[StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] revisit of approach

[shane que hee]

Jim:

Thanks for your input.

As part of the CC you have the bylaw mandated responsibility for 
adopting something.

Go to it then!....Shane Que Hee, Dec 17 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



At 06:55 PM 12/16/2010, Jim Stauffer wrote:
>I agree that these have not been the most productive discussions. 
>I've been wondering if this project is worth continuing.
>
>Shane - I see by your last post that you're still promoting the 
>project to be centered around a growing list of issues to which 
>Locals should respond. And as to your perceived need to get this 
>done by the budget cycle, it's clear you're looking at short-term 
>goals for the immediate years, since long-term goals have little to 
>do with our 2011 budget. As I've stated, I'm firmly against this approach.
>
>Kendra's 'one question' also contains planning for the immediate 
>years. I believe that short-term and long-term strategies need to be 
>handled separately, like I've seen in other organizations.
>
>I think it's time for me to bow out of this project. This is a busy 
>time for me and I don't see where continuing to advocate my idea for 
>setting long-term goals with local input will be productive.
>
>But I will caution you again that the bylaws specify the CC is 
>responsible for developing strategy plans. So anything you send out 
>on this really should have their approval.
>
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>On 12/15/2010 4:05 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote:
>>Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the right
>>questions. Though these are _very_ relevent issues to raise and thank you
>>Jim and Shane (and others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will
>>glaze over....mine are!
>
>>Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask he locals
>>ONE question:
>
>>"How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?"
>
>>But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the
>>answer(s)! Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it
>>out. If it doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from
>>locals and documenting them somewhere ourselves.
>
>>We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've been
>>  bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with from this
>>one very simple question.
>
>>How about it?
>>
>>
>>Kendra Gonzales www.vccool.org www.cagreens.org/ventura "All the energy
>>stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas is matched by
>>the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned Scientists
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>*From:* shane que hee <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
>_______________________________________________
>gpca-cocos mailing list
>gpca-cocos at cagreens.org
>http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos