[StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] revisit of approach
Bert
truekahuna at comcast.net
Thu Dec 16 07:50:23 PST 2010
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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org>
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto:jims at greens.org>>
> > To: GPCA Strategy Planning <strategyplan at cagreens.org
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3,
> > Issue 4
> > Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org> wrote:
> > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to
> > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org <mailto: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
> <mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org>
> > >>
> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> > >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:earthworks_works at yahoo.com>>
> > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 <strategyplan at cagreens.org
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>>
> > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward
> > >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:earthworks_works at yahoo.com>>
> > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 <strategyplan at cagreens.org
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>>
> > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson <barry at barryhermanson.org
> <mailto:barry at barryhermanson.org>>, Barry Hermanson
> > >> <barry at hermansons.com <mailto:barry at hermansons.com>>
> > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
> > >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:jims at greens.org>>
> > To: strategyplan at cagreens.org <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>
> > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
> > Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto:jims at greens.org>>
> > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning <strategyplan at cagreens.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>
> <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>>
> > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan
> mailing list
> > > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>
> > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > StrategyPlan mailing list
> > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
More information about the strategyplan
mailing list