[StrategyPlan] revisit of approach

[Jim Stauffer]

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 <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list
> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan