[StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] revisit of approach

Thu Dec 16 16:43:56 PST 2010

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 <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
> _______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing list
> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos
>