up from those who don't respond >>> to the email(s). I would also like to hear back from others please. The >>> 10 suggested items and Wiki seem to be the only thing we disagree on. >>> Getting close! >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>> >>>> Hello all, >>> >>>> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County >>>> Contacts....its not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. >>>> However, I suggest we really simplify the email, offer just a handful >>>> of suggested topic items or questions for their consideration. >>> >>>> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed >>>> when reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but >>>> I've found that email communication warrants a short and to the point >>>> approach because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by >>>> this email, I have the same problem myself and need to really edit >>>> things down for simplicity's sake! >>> >>>> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >>>> items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". >>>> How do we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie >>>> Glickman has created one but specific to her proposal for the first >>>> part of 2011. Can we use it for the larger picture stuff too? >>>> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. >>> >>>> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >>> >>>> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on >>>> her own platform: >>> >>>> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >>>> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>>> www.cagreenideas.org . >>> >>>> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he >>>> was going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can >>>> create a best approach. >>> >>>> Kendra Gonzales >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >> list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >> ****************************************** > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan From squehee at ucla.edu Fri Dec 17 14:16:42 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:16:42 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] revisit of approach In-Reply-To: <4D0AD128.30400@greens.org> References: <201012152126.oBFLQG5M027665@mail.ucla.edu> <769085.86832.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <4D0AD128.30400@greens.org> Message-ID: <201012172216.oBHMGUSQ026284@mail.ucla.edu> Jim: Thanks for your input. As part of the CC you have the bylaw mandated responsibility for adopting something. Go to it then!....Shane Que Hee, Dec 17 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ At 06:55 PM 12/16/2010, Jim Stauffer wrote: >I agree that these have not been the most productive discussions. >I've been wondering if this project is worth continuing. > >Shane - I see by your last post that you're still promoting the >project to be centered around a growing list of issues to which >Locals should respond. And as to your perceived need to get this >done by the budget cycle, it's clear you're looking at short-term >goals for the immediate years, since long-term goals have little to >do with our 2011 budget. As I've stated, I'm firmly against this approach. > >Kendra's 'one question' also contains planning for the immediate >years. I believe that short-term and long-term strategies need to be >handled separately, like I've seen in other organizations. > >I think it's time for me to bow out of this project. This is a busy >time for me and I don't see where continuing to advocate my idea for >setting long-term goals with local input will be productive. > >But I will caution you again that the bylaws specify the CC is >responsible for developing strategy plans. So anything you send out >on this really should have their approval. > > >Jim > > > > >On 12/15/2010 4:05 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the right >>questions. Though these are _very_ relevent issues to raise and thank you >>Jim and Shane (and others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will >>glaze over....mine are! > >>Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask he locals >>ONE question: > >>"How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?" > >>But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the >>answer(s)! Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it >>out. If it doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from >>locals and documenting them somewhere ourselves. > >>We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've been >> bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with from this >>one very simple question. > >>How about it? >> >> >>Kendra Gonzales www.vccool.org www.cagreens.org/ventura "All the energy >>stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas is matched by >>the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned Scientists >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >*From:* shane que hee >>*To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org *Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM >>*Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >> >>Everyone: >> >>Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the >>Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >>The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and >> >>Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. >> >> >> >>In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your >>written >> >>response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you >>can >> >>formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: >> >> >> >>1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, >> >>should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until >>recovery >> >>is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals >>and >> >>strategies? >> >> >> >>2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a >> >>small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the >>past >> >>six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of >> >>about 1,000 too unambitious? >> >> >> >>3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are >>realistic >> >>electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in >> >>partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? >> >>If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on >>MOST "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split >>is >> >>desirable? >> >> >> >>4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan >>offices? >> >> >> >>5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >> >> >> >>6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be >>part >> >>of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? >> >> >> >>7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting >> >>(i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >> >> >> >>8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the >> >>California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the >>Locals >> >>and Counties? >> >> >> >>9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision >>process >> >>is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well >> >>enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state >>party >> >>and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over >>internal business >> >>to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a >>viable >> >>plan for growth? >> >> >> >>10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? >>How >> >>should the current system be changed for the better? >> >> >> >>11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >>factors >> >>have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >> >> >> >>12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What >>resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific >> services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How >> should the current system be changed? >> >> >> >>13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should >>replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >> >> >> >>14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not >>covered above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your >>assessments/perspectives.. >> >> >> >>Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org >>. >> >> >> >>We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA >> strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary >>packet for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >>t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: >>>Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to strategyplan at cagreens.org >>> >>> >>>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan or, via email, >>>send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >>> >>> >>>You can reach the person managing the list at >>>strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >>> >>>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than >>>"Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >>> >>> >>>Today's Topics: >>> >>>1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 (Jim Stauffer) 2. >>>Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >>> >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>Message: 1 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer >>>> To: GPCA Strategy Planning >>>>> >>>Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, >>>Issue 4 Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; >>>charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>> >>>I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. >>> >>>Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: >>>>Kendra/Jim: >>>> >>>>I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. >>>> >>>>I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail >>>>listserve by the end of January. >>>> >>>>We might then do a wiki. >>>> >>>> >>>>All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts >>>>is: >>>> >>>>"The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils >>>>and Locals in charting our way forward following the November >>>>elections. >>>> >>>>.In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your >>>>written response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we >>>>hope you can formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as >>>>appropriate: >>>> >>>>1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on >>>>fundraising, should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival >>>>plan" until >>recovery >>>>is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all >>>>goals and strategies? >>>> >>>>2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to >>>>a small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of >>>>the >>past >>>>six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations >>>>of about 1,000 too unambitious? >>>> >>>>3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are >>>>realistic electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue >>>>attempts in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? If there is >>>>to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST >>>>"winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split >>>>is desirable? >>>> >>>>4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan >>>>offices? >>>> >>>>5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >>>> >>>>6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be >>>>part of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the >>>>lawsuit? >>>> >>>>7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice >>>>voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >>>> >>>>8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the >>>>California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the >>>>Locals and Counties? >>>> >>>>9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision >>>>process is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it >>>>working well enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities >>>>between the state party and the county parties? Should we examine >>>>giving more authority over internal >>business >>>>to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a >>>>viable plan for growth? >>>> >>>>10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in >>>>GPCA? How should the current system be changed for the better? >>>> >>>>11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >>factors >>>>have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >>>> >>>>12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? >>>>What resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What >>>>specific services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want >>>>from GPCA? How should the current system be changed? >>>> >>>>13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what >>>>should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >>>> >>>>Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org >>. >>>> >>>>We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed >>>>GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly >>>>Plenary >>packet >>>>for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" >>>> >>>>....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> wrote: >>>>>Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >>>>>strategyplan at cagreens.org >>>>> >>>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan or, via >>>>>email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>>strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You can reach the person managing the list at >>>>>strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>>>than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Today's Topics: >>>>> >>>>>1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) 2. our approach to >>>>>Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>> >>>>>Message: 1 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) From: Kendra >>>>>Gonzales >> >>>>>To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >> >>>>>Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward Message-ID: >>>>><601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com >>> >>>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>>> >>>>>For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: >>>>> >>>>>(by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hi Gloria, >>>>> >>>>>Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. >>>>> >>>>>FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is GPCA >>specific, >>>>>and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the GPCA >>has been >>>>>available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks >>>>>who's addresses I have. >>>>> >>>>>I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in >>>>>the >>next 72 >>>>>hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And >>>>>I'll keep the survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. >>>>> >>>>>Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on >>>>>CAGreens-Test >>also >>>>>very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. >>>>> >>>>>I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It >>>>>will "point to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not >>>>>registered.? If all goes well the domain registration will allow >>>>>people to web search for things like this survey as well as find >>>>>other content on the site they o/w don't know is >>there. >>>>> >>>>>BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature >>>>>I discovered just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! >>>>>Potentially one can look at ANY Green web site in any of 52 >>>>>languages, even though the web site builder/maintainers never added >>>>>"translation of web pages" to their site.? Check it out in the "Web >>>>>Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. >>>>> >>>>>CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >>>>>CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>>>>www.cagreenideas.org . >>>>> >>>>>Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward San Francisco >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>>>>scrubbed... URL: >> >> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>>Message: 2 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) From: Kendra >>>>>Gonzales >> >>>>>To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >> >>>>>Cc: Barry Hermanson >>, Barry Hermanson >>>>>> Subject: >>>>>[StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing Message-ID: >>>>><181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com >>> >>>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>>> >>>>>Hello all, >>>>> >>>>>I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County >>>>>Contacts....its >>not at >>>>>all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we >>>>>really simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic >>>>>items or >>questions >>>>>for their consideration. >>>>> >>>>>The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed when >>reading >>>>>it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that >>>>>email communication warrants a short and to the point approach >>>>>because its >>just too >>>>>easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same >>>>>problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's >>>>>sake! >>>>> >>>>>Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >>items so we >>>>>can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we >>>>>document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has >>>>>created one but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. >>>>>Can we use?it >>for the >>>>>larger picture stuff >>>>>too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? Jenni >>>>>Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own >>>>>platform: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >>>>>CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>>>>www.cagreenideas.org . >>>>> >>>>>I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he >>>>>was >>going >>>>>to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best >>approach. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Kendra Gonzales >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>>>>scrubbed... URL: >> >> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>>>>list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>>>>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >>>>>****************************************** >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing >>>>list gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >>>>http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >>> >>> >>>------------------------------ >>> >>>Message: 2 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer >>>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our >>>approach to Strategizing Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; >>>charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>> >>>We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 >>>issues (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on >>>each, you've just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for >>>this exercise. That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a >>>major task by itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're >>>asking is for them to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? >>> >>>Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas >>>they have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the >>>referenced list of issues, then they're telling us they agree. >>> >>>If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of >>>issues, let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather >>>than asking for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion >>>and documenting. >>> >>>You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we >>>raise." I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are >>>thinking about. >>> >>>As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility >>>to produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at >>>a GA. We haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize >>>and analyze the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses >>>for you. Whether by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and >>>work the data. We may get 'official' response from the meeting and some >>>individual responses. We need to distinguish between the two. I would >>>like to see the official responses go to the CC, or to this list if the >>>CC prefers. >>> >>>As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the >>>number of years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable >>>difference in the response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the >>>issue with the Locals before sending them the project. But there are >>>definitely drawbacks to postponing this to the Summer. >>> >>>Jim >>> >>> >>> >>>On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>>>my responses in yellow below >>>> >>>>Kendra Gonzales >>>> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >>> >>>*From:* Jim Stauffer > >>>>*To:* GPCA Strategy Planning >> *Sent:* Mon, >>>>December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach >>>>to Strategizing >>>> >>>>Kendra - >>>> >>>>Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say >>>>it's the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal >>>>was to send a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write >>>>pro/con statements on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what >>>>they think are the issues we should concentrate on in the long term. >>>>Not telling the counties what issues the state party thinks we should >>>>work on and see if they agree. >>> >>>>Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, >>>>_just as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example >>>>of what a Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. >>>> >>>>The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of >>>>topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking >>>>locals to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right >>>>out as being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask >>>>for their ideas. >>>> >>>>The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA >>>>proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that >>>>counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects >>>>like this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference >>>>list of issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with >>>>the whittling down >>>> >>>>The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to >>>>the CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I >>>>don't want to spend a lot of time on it. >>> >>>>So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are >>>>responsible for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What >>>>do you propose that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. >>>>Also, locals can have an opportunity to post their responses and ideas >>>>themselves. If they don't, then fine...the CC can do it for them. >>>> >>>> >>>>I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: >>>> >>>>- Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. >>>> >>>>- Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send >>>>10 "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. >>>>That's the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The >>>>10 (or so) items are just suggestions. >>>> >>>>My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no >>>>forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first >>>>discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from >>>>the CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until >>>>after the Spring GA. >>> >>>>I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and >>>>simply opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire >>>>first quarter of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't >>>>have all of our locals represented there. One of the benefits of this >>>>proposal happening now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer >>>>plenty of opportunity for locals to receive, digest, discuss, and >>>>respond. And, time for us to do follow-up from those who don't respond >>>>to the email(s). I would also like to hear back from others please. The >>>>10 suggested items and Wiki seem to be the only thing we disagree on. >>>>Getting close! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hello all, >>>> >>>>>I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County >>>>>Contacts....its not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. >>>>>However, I suggest we really simplify the email, offer just a handful >>>>>of suggested topic items or questions for their consideration. >>>> >>>>>The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed >>>>>when reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but >>>>>I've found that email communication warrants a short and to the point >>>>>approach because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by >>>>>this email, I have the same problem myself and need to really edit >>>>>things down for simplicity's sake! >>>> >>>>>Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >>>>>items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". >>>>>How do we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie >>>>>Glickman has created one but specific to her proposal for the first >>>>>part of 2011. Can we use it for the larger picture stuff too? >>>>>http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. >>>> >>>>>Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >>>> >>>>>Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on >>>>>her own platform: >>>> >>>>>CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >>>>>CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>>>>www.cagreenideas.org . >>>> >>>>>I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he >>>>>was going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can >>>>>create a best approach. >>>> >>>>>Kendra Gonzales >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>>>list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>> >>>>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>>>list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>>>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> >>> >>>------------------------------ >>> >>>_______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >>>list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> >>> >>>End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >>>****************************************** >> >>_______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list >>StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list >>StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >_______________________________________________ >gpca-cocos mailing list >gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Sat Dec 18 16:33:14 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:33:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] I'm very slow Message-ID: <859412.53641.qm@web56908.mail.re3.yahoo.com> ....my computer that is!.?For some reason my on-line speed is less than half of normal, so its all I?can do just to get through the last few days emails. That said, I was hoping to get caught up and address the specifics about the strategy process and?Wiki, etc...today.........but not.?Please bare with me!? ? Kendra Gonzales www.vccool.org www.cagreens.org/ventura "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas ?is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned Scientists -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Sun Dec 19 14:22:11 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:22:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategy: answers to Shane Message-ID: <622856.10490.qm@web56907.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Hi there, My?responses in yellow below: (from Shane) Kendra: If we intend to have a draft strategy plan for the March Budget General Assembly in the plenary packet Not my intention to have an entire draft strategy plan done by March / next Plenary. My intention is an introduction of the general idea and what we have collected from the locals?so far, and what the state has addressed?so far, and any combination there of.? VERY premliminary! , a Jan 31 deadline is reasonable since all of us (or in this case probably mostly you)? need to consider and digest the replies to formulate the draft strategic plan.---not a short process.? I agree this is not a short process and so disagree that Jan 31 is reasonable. Please trust me when I say that getting responses from local groups in 1 month's time is just not a reality. This is ever more broad than County Polling and that took at least 3 months of needling, begging, inspiring, cojoling...over and over and over and that was a very specific request, whereas this will ignite (hopefully!) a whole lot of discussion and debate within the locals. Look how long its taking for just the few of us to agree on how to even approach this!. ?I also deliberately chose the budget deadline because the co-cos should see beforehand any suggested innovations that are in their areas and propose a budget for them.? Again, this is very preliminary....there is not enough time to?think about applying budget lines yet. Our working groups ARE thinking about strategy and budget lines right now for 2011/2012, and that is a part of the strategic planning process, as it always has been, right? The difference in what we are attempting here is?asking for direct input from the locals - which, again to reiterate is going to take some time.? ? The Strategic Plan is not going to always be directly tied to funding. Some of it is going to be about volunteerism, using free technology (like facebook), internal communication, what sort of direction do we generally want to be heading, types of campaigns, and so forth. If there is something innovative that costs money and?comes forward between budgets without any kind of budget line from a working group that could be applied to it, then we should have a means to address that.?Our Bylaws don't address this in full at all and this is in fact one of the things that should be on the Strategic Plan!.?Also, any innovations that are going to cost money?should have some funding action?attached. Locals can raise their own money too. ? ?I suppose the strategic plan could be slated to begin the next budget year---that is, 2012--but that is too long to wait in my opinion. Portions of?a Strategic Plan can be applied right away, some of?it not until later. Lets not think of this in terms of an end product...that doesn't really?work the best. I'm learning as a non-profit Board?member that usually, there?is?planning process like what we're attempting to do now.....an amazing document will be created...an "end product"....everyone looks at it.....debates.... maybe a final draft is adopted,? then?its filed away in a drawer and never looked at again.?I'm hopeful we can look at this as?ever evolving and constantly used.?We might not want to?attempt an official adoption per se...getting to THAT point could be endless. Maybe?the way to look at this is?as a tool,?a resource,?options to consider....a "roadmap".. What is your specific alternative time line?? All throughout 2011 and on-going.?By the Spring Plenary, there could be a basic outline of what we all mostly agree on as the direction we want to head, but the details on HOW to get there?should be dynamic and allow for flexibility. . It sounds as if you intend to present the March General Assembly with a draft plan cold turkey---something that has much less chance of succeeding. No...just a basic introduction and outline of what are the most important actions that Greens are agreeing on at the local and state levels....so far. We need to get people in the locals and Counties thinking immediately so they can reply in? a substantive manner.? A month (January) should be long enough to be able to answer one question.?? I agree on immediacy to start this process; I would like for an email to go out to County Contact no later than the end of?December.?Its really 3 questions.?But,?these are huge questions... ? How should the GPCA move forward in 2010 / 2011? How should the GPCA move forward for the next 5 years? How should the GPCA move forward for the next 10 years? ? Kendra Gonzales www.vccool.org www.cagreens.org/ventura "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas ?is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned Scientists -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Mon Dec 20 11:10:11 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:10:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategizing / Local in-put / using Wiki Message-ID: <767873.87881.qm@web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I'm copying the CC on this email thread to address Jim's concern that the CC is the body this is?authorized to conduct?Strategy Planning and that the CC needs to be behind this. We've been debating different approaches on the Strategy Plan listserve: strategyplan at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan?(to subscribe) I'm hopeful we can agree to ask 3 very simple questions of the locals: How does the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012? How does the GPCA move forward in 5 years? How does the GPCA move forward in 10 years? At first we were talking about?asking specific questions for the locals to answer.?I now agree its better to ask very broad open ended questions like the ones above, BUT, "we" can answer the specific questions amongst ourselves (on Wiki) and combine those answers with what the locals come back with into one place (Wiki) as the basic outline of what will become our Strategic Plan. ? If this blended approach is agreeable, then I propose we re-draft and email?a very simple email to the County Contacts by the end of December, with these 3 questions and a request to?post their responses to a virtual space for recordingd purposes.?(like Wiki)? with the response timeline to be throughout Jan, February, March...in preparation for a very preliminary?Plan outline by the Plenary. Bert Hauer has kindly volunteered to be our IT person for this data collection.?I?have responded to his questions below in yellow. To all, Two points: I volunteered to handle the wiki work and I asked for direction. I don't see that anyone else is handling this, so I will. If someone ELSE wants to do the wiki thing, or if there is some wiki other than wiki.cagreens.org, then say so. Otherwise I am moving forward. The idea of using Wiki, or something like it, is for Locals to do their OWN work of typing in their responses. This won't happen across the board of course, but its a start. We may have to do some of the documentation, like copying email responses into Wiki for the locals who just wont go there. I want to be supportive of Wiki..of course there is concern it will be shut down...what is the likelihood of that?. OK, on to the directions. I am going to ask questions of the CO-CO's on this list. The time right now it is 12/16/10 0645.? If you have answers or opinions, please get them to me within 36 hours. I missed this deadline!. So sorry... I suggest that anyone else who is interested in working on this subscribe specifically to: http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan? Definition: Just so we have names for stuff, I am going to call the entries in the Main Page "Categories" and each page within an category (other than the Table of Contents - a.k.a. first page beneath the category) is a "topic". Example categories: "Green 2012", "Props 2010", and "IT" are all existing "categories" in the GPCA wiki. Example topics: within the Props 2010 article, are the "topics" Props2010/18, Props2010/19, etc. Please digest the above. Also, I think my names for these things suck. So if someone has a better set of names for use in conversations just like this one, then say so and we'll use them. Use each of the questions to locals (above) as a?Topic? ? ie: "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012" is a Topic. ? Use each of the "questions" posted by Shane and Jim, and anything else that is brought forward by State level Greens as a?Topic as well?: ? ie: "?What are realistic voter registration goals? But then....how do we break that out into timelines..."2011/2012", "In 5 Years"..."In 10 Years"... ??? Step 1: Am I creating a new category? Or am I extending the Green 2012 category? Unless I hear otherwise: I will create a new category named "Moving Forward: A Party Strategy" (or something hifalutin like that). Why? Because Green 2012 is a two year plan and this "strategy thing" seems to have different horizons. Does Wiki just have the 2 layers of Category and then Topic? ? If so, that is kind of limiting....can we create a whole new Wiki link just for this? Or, do we want ONE Wiki for all things Greens for the entire State? Can one Wiki accomodate everything we do? ??? Step 2: Throughout all of the email threads, there have been a number of questions suggested. So the next decision is: (a) Do we want one big topic for the whole thing (broken into sections), OR (b) Do we want to break the discussion up into separate topics (ex: one for each of the questions posed by various co-co's) Again, depends on what Wiki allows for... Unless I hear otherwise: I will assume a separate topic for each question. Why? Because I am anal-retentive that way. Also I see it as helping "people who contribute" to stay focused (see "direction" below). And so that "people who collate" have an easier time of it. Lets visit this soon unless its already done? Its probley best to all look at Wiki together at the same time if we can manage it. Maybe a conference call? ??? Step 3: Who do we expect to contribute? County councilpersons? State party Co-co's? CC members? Any CA registered Green? Any Green at all? Any person at all? YES, all.....open, so no one feels left out if they are not on a certain list or committee or council. We have to be VERY CLEAR that this request needs to go out further than just the person who gets the County Contact email.. Plus, we can post it to all of the working groups...Cal-Forum, etc.. I will get in touch with IT and we'll see about logins and rights and such like. ??? Step 4: I can/will read back through all of the email and create a "question list". I can present the "question list" to THIS list for comment. Sounds Good! Note the "question list" is needed w/o regard to the decision in Step 2. Really Note: the "question list" could be just the one question posed by Jim. I'm not certain what this one question is any more! Though I agree with Kendra: if we ask one question w/o any additional direction, I fear we will receive responses that are "all over the map". The direction can come from?the 14 or so Questions that "we've" come up with that locals will see on Wiki. So, there is space for them to respond to our specifics, and space for them to come up with entirely new or different issues we might not be thinking about. I'm all about balancing the 2 approaches. Really Really Note: If someone else wants to do Step 4, then say so and I won't spend MY time on it. ??? Step 5: Assuming I am doing the work, I want to create the wiki category and topic page(s) next weekend (12/18..12/19). That is when I have the time. So, if I don't hear anything, or if what I do hear are equivocations and ambiguity, then what work I do will be subject to my mind-reading skills (and all overly-harsh passive-aggressive post-facto armchair quarterbacking will be met with Bert's Standard Two Word Response). Please get back to me ASAP; let's get this done together, Bert As always, I may be a day late and a dollar short....its now Monday.....wah. Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the right questions.? >Though these are? very relevent issues to raise and thank you Jim and Shane (and >others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will glaze over....mine are!? >Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask he locals ONE >question: >? "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?" >? But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the >answer(s)! > Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it out. If it >doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from locals and >documenting them somewhere ourselves. >? We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've been >bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with from this one >very simple question. >? How about it? >? >? > Kendra Gonzales > www.vccool.org > www.cagreens.org/ventura > "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas >? is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned >Scientists > > > *From:* shane que hee > *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org > *Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM > *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > > Everyone: > > Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the >Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- > > > > The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your written > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until recovery > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals and > > strategies? > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a > > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the past > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST >"winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is > > desirable? > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be part > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals > > and Counties? > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party > > and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal >business > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable > > plan for growth? > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? How > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What factors > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What >resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific >services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How should >the current system be changed? > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should >replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not covered >above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your >assessments/perspectives.. > > > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org >. > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA >strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary packet >for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- > > > > > > t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: >? > Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan at cagreens.org >? > >? > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >? >? ? ? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >? > >? > You can reach the person managing the list at >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >? > >? > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >? > than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >? > >? > >? > Today's Topics: >? > >? >? ? 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >? >? ? ? (Jim Stauffer) >? >? ? 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >? > >? > >? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >? > >? > Message: 1 >? > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 >? > From: Jim Stauffer > >? > To: GPCA Strategy Planning > >? > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, >? >? ? ? ? Issue 4 >? > Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org >> >? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >? > >? > I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. >? > >? > Jim >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: >? > > Kendra/Jim: >? > > >? > > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. >? > > >? > > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail >listserve >? > > by the end of January. >? > > >? > > We might then do a wiki. >? > > >? > > >? > > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts is: >? > > >? > > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and >? > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. >? > > >? > > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your >written >? > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you >can >? > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: >? > > >? > > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, >? > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until >recovery >? > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals >and >? > > strategies? >? > > >? > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a >? > > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the >past >? > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of >? > > about 1,000 too unambitious? >? > > >? > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are >realistic >? > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in >? > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? >? > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on >MOST >? > > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is >? > > desirable? >? > > >? > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan >offices? >? > > >? > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >? > > >? > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be >part >? > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? >? > > >? > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting >? > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >? > > >? > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the >? > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the >Locals >? > > and Counties? >? > > >? > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision >process >? > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well >? > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state >party >? > > and the >? > > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal >business >? > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a >viable >? > > plan for growth? >? > > >? > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? >How >? > > should the current system be changed for the better? >? > > >? > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >factors >? > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >? > > >? > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What >? > > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What >specific >? > > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How >? > > should the current system be changed? >? > > >? > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should >? > > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >? > > >? > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org >. >? > > >? > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA >? > > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary >packet >? > > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" >? > > >? > > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 >? > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > wrote: >? > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >? > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org >? > >> >? > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >? > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >? > >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >? > >> >? > >> You can reach the person managing the list at >? > >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >? > >> >? > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >? > >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> Today's Topics: >? > >> >? > >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) >? > >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >? > >> >? > >> Message: 1 >? > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) >? > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > >? > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >? > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward >? > >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com >> >? > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >? > >> >? > >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: >? > >> >? > >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> Hi Gloria, >? > >> >? > >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. >? > >> >? > >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is GPCA >specific, >? > >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the GPCA has >been >? > >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks who's >? > >> addresses I have. >? > >> >? > >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in the >next 72 >? > >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And I'll >keep >? > >> the >? > >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. >? > >> >? > >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on CAGreens-Test >also >? > >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. >? > >> >? > >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It will >? > >> "point >? > >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If all >goes >? > >> well >? > >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for things like >this >? > >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't know is >there. >? > >> >? > >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I >? > >> discovered >? > >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! Potentially one >can >? > >> look >? > >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site >? > >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their >site.? >? > >> Check >? > >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. >? > >> >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . >? > >> >? > >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward >? > >> San Francisco >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> -------------- next part -------------- >? > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >? > >> URL: >? > >> > > >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> ------------------------------ >? > >> >? > >> Message: 2 >? > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) >? > >> From: Kendra Gonzales > >? > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >? > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson >, Barry Hermanson >? > >> > >? > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >? > >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com >> >? > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >? > >> >? > >> Hello all, >? > >> >? > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its >not at >? > >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really >? > >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items or >questions >? > >> for their consideration. >? > >> >? > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed when >reading >? > >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that >email >? > >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because its just >too >? > >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same problem >? > >> myself >? > >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! >? > >> >? > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items >so we >? > >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we >document >? > >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one >? > >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we use?it >for the >? > >> larger picture stuff too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her >own >? > >> platform: >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . >? > >> >? > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was >going >? > >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best >approach. >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> Kendra Gonzales >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> -------------- next part -------------- >? > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >? > >> URL: >? > >> > > >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> ------------------------------ >? > >> >? > >> _______________________________________________ >? > >> StrategyPlan mailing list >? > >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >? > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > >> >? > >> >? > >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >? > >> ****************************************** >? > > >? > > _______________________________________________ >? > > gpca-cocos mailing list >? > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >? > > >? > >? > >? > ------------------------------ >? > >? > Message: 2 >? > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 >? > From: Jim Stauffer > >? > To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >? > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >? > Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org >> >? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >? > >? > We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 issues >? > (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, you've >? > just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for this exercise. >? > That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by >? > itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is for them >? > to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? >? > >? > Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas they >? > have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the referenced list >of >? > issues, then they're telling us they agree. >? > >? > If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of >issues, >? > let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than >asking >? > for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and >documenting. >? > >? > You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we >raise." >? > I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking about. >? > >? > As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility to >? > produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at a GA. >We >? > haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and analyze >? > the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for you. >Whether >? > by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We may >? > get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual responses. We >? > need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official >? > responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. >? > >? > As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the number >of >? > years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in the >? > response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Locals >? > before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to >? > postponing this to the Summer. >? > >? > Jim >? > >? > >? > >? > On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >? > > my responses in yellow below >? > > >? > > Kendra Gonzales >? > > >? > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >? > > >? > > >? > *From:* Jim Stauffer > >? > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning > *Sent:* Mon, >? > > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to >? > > Strategizing >? > > >? > > Kendra - >? > > >? > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's >? > > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to >send >? > > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements >? > > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues >? > > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what >? > > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. >? > >? > > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, _just >? > > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example of what a >? > >? Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. >? > > >? > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of >? > > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking >locals >? > > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out as >? > > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask for their >? > > ideas. >? > > >? > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA >? > > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that >? > > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like >? > > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of >? > > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the >? > > whittling down >? > > >? > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to the >? > > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't >? > > want to spend a lot of time on it. >? > >? > > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are responsible >? > > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you propose >? > > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can have >? > > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they >don't, >? > > then fine...the CC can do it for them. >? > > >? > > >? > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: >? > > >? > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. >? > > >? > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send 10 >? > > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. >That's >? > > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 (or so) >? > > items are just suggestions. >? > > >? > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no >? > > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first >? > > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the >? > > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after >? > > the Spring GA. >? > >? > > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and simply >? > > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first quarter >? > > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our >? > > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this proposal happening >? > > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of opportunity for >? > > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time for us to do >? > > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I would also like >? > > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki seem to >be >? > > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >? > > >? > >> Hello all, >? > > >? > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its >? > >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we >? > >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items >? > >> or questions for their consideration. >? > > >? > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when >? > >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found >? > >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach >? > >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I >? > >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for >? > >> simplicity's sake! >? > > >? > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >? > >> items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do >? > >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has >? > >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can >? > >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? >? > >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. >? > > >? > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >? > > >? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her >? > >> own platform: >? > > >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . >? > > >? > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was >? > >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a >? > >> best approach. >? > > >? > >> Kendra Gonzales >? > >> >? > > >? > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list >? > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list >? > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > >? > >? > ------------------------------ >? > >? > _______________________________________________ >? > StrategyPlan mailing list >? > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >? > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >? > >? > >? > End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >? > ****************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gpca-cocos mailing list > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From squehee at ucla.edu Mon Dec 20 13:40:11 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:40:11 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012202140.oBKLeAKn001304@mail.ucla.edu> Kendra: Where are the responses from the Counties to go? The 1st request should read "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/ 2012?" 2010 IS GONE, JUST ABOUT You need to draft the request.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 20 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 11:10 AM 12/20/2010, you wrote: >Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > strategyplan at cagreens.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Strategy: answers to Shane (Kendra Gonzales) > 2. Strategizing / Local in-put / using Wiki (Kendra Gonzales) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:22:11 -0800 (PST) >From: Kendra Gonzales >To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategy: answers to Shane >Message-ID: <622856.10490.qm at web56907.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >Hi there, > >My?responses in yellow below: > >(from Shane) Kendra: > >If we intend to have a draft strategy plan for the March Budget >General Assembly >in the plenary packet > >Not my intention to have an entire draft strategy plan done by March / next >Plenary. My intention is an introduction of the general idea and what we have >collected from the locals?so far, and what the state has >addressed?so far, and >any combination there of.? VERY premliminary! > > >, a Jan 31 deadline is reasonable since all of us (or in this case probably >mostly you)? need to consider and digest the replies to formulate the draft >strategic plan.---not a short process.? > >I agree this is not a short process and so disagree that Jan 31 is >reasonable. >Please trust me when I say that getting responses from local groups >in 1 month's >time is just not a reality. This is ever more broad than County >Polling and that >took at least 3 months of needling, begging, inspiring, >cojoling...over and over >and over and that was a very specific request, whereas this will ignite >(hopefully!) a whole lot of discussion and debate within the locals. Look how >long its taking for just the few of us to agree on how to even >approach this!. > > > >?I also deliberately chose the budget deadline because the co-cos should see >beforehand any suggested innovations that are in their areas and propose a >budget for them.? > >Again, this is very preliminary....there is not enough time to?think about >applying budget lines yet. Our working groups ARE thinking about strategy and >budget lines right now for 2011/2012, and that is a part of the strategic >planning process, as it always has been, right? The difference in what we are >attempting here is?asking for direct input from the locals - which, again to >reiterate is going to take some time.? >? >The Strategic Plan is not going to always be directly tied to >funding. Some of >it is going to be about volunteerism, using free technology (like facebook), >internal communication, what sort of direction do we generally want to be >heading, types of campaigns, and so forth. If there is something >innovative that >costs money and?comes forward between budgets without any kind of budget line >from a working group that could be applied to it, then we should >have a means to >address that.?Our Bylaws don't address this in full at all and this >is in fact >one of the things that should be on the Strategic Plan!.?Also, any >innovations >that are going to cost money?should have some funding action?attached. Locals >can raise their own money too. >? > >?I suppose the strategic plan could be slated to begin the next budget >year---that is, 2012--but that is too long to wait in my opinion. > >Portions of?a Strategic Plan can be applied right away, some of?it not until >later. Lets not think of this in terms of an end product...that doesn't >really?work the best. I'm learning as a non-profit Board?member that usually, >there?is?planning process like what we're attempting to do now.....an amazing >document will be created...an "end product"....everyone looks at >it.....debates.... maybe a final draft is adopted,? then?its filed away in a >drawer and never looked at again.?I'm hopeful we can look at this as?ever >evolving and constantly used.?We might not want to?attempt an >official adoption >per se...getting to THAT point could be endless. Maybe?the way to >look at this >is?as a tool,?a resource,?options to consider....a "roadmap".. > >What is your specific alternative time line?? > >All throughout 2011 and on-going.?By the Spring Plenary, there could >be a basic >outline of what we all mostly agree on as the direction we want to >head, but the >details on HOW to get there?should be dynamic and allow for flexibility. . > >It sounds as if you intend to present the March General Assembly with a draft >plan cold turkey---something that has much less chance of succeeding. > >No...just a basic introduction and outline of what are the most important >actions that Greens are agreeing on at the local and state levels....so far. > > >We need to get people in the locals and Counties thinking immediately so they >can reply in? a substantive manner.? A month (January) should be >long enough to >be able to answer one question.?? > >I agree on immediacy to start this process; I would like for an >email to go out >to County Contact no later than the end of?December.?Its really 3 >questions.?But,?these are huge questions... >? >How should the GPCA move forward in 2010 / 2011? >How should the GPCA move forward for the next 5 years? >How should the GPCA move forward for the next 10 years? > >? >Kendra Gonzales >www.vccool.org >www.cagreens.org/ventura >"All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas >?is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned >Scientists > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:10:11 -0800 (PST) >From: Kendra Gonzales >To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 , > coordinating committee >Cc: Bert Heuer >Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategizing / Local in-put / using Wiki >Message-ID: <767873.87881.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >I'm copying the CC on this email thread to address Jim's concern >that the CC is >the body this is?authorized to conduct?Strategy Planning and that >the CC needs >to be behind this. > > >We've been debating different approaches on the Strategy Plan listserve: >strategyplan at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan?(to subscribe) > >I'm hopeful we can agree to ask 3 very simple questions of the locals: > >How does the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012? >How does the GPCA move forward in 5 years? >How does the GPCA move forward in 10 years? > >At first we were talking about?asking specific questions for the locals to >answer.?I now agree its better to ask very broad open ended >questions like the >ones above, BUT, "we" can answer the specific questions amongst ourselves (on >Wiki) and combine those answers with what the locals come back with into one >place (Wiki) as the basic outline of what will become our Strategic Plan. ? > >If this blended approach is agreeable, then I propose we re-draft and email?a >very simple email to the County Contacts by the end of December, with these 3 >questions and a request to?post their responses to a virtual space for >recordingd purposes.?(like Wiki)? with the response timeline to be throughout >Jan, February, March...in preparation for a very preliminary?Plan >outline by the >Plenary. > > >Bert Hauer has kindly volunteered to be our IT person for this data >collection.?I?have responded to his > >questions below in yellow. > >To all, > >Two points: I volunteered to handle the wiki work and I asked for direction. > >I don't see that anyone else is handling this, so I will. If someone >ELSE wants >to do the wiki thing, or if there is some wiki other than wiki.cagreens.org, >then say so. Otherwise I am moving forward. > >The idea of using Wiki, or something like it, is for Locals to do >their OWN work >of typing in their responses. This won't happen across the board of >course, but >its a start. We may have to do some of the documentation, like copying email >responses into Wiki for the locals who just wont go there. > > >I want to be supportive of Wiki..of course there is concern it will be shut >down...what is the likelihood of that?. > > >OK, on to the directions. I am going to ask questions of the CO-CO's on this >list. The time right now it is 12/16/10 0645.? If you have answers >or opinions, >please get them to me within 36 hours. > >I missed this deadline!. So sorry... >I suggest that anyone else who is interested in working on this subscribe >specifically to: > >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan? > > >Definition: > >Just so we have names for stuff, I am going to call the entries in >the Main Page >"Categories" and each page within an category (other than the Table >of Contents >- a.k.a. first page beneath the category) is a "topic". > >Example categories: "Green 2012", "Props 2010", and "IT" are all existing >"categories" in the GPCA wiki. > >Example topics: within the Props 2010 article, are the "topics" Props2010/18, >Props2010/19, etc. > >Please digest the above. Also, I think my names for these things suck. So if >someone has a better set of names for use in conversations just like >this one, >then say so and we'll use them. > >Use each of the questions to locals (above) as a?Topic? >? >ie: "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012" is a Topic. >? >Use each of the "questions" posted by Shane and Jim, and anything >else that is >brought forward by State level Greens as a?Topic as well?: > >? >ie: "?What are realistic voter registration goals? > >But then....how do we break that out into timelines..."2011/2012", "In 5 >Years"..."In 10 Years"... > > >??? Step 1: > >Am I creating a new category? Or am I extending the Green 2012 category? > >Unless I hear otherwise: I will create a new category named "Moving >Forward: A >Party Strategy" (or something hifalutin like that). Why? Because >Green 2012 is a >two year plan and this "strategy thing" seems to have different horizons. > >Does Wiki just have the 2 layers of Category and then Topic? > >? >If so, that is kind of limiting....can we create a whole new Wiki >link just for >this? >Or, do we want ONE Wiki for all things Greens for the entire State? >Can one Wiki >accomodate everything we do? > >??? Step 2: > >Throughout all of the email threads, there have been a number of questions >suggested. So the next decision is: > >(a) Do we want one big topic for the whole thing (broken into sections), > >OR > >(b) Do we want to break the discussion up into separate topics (ex: >one for each >of the questions posed by various co-co's) > >Again, depends on what Wiki allows for... > >Unless I hear otherwise: I will assume a separate topic for each >question. Why? >Because I am anal-retentive that way. Also I see it as helping "people who >contribute" to stay focused (see "direction" below). And so that "people who >collate" have an easier time of it. > >Lets visit this soon unless its already done? Its probley best to all look at >Wiki together at the same time if we can manage it. Maybe a conference call? > >??? Step 3: > >Who do we expect to contribute? County councilpersons? State party >Co-co's? CC >members? Any CA registered Green? Any Green at all? Any person at all? > >YES, all.....open, so no one feels left out if they are not on a >certain list or >committee or council. > >We have to be VERY CLEAR that this request needs to go out further >than just the >person who gets the County Contact email.. Plus, we can post it to all of the >working groups...Cal-Forum, etc.. > >I will get in touch with IT and we'll see about logins and rights >and such like. > >??? Step 4: > >I can/will read back through all of the email and create a "question list". I >can present the "question list" to THIS list for comment. > >Sounds Good! > >Note the "question list" is needed w/o regard to the decision in Step 2. > >Really Note: the "question list" could be just the one question posed by Jim. > >I'm not certain what this one question is any more! > > >Though I agree with Kendra: if we ask one question w/o any >additional direction, >I fear we will receive responses that are "all over the map". > >The direction can come from?the 14 or so Questions that "we've" come up with >that locals will see on Wiki. So, there is space for them to respond to our >specifics, and space for them to come up with entirely new or >different issues >we might not be thinking about. I'm all about balancing the 2 approaches. > >Really Really Note: If someone else wants to do Step 4, then say so >and I won't >spend MY time on it. > >??? Step 5: > >Assuming I am doing the work, I want to create the wiki category and topic >page(s) next weekend (12/18..12/19). That is when I have the time. So, if I >don't hear anything, or if what I do hear are equivocations and >ambiguity, then >what work I do will be subject to my mind-reading skills (and all >overly-harsh >passive-aggressive post-facto armchair quarterbacking will be met with Bert's >Standard Two Word Response). > >Please get back to me ASAP; let's get this done together, > >Bert > > >As always, I may be a day late and a dollar short....its now Monday.....wah. > > > > > >Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > > Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the > right questions.? > >Though these are? very relevent issues to raise and thank you Jim > and Shane (and > >others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will glaze > over....mine are!? > >Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask > he locals ONE > >question: > >? "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?" > >? But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the > >answer(s)! > > Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it out. If it > >doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from locals and > >documenting them somewhere ourselves. > >? We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues > we've been > >bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with > from this one > >very simple question. > >? How about it? > >? > >? > > Kendra Gonzales > > www.vccool.org > > www.cagreens.org/ventura > > "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and > natural gas > >? is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned > >Scientists > > > > > > *From:* shane que hee > > *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org > > *Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > > > > Everyone: > > > > Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the > >Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >- > > > > > > > > The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > > > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > > > > > In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like > your written > > > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can > > > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > > > > > 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, > > > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" > until recovery > > > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect > all goals and > > > > strategies? > > > > > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a > > > > small party? What caused the California Green registration > decline of the past > > > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of > > > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what > are realistic > > > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > > > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA > focus on MOST > >"winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is > > > > desirable? > > > > > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > > > > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue > to be part > > > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting > > > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals > > > > and Counties? > > > > > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking > decision process > > > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > > > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party > > > > and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority > over internal > >business > > > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer > labor a viable > > > > plan for growth? > > > > > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want > in GPCA? How > > > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? > What factors > > > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What > >resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific > >services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from > GPCA? How should > >the current system be changed? > > > > > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should > >replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > > > > > 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our > future not covered > >above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your > >assessments/perspectives.. > > > > > > > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org > >. > > > > > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA > >strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly > Plenary packet > >for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >- > > > > > > > > > > > > t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: > >? > Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan at cagreens.org > >? > > >? > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >? >? ? ? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > > >? > > >? > You can reach the person managing the list at > >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > > >? > > >? > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >? > than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > >? > > >? > > >? > Today's Topics: > >? > > >? >? ? 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > >? >? ? ? (Jim Stauffer) > >? >? ? 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > >? > > >? > > >? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >? > > >? > Message: 1 > >? > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 > >? > From: Jim Stauffer > > >? > To: GPCA Strategy Planning >> > >? > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, > >? >? ? ? ? Issue 4 > >? > Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org > >> > >? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >? > > >? > I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. > >? > > >? > Jim > >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: > >? > > Kendra/Jim: > >? > > > >? > > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. > >? > > > >? > > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail > >listserve > >? > > by the end of January. > >? > > > >? > > We might then do a wiki. > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County > Contacts is: > >? > > > >? > > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County > Councils and > >? > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > >? > > > >? > > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your > >written > >? > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that > we hope you > >can > >? > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > >? > > > >? > > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on > fundraising, > >? > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until > >recovery > >? > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this > affect all goals > >and > >? > > strategies? > >? > > > >? > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What > attracts people to a > >? > > small party? What caused the California Green registration > decline of the > >past > >? > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new > registrations of > >? > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > >? > > > >? > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are > >realistic > >? > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue > attempts in > >? > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > >? > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should > GPCA focus on > >MOST > >? > > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and > effort split is > >? > > desirable? > >? > > > >? > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan > >offices? > >? > > > >? > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > >? > > > >? > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA > continue to be > >part > >? > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > >? > > > >? > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice >voting > >? > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > >? > > > >? > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > >? > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the > >Locals > >? > > and Counties? > >? > > > >? > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision > >process > >? > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it > working well > >? > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state > >party > >? > > and the > >? > > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal > >business > >? > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a > >viable > >? > > plan for growth? > >? > > > >? > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals > want in GPCA? > >How > >? > > should the current system be changed for the better? > >? > > > >? > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and > Counties? What > >factors > >? > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > >? > > > >? > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the > state party? What > >? > > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What > >specific > >? > > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want > from GPCA? How > >? > > should the current system be changed? > >? > > > >? > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, > what should > >? > > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > >? > > > >? > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org > >. > >? > > > >? > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed >GPCA > >? > > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General > Assembly Plenary > >packet > >? > > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" > >? > > > >? > > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 > >? > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > wrote: > >? > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > >? > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org > >? > >> > >? > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >? > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >? > >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > > >? > >> > >? > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > >? > >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > >? > >> > >? > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >? > >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> Today's Topics: > >? > >> > >? > >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) > >? > >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >? > >> > >? > >> Message: 1 > >? > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) > >? > >> From: Kendra Gonzales >> > >? > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >> > >? > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward > >? > >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com > >> > >? > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >? > >> > >? > >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: > >? > >> > >? > >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> Hi Gloria, > >? > >> > >? > >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. > >? > >> > >? > >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so > it is GPCA > >specific, > >? > >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey > for the GPCA has > >been > >? > >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks >who's > >? > >> addresses I have. > >? > >> > >? > >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do > that in the > >next 72 > >? > >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web > site.? And I'll > >keep > >? > >> the > >? > >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. > >? > >> > >? > >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on > CAGreens-Test > >also > >? > >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. > >? > >> > >? > >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It >will > >? > >> "point > >? > >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not > registered.? If all > >goes > >? > >> well > >? > >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for > things like > >this > >? > >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w > don't know is > >there. > >? > >> > >? > >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I > >? > >> discovered > >? > >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! > Potentially one > >can > >? > >> look > >? > >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though > the web site > >? > >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their > >site.? > >? > >> Check > >? > >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. > >? > >> > >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >? > >> > >? > >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward > >? > >> San Francisco > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >? > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >? > >> URL: > >? > >> > > 212/096bcb59/attachment-0001.html> > > > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> ------------------------------ > >? > >> > >? > >> Message: 2 > >? > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) > >? > >> From: Kendra Gonzales >> > >? > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >> > >? > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson >>, Barry Hermanson > >? > >> > > >? > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > >? > >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com > >> > >? > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >? > >> > >? > >> Hello all, > >? > >> > >? > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > Contacts....its > >not at > >? > >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I > suggest we really > >? > >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items or > >questions > >? > >> for their consideration. > >? > >> > >? > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel > overwhelmed when > >reading > >? > >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've > found that > >email > >? > >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach > because its just > >too > >? > >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same >problem > >? > >> myself > >? > >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! > >? > >> > >? > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas > and action items > >so we > >? > >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we > >document > >? > >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one > >? > >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. > Can we use?it > >for the > >? > >> larger picture stuff >too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > >? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual > space on her > >own > >? > >> platform: > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >? > >> > >? > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and > Barry said he was > >going > >? > >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best > >approach. > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> Kendra Gonzales > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >? > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >? > >> URL: > >? > >> > > 212/f9cf4a9f/attachment-0001.html> > > > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> ------------------------------ > >? > >> > >? > >> _______________________________________________ > >? > >> StrategyPlan mailing list > >? > >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >? > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > >? > >> ****************************************** > >? > > > >? > > _______________________________________________ > >? > > gpca-cocos mailing list > >? > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > >? > > > >? > > >? > > >? > ------------------------------ > >? > > >? > Message: 2 > >? > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 > >? > From: Jim Stauffer > > >? > To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > >? > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > >? > Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org > >> > >? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >? > > >? > We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 >issues > >? > (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, >you've > >? > just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for > this exercise. > >? > That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by > >? > itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is for >them > >? > to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? > >? > > >? > Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us > what ideas they > >? > have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the > referenced list > >of > >? > issues, then they're telling us they agree. > >? > > >? > If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of > >issues, > >? > let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than > >asking > >? > for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and > >documenting. > >? > > >? > You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we > >raise." > >? > I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are > thinking about. > >? > > >? > As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated > responsibility to > >? > produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to > present it at a GA. > >We > >? > haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and >analyze > >? > the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for you. > >Whether > >? > by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the > data. We may > >? > get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual > responses. We > >? > need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official > >? > responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. > >? > > >? > As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only > restate the number > >of > >? > years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable > difference in the > >? > response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue > with the Locals > >? > before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to > >? > postponing this to the Summer. > >? > > >? > Jim > >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > >? > > my responses in yellow below > >? > > > >? > > Kendra Gonzales > >? > > > >? > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > >? > > > >? > > > >? > *From:* Jim Stauffer > > >? > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning >> *Sent:* Mon, > >? > > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] > our approach >to > >? > > Strategizing > >? > > > >? > > Kendra - > >? > > > >? > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different > you say it's > >? > > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last > proposal was to > >send > >? > > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write > pro/con statements > >? > > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the >issues > >? > > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the > counties what > >? > > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. > >? > > >? > > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for > pros/cons, _just > >? > > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or > example of what >a > >? > >? Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. > >? > > > >? > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of > >? > > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking > >locals > >? > > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them > right out as > >? > > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also > ask for their > >? > > ideas. > >? > > > >? > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA > >? > > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that > >? > > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects >like > >? > > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of > >? > > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the > >? > > whittling down > >? > > > >? > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their > discussion to >the > >? > > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its > usefulness so I don't > >? > > want to spend a lot of time on it. > >? > > >? > > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they > are responsible > >? > > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What > do you propose > >? > > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, > locals can have > >? > > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they > >don't, > >? > > then fine...the CC can do it for them. > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > >? > > > >? > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > >? > > > >? > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do > both?. Send 10 > >? > > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. > >That's > >? > > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. > The 10 (or so) > >? > > items are just suggestions. > >? > > > >? > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no > >? > > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first > >? > > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active > support from the > >? > > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off > until after > >? > > the Spring GA. > >? > > >? > > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic > request and simply > >? > > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first >quarter > >? > > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our > >? > > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this > proposal happening > >? > > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of > opportunity for > >? > > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time > for us to do > >? > > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I > would also like > >? > > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and > Wiki seem to > >be > >? > > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > >? > > > >? > >> Hello all, > >? > > > >? > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > Contacts....its > >? > >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, > I suggest we > >? > >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of > suggested topic items > >? > >> or questions for their consideration. > >? > > > >? > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > >? > >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, > but I've found > >? > >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach > >? > >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by > this email, I > >? > >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for > >? > >> simplicity's sake! > >? > > > >? > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action > >? > >> items so we can record and organize them together into the > "Plan". How >do > >? > >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has > >? > >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part > of 2011. Can > >? > >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? > >? > >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > >? > > > >? > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > >? > > > >? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual > space on her > >? > >> own platform: > >? > > > >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >? > > > >? > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and > Barry said he was > >? > >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > >? > >> best approach. > >? > > > >? > >> Kendra Gonzales > >? > >> > >? > > > >? > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan > mailing list > >? > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >> > >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan > mailing list > >? > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > > >? > > >? > ------------------------------ > >? > > >? > _______________________________________________ > >? > StrategyPlan mailing list > >? > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >? > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > > >? > > >? > End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > >? > ****************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > > StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gpca-cocos mailing list > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >StrategyPlan mailing list >StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 >******************************************* From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Mon Dec 20 14:03:08 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:03:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: <201012202140.oBKLeAKn001304@mail.ucla.edu> References: <201012202140.oBKLeAKn001304@mail.ucla.edu> Message-ID: <73573.10484.qm@web56905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> From: shane que hee To: strategyplan at cagreens.org Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 1:40:11 PM Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 Kendra: Where are the responses from the Counties to go? I address this at length in another email I just posted today... The 1st request should read "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/ 2012?" 2010 IS GONE, JUST ABOUT ?just a typo....of course should be 2011/2012 You need to draft the request will do! .....Shane Que Hee,? Dec 20 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 11:10 AM 12/20/2010, you wrote: > Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >? ? ? ? strategyplan at cagreens.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >? ? ? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >? ? ? ? strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at >? ? ? ? strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >? ? 1. Strategy: answers to Shane (Kendra Gonzales) >? ? 2. Strategizing / Local in-put / using Wiki (Kendra Gonzales) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:22:11 -0800 (PST) > From: Kendra Gonzales > To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategy: answers to Shane > Message-ID: <622856.10490.qm at web56907.mail.re3.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi there, > > My?responses in yellow below: > > (from Shane) Kendra: > > If we intend to have a draft strategy plan for the March Budget General >Assembly > in the plenary packet > > Not my intention to have an entire draft strategy plan done by March / next > Plenary. My intention is an introduction of the general idea and what we have > collected from the locals?so far, and what the state has addressed?so far, and > any combination there of.? VERY premliminary! > > > , a Jan 31 deadline is reasonable since all of us (or in this case probably > mostly you)? need to consider and digest the replies to formulate the draft > strategic plan.---not a short process.? > > I agree this is not a short process and so disagree that Jan 31 is reasonable. > Please trust me when I say that getting responses from local groups in 1 >month's > time is just not a reality. This is ever more broad than County Polling and >that > took at least 3 months of needling, begging, inspiring, cojoling...over and >over > and over and that was a very specific request, whereas this will ignite > (hopefully!) a whole lot of discussion and debate within the locals. Look how > long its taking for just the few of us to agree on how to even approach this!. > > > > ?I also deliberately chose the budget deadline because the co-cos should see > beforehand any suggested innovations that are in their areas and propose a > budget for them.? > > Again, this is very preliminary....there is not enough time to?think about > applying budget lines yet. Our working groups ARE thinking about strategy and > budget lines right now for 2011/2012, and that is a part of the strategic > planning process, as it always has been, right? The difference in what we are > attempting here is?asking for direct input from the locals - which, again to > reiterate is going to take some time.? > ? > The Strategic Plan is not going to always be directly tied to funding. Some of > it is going to be about volunteerism, using free technology (like facebook), > internal communication, what sort of direction do we generally want to be > heading, types of campaigns, and so forth. If there is something innovative >that > costs money and?comes forward between budgets without any kind of budget line > from a working group that could be applied to it, then we should have a means >to > address that.?Our Bylaws don't address this in full at all and this is in fact > one of the things that should be on the Strategic Plan!.?Also, any innovations > that are going to cost money?should have some funding action?attached. Locals > can raise their own money too. > ? > > ?I suppose the strategic plan could be slated to begin the next budget > year---that is, 2012--but that is too long to wait in my opinion. > > Portions of?a Strategic Plan can be applied right away, some of?it not until > later. Lets not think of this in terms of an end product...that doesn't > really?work the best. I'm learning as a non-profit Board?member that usually, > there?is?planning process like what we're attempting to do now.....an amazing > document will be created...an "end product"....everyone looks at > it.....debates.... maybe a final draft is adopted,? then?its filed away in a > drawer and never looked at again.?I'm hopeful we can look at this as?ever > evolving and constantly used.?We might not want to?attempt an official adoption > per se...getting to THAT point could be endless. Maybe?the way to look at this > is?as a tool,?a resource,?options to consider....a "roadmap".. > > What is your specific alternative time line?? > > All throughout 2011 and on-going.?By the Spring Plenary, there could be a basic > outline of what we all mostly agree on as the direction we want to head, but >the > details on HOW to get there?should be dynamic and allow for flexibility. . > > It sounds as if you intend to present the March General Assembly with a draft > plan cold turkey---something that has much less chance of succeeding. > > No...just a basic introduction and outline of what are the most important > actions that Greens are agreeing on at the local and state levels....so far. > > > We need to get people in the locals and Counties thinking immediately so they > can reply in? a substantive manner.? A month (January) should be long enough to > be able to answer one question.?? > > I agree on immediacy to start this process; I would like for an email to go out > to County Contact no later than the end of?December.?Its really 3 > questions.?But,?these are huge questions... > ? > How should the GPCA move forward in 2010 / 2011? > How should the GPCA move forward for the next 5 years? > How should the GPCA move forward for the next 10 years? > > ? > Kendra Gonzales > www.vccool.org > www.cagreens.org/ventura > "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas > ?is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned > Scientists > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:10:11 -0800 (PST) > From: Kendra Gonzales > To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 , >? ? ? ? coordinating committee > Cc: Bert Heuer > Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategizing / Local in-put / using Wiki > Message-ID: <767873.87881.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I'm copying the CC on this email thread to address Jim's concern that the CC is > the body this is?authorized to conduct?Strategy Planning and that the CC needs > to be behind this. > > > We've been debating different approaches on the Strategy Plan listserve: > strategyplan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan?(to subscribe) > > I'm hopeful we can agree to ask 3 very simple questions of the locals: > > How does the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012? > How does the GPCA move forward in 5 years? > How does the GPCA move forward in 10 years? > > At first we were talking about?asking specific questions for the locals to > answer.?I now agree its better to ask very broad open ended questions like the > ones above, BUT, "we" can answer the specific questions amongst ourselves (on > Wiki) and combine those answers with what the locals come back with into one > place (Wiki) as the basic outline of what will become our Strategic Plan. ? > > If this blended approach is agreeable, then I propose we re-draft and email?a > very simple email to the County Contacts by the end of December, with these 3 > questions and a request to?post their responses to a virtual space for > recordingd purposes.?(like Wiki)? with the response timeline to be throughout > Jan, February, March...in preparation for a very preliminary?Plan outline by >the > Plenary. > > > Bert Hauer has kindly volunteered to be our IT person for this data > collection.?I?have responded to his > > questions below in yellow. > > To all, > > Two points: I volunteered to handle the wiki work and I asked for direction. > > I don't see that anyone else is handling this, so I will. If someone ELSE wants > to do the wiki thing, or if there is some wiki other than wiki.cagreens.org, > then say so. Otherwise I am moving forward. > > The idea of using Wiki, or something like it, is for Locals to do their OWN >work > of typing in their responses. This won't happen across the board of course, but > its a start. We may have to do some of the documentation, like copying email > responses into Wiki for the locals who just wont go there. > > > I want to be supportive of Wiki..of course there is concern it will be shut > down...what is the likelihood of that?. > > > OK, on to the directions. I am going to ask questions of the CO-CO's on this > list. The time right now it is 12/16/10 0645.? If you have answers or opinions, > please get them to me within 36 hours. > > I missed this deadline!. So sorry... > I suggest that anyone else who is interested in working on this subscribe > specifically to: > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan? > > > Definition: > > Just so we have names for stuff, I am going to call the entries in the Main >Page > "Categories" and each page within an category (other than the Table of Contents > - a.k.a. first page beneath the category) is a "topic". > > Example categories: "Green 2012", "Props 2010", and "IT" are all existing > "categories" in the GPCA wiki. > > Example topics: within the Props 2010 article, are the "topics" Props2010/18, > Props2010/19, etc. > > Please digest the above. Also, I think my names for these things suck. So if > someone has a better set of names for use in conversations just like this one, > then say so and we'll use them. > > Use each of the questions to locals (above) as a?Topic? > ? > ie: "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012" is a Topic. > ? > Use each of the "questions" posted by Shane and Jim, and anything else that is > brought forward by State level Greens as a?Topic as well?: > > ? > ie: "?What are realistic voter registration goals? > > But then....how do we break that out into timelines..."2011/2012", "In 5 > Years"..."In 10 Years"... > > > ??? Step 1: > > Am I creating a new category? Or am I extending the Green 2012 category? > > Unless I hear otherwise: I will create a new category named "Moving Forward: A > Party Strategy" (or something hifalutin like that). Why? Because Green 2012 is >a > two year plan and this "strategy thing" seems to have different horizons. > > Does Wiki just have the 2 layers of Category and then Topic? > > ? > If so, that is kind of limiting....can we create a whole new Wiki link just for > this? > Or, do we want ONE Wiki for all things Greens for the entire State? Can one >Wiki > accomodate everything we do? > > ??? Step 2: > > Throughout all of the email threads, there have been a number of questions > suggested. So the next decision is: > > (a) Do we want one big topic for the whole thing (broken into sections), > > OR > > (b) Do we want to break the discussion up into separate topics (ex: one for >each > of the questions posed by various co-co's) > > Again, depends on what Wiki allows for... > > Unless I hear otherwise: I will assume a separate topic for each question. Why? > Because I am anal-retentive that way. Also I see it as helping "people who > contribute" to stay focused (see "direction" below). And so that "people who > collate" have an easier time of it. > > Lets visit this soon unless its already done? Its probley best to all look at > Wiki together at the same time if we can manage it. Maybe a conference call? > > ??? Step 3: > > Who do we expect to contribute? County councilpersons? State party Co-co's? CC > members? Any CA registered Green? Any Green at all? Any person at all? > > YES, all.....open, so no one feels left out if they are not on a certain list >or > committee or council. > > We have to be VERY CLEAR that this request needs to go out further than just >the > person who gets the County Contact email.. Plus, we can post it to all of the > working groups...Cal-Forum, etc.. > > I will get in touch with IT and we'll see about logins and rights and such >like. > > ??? Step 4: > > I can/will read back through all of the email and create a "question list". I > can present the "question list" to THIS list for comment. > > Sounds Good! > > Note the "question list" is needed w/o regard to the decision in Step 2. > > Really Note: the "question list" could be just the one question posed by Jim. > > I'm not certain what this one question is any more! > > > Though I agree with Kendra: if we ask one question w/o any additional >direction, > I fear we will receive responses that are "all over the map". > > The direction can come from?the 14 or so Questions that "we've" come up with > that locals will see on Wiki. So, there is space for them to respond to our > specifics, and space for them to come up with entirely new or different issues > we might not be thinking about. I'm all about balancing the 2 approaches. > > Really Really Note: If someone else wants to do Step 4, then say so and I won't > spend MY time on it. > > ??? Step 5: > > Assuming I am doing the work, I want to create the wiki category and topic > page(s) next weekend (12/18..12/19). That is when I have the time. So, if I > don't hear anything, or if what I do hear are equivocations and ambiguity, then > what work I do will be subject to my mind-reading skills (and all overly-harsh > passive-aggressive post-facto armchair quarterbacking will be met with Bert's > Standard Two Word Response). > > Please get back to me ASAP; let's get this done together, > > Bert > > > As always, I may be a day late and a dollar short....its now Monday.....wah. > > > > > > Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > > > Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the right >questions.? > >Though these are? very relevent issues to raise and thank you Jim and Shane >(and > >others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will glaze over....mine >are!? > >Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask he locals ONE > >question: > >? "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?" > >? But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the > >answer(s)! > > Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it out. If it > >doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from locals and > >documenting them somewhere ourselves. > >? We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've been > >bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with from this one > >very simple question. > >? How about it? > >? > >? > > Kendra Gonzales > > www.vccool.org > > www.cagreens.org/ventura > > "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas > >? is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned > >Scientists > > > > > > *From:* shane que hee > > *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org > > *Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > > > > Everyone: > > > > Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the > >Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >- > > > > > > > > The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > > > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > > > > > > > > In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your written > > > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can > > > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > > > > > > > > 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, > > > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until >recovery > > > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals and > > > > strategies? > > > > > > > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a > > > > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the >past > > > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of > > > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > > > > > > > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic > > > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > > > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > > > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST > >"winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is > > > > desirable? > > > > > > > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? > > > > > > > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > > > > > > > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be part > > > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > > > > > > > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting > > > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > > > > > > > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > > > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals > > > > and Counties? > > > > > > > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process > > > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > > > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party > > > > and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal > >business > > > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable > > > > plan for growth? > > > > > > > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? How > > > > should the current system be changed for the better? > > > > > > > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >factors > > > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > > > > > > > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What > >resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific > >services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How >should > >the current system be changed? > > > > > > > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should > >replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > > > > > > > > 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not >covered > >above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your > >assessments/perspectives.. > > > > > > > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org > >. > > > > > > > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA > >strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary packet > >for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >- > > > > > > > > > > > > t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: > >? > Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan at cagreens.org > >? > > >? > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >? >? ? ? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > > >? > > >? > You can reach the person managing the list at > >? >? ? ? ? strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > > >? > > >? > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >? > than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > >? > > >? > > >? > Today's Topics: > >? > > >? >? ? 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > >? >? ? ? (Jim Stauffer) > >? >? ? 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > >? > > >? > > >? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >? > > >? > Message: 1 > >? > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 > >? > From: Jim Stauffer > > >? > To: GPCA Strategy Planning >> > >? > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, > >? >? ? ? ? Issue 4 > >? > Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org > >> > >? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >? > > >? > I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. > >? > > >? > Jim > >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: > >? > > Kendra/Jim: > >? > > > >? > > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. > >? > > > >? > > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail > >listserve > >? > > by the end of January. > >? > > > >? > > We might then do a wiki. > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts is: > >? > > > >? > > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and > >? > > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. > >? > > > >? > > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your > >written > >? > > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you > >can > >? > > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: > >? > > > >? > > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on >fundraising, > >? > > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until > >recovery > >? > > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all >goals > >and > >? > > strategies? > >? > > > >? > > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to >a > >? > > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of >the > >past > >? > > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations >of > >? > > about 1,000 too unambitious? > >? > > > >? > > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are > >realistic > >? > > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in > >? > > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? > >? > > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on > >MOST > >? > > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is > >? > > desirable? > >? > > > >? > > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan > >offices? > >? > > > >? > > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? > >? > > > >? > > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be > >part > >? > > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? > >? > > > >? > > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice > voting > >? > > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? > >? > > > >? > > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the > >? > > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the > >Locals > >? > > and Counties? > >? > > > >? > > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision > >process > >? > > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well > >? > > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state > >party > >? > > and the > >? > > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal > >business > >? > > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a > >viable > >? > > plan for growth? > >? > > > >? > > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? > >How > >? > > should the current system be changed for the better? > >? > > > >? > > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What > >factors > >? > > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? > >? > > > >? > > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? >What > >? > > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What > >specific > >? > > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? >How > >? > > should the current system be changed? > >? > > > >? > > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should > >? > > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? > >? > > > >? > > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org > >. > >? > > > >? > > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed > GPCA > >? > > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary > >packet > >? > > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" > >? > > > >? > > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 > >? > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > wrote: > >? > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > >? > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org > >? > >> > >? > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >? > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >? > >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > > >? > >> > >? > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > >? > >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > >? > >> > >? > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >? > >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> Today's Topics: > >? > >> > >? > >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) > >? > >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >? > >> > >? > >> Message: 1 > >? > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) > >? > >> From: Kendra Gonzales >> > >? > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >> > >? > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward > >? > >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com > >> > >? > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >? > >> > >? > >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: > >? > >> > >? > >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> Hi Gloria, > >? > >> > >? > >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. > >? > >> > >? > >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is GPCA > >specific, > >? > >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the GPCA >has > >been > >? > >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks > who's > >? > >> addresses I have. > >? > >> > >? > >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in the > >next 72 > >? > >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And I'll > >keep > >? > >> the > >? > >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. > >? > >> > >? > >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on >CAGreens-Test > >also > >? > >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. > >? > >> > >? > >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It > will > >? > >> "point > >? > >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If all > >goes > >? > >> well > >? > >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for things like > >this > >? > >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't know is > >there. > >? > >> > >? > >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I > >? > >> discovered > >? > >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! Potentially one > >can > >? > >> look > >? > >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site > >? > >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their > >site.? > >? > >> Check > >? > >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. > >? > >> > >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >? > >> > >? > >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward > >? > >> San Francisco > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >? > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >? > >> URL: > >? > >> > >212/096bcb59/attachment-0001.html> > > > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> ------------------------------ > >? > >> > >? > >> Message: 2 > >? > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) > >? > >> From: Kendra Gonzales >> > >? > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >> > >? > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson >>, Barry Hermanson > >? > >> > > >? > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > >? > >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com > >> > >? > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >? > >> > >? > >> Hello all, > >? > >> > >? > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its > >not at > >? > >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we >really > >? > >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items or > >questions > >? > >> for their consideration. > >? > >> > >? > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed when > >reading > >? > >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that > >email > >? > >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because its >just > >too > >? > >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same > problem > >? > >> myself > >? > >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! > >? > >> > >? > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >items > >so we > >? > >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we > >document > >? > >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one > >? > >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we use?it > >for the > >? > >> larger picture stuff > too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > >? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her > >own > >? > >> platform: > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >? > >> > >? > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he >was > >going > >? > >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best > >approach. > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> Kendra Gonzales > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >? > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >? > >> URL: > >? > >> > >212/f9cf4a9f/attachment-0001.html> > > > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> ------------------------------ > >? > >> > >? > >> _______________________________________________ > >? > >> StrategyPlan mailing list > >? > >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >? > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > >> > >? > >> > >? > >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 > >? > >> ****************************************** > >? > > > >? > > _______________________________________________ > >? > > gpca-cocos mailing list > >? > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > >? > > > >? > > >? > > >? > ------------------------------ > >? > > >? > Message: 2 > >? > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 > >? > From: Jim Stauffer > > >? > To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > >? > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing > >? > Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org > >> > >? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >? > > >? > We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 > issues > >? > (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, > you've > >? > just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for this >exercise. > >? > That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by > >? > itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is for > them > >? > to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? > >? > > >? > Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas they > >? > have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the referenced >list > >of > >? > issues, then they're telling us they agree. > >? > > >? > If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of > >issues, > >? > let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than > >asking > >? > for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and > >documenting. > >? > > >? > You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we > >raise." > >? > I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking >about. > >? > > >? > As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility >to > >? > produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at a >GA. > >We > >? > haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and > analyze > >? > the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for you. > >Whether > >? > by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We >may > >? > get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual responses. We > >? > need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official > >? > responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. > >? > > >? > As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the >number > >of > >? > years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in the > >? > response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the >Locals > >? > before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to > >? > postponing this to the Summer. > >? > > >? > Jim > >? > > >? > > >? > > >? > On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > >? > > my responses in yellow below > >? > > > >? > > Kendra Gonzales > >? > > > >? > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >----------- > >? > > > >? > > > >? > *From:* Jim Stauffer > > >? > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning >> *Sent:* Mon, > >? > > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach > to > >? > > Strategizing > >? > > > >? > > Kendra - > >? > > > >? > > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's > >? > > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to > >send > >? > > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con >statements > >? > > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the > issues > >? > > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what > >? > > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. > >? > > >? > > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, >_just > >? > > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example of what > a > >? > >? Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. > >? > > > >? > > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of > >? > > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking > >locals > >? > > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out as > >? > > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask for their > >? > > ideas. > >? > > > >? > > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA > >? > > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that > >? > > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects > like > >? > > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of > >? > > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the > >? > > whittling down > >? > > > >? > > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to > the > >? > > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I >don't > >? > > want to spend a lot of time on it. > >? > > >? > > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are >responsible > >? > > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you >propose > >? > > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can >have > >? > > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they > >don't, > >? > > then fine...the CC can do it for them. > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: > >? > > > >? > > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. > >? > > > >? > > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send >10 > >? > > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. > >That's > >? > > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 (or >so) > >? > > items are just suggestions. > >? > > > >? > > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no > >? > > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first > >? > > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from >the > >? > > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after > >? > > the Spring GA. > >? > > >? > > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and >simply > >? > > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first > quarter > >? > > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our > >? > > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this proposal happening > >? > > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of opportunity for > >? > > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time for us to do > >? > > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I would also >like > >? > > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki seem to > >be > >? > > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > >? > > > >? > >> Hello all, > >? > > > >? > >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its > >? > >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest >we > >? > >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic >items > >? > >> or questions for their consideration. > >? > > > >? > >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when > >? > >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've >found > >? > >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach > >? > >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, >I > >? > >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for > >? > >> simplicity's sake! > >? > > > >? > >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action > >? > >> items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How > do > >? > >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has > >? > >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. >Can > >? > >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? > >? > >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. > >? > > > >? > >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? > >? > > > >? > >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her > >? > >> own platform: > >? > > > >? > >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. > >? > >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or > >? > >> www.cagreenideas.org . > >? > > > >? > >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he >was > >? > >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a > >? > >> best approach. > >? > > > >? > >> Kendra Gonzales > >? > >> > >? > > > >? > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >list > >? > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >> > >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >list > >? > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >? > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > > >? > > >? > ------------------------------ > >? > > >? > _______________________________________________ > >? > StrategyPlan mailing list > >? > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >? > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >? > > >? > > >? > End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 > >? > ****************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > > StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gpca-cocos mailing list > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 > ******************************************* _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From civillib at comcast.net Mon Dec 20 23:21:20 2010 From: civillib at comcast.net (civillib) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:21:20 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: <73573.10484.qm@web56905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <201012202140.oBKLeAKn001304@mail.ucla.edu> <73573.10484.qm@web56905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D105570.1070803@comcast.net> Folks, finalizing the message is good now, but I wouldn't send this out to the counties or anyone seriously until after the holidays. Like Jan. 2 or 3. Just thought I'd mention it. :) Cres On 12/20/2010 2:03 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > From: shane que hee > To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 1:40:11 PM > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 > > Kendra: > > Where are the responses from the Counties to go? > > I address this at length in another email I just posted today... > > The 1st request should read "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/ 2012?" > 2010 IS GONE, JUST ABOUT > > just a typo....of course should be 2011/2012 > > > You need to draft the request > > will do! > > .....Shane Que Hee, Dec 20 2010 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > At 11:10 AM 12/20/2010, you wrote: >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >> strategyplan at cagreens.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Strategy: answers to Shane (Kendra Gonzales) >> 2. Strategizing / Local in-put / using Wiki (Kendra Gonzales) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:22:11 -0800 (PST) >> From: Kendra Gonzales >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategy: answers to Shane >> Message-ID:<622856.10490.qm at web56907.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Hi there, >> >> My?responses in yellow below: >> >> (from Shane) Kendra: >> >> If we intend to have a draft strategy plan for the March Budget General >> Assembly >> in the plenary packet >> >> Not my intention to have an entire draft strategy plan done by March / next >> Plenary. My intention is an introduction of the general idea and what we have >> collected from the locals?so far, and what the state has addressed?so far, and >> any combination there of.? VERY premliminary! >> >> >> , a Jan 31 deadline is reasonable since all of us (or in this case probably >> mostly you)? need to consider and digest the replies to formulate the draft >> strategic plan.---not a short process.? >> >> I agree this is not a short process and so disagree that Jan 31 is reasonable. >> Please trust me when I say that getting responses from local groups in 1 >> month's >> time is just not a reality. This is ever more broad than County Polling and >> that >> took at least 3 months of needling, begging, inspiring, cojoling...over and >> over >> and over and that was a very specific request, whereas this will ignite >> (hopefully!) a whole lot of discussion and debate within the locals. Look how >> long its taking for just the few of us to agree on how to even approach this!. >> >> >> >> ?I also deliberately chose the budget deadline because the co-cos should see >> beforehand any suggested innovations that are in their areas and propose a >> budget for them.? >> >> Again, this is very preliminary....there is not enough time to?think about >> applying budget lines yet. Our working groups ARE thinking about strategy and >> budget lines right now for 2011/2012, and that is a part of the strategic >> planning process, as it always has been, right? The difference in what we are >> attempting here is?asking for direct input from the locals - which, again to >> reiterate is going to take some time.? >> ? >> The Strategic Plan is not going to always be directly tied to funding. Some of >> it is going to be about volunteerism, using free technology (like facebook), >> internal communication, what sort of direction do we generally want to be >> heading, types of campaigns, and so forth. If there is something innovative >> that >> costs money and?comes forward between budgets without any kind of budget line >> from a working group that could be applied to it, then we should have a means >> to >> address that.?Our Bylaws don't address this in full at all and this is in fact >> one of the things that should be on the Strategic Plan!.?Also, any innovations >> that are going to cost money?should have some funding action?attached. Locals >> can raise their own money too. >> ? >> >> ?I suppose the strategic plan could be slated to begin the next budget >> year---that is, 2012--but that is too long to wait in my opinion. >> >> Portions of?a Strategic Plan can be applied right away, some of?it not until >> later. Lets not think of this in terms of an end product...that doesn't >> really?work the best. I'm learning as a non-profit Board?member that usually, >> there?is?planning process like what we're attempting to do now.....an amazing >> document will be created...an "end product"....everyone looks at >> it.....debates.... maybe a final draft is adopted,? then?its filed away in a >> drawer and never looked at again.?I'm hopeful we can look at this as?ever >> evolving and constantly used.?We might not want to?attempt an official > adoption >> per se...getting to THAT point could be endless. Maybe?the way to look at this >> is?as a tool,?a resource,?options to consider....a "roadmap".. >> >> What is your specific alternative time line?? >> >> All throughout 2011 and on-going.?By the Spring Plenary, there could be a > basic >> outline of what we all mostly agree on as the direction we want to head, but >> the >> details on HOW to get there?should be dynamic and allow for flexibility. . >> >> It sounds as if you intend to present the March General Assembly with a draft >> plan cold turkey---something that has much less chance of succeeding. >> >> No...just a basic introduction and outline of what are the most important >> actions that Greens are agreeing on at the local and state levels....so far. >> >> >> We need to get people in the locals and Counties thinking immediately so they >> can reply in? a substantive manner.? A month (January) should be long enough > to >> be able to answer one question.?? >> >> I agree on immediacy to start this process; I would like for an email to go > out >> to County Contact no later than the end of?December.?Its really 3 >> questions.?But,?these are huge questions... >> ? >> How should the GPCA move forward in 2010 / 2011? >> How should the GPCA move forward for the next 5 years? >> How should the GPCA move forward for the next 10 years? >> >> ? >> Kendra Gonzales >> www.vccool.org >> www.cagreens.org/ventura >> "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas >> ?is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned >> Scientists >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:10:11 -0800 (PST) >> From: Kendra Gonzales >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011, >> coordinating committee >> Cc: Bert Heuer >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategizing / Local in-put / using Wiki >> Message-ID:<767873.87881.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> I'm copying the CC on this email thread to address Jim's concern that the CC > is >> the body this is?authorized to conduct?Strategy Planning and that the CC needs >> to be behind this. >> >> >> We've been debating different approaches on the Strategy Plan listserve: >> strategyplan at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan?(to subscribe) >> >> I'm hopeful we can agree to ask 3 very simple questions of the locals: >> >> How does the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012? >> How does the GPCA move forward in 5 years? >> How does the GPCA move forward in 10 years? >> >> At first we were talking about?asking specific questions for the locals to >> answer.?I now agree its better to ask very broad open ended questions like the >> ones above, BUT, "we" can answer the specific questions amongst ourselves (on >> Wiki) and combine those answers with what the locals come back with into one >> place (Wiki) as the basic outline of what will become our Strategic Plan. ? >> >> If this blended approach is agreeable, then I propose we re-draft and email?a >> very simple email to the County Contacts by the end of December, with these 3 >> questions and a request to?post their responses to a virtual space for >> recordingd purposes.?(like Wiki)? with the response timeline to be throughout >> Jan, February, March...in preparation for a very preliminary?Plan outline by >> the >> Plenary. >> >> >> Bert Hauer has kindly volunteered to be our IT person for this data >> collection.?I?have responded to his >> >> questions below in yellow. >> >> To all, >> >> Two points: I volunteered to handle the wiki work and I asked for direction. >> >> I don't see that anyone else is handling this, so I will. If someone ELSE > wants >> to do the wiki thing, or if there is some wiki other than wiki.cagreens.org, >> then say so. Otherwise I am moving forward. >> >> The idea of using Wiki, or something like it, is for Locals to do their OWN >> work >> of typing in their responses. This won't happen across the board of course, > but >> its a start. We may have to do some of the documentation, like copying email >> responses into Wiki for the locals who just wont go there. >> >> >> I want to be supportive of Wiki..of course there is concern it will be shut >> down...what is the likelihood of that?. >> >> >> OK, on to the directions. I am going to ask questions of the CO-CO's on this >> list. The time right now it is 12/16/10 0645.? If you have answers or > opinions, >> please get them to me within 36 hours. >> >> I missed this deadline!. So sorry... >> I suggest that anyone else who is interested in working on this subscribe >> specifically to: >> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan? >> >> >> Definition: >> >> Just so we have names for stuff, I am going to call the entries in the Main >> Page >> "Categories" and each page within an category (other than the Table of > Contents >> - a.k.a. first page beneath the category) is a "topic". >> >> Example categories: "Green 2012", "Props 2010", and "IT" are all existing >> "categories" in the GPCA wiki. >> >> Example topics: within the Props 2010 article, are the "topics" Props2010/18, >> Props2010/19, etc. >> >> Please digest the above. Also, I think my names for these things suck. So if >> someone has a better set of names for use in conversations just like this one, >> then say so and we'll use them. >> >> Use each of the questions to locals (above) as a?Topic? >> ? >> ie: "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012" is a Topic. >> ? >> Use each of the "questions" posted by Shane and Jim, and anything else that is >> brought forward by State level Greens as a?Topic as well?: >> >> ? >> ie: "?What are realistic voter registration goals? >> >> But then....how do we break that out into timelines..."2011/2012", "In 5 >> Years"..."In 10 Years"... >> >> >> ??? Step 1: >> >> Am I creating a new category? Or am I extending the Green 2012 category? >> >> Unless I hear otherwise: I will create a new category named "Moving Forward: A >> Party Strategy" (or something hifalutin like that). Why? Because Green 2012 is >> a >> two year plan and this "strategy thing" seems to have different horizons. >> >> Does Wiki just have the 2 layers of Category and then Topic? >> >> ? >> If so, that is kind of limiting....can we create a whole new Wiki link just > for >> this? >> Or, do we want ONE Wiki for all things Greens for the entire State? Can one >> Wiki >> accomodate everything we do? >> >> ??? Step 2: >> >> Throughout all of the email threads, there have been a number of questions >> suggested. So the next decision is: >> >> (a) Do we want one big topic for the whole thing (broken into sections), >> >> OR >> >> (b) Do we want to break the discussion up into separate topics (ex: one for >> each >> of the questions posed by various co-co's) >> >> Again, depends on what Wiki allows for... >> >> Unless I hear otherwise: I will assume a separate topic for each question. > Why? >> Because I am anal-retentive that way. Also I see it as helping "people who >> contribute" to stay focused (see "direction" below). And so that "people who >> collate" have an easier time of it. >> >> Lets visit this soon unless its already done? Its probley best to all look at >> Wiki together at the same time if we can manage it. Maybe a conference call? >> >> ??? Step 3: >> >> Who do we expect to contribute? County councilpersons? State party Co-co's? CC >> members? Any CA registered Green? Any Green at all? Any person at all? >> >> YES, all.....open, so no one feels left out if they are not on a certain list >> or >> committee or council. >> >> We have to be VERY CLEAR that this request needs to go out further than just >> the >> person who gets the County Contact email.. Plus, we can post it to all of the >> working groups...Cal-Forum, etc.. >> >> I will get in touch with IT and we'll see about logins and rights and such >> like. >> >> ??? Step 4: >> >> I can/will read back through all of the email and create a "question list". I >> can present the "question list" to THIS list for comment. >> >> Sounds Good! >> >> Note the "question list" is needed w/o regard to the decision in Step 2. >> >> Really Note: the "question list" could be just the one question posed by Jim. >> >> I'm not certain what this one question is any more! >> >> >> Though I agree with Kendra: if we ask one question w/o any additional >> direction, >> I fear we will receive responses that are "all over the map". >> >> The direction can come from?the 14 or so Questions that "we've" come up with >> that locals will see on Wiki. So, there is space for them to respond to our >> specifics, and space for them to come up with entirely new or different issues >> we might not be thinking about. I'm all about balancing the 2 approaches. >> >> Really Really Note: If someone else wants to do Step 4, then say so and I > won't >> spend MY time on it. >> >> ??? Step 5: >> >> Assuming I am doing the work, I want to create the wiki category and topic >> page(s) next weekend (12/18..12/19). That is when I have the time. So, if I >> don't hear anything, or if what I do hear are equivocations and ambiguity, > then >> what work I do will be subject to my mind-reading skills (and all overly-harsh >> passive-aggressive post-facto armchair quarterbacking will be met with Bert's >> Standard Two Word Response). >> >> Please get back to me ASAP; let's get this done together, >> >> Bert >> >> >> As always, I may be a day late and a dollar short....its now Monday.....wah. >> >> >> >> >> >> Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>> >>> Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the right >> questions.? >>> Though these are? very relevent issues to raise and thank you Jim and Shane >> (and >>> others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will glaze over....mine >> are!? >>> Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask he locals > ONE >>> question: >>> ? "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?" >>> ? But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the >>> answer(s)! >>> Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it out. If it >>> doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from locals and >>> documenting them somewhere ourselves. >>> ? We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've been >>> bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with from this one >>> very simple question. >>> ? How about it? >>> ? >>> ? >>> Kendra Gonzales >>> www.vccool.org >>> www.cagreens.org/ventura >>> "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas >>> ? is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned >>> Scientists >>> >>> >>> *From:* shane que hee >>> *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org >>> *Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >>> >>> Everyone: >>> >>> Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the >>> Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010 >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> - >>> >>> >>> >>> The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils and >>> >>> Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. >>> >>> >>> >>> In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your written >>> >>> response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you can >>> >>> formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1.. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on fundraising, >>> >>> should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until >> recovery >>> >>> is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all goals > and >>> >>> strategies? >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to a >>> >>> small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of the >> past >>> >>> six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations of >>> >>> about 1,000 too unambitious? >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are realistic >>> >>> electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts in >>> >>> partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? >>> >>> If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on MOST >>> "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is >>> >>> desirable? >>> >>> >>> >>> 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices? >>> >>> >>> >>> 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >>> >>> >>> >>> 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be part >>> >>> of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? >>> >>> >>> >>> 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice voting >>> >>> (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >>> >>> >>> >>> 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the >>> >>> California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the Locals >>> >>> and Counties? >>> >>> >>> >>> 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision process >>> >>> is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well >>> >>> enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state party >>> >>> and the county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over > internal >>> business >>> >>> to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a viable >>> >>> plan for growth? >>> >>> >>> >>> 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in GPCA? How >>> >>> should the current system be changed for the better? >>> >>> >>> >>> 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >> factors >>> >>> have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >>> >>> >>> >>> 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? What >>> resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What specific >>> services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How >> should >>> the current system be changed? >>> >>> >>> >>> 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what should >>> replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >>> >>> >>> >>> 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about our future not >> covered >>> above in the previous 13 questions? Please provide your >>> assessments/perspectives.. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed GPCA >>> strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary > packet >>> for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010 >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> - >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you wrote: >>> ?> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >>> ?>? ? ? ? strategyplan at cagreens.org >>> ?> >>> ?> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> ?>? ? ? ? http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> ?> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> ?>? ? ? ? strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >>> >>> ?> >>> ?> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> ?>? ? ? ? strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >>> >>> ?> >>> ?> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> ?> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >>> ?> >>> ?> >>> ?> Today's Topics: >>> ?> >>> ?>? ? 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >>> ?>? ? ? (Jim Stauffer) >>> ?>? ? 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >>> ?> >>> ?> >>> ?> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ?> >>> ?> Message: 1 >>> ?> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800 >>> ?> From: Jim Stauffer> >>> ?> To: GPCA Strategy Planning>> > >>> ?> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, >>> ?>? ? ? ? Issue 4 >>> ?> Message-ID:<4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org >>> > >>> ?> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>> ?> >>> ?> I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this. >>> ?> >>> ?> Jim >>> ?> >>> ?> >>> ?> >>> ?> >>> ?> >>> ?> On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote: >>> ?> > Kendra/Jim: >>> ?> > >>> ?> > I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible. >>> ?> > >>> ?> > I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail >>> listserve >>> ?> > by the end of January. >>> ?> > >>> ?> > We might then do a wiki. >>> ?> > >>> ?> > >>> ?> > All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts > is: >>> ?> > >>> ?> > "The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils > and >>> ?> > Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections. >>> ?> > >>> ?> > .In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like your >>> written >>> ?> > response by January 31 2011 to the following questions that we hope you >>> can >>> ?> > formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as appropriate: >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on >> fundraising, >>> ?> > should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a "survival plan" until >>> recovery >>> ?> > is tangible (e.g. unemployment below 8%)? How would this affect all >> goals >>> and >>> ?> > strategies? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts people to >> a >>> ?> > small party? What caused the California Green registration decline of >> the >>> past >>> ?> > six years, can it be reversed? Was the 2010 election new registrations >> of >>> ?> > about 1,000 too unambitious? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are >>> realistic >>> ?> > electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we continue attempts > in >>> ?> > partisan races or focus on non-partisan races? >>> ?> > If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus on >>> MOST >>> ?> > "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and effort split is >>> ?> > desirable? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan >>> offices? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue to be >>> part >>> ?> > of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for the lawsuit? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote ranked-choice >> voting >>> ?> > (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation)? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of the >>> ?> > California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level of the >>> Locals >>> ?> > and Counties? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking decision >>> process >>> ?> > is an experiment that we've carried on for 20 years. Is it working well >>> ?> > enough? Is there a good balance of responsibilities between the state >>> party >>> ?> > and the >>> ?> > county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over internal >>> business >>> ?> > to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely on volunteer labor a >>> viable >>> ?> > plan for growth? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in > GPCA? >>> How >>> ?> > should the current system be changed for the better? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties? What >>> factors >>> ?> > have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state party? >> What >>> ?> > resources does the state party need from Locals and Counties? What >>> specific >>> ?> > services/mutual agreements do Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? >> How >>> ?> > should the current system be changed? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > 13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what > should >>> ?> > replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective? >>> ?> > >>> ?> > Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org >>> . >>> ?> > >>> ?> > We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting proposed >> GPCA >>> ?> > strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General Assembly Plenary >>> packet >>> ?> > for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010" >>> ?> > >>> ?> > ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010 >>> ?> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> >>> ?> > >>> ?> > >>> ?> > >>> ?> > At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >>> wrote: >>> ?> >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >>> ?> >> strategyplan at cagreens.org >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> ?> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> ?> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> ?> >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >>> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> ?> >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> ?> >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> Today's Topics: >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales) >>> ?> >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales) >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> Message: 1 >>> ?> >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) >>> ?> >> From: Kendra Gonzales>> > >>> ?> >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011>> > >>> ?> >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward >>> ?> >> Message-ID:<601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com >>> > >>> ?> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process: >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> (by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?) >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> Hi Gloria, >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> Thank you for the endorsement of the survey. >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is GPCA >>> specific, >>> ?> >> and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the GPCA >> has >>> been >>> ?> >> available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks >> who's >>> ?> >> addresses I have. >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in the >>> next 72 >>> ?> >> hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And > I'll >>> keep >>> ?> >> the >>> ?> >> survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays. >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on >> CAGreens-Test >>> also >>> ?> >> very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org. >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.? It >> will >>> ?> >> "point >>> ?> >> to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If all >>> goes >>> ?> >> well >>> ?> >> the domain registration will allow people to web search for things > like >>> this >>> ?> >> survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't know > is >>> there. >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature I >>> ?> >> discovered >>> ?> >> just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! Potentially > one >>> can >>> ?> >> look >>> ?> >> at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site >>> ?> >> builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their >>> site.? >>> ?> >> Check >>> ?> >> it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu. >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >>> ?> >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>> ?> >> www.cagreenideas.org . >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward >>> ?> >> San Francisco >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> -------------- next part -------------- >>> ?> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> ?> >> URL: >>> ?> >> >>> > 212/096bcb59/attachment-0001.html> >>> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> ------------------------------ >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> Message: 2 >>> ?> >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) >>> ?> >> From: Kendra Gonzales>> > >>> ?> >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011>> > >>> ?> >> Cc: Barry Hermanson>> >, Barry Hermanson >>> ?> >> > >>> ?> >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >>> ?> >> Message-ID:<181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com >>> > >>> ?> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> Hello all, >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > Contacts....its >>> not at >>> ?> >> all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we >> really >>> ?> >> simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items or >>> questions >>> ?> >> for their consideration. >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed when >>> reading >>> ?> >> it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that >>> email >>> ?> >> communication warrants a short and to the point approach because its >> just >>> too >>> ?> >> easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same >> problem >>> ?> >> myself >>> ?> >> and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake! >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >> items >>> so we >>> ?> >> can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we >>> document >>> ?> >> everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one >>> ?> >> but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we use?it >>> for the >>> ?> >> larger picture stuff >> too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.? >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >>> ?> >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her >>> own >>> ?> >> platform: >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >>> ?> >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>> ?> >> www.cagreenideas.org . >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he >> was >>> going >>> ?> >> to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best >>> approach. >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> Kendra Gonzales >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> -------------- next part -------------- >>> ?> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> ?> >> URL: >>> ?> >> >>> > 212/f9cf4a9f/attachment-0001.html> >>> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> ------------------------------ >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> _______________________________________________ >>> ?> >> StrategyPlan mailing list >>> ?> >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>> ?> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> >>> ?> >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 >>> ?> >> ****************************************** >>> ?> > >>> ?> > _______________________________________________ >>> ?> > gpca-cocos mailing list >>> ?> > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >>> ?> > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >>> ?> > >>> ?> >>> ?> >>> ?> ------------------------------ >>> ?> >>> ?> Message: 2 >>> ?> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800 >>> ?> From: Jim Stauffer> >>> ?> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >>> ?> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing >>> ?> Message-ID:<4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org >>> > >>> ?> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>> ?> >>> ?> We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 >> issues >>> ?> (each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, >> you've >>> ?> just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for this >> exercise. >>> ?> That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by >>> ?> itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is for >> them >>> ?> to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them? >>> ?> >>> ?> Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas > they >>> ?> have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the referenced >> list >>> of >>> ?> issues, then they're telling us they agree. >>> ?> >>> ?> If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of >>> issues, >>> ?> let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than >>> asking >>> ?> for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and >>> documenting. >>> ?> >>> ?> You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we >>> raise." >>> ?> I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking >> about. >>> ?> >>> ?> As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility >> to >>> ?> produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at a >> GA. >>> We >>> ?> haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and >> analyze >>> ?> the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for you. >>> Whether >>> ?> by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We >> may >>> ?> get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual responses. > We >>> ?> need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official >>> ?> responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers. >>> ?> >>> ?> As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the >> number >>> of >>> ?> years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in the >>> ?> response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the >> Locals >>> ?> before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to >>> ?> postponing this to the Summer. >>> ?> >>> ?> Jim >>> ?> >>> ?> >>> ?> >>> ?> On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>> ?> > my responses in yellow below >>> ?> > >>> ?> > Kendra Gonzales >>> ?> > >>> ?> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ----------- >>> ?> > >>> ?> > >>> ?> *From:* Jim Stauffer> >>> ?> > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning>> > *Sent:* Mon, >>> ?> > December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach >> to >>> ?> > Strategizing >>> ?> > >>> ?> > Kendra - >>> ?> > >>> ?> > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say > it's >>> ?> > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to >>> send >>> ?> > a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con >> statements >>> ?> > on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the >> issues >>> ?> > we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties > what >>> ?> > issues the state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree. >>> ?> >>> ?> > Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, >> _just >>> ?> > as a starting point..._just as some kind of reference or example of > what >> a >>> ?> >? Strategic Plan might include - just as you suggest. >>> ?> > >>> ?> > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of >>> ?> > topics we want discussed. Again, exactly my point. All we are asking >>> locals >>> ?> > to do is consider the issues we raise. They may throw them right out as >>> ?> > being irrelevent, though I doubt that. Of course, we also ask for their >>> ?> > ideas. >>> ?> > >>> ?> > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA >>> ?> > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that >>> ?> > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects >> like >>> ?> > this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of >>> ?> > issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down. I agree with the >>> ?> > whittling down >>> ?> > >>> ?> > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to >> the >>> ?> > CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I >> don't >>> ?> > want to spend a lot of time on it. >>> ?> >>> ?> > So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are >> responsible >>> ?> > for putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you >> propose >>> ?> > that would be?. I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can >> have >>> ?> > an opportunity to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they >>> don't, >>> ?> > then fine...the CC can do it for them. >>> ?> > >>> ?> > >>> ?> > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed: >>> ?> > >>> ?> > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment. >>> ?> > >>> ?> > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues. Why not do both?. Send >> 10 >>> ?> > "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask for THEIR ideas too. >>> That's >>> ?> > the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint. The 10 (or >> so) >>> ?> > items are just suggestions. >>> ?> > >>> ?> > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no >>> ?> > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first >>> ?> > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from >> the >>> ?> > CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until > after >>> ?> > the Spring GA. >>> ?> >>> ?> > I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and >> simply >>> ?> > opening up lines of communication. We would waste the entire first >> quarter >>> ?> > of 2011 waiting for the GA and then we certainly don't have all of our >>> ?> > locals represented there. One of the benefits of this proposal > happening >>> ?> > now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to offer plenty of opportunity > for >>> ?> > locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time for us to do >>> ?> > follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s). I would also >> like >>> ?> > to hear back from others please. The 10 suggested items and Wiki seem > to >>> be >>> ?> > the only thing we disagree on. Getting close! >>> ?> > >>> ?> > >>> ?> > >>> ?> > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>> ?> > >>> ?> >> Hello all, >>> ?> > >>> ?> >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County > Contacts....its >>> ?> >> not at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest >> we >>> ?> >> really simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic >> items >>> ?> >> or questions for their consideration. >>> ?> > >>> ?> >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when >>> ?> >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've >> found >>> ?> >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach >>> ?> >> because its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, >> I >>> ?> >> have the same problem myself and need to really edit things down for >>> ?> >> simplicity's sake! >>> ?> > >>> ?> >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action >>> ?> >> items so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How >> do >>> ?> >> we document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has >>> ?> >> created one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. >> Can >>> ?> >> we use it for the larger picture stuff too? >>> ?> >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012. >>> ?> > >>> ?> >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together? >>> ?> > >>> ?> >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her >>> ?> >> own platform: >>> ?> > >>> ?> >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test. >>> ?> >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or >>> ?> >> www.cagreenideas.org . >>> ?> > >>> ?> >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he >> was >>> ?> >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a >>> ?> >> best approach. >>> ?> > >>> ?> >> Kendra Gonzales >>> ?> >> >>> ?> > >>> ?> > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >> list >>> ?> > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>> > >>> ?> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> ?> > >>> ?> > >>> ?> > >>> ?> > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing >> list >>> ?> > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>> ?> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> ?> >>> ?> >>> ?> ------------------------------ >>> ?> >>> ?> _______________________________________________ >>> ?> StrategyPlan mailing list >>> ?> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>> ?> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> ?> >>> ?> >>> ?> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7 >>> ?> ****************************************** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> StrategyPlan mailing list >>> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gpca-cocos mailing list >>> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> StrategyPlan mailing list >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 >> ******************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Mon Dec 27 14:30:02 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:30:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] Final? Draft re Strategizing Message-ID: <785695.35467.qm@web56905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: 1)?A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out?asap with the CCs blessing. 3) The Wiki Pages for posting?the feedback from?Counties will be added shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org. This is?being used?for?Green documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 Propsal, so is a logical "place" for longer term Strategy as well. 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties to get their feedback to us via Wiki?or the Strategy Listserve (as back-up) so we'll have enough time to gather the feedback into something presentable at the Spring Plenary. DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: Fellow Greens, 2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. Green Party California?is very excited about?creating the "GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! ? We have?very basic questions to ask Greens in?every County: What can?Green Party California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? What?can Green Party California accomplish in the next?5 years? How? What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 10 years? How? Please forward this email to your local email lists, present?this at your next meeting, or however else you might share this exciting proejct with other Greens. We'd like to collect your responses, blend them with things?we've been talking about and create a draft?outline?GPCA Strategic Action Plan for our?Spring Plenary. This?document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs to be something useful for all of us as we plan ahead. We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: http://wiki.cagreens.org.? Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) Choose "GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" Type your input directly on to the Page(s) of your choice. You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be specific,?please set realistic goals that are action based. We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses: ?http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin approval to subscribe. The address to send a message to this list is strategyplan at cagreens.org. Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please give it a try! Please post your input on Wiki no later than the End of February. We look forward to hearing from you........ Let's get this Party started!! -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From squehee at ucla.edu Mon Dec 27 15:28:27 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:28:27 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing Message-ID: <201012272328.oBRNSEBd030276@mail.ucla.edu> >Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:22:54 -0800 >To: Kendra Gonzales , coordinating >committee , GPCA Cocos >, Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 > >From: shane que hee >Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing > >Kendra: > >My suggestions are in UPPER CASE.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 27 2010 >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >At 02:30 PM 12/27/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >> From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: >> >>1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. >> >>2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out asap with >>the CCs blessing. >> >>3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties will be >>added shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. >> >>4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org. >>This is being used for Green documents including Marnie Glickman's >>Green 2012 PROPOSAL Propsal, so is a logical "place" for longer >>term Strategy as well. >> >>4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties to get >>their feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as >>back-up) so we'll have enough time to gather the feedback into >>something presentable at the Spring Plenary. >> >>DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: >> >>Fellow Greens, >> >>2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. >> >>THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating the >>"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". >> >>Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! >> >>We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: IN VIEW >>OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE CORPORATE FUNDS >> >>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? >>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 5 years? How? >>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 10 years? How? >> >>Please forward this MESSAGE email to your local email lists, >>present AND DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, >>or however else you WANT TO might share this exciting PROJECT >>proejct with other LOCAL Greens. >> >>We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with things >>we've been talking >>about and create a draft outline GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR >>EACH TIME PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. . > >Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?), be specific, >AND please set >realistic goals that are action based. THEN SEND US YOUR CREATIONS. > > >>This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and >>needs to be something >>useful for all of us as we plan ahead. >> >>We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: >>http://wiki.cagreens.org. >>Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) >>Choose "GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" >>Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the Page(s) >>of your choice. >>You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. >> >>Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be specific, please set >>realistic goals that are action based. >> >>We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF YOU PREFER: >> >>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin >>approval to subscribe. >>The address to send a message to this list is >>strategyplan at cagreens.org. >> >>Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please >>give it a try! >> >>Please post your input on Wiki no later than the End of February. >This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs >to be something >useful for all of us as we plan ahead. > > >>We look forward to hearing from you........ >> >>Let's get this Party started!! >> >> >>-GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee >> >> JANUARY 3 2010 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>gpca-cocos mailing list >>gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >>http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From squehee at ucla.edu Mon Dec 27 15:22:54 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:22:54 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing In-Reply-To: <785695.35467.qm@web56905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <785695.35467.qm@web56905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <201012272322.oBRNMiTJ018282@mail.ucla.edu> Kendra: My suggestions are in UPPER CASE.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 27 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 02:30 PM 12/27/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: > >1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. > >2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out asap with >the CCs blessing. > >3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties will be >added shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. > >4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org. >This is being used for Green documents including Marnie Glickman's >Green 2012 PROPOSAL Propsal, so is a logical "place" for longer >term Strategy as well. > >4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties to get >their feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as back-up) >so we'll have enough time to gather the feedback into something >presentable at the Spring Plenary. > >DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: > >Fellow Greens, > >2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. > >THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating the >"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". > >Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! > >We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: IN VIEW >OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE CORPORATE FUNDS > >What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? >What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 5 years? How? >What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 10 years? How? > >Please forward this MESSAGE email to your local email lists, present >AND DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, >or however else you WANT TO might share this exciting PROJECT >proejct with other LOCAL Greens. > >We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with things >we've been talking >about and create a draft outline GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH >TIME PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. . Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?), be specific, AND please set realistic goals that are action based. THEN SEND US YOUR CREATIONS. >This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs >to be something >useful for all of us as we plan ahead. > >We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: >http://wiki.cagreens.org. >Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) >Choose "GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" >Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the Page(s) >of your choice. >You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. > >Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be specific, please set >realistic goals that are action based. > >We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF YOU PREFER: > >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin >approval to subscribe. >The address to send a message to this list is >strategyplan at cagreens.org. > >Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please give it a try! > >Please post your input on Wiki no later than the End of February. This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs to be something useful for all of us as we plan ahead. >We look forward to hearing from you........ > >Let's get this Party started!! > > >-GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee > > JANUARY 3 2010 > >_______________________________________________ >gpca-cocos mailing list >gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Mon Dec 27 17:39:17 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:39:17 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing Message-ID: <4D193FC5.9000208@greens.org> Shane - A couple of these comments I don't agree with: " IN VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE CORPORATE FUNDS" These issues really aren't the basis for setting future goals, at least no more than a myriad of other issues. ------------- "We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with things we've been talking about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH TIME PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. ." We should not ask Locals to create an outline of a strategy plan. That's the work of the state party. We would simply want their input on ideas. I'd stay with Kendra's original text. Jim > Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:22:54 -0800 > To: Kendra Gonzales , coordinating committee > , GPCA Cocos , Green Party > Strategy Jan 2011 > From: shane que hee > Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing > > Kendra: > > My suggestions are in UPPER CASE.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 27 2010 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > At 02:30 PM 12/27/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >> From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: >> >> 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. >> >> 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out asap with the CCs >> blessing. >> >> 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties will be added >> shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. >> >> 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org. This is being used for Green >> documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 PROPOSAL Propsal, so is a >> logical "place" for longer term Strategy as well. >> >> 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties to get their >> feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as back-up) so we'll >> have enough time to gather the feedback into something presentable at the >> Spring Plenary. >> >> DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: >> >> Fellow Greens, >> >> *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. >> * >> THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating the >> _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". >> _ >> */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! >> >> /*We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: IN VIEW OF >> THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE CORPORATE FUNDS >> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 5 years? How? >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 10 years? How? >> >> Please forward this MESSAGE email to your local email lists, present AND >> DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, >> or however else you WANT TO might share this exciting PROJECT proejct with >> other LOCAL Greens. >> >> We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with things we've been >> talking >> about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH >> TIME PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. . > > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?), be specific, AND please > set > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. THEN SEND US YOUR CREATIONS. > > >> This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs to be >> something >> _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. >> >> We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: >> http://wiki.cagreens.org. >> Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) >> Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" >> _Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the Page(s) of >> your choice. >> You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. >> >> Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be specific, please set >> *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. >> >> We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF YOU PREFER: >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin >> approval to subscribe. >> The address to send a message to this list is strategyplan at cagreens.org >> . >> >> Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please give it a try! >> >> Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of February. _* > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs to be > something > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. > > >> We look forward to hearing from you........ >> >> */Let's get this Party started!! >> /* >> >> -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee >> >> JANUARY 3 2010 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gpca-cocos mailing list >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list StrategyPlan at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at greens.org Mon Dec 27 17:53:56 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:53:56 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] Final? Draft re Strategizing In-Reply-To: <785695.35467.qm@web56905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <785695.35467.qm@web56905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D194334.3020602@greens.org> A couple of corrections: Our official name is "The Green Party of California" and it should be used in all correspondence. The acronym, GPCA, can be used after the first occurrence of the full name. On wiki.cagreens, they do not actually have to create an account to enter comments. Verify this with Bert, but I'm pretty sure that's what we discovered last time. The StrategyPlan list is open posting. Greens do not have to subscribe to the list to post. And one suggestion -- include "goals" in the opening line. I've long argued that you can't devise a strategy without first setting a goal. "2011 is the ideal time to set goals for the party and develop strategies to implement them." As a final comment, I'm sorry to see that this exercise will not be used as a tool to get Locals to have a combined meeting. I thinks there's a lot of benefit to that: neighboring counties get to meet each other; the responses are more condensed / less duplication; and I think we'd get a better quality of response. Jim On 12/27/2010 2:30 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: > 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. > 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out asap with the CCs > blessing. > > 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties will be added > shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. > 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org. This is being used for Green > documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 Propsal, so is a logical > "place" for longer term Strategy as well. > 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties to get their > feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as back-up) so we'll have > enough time to gather the feedback into something presentable at the Spring > Plenary. > > DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: > Fellow Greens, > *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!.* > Green Party California is very excited about creating the > _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". _ > */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!!/* > *//* > We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: > What can Green Party California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 5 years? How? > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 10 years? How? > Please forward this email to your local email lists, present this at your next > meeting, > or however else you might share this exciting proejct with other Greens. > We'd like to collect your responses, blend them with things we've been talking > about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action Plan for our Spring > Plenary. > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs to be > something > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. > We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: > http://wiki.cagreens.org. > Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) > Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond"_ > Type your input directly on to the Page(s) of your choice. > You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be specific, please set > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. > We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses: > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin approval > to subscribe. > The address to send a message to this list is strategyplan at cagreens.org > . > > Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please give it a try! > Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of February. _* > We look forward to hearing from you........ > */Let's get this Party started!!/* > -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee > > > > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan From squehee at ucla.edu Tue Dec 28 00:30:04 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:30:04 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing Message-ID: <201012280829.oBS8TocU026922@mail.ucla.edu> Everyone: Looks as if my deletions did not show. Here is a clean copy of my suggested version....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: >>> >>>Fellow Greens, >>> >>>2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. >>> >>>THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating >>>the "GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". >>> >>>Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! >>> >>>We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: IN >>>VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE >>>CORPORATE FUNDS >>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 5 years? How? >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 10 years? How? >>> >>>Please forward this MESSAGE to your local lists, present AND >>>DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, or however you WANT TO share >>>this exciting PROJECT with other LOCAL Greens. >>> >>>We'd like YOU to collect your responses, and create a draft >>>outline GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH TIME PERIOD >> >>Please keep your answers short (300 words or less), be specific, >>AND please set realistic goals that are action based. >> >>THEN SEND US YOUR CREATIONS. >> >>>We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: >>>http://wiki.cagreens.org. >>>Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) >>>Choose "GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" >>>Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the >>>Page(s) of your choice. >>>You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. >>> >>>We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF YOU PREFER: >>> >>>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need >>>admin approval to subscribe. >>>The address to send a message to this list is >>>strategyplan at cagreens.org. >>> >>>Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please >>>give it a try! >>> >>>Please post your input on Wiki no later than the End of >>>February SO WE CAN PRESENT AND DISCUSS ALL THE INPUT AT THE >>>SPRING BUDGET GENERAL ASSEMBLY >> >>This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and >>needs to be something useful for all of us as we plan ahead. >>> >>>We look forward to hearing from you........ >>> >>>Let's get this Party started!! >>> >>> >>>-GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee >>> >>> JANUARY 3 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From squehee at ucla.edu Tue Dec 28 01:01:13 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 01:01:13 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012280900.oBS90xgG009121@mail.ucla.edu> Jim: My responses are in square parentheses ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 12:30 AM 12/28/2010, you wrote: >Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > strategyplan at cagreens.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > 2. Re: Final? Draft re Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > 3. Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing (shane que hee) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:39:17 -0800 >From: Jim Stauffer >To: GPCA Strategy Planning >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing >Message-ID: <4D193FC5.9000208 at greens.org> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > >Shane - > >A couple of these comments I don't agree with: > > >" IN VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE >CORPORATE FUNDS" > >These issues really aren't the basis for setting future goals, at least no >more than a myriad of other issues.[I agree they are not the basis-- >they are our constraints on our plans] > >"We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with things we've been >talking >about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH TIME >PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. ." > >We should not ask Locals to create an outline of a strategy plan. That's the >work of the state party. We would simply want their input on ideas. I'd stay >with Kendra's original text. [That is Kendra's original text. Does >she want 3 plans or not? I would think so. I deleted "blend them >with things we've been talking about" because the Counties have had >no idea what we hjave been talking about. I think thast phrase will >confise them.] > >Jim > > > > Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:22:54 -0800 > > To: Kendra Gonzales , coordinating committee > > , GPCA Cocos , Green Party > > Strategy Jan 2011 > > From: shane que hee > > Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing > > > > Kendra: > > > > My suggestions are in UPPER CASE.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 27 2010 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > At 02:30 PM 12/27/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > >> From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: > >> > >> 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. > >> > >> 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out asap with the CCs > >> blessing. > >> > >> 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties will be added > >> shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. > >> > >> 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org. This is being used for Green > >> documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 > PROPOSAL Propsal, so is a > >> logical "place" for longer term Strategy as well. > >> > >> 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties to get their > >> feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as back-up) so we'll > >> have enough time to gather the feedback into something presentable at the > >> Spring Plenary. > >> > >> DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: > >> > >> Fellow Greens, > >> > >> *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. > >> * > >> THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating the > >> _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". > >> _ > >> */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! > >> > >> /*We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: IN VIEW OF > >> THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE CORPORATE FUNDS > >> > >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? > >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 5 > years? How? > >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 10 > years? How? > >> > >> Please forward this MESSAGE email to your local email lists, present AND > >> DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, > >> or however else you WANT TO might share this exciting PROJECT > proejct with > >> other LOCAL Greens. > >> > >> We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with things > we've been > >> talking > >> about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH > >> TIME PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. . > > > > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?), be specific, > AND please > > set > > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. THEN SEND US YOUR > CREATIONS. > > > > > >> This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and > needs to be > >> something > >> _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. > >> > >> We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: > >> http://wiki.cagreens.org. > >> Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) > >> Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" > >> _Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the Page(s) of > >> your choice. > >> You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. > >> > >> Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be specific, > please set > >> *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. > >> > >> We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF > YOU PREFER: > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >> The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin > >> approval to subscribe. > >> The address to send a message to this list is strategyplan at cagreens.org > >> . > >> > >> Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please > give it a try! > >> > >> Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of February. _* > > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs to be > > something > > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. > > > > > >> We look forward to hearing from you........ > >> > >> */Let's get this Party started!! > >> /* > >> > >> -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee > >> > >> JANUARY 3 2010 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gpca-cocos mailing list > >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > >_______________________________________________ >StrategyPlan mailing list >StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:53:56 -0800 >From: Jim Stauffer >To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] Final? Draft re Strategizing >Message-ID: <4D194334.3020602 at greens.org> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >A couple of corrections: > >Our official name is "The Green Party of California" and it should be used in >all correspondence. The acronym, GPCA, can be used after the first occurrence >of the full name. > >On wiki.cagreens, they do not actually have to create an account to enter >comments. Verify this with Bert, but I'm pretty sure that's what we >discovered >last time. > >The StrategyPlan list is open posting. Greens do not have to subscribe to the >list to post. > > >And one suggestion -- include "goals" in the opening line. I've long argued >that you can't devise a strategy without first setting a goal. > >"2011 is the ideal time to set goals for the party and develop strategies to >implement them." > > >As a final comment, I'm sorry to see that this exercise will not be used as a >tool to get Locals to have a combined meeting. I thinks there's a lot of >benefit to that: neighboring counties get to meet each other; the responses >are more condensed / less duplication; and I think we'd get a better quality >of response. > > >Jim > > >On 12/27/2010 2:30 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: > > 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. > > 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out asap with the CCs > > blessing. > > > > 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties will be added > > shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. > > 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org. This is being used for Green > > documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 Propsal, so is a logical > > "place" for longer term Strategy as well. > > 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties to get their > > feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as back-up) so > we'll have > > enough time to gather the feedback into something presentable at the Spring > > Plenary. > > > > DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: > > Fellow Greens, > > *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!.* > > Green Party California is very excited about creating the > > _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". _ > > */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!!/* > > *//* > > We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: > > What can Green Party California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? > > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 5 years? How? > > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 10 years? How? > > Please forward this email to your local email lists, present this > at your next > > meeting, > > or however else you might share this exciting proejct with other Greens. > > We'd like to collect your responses, blend them with things we've > been talking > > about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action Plan > for our Spring > > Plenary. > > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs to be > > something > > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. > > We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: > > http://wiki.cagreens.org. > > Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) > > Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond"_ > > Type your input directly on to the Page(s) of your choice. > > You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. > > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be specific, please set > > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. > > We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses: > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need > admin approval > > to subscribe. > > The address to send a message to this list is strategyplan at cagreens.org > > . > > > > Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please > give it a try! > > Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of February. _* > > We look forward to hearing from you........ > > */Let's get this Party started!!/* > > -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > StrategyPlan mailing list > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:30:04 -0800 >From: shane que hee >To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing >Message-ID: <201012280829.oBS8TocU026922 at mail.ucla.edu> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" > >Everyone: > >Looks as if my deletions did not show. Here is a clean copy of my >suggested version....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: > >>> > >>>Fellow Greens, > >>> > >>>2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. > >>> > >>>THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating > >>>the "GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". > >>> > >>>Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! > >>> > >>>We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: IN > >>>VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE > >>>CORPORATE FUNDS > >>> > >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? > >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 5 > years? How? > >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 10 > years? How? > >>> > >>>Please forward this MESSAGE to your local lists, present AND > >>>DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, or however you WANT TO share > >>>this exciting PROJECT with other LOCAL Greens. > >>> > >>>We'd like YOU to collect your responses, and create a draft > >>>outline GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH TIME PERIOD > >> > >>Please keep your answers short (300 words or less), be specific, > >>AND please set realistic goals that are action based. > >> > >>THEN SEND US YOUR CREATIONS. > >> > >>>We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: > >>>http://wiki.cagreens.org. > >>>Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) > >>>Choose "GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" > >>>Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the > >>>Page(s) of your choice. > >>>You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. > >>> > >>>We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF > YOU PREFER: > >>> > >>>http://l > ists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >>>The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need > >>>admin approval to subscribe. > >>>The address to send a message to this list is > >>>strategyplan at cagreens.org. > >>> > >>>Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please > >>>give it a try! > >>> > >>>Please post your input on Wiki no later than the End of > >>>February SO WE CAN PRESENT AND DISCUSS ALL THE INPUT AT THE > >>>SPRING BUDGET GENERAL ASSEMBLY > >> > >>This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and > >>needs to be something useful for all of us as we plan ahead. > >>> > >>>We look forward to hearing from you........ > >>> > >>>Let's get this Party started!! > >>> > >>> > >>>-GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee > >>> > >>> JANUARY 3 2010 > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >StrategyPlan mailing list >StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 >******************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From earthworks_works at yahoo.com Wed Dec 29 17:20:57 2010 From: earthworks_works at yahoo.com (Kendra Gonzales) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:20:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan In-Reply-To: <201012290704.oBT74NWt009454@mail.ucla.edu> References: <201012280904.oBS94hd5032499@mail.ucla.edu> <4D1AB14B.1050800@greens.org> <201012290704.oBT74NWt009454@mail.ucla.edu> Message-ID: <349176.26741.qm@web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Its?never been my intent to ask the Locals for a complete Strategy Plan...isn't?that?our?role at GPCA?.? I?will revise the?draft incorporating a couple of suggestions and get that out?shortly.?I haven't heard from anyone else on these 3 listserves. I've yet to connect with Bert re Wiki, but its certainly on both?of our radars. I honestly don't want to spend another week?creating the perfect email because no such thing exists...if the?Locals ask for direction, we can offer it.?Keeping it open like it is now?might certainly open the flood gates, but there might be some amazing?ideas that come forward as well.??I think we are?suffering from analysis paralysis and I just want to get?this done!. The locals might not even read the damn thing. ? Kendra Gonzales ________________________________ From: shane que hee To: Jim Stauffer ; gpca-cocos at cagreens.org; gpca-cc at cagreens.org Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 11:04:40 PM Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 Jim: The Green Party by refusing donations from large corporations has imposed its own constraint so that any plan has to be low cost, practical,and almost 100% volunteer driven. I don't need a discussion to arrive at this conclusion. Prop 14 and the other results of the 2010 California election have to be borne in mind while creating a practical plan.? That is a constraint. We both know we will get pie in the sky answers anyway from certain sectors. Leaving context out will invite more of that. My 14-question approach minimized the pie in the sky factor but that was outvoted.? But that is fine. Kendra asked for a draft plan to reach the suggested accomplishments---ask her.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 07:55 PM 12/28/2010, Jim Stauffer wrote: > This is certainly an example of why this project has been two months of >never-ending debate. > > These are the constraints of setting goals? Says who? I don't remember any >discussion that established that. Seems to me we could write a lengthy list of >practical constraints that we have to overcome to grow the party. None of which >have any place in a message inviting locals to contribute to a goal-setting >exercise. > > I don't understand you're comment about asking the locals to write a draft >plan. This has never been about asking for that. We're asking them to tell us >what they think the party should accomplish by certain time intervals, i.e. >setting goals. This is input for the CC to perform it's task of creating a >strategic plan for the party. > > How much more time do you want to spend on this? > > Jim > > > > > On 12/28/2010 1:04 AM, shane que hee wrote: >> >>> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 01:01:13 -0800 >>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >>> From: shane que hee >>> Subject: Re: StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 >>> >>> Jim: >>> >>> My responses are in square parentheses ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>- >>> >>> >>> At 12:30 AM 12/28/2010, you wrote: >>>> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >>>> strategyplan at cagreens.org >>>> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >>>> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >>>> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >>>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >>>> 2. Re: Final? Draft re Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >>>> 3. Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing (shane que hee) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:39:17 -0800 >>>> From: Jim Stauffer >>>> To: GPCA Strategy Planning >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing >>>> Message-ID: <4D193FC5.9000208 at greens.org> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" >>>> >>>> Shane - >>>> >>>> A couple of these comments I don't agree with: >>>> >>>> >>>> " IN VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE >>>> CORPORATE FUNDS" >>>> >>>> These issues really aren't the basis for setting future goals, at least no >>>> more than a myriad of other issues.[I agree they are not the basis-- they >>>> are our constraints on our plans] >>>> >>>> "We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with things we've been >>>> talking >>>> about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH >TIME >>>> PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. ." >>>> >>>> We should not ask Locals to create an outline of a strategy plan. That's the >>>> work of the state party. We would simply want their input on ideas. I'd stay >>>> with Kendra's original text. [That is Kendra's original text. Does she want >>>> 3 plans or not? I would think so. I deleted "blend them with things we've >>>> been talking about" because the Counties have had no idea what we hjave >>>> been talking about. I think thast phrase will confise them.] >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> >>>> > Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:22:54 -0800 >>>> > To: Kendra Gonzales , coordinating committee >>>> > , GPCA Cocos , Green Party >>>> > Strategy Jan 2011 >>>> > From: shane que hee >>>> > Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing >>>> > >>>> > Kendra: >>>> > >>>> > My suggestions are in UPPER CASE.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 27 2010 >>>> > >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>- >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > At 02:30 PM 12/27/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>>> >> From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: >>>> >> >>>> >> 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. >>>> >> >>>> >> 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out asap with the CCs >>>> >> blessing. >>>> >> >>>> >> 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties will be added >>>> >> shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. >>>> >> >>>> >> 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org . >>>> This is being used for Green >>>> >> documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 PROPOSAL Propsal, so is >a >>>> >> logical "place" for longer term Strategy as well. >>>> >> >>>> >> 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties to get their >>>> >> feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as back-up) so we'll >>>> >> have enough time to gather the feedback into something presentable at the >>>> >> Spring Plenary. >>>> >> >>>> >> DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: >>>> >> >>>> >> Fellow Greens, >>>> >> >>>> >> *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. >>>> >> * >>>> >> THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating the >>>> >> _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". >>>> >> _ >>>> >> */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! >>>> >> >>>> >> /*We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: IN VIEW OF >>>> >> THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE CORPORATE >FUNDS >>>> >> >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 5 years? >>How? >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 10 years? >>>How? >>>> >> >>>> >> Please forward this MESSAGE email to your local email lists, present AND >>>> >> DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, >>>> >> or however else you WANT TO might share this exciting PROJECT proejct >with >>>> >> other LOCAL Greens. >>>> >> >>>> >> We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with things we've >been >>>> >> talking >>>> >> about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH >>>> >> TIME PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. . >>>> > >>>> > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?), be specific, AND >>please >>>> > set >>>> > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. THEN SEND US YOUR >CREATIONS. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs to >be >>>> >> something >>>> >> _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. >>>> >> >>>> >> We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: >>>> >> http://wiki.cagreens.org . >>>> >> Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) >>>> >> Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" >>>> >> _Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the Page(s) of >>>> >> your choice. >>>> >> You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. >>>> >> >>>> >> Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be specific, please >>set >>>> >> *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. >>>> >> >>>> >> We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF YOU >>>PREFER: >>>> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>> >> The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin >>>> >> approval to subscribe. >>>> >> The address to send a message to this list is strategyplan at cagreens.org >>>> >> . >>>> >> >>>> >> Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please give it >>>> a try! >>>> >> >>>> >> Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of February. _* >>>> > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs to be >>>> > something >>>> > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> We look forward to hearing from you........ >>>> >> >>>> >> */Let's get this Party started!! >>>> >> /* >>>> >> >>>> >> -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee >>>> >> >>>> >> JANUARY 3 2010 >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> gpca-cocos mailing list >>>> >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >>>> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> StrategyPlan mailing list >>>> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>> URL: >>>>>>? >>>>? > >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 2 >>>> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:53:56 -0800 >>>> From: Jim Stauffer >>>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] Final? Draft re Strategizing >>>> Message-ID: <4D194334.3020602 at greens.org> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>>> >>>> A couple of corrections: >>>> >>>> Our official name is "The Green Party of California" and it should be used >in >>>> all correspondence. The acronym, GPCA, can be used after the first >occurrence >>>> of the full name. >>>> >>>> On wiki.cagreens, they do not actually have to create an account to enter >>>> comments. Verify this with Bert, but I'm pretty sure that's what we >>discovered >>>> last time. >>>> >>>> The StrategyPlan list is open posting. Greens do not have to subscribe to >the >>>> list to post. >>>> >>>> >>>> And one suggestion -- include "goals" in the opening line. I've long argued >>>> that you can't devise a strategy without first setting a goal. >>>> >>>> "2011 is the ideal time to set goals for the party and develop strategies to >>>> implement them." >>>> >>>> >>>> As a final comment, I'm sorry to see that this exercise will not be used as >a >>>> tool to get Locals to have a combined meeting. I thinks there's a lot of >>>> benefit to that: neighboring counties get to meet each other; the responses >>>> are more condensed / less duplication; and I think we'd get a better quality >>>> of response. >>>> >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/27/2010 2:30 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >>>> > From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: >>>> > 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. >>>> > 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out asap with the CCs >>>> > blessing. >>>> > >>>> > 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties will be added >>>> > shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. >>>> > 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org . >>>> This is being used for Green >>>> > documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 Propsal, so is a logical >>>> > "place" for longer term Strategy as well. >>>> > 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties to get their >>>> > feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as back-up) so we'll >>have >>>> > enough time to gather the feedback into something presentable at the >Spring >>>> > Plenary. >>>> > >>>> > DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: >>>> > Fellow Greens, >>>> > *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!.* >>>> > Green Party California is very excited about creating the >>>> > _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". _ >>>> > */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!!/* >>>> > *//* >>>> > We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 5 years? How? >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 10 years? How? >>>> > Please forward this email to your local email lists, present this at your >>>> next >>>> > meeting, >>>> > or however else you might share this exciting proejct with other Greens. >>>> > We'd like to collect your responses, blend them with things we've been >>>> talking >>>> > about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action Plan for our >>>> Spring >>>> > Plenary. >>>> > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs to be >>>> > something >>>> > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. >>>> > We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: >>>> > http://wiki.cagreens.org . >>>> > Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) >>>> > Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond"_ >>>> > Type your input directly on to the Page(s) of your choice. >>>> > You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. >>>> > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be specific, please >set >>>> > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. >>>> > We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses: >>>> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>> > The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin >>approval >>>> > to subscribe. >>>> > The address to send a message to this list is strategyplan at cagreens.org >>>> > . >>>> > >>>> > Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please give it a >>>> try! >>>> > Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of February. _* >>>> > We look forward to hearing from you........ >>>> > */Let's get this Party started!!/* >>>> > -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > StrategyPlan mailing list >>>> > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>>> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 3 >>>> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:30:04 -0800 >>>> From: shane que hee >>>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing >>>> Message-ID: <201012280829.oBS8TocU026922 at mail.ucla.edu> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" >>>> >>>> Everyone: >>>> >>>> Looks as if my deletions did not show. Here is a clean copy of my >>>> suggested version....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>- >>>> >>>> >>>DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>Fellow Greens, >>>> >>> >>>> >>>2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating >>>> >>>the "GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". >>>> >>> >>>> >>>Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! >>>> >>> >>>> >>>We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: IN >>>> >>>VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE >>>> >>>CORPORATE FUNDS >>>> >>> >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 5 years? >>How? >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the next 10 years? >>>How? >>>> >>> >>>> >>>Please forward this MESSAGE to your local lists, present AND >>>> >>>DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, or however you WANT TO share >>>> >>>this exciting PROJECT with other LOCAL Greens. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>We'd like YOU to collect your responses, and create a draft >>>> >>>outline GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH TIME PERIOD >>>> >> >>>> >>Please keep your answers short (300 words or less), be specific, >>>> >>AND please set realistic goals that are action based. >>>> >> >>>> >>THEN SEND US YOUR CREATIONS. >>>> >> >>>> >>>We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: >>>> >>> >>>> >http://wiki.cagreens.org . >>>> >>>Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) >>>> >>>Choose "GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" >>>> >>>Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the >>>> >>>Page(s) of your choice. >>>> >>>You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF YOU >>>PREFER: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>http: >>>>//lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need >>>> >>>admin approval to subscribe. >>>> >>>The address to send a message to this list is >>>> >>>strategyplan at cagreens.org. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please >>>> >>>give it a try! >>>> >>> >>>> >>>Please post your input on Wiki no later than the End of >>>> >>>February SO WE CAN PRESENT AND DISCUSS ALL THE INPUT AT THE >>>> >>>SPRING BUDGET GENERAL ASSEMBLY >>>> >> >>>> >>This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and >>>> >>needs to be something useful for all of us as we plan ahead. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>We look forward to hearing from you........ >>>> >>> >>>> >>>Let's get this Party started!! >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>-GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee >>>> >>> >>>> >>> JANUARY 3 2010 >>>> >>>> >>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>- >>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>> URL: >>>>>>? >>>>? > >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> StrategyPlan mailing list >>>> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >>>> >>>> >>>> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 >>>> ******************************************* >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gpca-cocos mailing list >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > _______________________________________________ > gpca-cocos mailing list > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos _______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing list gpca-cocos at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From squehee at ucla.edu Wed Dec 29 17:43:01 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:43:01 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012300142.oBU1ggXQ020329@mail.ucla.edu> Kendra: It is your ccwg message (revised or not) so submit it to the CC for comment/approval....Shane Que Hee, Dec 29 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ At 05:28 PM 12/29/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: >Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > strategyplan at cagreens.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. StrategyPlan (Kendra Gonzales) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:20:57 -0800 (PST) >From: Kendra Gonzales >To: cocos at cagreens.org, gpca-cc at cagreens.org, Green Party Strategy Jan > 2011 >Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan >Message-ID: <349176.26741.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >Its?never been my intent to ask the Locals for a complete Strategy >Plan...isn't?that?our?role at GPCA?.? I?will revise the?draft incorporating a >couple of suggestions and get that out?shortly.?I haven't heard from >anyone else >on these 3 listserves. I've yet to connect with Bert re Wiki, but >its certainly >on both?of our radars. > > >I honestly don't want to spend another week?creating the perfect >email because >no such thing exists...if the?Locals ask for direction, we can offer >it.?Keeping >it open like it is now?might certainly open the flood gates, but >there might be >some amazing?ideas that come forward as well.??I think we are?suffering from >analysis paralysis and I just want to get?this done!. The locals >might not even >read the damn thing. > >? >Kendra Gonzales > > > > >________________________________ >From: shane que hee >To: Jim Stauffer ; gpca-cocos at cagreens.org; >gpca-cc at cagreens.org >Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 11:04:40 PM >Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 > >Jim: > >The Green Party by refusing donations from large corporations has imposed its >own constraint so that any plan has to be low cost, practical,and almost 100% >volunteer driven. I don't need a discussion to arrive at this conclusion. > >Prop 14 and the other results of the 2010 California election have >to be borne >in mind while creating a practical plan.? That is a constraint. > >We both know we will get pie in the sky answers anyway from certain sectors. >Leaving context out will invite more of that. > >My 14-question approach minimized the pie in the sky factor but that was >outvoted.? But that is fine. > >Kendra asked for a draft plan to reach the suggested accomplishments---ask >her.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >At 07:55 PM 12/28/2010, Jim Stauffer wrote: > > This is certainly an example of why this project has been two months of > >never-ending debate. > > > > These are the constraints of setting goals? Says who? I don't remember any > >discussion that established that. Seems to me we could write a > lengthy list of > >practical constraints that we have to overcome to grow the party. > None of which > >have any place in a message inviting locals to contribute to a goal-setting > >exercise. > > > > I don't understand you're comment about asking the locals to write a draft > >plan. This has never been about asking for that. We're asking them > to tell us > >what they think the party should accomplish by certain time intervals, i.e. > >setting goals. This is input for the CC to perform it's task of creating a > >strategic plan for the party. > > > > How much more time do you want to spend on this? > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > On 12/28/2010 1:04 AM, shane que hee wrote: > >> > >>> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 01:01:13 -0800 > >>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > >>> From: shane que hee > >>> Subject: Re: StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 > >>> > >>> Jim: > >>> > >>> My responses are in square parentheses ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 > >>>----------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>- > >>> > >>> > >>> At 12:30 AM 12/28/2010, you wrote: > >>>> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > >>>> strategyplan at cagreens.org > >>>> > >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >>>> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >>>> > >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at > >>>> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >>>> > >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >>>> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Today's Topics: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > >>>> 2. Re: Final? Draft re Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > >>>> 3. Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing (shane que hee) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> Message: 1 > >>>> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:39:17 -0800 > >>>> From: Jim Stauffer > >>>> To: GPCA Strategy Planning > >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing > >>>> Message-ID: <4D193FC5.9000208 at greens.org> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > >>>> > >>>> Shane - > >>>> > >>>> A couple of these comments I don't agree with: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> " IN VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE > >>>> CORPORATE FUNDS" > >>>> > >>>> These issues really aren't the basis for setting future goals, > at least no > >>>> more than a myriad of other issues.[I agree they are not the > basis-- they > >>>> are our constraints on our plans] > >>>> > >>>> "We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with > things we've been > >>>> talking > >>>> about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action > Plan FOR EACH > >TIME > >>>> PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. ." > >>>> > >>>> We should not ask Locals to create an outline of a strategy > plan. That's >the > >>>> work of the state party. We would simply want their input on ideas. I'd >stay > >>>> with Kendra's original text. [That is Kendra's original text. > Does she want > >>>> 3 plans or not? I would think so. I deleted "blend them with > things we've > >>>> been talking about" because the Counties have had no idea what we hjave > >>>> been talking about. I think thast phrase will confise them.] > >>>> > >>>> Jim > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:22:54 -0800 > >>>> > To: Kendra Gonzales , > coordinating committee > >>>> > , GPCA Cocos > , Green Party > >>>> > Strategy Jan 2011 > >>>> > From: shane que hee > >>>> > Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing > >>>> > > >>>> > Kendra: > >>>> > > >>>> > My suggestions are in UPPER CASE.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 27 2010 > >>>> > > >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>- > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > At 02:30 PM 12/27/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > >>>> >> From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out > asap with the >CCs > >>>> >> blessing. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties > will be added > >>>> >> shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org . > >>>> This is being used for Green > >>>> >> documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 PROPOSAL > Propsal, so is > >a > >>>> >> logical "place" for longer term Strategy as well. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties > to get their > >>>> >> feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as > back-up) so we'll > >>>> >> have enough time to gather the feedback into something > presentable at >the > >>>> >> Spring Plenary. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Fellow Greens, > >>>> >> > >>>> >> *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. > >>>> >> * > >>>> >> THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating the > >>>> >> _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". > >>>> >> _ > >>>> >> */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! > >>>> >> > >>>> >> /*We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every > County: IN VIEW OF > >>>> >> THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE CORPORATE > >FUNDS > >>>> >> > >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? > >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the > next 5 years? > >>How? > >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the > next 10 years? > >>>How? > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Please forward this MESSAGE email to your local email > lists, present AND > >>>> >> DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, > >>>> >> or however else you WANT TO might share this exciting > PROJECT proejct > >with > >>>> >> other LOCAL Greens. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with > things we've > >been > >>>> >> talking > >>>> >> about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action > Plan FOR EACH > >>>> >> TIME PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. . > >>>> > > >>>> > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?), be specific, AND > >>please > >>>> > set > >>>> > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. THEN SEND US YOUR > >CREATIONS. > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> >> This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 > and needs to > >be > >>>> >> something > >>>> >> _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: > >>>> >> http://wiki.cagreens.org . > >>>> >> Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) > >>>> >> Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" > >>>> >> _Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the > Page(s) of > >>>> >> your choice. > >>>> >> You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be > specific, please > >>set > >>>> >> *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF YOU > >>>PREFER: > >>>> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >>>> >> The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin > >>>> >> approval to subscribe. > >>>> >> The address to send a message to this list is > strategyplan at cagreens.org > >>>> >> . > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, > please give it > >>>> a try! > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of > February. _* > >>>> > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 > and needs to >be > >>>> > something > >>>> > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> >> We look forward to hearing from you........ > >>>> >> > >>>> >> */Let's get this Party started!! > >>>> >> /* > >>>> >> > >>>> >> -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee > >>>> >> > >>>> >> JANUARY 3 2010 > >>>> >> > >>>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> gpca-cocos mailing list > >>>> >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > >>>> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> StrategyPlan mailing list > >>>> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -------------- next part -------------- > >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >>>> URL: > >>>> 101227/3bb898da/attachment-0001.html>>>? > >>>>? > > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>> Message: 2 > >>>> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:53:56 -0800 > >>>> From: Jim Stauffer > >>>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] Final? Draft re Strategizing > >>>> Message-ID: <4D194334.3020602 at greens.org> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >>>> > >>>> A couple of corrections: > >>>> > >>>> Our official name is "The Green Party of California" and it > should be used > >in > >>>> all correspondence. The acronym, GPCA, can be used after the first > >occurrence > >>>> of the full name. > >>>> > >>>> On wiki.cagreens, they do not actually have to create an > account to enter > >>>> comments. Verify this with Bert, but I'm pretty sure that's what we > >>discovered > >>>> last time. > >>>> > >>>> The StrategyPlan list is open posting. Greens do not have to > subscribe to > >the > >>>> list to post. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> And one suggestion -- include "goals" in the opening line. > I've long argued > >>>> that you can't devise a strategy without first setting a goal. > >>>> > >>>> "2011 is the ideal time to set goals for the party and develop > strategies >to > >>>> implement them." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> As a final comment, I'm sorry to see that this exercise will > not be used as > >a > >>>> tool to get Locals to have a combined meeting. I thinks there's a lot of > >>>> benefit to that: neighboring counties get to meet each other; > the responses > >>>> are more condensed / less duplication; and I think we'd get a better >quality > >>>> of response. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jim > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 12/27/2010 2:30 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > >>>> > From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: > >>>> > 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. > >>>> > 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out asap > with the CCs > >>>> > blessing. > >>>> > > >>>> > 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties will be added > >>>> > shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. > >>>> > 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org . > >>>> This is being used for Green > >>>> > documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 Propsal, so > is a logical > >>>> > "place" for longer term Strategy as well. > >>>> > 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties to get their > >>>> > feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as > back-up) so we'll > >>have > >>>> > enough time to gather the feedback into something presentable at the > >Spring > >>>> > Plenary. > >>>> > > >>>> > DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: > >>>> > Fellow Greens, > >>>> > *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!.* > >>>> > Green Party California is very excited about creating the > >>>> > _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". _ > >>>> > */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!!/* > >>>> > *//* > >>>> > We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: > >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? > >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 5 years? How? > >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 10 years? How? > >>>> > Please forward this email to your local email lists, present > this at your > >>>> next > >>>> > meeting, > >>>> > or however else you might share this exciting proejct with > other Greens. > >>>> > We'd like to collect your responses, blend them with things we've been > >>>> talking > >>>> > about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action > Plan for our > >>>> Spring > >>>> > Plenary. > >>>> > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 > and needs to >be > >>>> > something > >>>> > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. > >>>> > We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: > >>>> > http://wiki.cagreens.org . > >>>> > Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) > >>>> > Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond"_ > >>>> > Type your input directly on to the Page(s) of your choice. > >>>> > You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. > >>>> > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be > specific, please > >set > >>>> > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. > >>>> > We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses: > >>>> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >>>> > The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin > >>approval > >>>> > to subscribe. > >>>> > The address to send a message to this list is > strategyplan at cagreens.org > >>>> > . > >>>> > > >>>> > Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, > please give it a > >>>> try! > >>>> > Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of February. _* > >>>> > We look forward to hearing from you........ > >>>> > */Let's get this Party started!!/* > >>>> > -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> > StrategyPlan mailing list > >>>> > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >>>> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>> Message: 3 > >>>> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:30:04 -0800 > >>>> From: shane que hee > >>>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing > >>>> Message-ID: <201012280829.oBS8TocU026922 at mail.ucla.edu> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" > >>>> > >>>> Everyone: > >>>> > >>>> Looks as if my deletions did not show. Here is a clean copy of my > >>>> suggested version....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 > >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>- > >>>> > >>>> >>>DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>Fellow Greens, > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating > >>>> >>>the "GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: IN > >>>> >>>VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE > >>>> >>>CORPORATE FUNDS > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? > >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the > next 5 years? > >>How? > >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the > next 10 years? > >>>How? > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>Please forward this MESSAGE to your local lists, present AND > >>>> >>>DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, or however you WANT TO share > >>>> >>>this exciting PROJECT with other LOCAL Greens. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>We'd like YOU to collect your responses, and create a draft > >>>> >>>outline GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH TIME PERIOD > >>>> >> > >>>> >>Please keep your answers short (300 words or less), be specific, > >>>> >>AND please set realistic goals that are action based. > >>>> >> > >>>> >>THEN SEND US YOUR CREATIONS. > >>>> >> > >>>> >>>We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >http://wiki.cagreens.org . > >>>> >>>Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) > >>>> >>>Choose "GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" > >>>> >>>Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the > >>>> >>>Page(s) of your choice. > >>>> >>>You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF YOU > >>>PREFER: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>http: > >>>>//lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >>>> //lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need > >>>> >>>admin approval to subscribe. > >>>> >>>The address to send a message to this list is > >>>> >>>strategyplan at cagreens.org. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please > >>>> >>>give it a try! > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>Please post your input on Wiki no later than the End of > >>>> >>>February SO WE CAN PRESENT AND DISCUSS ALL THE INPUT AT THE > >>>> >>>SPRING BUDGET GENERAL ASSEMBLY > >>>> >> > >>>> >>This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and > >>>> >>needs to be something useful for all of us as we plan ahead. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>We look forward to hearing from you........ > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>Let's get this Party started!! > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>-GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> JANUARY 3 2010 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>- > >>>> -------------- next part -------------- > >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >>>> URL: > >>>> 101228/491534f3/attachment.html>>>? > >>>>? > > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> StrategyPlan mailing list > >>>> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 > >>>> ******************************************* > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gpca-cocos mailing list > >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > _______________________________________________ > > gpca-cocos mailing list > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > >_______________________________________________ >gpca-cocos mailing list >gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >StrategyPlan mailing list >StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25 >******************************************* From squehee at ucla.edu Thu Dec 30 15:44:25 2010 From: squehee at ucla.edu (shane que hee) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:44:25 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 26 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012302344.oBUNi4M3027852@mail.ucla.edu> Kendra: Then you need to clarify "*draft outline* GPCA Strategic Action Plan". You could state "AIMS/GOALS TO BE CONTAINED IN A "draft outline* GPCA Strategic Action Plan". If the original message is confusing, the responders will be confused too....Shane Que Hee, Dec 30 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 12:00 PM 12/30/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: >Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > strategyplan at cagreens.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25 (shane que hee) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:43:01 -0800 >From: shane que hee >To: strategyplan at cagreens.org, strategyplan at cagreens.org >Cc: gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25 >Message-ID: <201012300142.oBU1ggXQ020329 at mail.ucla.edu> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >Kendra: > >It is your ccwg message (revised or not) so submit it to the CC for >comment/approval....Shane Que Hee, Dec 29 2010 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >At 05:28 PM 12/29/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: > >Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > > strategyplan at cagreens.org > > > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > > >You can reach the person managing the list at > > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > > > > >Today's Topics: > > > > 1. StrategyPlan (Kendra Gonzales) > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >Message: 1 > >Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:20:57 -0800 (PST) > >From: Kendra Gonzales > >To: cocos at cagreens.org, gpca-cc at cagreens.org, Green Party Strategy Jan > > 2011 > >Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan > >Message-ID: <349176.26741.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > >Its?never been my intent to ask the Locals for a complete Strategy > >Plan...isn't?that?our?role at GPCA?.? I?will revise the?draft > incorporating a > >couple of suggestions and get that out?shortly.?I haven't heard from > >anyone else > >on these 3 listserves. I've yet to connect with Bert re Wiki, but > >its certainly > >on both?of our radars. > > > > > >I honestly don't want to spend another week?creating the perfect > >email because > >no such thing exists...if the?Locals ask for direction, we can offer > >it.?Keeping > >it open like it is now?might certainly open the flood gates, but > >there might be > >some amazing?ideas that come forward as well.??I think we are?suffering from > >analysis paralysis and I just want to get?this done!. The locals > >might not even > >read the damn thing. > > > >? > >Kendra Gonzales > > > > > > > > > >________________________________ > >From: shane que hee > >To: Jim Stauffer ; gpca-cocos at cagreens.org; > >gpca-cc at cagreens.org > >Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 11:04:40 PM > >Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 > > > >Jim: > > > >The Green Party by refusing donations from large corporations has > imposed its > >own constraint so that any plan has to be low cost, practical,and > almost 100% > >volunteer driven. I don't need a discussion to arrive at this conclusion. > > > >Prop 14 and the other results of the 2010 California election have > >to be borne > >in mind while creating a practical plan.? That is a constraint. > > > >We both know we will get pie in the sky answers anyway from certain sectors. > >Leaving context out will invite more of that. > > > >My 14-question approach minimized the pie in the sky factor but that was > >outvoted.? But that is fine. > > > >Kendra asked for a draft plan to reach the suggested accomplishments---ask > >her.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > >At 07:55 PM 12/28/2010, Jim Stauffer wrote: > > > This is certainly an example of why this project has been two months of > > >never-ending debate. > > > > > > These are the constraints of setting goals? Says who? I don't > remember any > > >discussion that established that. Seems to me we could write a > > lengthy list of > > >practical constraints that we have to overcome to grow the party. > > None of which > > >have any place in a message inviting locals to contribute to a > goal-setting > > >exercise. > > > > > > I don't understand you're comment about asking the locals to > write a draft > > >plan. This has never been about asking for that. We're asking them > > to tell us > > >what they think the party should accomplish by certain time > intervals, i.e. > > >setting goals. This is input for the CC to perform it's task of creating a > > >strategic plan for the party. > > > > > > How much more time do you want to spend on this? > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/28/2010 1:04 AM, shane que hee wrote: > > >> > > >>> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 01:01:13 -0800 > > >>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > > >>> From: shane que hee > > >>> Subject: Re: StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 > > >>> > > >>> Jim: > > >>> > > >>> My responses are in square parentheses ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 > > >>>----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>- > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> At 12:30 AM 12/28/2010, you wrote: > > >>>> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to > > >>>> strategyplan at cagreens.org > > >>>> > > >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > >>>> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org > > >>>> > > >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at > > >>>> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org > > >>>> > > >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > >>>> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Today's Topics: > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > > >>>> 2. Re: Final? Draft re Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) > > >>>> 3. Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing (shane que hee) > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> > > >>>> Message: 1 > > >>>> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:39:17 -0800 > > >>>> From: Jim Stauffer > > >>>> To: GPCA Strategy Planning > > >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing > > >>>> Message-ID: <4D193FC5.9000208 at greens.org> > > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > > >>>> > > >>>> Shane - > > >>>> > > >>>> A couple of these comments I don't agree with: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> " IN VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO > TAKE LARGE > > >>>> CORPORATE FUNDS" > > >>>> > > >>>> These issues really aren't the basis for setting future goals, > > at least no > > >>>> more than a myriad of other issues.[I agree they are not the > > basis-- they > > >>>> are our constraints on our plans] > > >>>> > > >>>> "We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with > > things we've been > > >>>> talking > > >>>> about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action > > Plan FOR EACH > > >TIME > > >>>> PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. ." > > >>>> > > >>>> We should not ask Locals to create an outline of a strategy > > plan. That's > >the > > >>>> work of the state party. We would simply want their input on > ideas. I'd > >stay > > >>>> with Kendra's original text. [That is Kendra's original text. > > Does she want > > >>>> 3 plans or not? I would think so. I deleted "blend them with > > things we've > > >>>> been talking about" because the Counties have had no idea > what we hjave > > >>>> been talking about. I think thast phrase will confise them.] > > >>>> > > >>>> Jim > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:22:54 -0800 > > >>>> > To: Kendra Gonzales , > > coordinating committee > > >>>> > , GPCA Cocos > > , Green Party > > >>>> > Strategy Jan 2011 > > >>>> > From: shane que hee > > >>>> > Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Kendra: > > >>>> > > > >>>> > My suggestions are in UPPER CASE.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 27 2010 > > >>>> > > > >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>>- > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > At 02:30 PM 12/27/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > >>>> >> From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out > > asap with the > >CCs > > >>>> >> blessing. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties > > will be added > > >>>> >> shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org > . > > >>>> This is being used for Green > > >>>> >> documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 PROPOSAL > > Propsal, so is > > >a > > >>>> >> logical "place" for longer term Strategy as well. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties > > to get their > > >>>> >> feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as > > back-up) so we'll > > >>>> >> have enough time to gather the feedback into something > > presentable at > >the > > >>>> >> Spring Plenary. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> Fellow Greens, > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. > > >>>> >> * > > >>>> >> THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating the > > >>>> >> _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". > > >>>> >> _ > > >>>> >> */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> /*We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every > > County: IN VIEW OF > > >>>> >> THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE > LARGE CORPORATE > > >FUNDS > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in > 2011/2012?. How? > > >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the > > next 5 years? > > >>How? > > >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the > > next 10 years? > > >>>How? > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> Please forward this MESSAGE email to your local email > > lists, present AND > > >>>> >> DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, > > >>>> >> or however else you WANT TO might share this exciting > > PROJECT proejct > > >with > > >>>> >> other LOCAL Greens. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with > > things we've > > >been > > >>>> >> talking > > >>>> >> about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action > > Plan FOR EACH > > >>>> >> TIME PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. . > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?), be > specific, AND > > >>please > > >>>> > set > > >>>> > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. THEN SEND US YOUR > > >CREATIONS. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> >> This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 > > and needs to > > >be > > >>>> >> something > > >>>> >> _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: > > >>>> >> http://wiki.cagreens.org . > > >>>> >> Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) > > >>>> >> Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" > > >>>> >> _Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the > > Page(s) of > > >>>> >> your choice. > > >>>> >> You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be > > specific, please > > >>set > > >>>> >> *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> We also have an email listserve as back-up for your > responses IF YOU > > >>>PREFER: > > >>>> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >>>> >> The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin > > >>>> >> approval to subscribe. > > >>>> >> The address to send a message to this list is > > strategyplan at cagreens.org > > >>>> >> . > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, > > please give it > > >>>> a try! > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of > > February. _* > > >>>> > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 > > and needs to > >be > > >>>> > something > > >>>> > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> >> We look forward to hearing from you........ > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> */Let's get this Party started!! > > >>>> >> /* > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> JANUARY 3 2010 > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> >> gpca-cocos mailing list > > >>>> >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > >>>> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> StrategyPlan mailing list > > >>>> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -------------- next part -------------- > > >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > >>>> URL: > > >>>> 20 > 101227/3bb898da/attachment-0001.html>>>? > > >>>>? > > > >>>> > > >>>> ------------------------------ > > >>>> > > >>>> Message: 2 > > >>>> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:53:56 -0800 > > >>>> From: Jim Stauffer > > >>>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > > >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] Final? Draft re Strategizing > > >>>> Message-ID: <4D194334.3020602 at greens.org> > > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > >>>> > > >>>> A couple of corrections: > > >>>> > > >>>> Our official name is "The Green Party of California" and it > > should be used > > >in > > >>>> all correspondence. The acronym, GPCA, can be used after the first > > >occurrence > > >>>> of the full name. > > >>>> > > >>>> On wiki.cagreens, they do not actually have to create an > > account to enter > > >>>> comments. Verify this with Bert, but I'm pretty sure that's what we > > >>discovered > > >>>> last time. > > >>>> > > >>>> The StrategyPlan list is open posting. Greens do not have to > > subscribe to > > >the > > >>>> list to post. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> And one suggestion -- include "goals" in the opening line. > > I've long argued > > >>>> that you can't devise a strategy without first setting a goal. > > >>>> > > >>>> "2011 is the ideal time to set goals for the party and develop > > strategies > >to > > >>>> implement them." > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> As a final comment, I'm sorry to see that this exercise will > > not be used as > > >a > > >>>> tool to get Locals to have a combined meeting. I thinks > there's a lot of > > >>>> benefit to that: neighboring counties get to meet each other; > > the responses > > >>>> are more condensed / less duplication; and I think we'd get a better > >quality > > >>>> of response. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Jim > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 12/27/2010 2:30 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: > > >>>> > From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: > > >>>> > 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. > > >>>> > 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out asap > > with the CCs > > >>>> > blessing. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties > will be added > > >>>> > shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. > > >>>> > 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org > . > > >>>> This is being used for Green > > >>>> > documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 Propsal, so > > is a logical > > >>>> > "place" for longer term Strategy as well. > > >>>> > 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties > to get their > > >>>> > feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as > > back-up) so we'll > > >>have > > >>>> > enough time to gather the feedback into something presentable at the > > >Spring > > >>>> > Plenary. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: > > >>>> > Fellow Greens, > > >>>> > *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!.* > > >>>> > Green Party California is very excited about creating the > > >>>> > _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". _ > > >>>> > */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!!/* > > >>>> > *//* > > >>>> > We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: > > >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? > > >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 5 years? How? > > >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 10 > years? How? > > >>>> > Please forward this email to your local email lists, present > > this at your > > >>>> next > > >>>> > meeting, > > >>>> > or however else you might share this exciting proejct with > > other Greens. > > >>>> > We'd like to collect your responses, blend them with > things we've been > > >>>> talking > > >>>> > about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action > > Plan for our > > >>>> Spring > > >>>> > Plenary. > > >>>> > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 > > and needs to > >be > > >>>> > something > > >>>> > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. > > >>>> > We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: > > >>>> > http://wiki.cagreens.org . > > >>>> > Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) > > >>>> > Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond"_ > > >>>> > Type your input directly on to the Page(s) of your choice. > > >>>> > You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. > > >>>> > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be > > specific, please > > >set > > >>>> > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. > > >>>> > We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses: > > >>>> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >>>> > The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin > > >>approval > > >>>> > to subscribe. > > >>>> > The address to send a message to this list is > > strategyplan at cagreens.org > > >>>> > . > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, > > please give it a > > >>>> try! > > >>>> > Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of > February. _* > > >>>> > We look forward to hearing from you........ > > >>>> > */Let's get this Party started!!/* > > >>>> > -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > _______________________________________________ > > >>>> > StrategyPlan mailing list > > >>>> > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > >>>> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ------------------------------ > > >>>> > > >>>> Message: 3 > > >>>> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:30:04 -0800 > > >>>> From: shane que hee > > >>>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org > > >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing > > >>>> Message-ID: <201012280829.oBS8TocU026922 at mail.ucla.edu> > > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" > > >>>> > > >>>> Everyone: > > >>>> > > >>>> Looks as if my deletions did not show. Here is a clean copy of my > > >>>> suggested version....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 > > >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>>- > > >>>> > > >>>> >>>DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>Fellow Greens, > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating > > >>>> >>>the "GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: IN > > >>>> >>>VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE > > >>>> >>>CORPORATE FUNDS > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in > 2011/2012?. How? > > >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the > > next 5 years? > > >>How? > > >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the > > next 10 years? > > >>>How? > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>Please forward this MESSAGE to your local lists, present AND > > >>>> >>>DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, or however you WANT TO share > > >>>> >>>this exciting PROJECT with other LOCAL Greens. > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>We'd like YOU to collect your responses, and create a draft > > >>>> >>>outline GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH TIME PERIOD > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >>Please keep your answers short (300 words or less), be specific, > > >>>> >>AND please set realistic goals that are action based. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >>THEN SEND US YOUR CREATIONS. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >>>We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >http://wiki.cagreens.org . > > >>>> >>>Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) > > >>>> >>>Choose "GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" > > >>>> >>>Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the > > >>>> >>>Page(s) of your choice. > > >>>> >>>You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>We also have an email listserve as back-up for your > responses IF YOU > > >>>PREFER: > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>http: > > >>>>//lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >>>> p: > //lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> >>>The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need > > >>>> >>>admin approval to subscribe. > > >>>> >>>The address to send a message to this list is > > >>>> >>>strategyplan at cagreens.org. > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please > > >>>> >>>give it a try! > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>Please post your input on Wiki no later than the End of > > >>>> >>>February SO WE CAN PRESENT AND DISCUSS ALL THE INPUT AT THE > > >>>> >>>SPRING BUDGET GENERAL ASSEMBLY > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >>This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and > > >>>> >>needs to be something useful for all of us as we plan ahead. > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>We look forward to hearing from you........ > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>Let's get this Party started!! > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>-GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> JANUARY 3 2010 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>>- > > >>>> -------------- next part -------------- > > >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > >>>> URL: > > >>>> 20 > 101228/491534f3/attachment.html>>>? > > >>>>? > > > >>>> > > >>>> ------------------------------ > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> StrategyPlan mailing list > > >>>> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 > > >>>> ******************************************* > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> gpca-cocos mailing list > > >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > > _______________________________________________ > > > gpca-cocos mailing list > > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > > >_______________________________________________ > >gpca-cocos mailing list > >gpca-cocos at cagreens.org > >http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos > > > > > > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- > >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >URL: > > 229/a4ba6ac3/attachment.html> > > > >------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >StrategyPlan mailing list > >StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > > > > >End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25 > >******************************************* > > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >StrategyPlan mailing list >StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan > > >End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 26 >******************************************* From jims at greens.org Thu Dec 30 19:55:15 2010 From: jims at greens.org (Jim Stauffer) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:55:15 -0800 Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 26 In-Reply-To: <201012302344.oBUNi4M3027852@mail.ucla.edu> References: <201012302344.oBUNi4M3027852@mail.ucla.edu> Message-ID: <4D1D5423.1030501@greens.org> Shane - I have say I didn't find that line confusing. The paragraph that it's from talks of a draft outline for the Spring GA and a continuing effort through 2011 to develop a final plan. Perhaps "first draft" GPCA Strategic Action Plan might be better, but I think the general idea comes through OK. It's time get this thing done. Jim On 12/30/2010 3:44 PM, shane que hee wrote: > Kendra: > > Then you need to clarify "*draft outline* GPCA Strategic Action Plan". > > You could state "AIMS/GOALS TO BE CONTAINED IN A "draft outline* GPCA > Strategic Action Plan". > > If the original message is confusing, the responders will be confused > too....Shane Que Hee, Dec 30 2010 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > At 12:00 PM 12/30/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >> strategyplan at cagreens.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25 (shane que hee) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:43:01 -0800 >> From: shane que hee >> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org, strategyplan at cagreens.org >> Cc: gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25 >> Message-ID: <201012300142.oBU1ggXQ020329 at mail.ucla.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >> >> Kendra: >> >> It is your ccwg message (revised or not) so submit it to the CC for >> comment/approval....Shane Que Hee, Dec 29 2010 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> At 05:28 PM 12/29/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote: >> >Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >> > strategyplan at cagreens.org >> > >> >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> > strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> > >> >You can reach the person managing the list at >> > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >> > >> >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> >than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >> > >> > >> >Today's Topics: >> > >> > 1. StrategyPlan (Kendra Gonzales) >> > >> > >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >Message: 1 >> >Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:20:57 -0800 (PST) >> >From: Kendra Gonzales >> >To: cocos at cagreens.org, gpca-cc at cagreens.org, Green Party Strategy Jan >> > 2011 >> >Subject: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan >> >Message-ID: <349176.26741.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com> >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> > >> >Its?never been my intent to ask the Locals for a complete Strategy >> >Plan...isn't?that?our?role at GPCA?.? I?will revise the?draft incorporating a >> >couple of suggestions and get that out?shortly.?I haven't heard from >> >anyone else >> >on these 3 listserves. I've yet to connect with Bert re Wiki, but >> >its certainly >> >on both?of our radars. >> > >> > >> >I honestly don't want to spend another week?creating the perfect >> >email because >> >no such thing exists...if the?Locals ask for direction, we can offer >> >it.?Keeping >> >it open like it is now?might certainly open the flood gates, but >> >there might be >> >some amazing?ideas that come forward as well.??I think we are?suffering from >> >analysis paralysis and I just want to get?this done!. The locals >> >might not even >> >read the damn thing. >> > >> >? >> >Kendra Gonzales >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >________________________________ >> >From: shane que hee >> >To: Jim Stauffer ; gpca-cocos at cagreens.org; >> >gpca-cc at cagreens.org >> >Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 11:04:40 PM >> >Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 >> > >> >Jim: >> > >> >The Green Party by refusing donations from large corporations has imposed its >> >own constraint so that any plan has to be low cost, practical,and almost 100% >> >volunteer driven. I don't need a discussion to arrive at this conclusion. >> > >> >Prop 14 and the other results of the 2010 California election have >> >to be borne >> >in mind while creating a practical plan.? That is a constraint. >> > >> >We both know we will get pie in the sky answers anyway from certain sectors. >> >Leaving context out will invite more of that. >> > >> >My 14-question approach minimized the pie in the sky factor but that was >> >outvoted.? But that is fine. >> > >> >Kendra asked for a draft plan to reach the suggested accomplishments---ask >> >her.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 >> > >> >------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >At 07:55 PM 12/28/2010, Jim Stauffer wrote: >> > > This is certainly an example of why this project has been two months of >> > >never-ending debate. >> > > >> > > These are the constraints of setting goals? Says who? I don't remember any >> > >discussion that established that. Seems to me we could write a >> > lengthy list of >> > >practical constraints that we have to overcome to grow the party. >> > None of which >> > >have any place in a message inviting locals to contribute to a goal-setting >> > >exercise. >> > > >> > > I don't understand you're comment about asking the locals to write a draft >> > >plan. This has never been about asking for that. We're asking them >> > to tell us >> > >what they think the party should accomplish by certain time intervals, i.e. >> > >setting goals. This is input for the CC to perform it's task of creating a >> > >strategic plan for the party. >> > > >> > > How much more time do you want to spend on this? >> > > >> > > Jim >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 12/28/2010 1:04 AM, shane que hee wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 01:01:13 -0800 >> > >>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >> > >>> From: shane que hee >> > >>> Subject: Re: StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 >> > >>> >> > >>> Jim: >> > >>> >> > >>> My responses are in square parentheses ....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 >> > >>>----------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > >>>- >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> At 12:30 AM 12/28/2010, you wrote: >> > >>>> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to >> > >>>> strategyplan at cagreens.org >> > >>>> >> > >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> > >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> > >>>> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org >> > >>>> >> > >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >> > >>>> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org >> > >>>> >> > >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> > >>>> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..." >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Today's Topics: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> 1. Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >> > >>>> 2. Re: Final? Draft re Strategizing (Jim Stauffer) >> > >>>> 3. Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing (shane que hee) >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Message: 1 >> > >>>> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:39:17 -0800 >> > >>>> From: Jim Stauffer >> > >>>> To: GPCA Strategy Planning >> > >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing >> > >>>> Message-ID: <4D193FC5.9000208 at greens.org> >> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Shane - >> > >>>> >> > >>>> A couple of these comments I don't agree with: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> " IN VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE >> > >>>> CORPORATE FUNDS" >> > >>>> >> > >>>> These issues really aren't the basis for setting future goals, >> > at least no >> > >>>> more than a myriad of other issues.[I agree they are not the >> > basis-- they >> > >>>> are our constraints on our plans] >> > >>>> >> > >>>> "We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with >> > things we've been >> > >>>> talking >> > >>>> about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action >> > Plan FOR EACH >> > >TIME >> > >>>> PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. ." >> > >>>> >> > >>>> We should not ask Locals to create an outline of a strategy >> > plan. That's >> >the >> > >>>> work of the state party. We would simply want their input on ideas. I'd >> >stay >> > >>>> with Kendra's original text. [That is Kendra's original text. >> > Does she want >> > >>>> 3 plans or not? I would think so. I deleted "blend them with >> > things we've >> > >>>> been talking about" because the Counties have had no idea what we hjave >> > >>>> been talking about. I think thast phrase will confise them.] >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Jim >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> > Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:22:54 -0800 >> > >>>> > To: Kendra Gonzales , >> > coordinating committee >> > >>>> > , GPCA Cocos >> > , Green Party >> > >>>> > Strategy Jan 2011 >> > >>>> > From: shane que hee >> > >>>> > Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > Kendra: >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > My suggestions are in UPPER CASE.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 27 2010 >> > >>>> > >> > >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > >>>>- >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > At 02:30 PM 12/27/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >> > >>>> >> From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out >> > asap with the >> >CCs >> > >>>> >> blessing. >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties >> > will be added >> > >>>> >> shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org . >> > >>>> This is being used for Green >> > >>>> >> documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 PROPOSAL >> > Propsal, so is >> > >a >> > >>>> >> logical "place" for longer term Strategy as well. >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties >> > to get their >> > >>>> >> feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as >> > back-up) so we'll >> > >>>> >> have enough time to gather the feedback into something >> > presentable at >> >the >> > >>>> >> Spring Plenary. >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> Fellow Greens, >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. >> > >>>> >> * >> > >>>> >> THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating the >> > >>>> >> _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". >> > >>>> >> _ >> > >>>> >> */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> /*We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every >> > County: IN VIEW OF >> > >>>> >> THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE CORPORATE >> > >FUNDS >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? >> > >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the >> > next 5 years? >> > >>How? >> > >>>> >> What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the >> > next 10 years? >> > >>>How? >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> Please forward this MESSAGE email to your local email >> > lists, present AND >> > >>>> >> DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, >> > >>>> >> or however else you WANT TO might share this exciting >> > PROJECT proejct >> > >with >> > >>>> >> other LOCAL Greens. >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> We'd like YOU to collect your responses, blend them with >> > things we've >> > >been >> > >>>> >> talking >> > >>>> >> about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action >> > Plan FOR EACH >> > >>>> >> TIME PERIOD for our Spring Plenary. . >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?), be specific, AND >> > >>please >> > >>>> > set >> > >>>> > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. THEN SEND US YOUR >> > >CREATIONS. >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> >> This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 >> > and needs to >> > >be >> > >>>> >> something >> > >>>> >> _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: >> > >>>> >> http://wiki.cagreens.org . >> > >>>> >> Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) >> > >>>> >> Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" >> > >>>> >> _Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the >> > Page(s) of >> > >>>> >> your choice. >> > >>>> >> You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be >> > specific, please >> > >>set >> > >>>> >> *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF YOU >> > >>>PREFER: >> > >>>> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> > >>>> >> The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin >> > >>>> >> approval to subscribe. >> > >>>> >> The address to send a message to this list is >> > strategyplan at cagreens.org >> > >>>> >> . >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, >> > please give it >> > >>>> a try! >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of >> > February. _* >> > >>>> > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 >> > and needs to >> >be >> > >>>> > something >> > >>>> > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> >> We look forward to hearing from you........ >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> */Let's get this Party started!! >> > >>>> >> /* >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> JANUARY 3 2010 >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>> >> gpca-cocos mailing list >> > >>>> >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >> > >>>> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>> StrategyPlan mailing list >> > >>>> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> -------------- next part -------------- >> > >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> > >>>> URL: >> > >>>> >> 101227/3bb898da/attachment-0001.html>>>? >> > >>>>? > >> > >>>> >> > >>>> ------------------------------ >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Message: 2 >> > >>>> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:53:56 -0800 >> > >>>> From: Jim Stauffer >> > >>>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >> > >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] Final? Draft re Strategizing >> > >>>> Message-ID: <4D194334.3020602 at greens.org> >> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> > >>>> >> > >>>> A couple of corrections: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Our official name is "The Green Party of California" and it >> > should be used >> > >in >> > >>>> all correspondence. The acronym, GPCA, can be used after the first >> > >occurrence >> > >>>> of the full name. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On wiki.cagreens, they do not actually have to create an >> > account to enter >> > >>>> comments. Verify this with Bert, but I'm pretty sure that's what we >> > >>discovered >> > >>>> last time. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> The StrategyPlan list is open posting. Greens do not have to >> > subscribe to >> > >the >> > >>>> list to post. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> And one suggestion -- include "goals" in the opening line. >> > I've long argued >> > >>>> that you can't devise a strategy without first setting a goal. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> "2011 is the ideal time to set goals for the party and develop >> > strategies >> >to >> > >>>> implement them." >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> As a final comment, I'm sorry to see that this exercise will >> > not be used as >> > >a >> > >>>> tool to get Locals to have a combined meeting. I thinks there's a lot of >> > >>>> benefit to that: neighboring counties get to meet each other; >> > the responses >> > >>>> are more condensed / less duplication; and I think we'd get a better >> >quality >> > >>>> of response. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Jim >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On 12/27/2010 2:30 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote: >> > >>>> > From our Co-Co call last night, we have determined: >> > >>>> > 1) A strategy feedback email needs to go to County Contacts asap. >> > >>>> > 2) The draft is below for review - I will send that out asap >> > with the CCs >> > >>>> > blessing. >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > 3) The Wiki Pages for posting the feedback from Counties will be added >> > >>>> > shortly. Bert Hauer and I are working together on that. >> > >>>> > 4) Please view: http://wiki.cagreens.org . >> > >>>> This is being used for Green >> > >>>> > documents including Marnie Glickman's Green 2012 Propsal, so >> > is a logical >> > >>>> > "place" for longer term Strategy as well. >> > >>>> > 4) The end of February is a good deadline to ask Counties to get their >> > >>>> > feedback to us via Wiki or the Strategy Listserve (as >> > back-up) so we'll >> > >>have >> > >>>> > enough time to gather the feedback into something presentable at the >> > >Spring >> > >>>> > Plenary. >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: >> > >>>> > Fellow Greens, >> > >>>> > *2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!.* >> > >>>> > Green Party California is very excited about creating the >> > >>>> > _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". _ >> > >>>> > */Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!!/* >> > >>>> > *//* >> > >>>> > We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: >> > >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? >> > >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 5 years? How? >> > >>>> > What can Green Party California accomplish in the next 10 years? How? >> > >>>> > Please forward this email to your local email lists, present >> > this at your >> > >>>> next >> > >>>> > meeting, >> > >>>> > or however else you might share this exciting proejct with >> > other Greens. >> > >>>> > We'd like to collect your responses, blend them with things we've been >> > >>>> talking >> > >>>> > about and create a *_draft outline_* GPCA Strategic Action >> > Plan for our >> > >>>> Spring >> > >>>> > Plenary. >> > >>>> > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 >> > and needs to >> >be >> > >>>> > something >> > >>>> > _useful _for all of us as we plan ahead. >> > >>>> > We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: >> > >>>> > http://wiki.cagreens.org . >> > >>>> > Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) >> > >>>> > Choose _"GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond"_ >> > >>>> > Type your input directly on to the Page(s) of your choice. >> > >>>> > You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. >> > >>>> > Please keep your answers short (300 words or less?) be >> > specific, please >> > >set >> > >>>> > *_realistic _*goals that are *_action _*based. >> > >>>> > We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses: >> > >>>> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> > >>>> > The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need admin >> > >>approval >> > >>>> > to subscribe. >> > >>>> > The address to send a message to this list is >> > strategyplan at cagreens.org >> > >>>> > . >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, >> > please give it a >> > >>>> try! >> > >>>> > Please post your input on Wiki no later than the *_End of February. _* >> > >>>> > We look forward to hearing from you........ >> > >>>> > */Let's get this Party started!!/* >> > >>>> > -GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >> > >>>> > StrategyPlan mailing list >> > >>>> > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> > >>>> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> ------------------------------ >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Message: 3 >> > >>>> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:30:04 -0800 >> > >>>> From: shane que hee >> > >>>> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org >> > >>>> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Final? Draft re Strategizing >> > >>>> Message-ID: <201012280829.oBS8TocU026922 at mail.ucla.edu> >> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Everyone: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Looks as if my deletions did not show. Here is a clean copy of my >> > >>>> suggested version....Shane Que Hee, Dec 28 2010 >> > >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > >>>>- >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >>>DRAFT EMAIL TO COUNTY CONTACTS: >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>Fellow Greens, >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>2011 is the ideal time to do some major strategizing!. >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>THE Green Party OF California is very excited about creating >> > >>>> >>>the "GPCA Strategic Action Plan for 2011/2012 and Beyond". >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!! >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County: IN >> > >>>> >>>VIEW OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS AND OUR POLICY NOT TO TAKE LARGE >> > >>>> >>>CORPORATE FUNDS >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in 2011/2012?. How? >> > >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the >> > next 5 years? >> > >>How? >> > >>>> >>>What can THE Green Party OF California accomplish in the >> > next 10 years? >> > >>>How? >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>Please forward this MESSAGE to your local lists, present AND >> > >>>> >>>DISCUSS this at your next meetingS, or however you WANT TO share >> > >>>> >>>this exciting PROJECT with other LOCAL Greens. >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>We'd like YOU to collect your responses, and create a draft >> > >>>> >>>outline GPCA Strategic Action Plan FOR EACH TIME PERIOD >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>Please keep your answers short (300 words or less), be specific, >> > >>>> >>AND please set realistic goals that are action based. >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>THEN SEND US YOUR CREATIONS. >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>We've made it really easy!. Just go to this link: >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >http://wiki.cagreens.org . >> > >>>> >>>Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds) >> > >>>> >>>Choose "GPCA Strategic Action Plan 2011/2012 and Beyond" >> > >>>> >>>Type OR COPY/PASTE OR UPLOAD your input directly on to the >> > >>>> >>>Page(s) of your choice. >> > >>>> >>>You are invited to do the same on all the Strategy Topics. >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>We also have an email listserve as back-up for your responses IF YOU >> > >>>PREFER: >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>http: >> > >>>>//lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> > >>>> >> //lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >>>The list is configured for open subscription, you do not need >> > >>>> >>>admin approval to subscribe. >> > >>>> >>>The address to send a message to this list is >> > >>>> >>>strategyplan at cagreens.org. >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>Wiki is a much better format for gathering lots of data, please >> > >>>> >>>give it a try! >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>Please post your input on Wiki no later than the End of >> > >>>> >>>February SO WE CAN PRESENT AND DISCUSS ALL THE INPUT AT THE >> > >>>> >>>SPRING BUDGET GENERAL ASSEMBLY >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and >> > >>>> >>needs to be something useful for all of us as we plan ahead. >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>We look forward to hearing from you........ >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>Let's get this Party started!! >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>>-GPCA Working Groups and Coordinating Committee >> > >>>> >>> >> > >>>> >>> JANUARY 3 2010 >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > >>>>- >> > >>>> -------------- next part -------------- >> > >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> > >>>> URL: >> > >>>> >> 101228/491534f3/attachment.html>>>? >> > >>>>? > >> > >>>> >> > >>>> ------------------------------ >> > >>>> >> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>> StrategyPlan mailing list >> > >>>> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> > >>>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 >> > >>>> ******************************************* >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> gpca-cocos mailing list >> > >> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >> > >> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > gpca-cocos mailing list >> > > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >> > > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >gpca-cocos mailing list >> >gpca-cocos at cagreens.org >> >http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >-------------- next part -------------- >> >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> >URL: >> >> 229/a4ba6ac3/attachment.html> >> > >> >------------------------------ >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >StrategyPlan mailing list >> >StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> > >> > >> >End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25 >> >******************************************* >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> StrategyPlan mailing list >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >> >> >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 26 >> ******************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > StrategyPlan mailing list > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan >