[StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18
shane que hee
squehee at ucla.edu
Mon Dec 20 13:40:11 PST 2010
Kendra:
Where are the responses from the Counties to go?
The 1st request should read "How should the GPCA move forward in
2011/ 2012?" 2010 IS GONE, JUST ABOUT
You need to draft the request.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 20 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:10 AM 12/20/2010, you wrote:
>Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to
> strategyplan at cagreens.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Strategy: answers to Shane (Kendra Gonzales)
> 2. Strategizing / Local in-put / using Wiki (Kendra Gonzales)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:22:11 -0800 (PST)
>From: Kendra Gonzales <earthworks_works at yahoo.com>
>To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 <strategyplan at cagreens.org>
>Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategy: answers to Shane
>Message-ID: <622856.10490.qm at web56907.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Hi there,
>
>My?responses in yellow below:
>
>(from Shane) Kendra:
>
>If we intend to have a draft strategy plan for the March Budget
>General Assembly
>in the plenary packet
>
>Not my intention to have an entire draft strategy plan done by March / next
>Plenary. My intention is an introduction of the general idea and what we have
>collected from the locals?so far, and what the state has
>addressed?so far, and
>any combination there of.? VERY premliminary!
>
>
>, a Jan 31 deadline is reasonable since all of us (or in this case probably
>mostly you)? need to consider and digest the replies to formulate the draft
>strategic plan.---not a short process.?
>
>I agree this is not a short process and so disagree that Jan 31 is
>reasonable.
>Please trust me when I say that getting responses from local groups
>in 1 month's
>time is just not a reality. This is ever more broad than County
>Polling and that
>took at least 3 months of needling, begging, inspiring,
>cojoling...over and over
>and over and that was a very specific request, whereas this will ignite
>(hopefully!) a whole lot of discussion and debate within the locals. Look how
>long its taking for just the few of us to agree on how to even
>approach this!.
>
>
>
>?I also deliberately chose the budget deadline because the co-cos should see
>beforehand any suggested innovations that are in their areas and propose a
>budget for them.?
>
>Again, this is very preliminary....there is not enough time to?think about
>applying budget lines yet. Our working groups ARE thinking about strategy and
>budget lines right now for 2011/2012, and that is a part of the strategic
>planning process, as it always has been, right? The difference in what we are
>attempting here is?asking for direct input from the locals - which, again to
>reiterate is going to take some time.?
>?
>The Strategic Plan is not going to always be directly tied to
>funding. Some of
>it is going to be about volunteerism, using free technology (like facebook),
>internal communication, what sort of direction do we generally want to be
>heading, types of campaigns, and so forth. If there is something
>innovative that
>costs money and?comes forward between budgets without any kind of budget line
>from a working group that could be applied to it, then we should
>have a means to
>address that.?Our Bylaws don't address this in full at all and this
>is in fact
>one of the things that should be on the Strategic Plan!.?Also, any
>innovations
>that are going to cost money?should have some funding action?attached. Locals
>can raise their own money too.
>?
>
>?I suppose the strategic plan could be slated to begin the next budget
>year---that is, 2012--but that is too long to wait in my opinion.
>
>Portions of?a Strategic Plan can be applied right away, some of?it not until
>later. Lets not think of this in terms of an end product...that doesn't
>really?work the best. I'm learning as a non-profit Board?member that usually,
>there?is?planning process like what we're attempting to do now.....an amazing
>document will be created...an "end product"....everyone looks at
>it.....debates.... maybe a final draft is adopted,? then?its filed away in a
>drawer and never looked at again.?I'm hopeful we can look at this as?ever
>evolving and constantly used.?We might not want to?attempt an
>official adoption
>per se...getting to THAT point could be endless. Maybe?the way to
>look at this
>is?as a tool,?a resource,?options to consider....a "roadmap"..
>
>What is your specific alternative time line??
>
>All throughout 2011 and on-going.?By the Spring Plenary, there could
>be a basic
>outline of what we all mostly agree on as the direction we want to
>head, but the
>details on HOW to get there?should be dynamic and allow for flexibility. .
>
>It sounds as if you intend to present the March General Assembly with a draft
>plan cold turkey---something that has much less chance of succeeding.
>
>No...just a basic introduction and outline of what are the most important
>actions that Greens are agreeing on at the local and state levels....so far.
>
>
>We need to get people in the locals and Counties thinking immediately so they
>can reply in? a substantive manner.? A month (January) should be
>long enough to
>be able to answer one question.??
>
>I agree on immediacy to start this process; I would like for an
>email to go out
>to County Contact no later than the end of?December.?Its really 3
>questions.?But,?these are huge questions...
>?
>How should the GPCA move forward in 2010 / 2011?
>How should the GPCA move forward for the next 5 years?
>How should the GPCA move forward for the next 10 years?
>
>?
>Kendra Gonzales
>www.vccool.org
>www.cagreens.org/ventura
>"All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas
>?is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned
>Scientists
>
>
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan/attachments/20101219/cab30d6e/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:10:11 -0800 (PST)
>From: Kendra Gonzales <earthworks_works at yahoo.com>
>To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 <strategyplan at cagreens.org>,
> coordinating committee <gpca-cc at cagreens.org>
>Cc: Bert Heuer <truekahuna at comcast.net>
>Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategizing / Local in-put / using Wiki
>Message-ID: <767873.87881.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>I'm copying the CC on this email thread to address Jim's concern
>that the CC is
>the body this is?authorized to conduct?Strategy Planning and that
>the CC needs
>to be behind this.
>
>
>We've been debating different approaches on the Strategy Plan listserve:
>strategyplan at cagreens.org
>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan?(to subscribe)
>
>I'm hopeful we can agree to ask 3 very simple questions of the locals:
>
>How does the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012?
>How does the GPCA move forward in 5 years?
>How does the GPCA move forward in 10 years?
>
>At first we were talking about?asking specific questions for the locals to
>answer.?I now agree its better to ask very broad open ended
>questions like the
>ones above, BUT, "we" can answer the specific questions amongst ourselves (on
>Wiki) and combine those answers with what the locals come back with into one
>place (Wiki) as the basic outline of what will become our Strategic Plan. ?
>
>If this blended approach is agreeable, then I propose we re-draft and email?a
>very simple email to the County Contacts by the end of December, with these 3
>questions and a request to?post their responses to a virtual space for
>recordingd purposes.?(like Wiki)? with the response timeline to be throughout
>Jan, February, March...in preparation for a very preliminary?Plan
>outline by the
>Plenary.
>
>
>Bert Hauer has kindly volunteered to be our IT person for this data
>collection.?I?have responded to his
>
>questions below in yellow.
>
>To all,
>
>Two points: I volunteered to handle the wiki work and I asked for direction.
>
>I don't see that anyone else is handling this, so I will. If someone
>ELSE wants
>to do the wiki thing, or if there is some wiki other than wiki.cagreens.org,
>then say so. Otherwise I am moving forward.
>
>The idea of using Wiki, or something like it, is for Locals to do
>their OWN work
>of typing in their responses. This won't happen across the board of
>course, but
>its a start. We may have to do some of the documentation, like copying email
>responses into Wiki for the locals who just wont go there.
>
>
>I want to be supportive of Wiki..of course there is concern it will be shut
>down...what is the likelihood of that?.
>
>
>OK, on to the directions. I am going to ask questions of the CO-CO's on this
>list. The time right now it is 12/16/10 0645.? If you have answers
>or opinions,
>please get them to me within 36 hours.
>
>I missed this deadline!. So sorry...
>I suggest that anyone else who is interested in working on this subscribe
>specifically to:
>
>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan?
>
>
>Definition:
>
>Just so we have names for stuff, I am going to call the entries in
>the Main Page
>"Categories" and each page within an category (other than the Table
>of Contents
>- a.k.a. first page beneath the category) is a "topic".
>
>Example categories: "Green 2012", "Props 2010", and "IT" are all existing
>"categories" in the GPCA wiki.
>
>Example topics: within the Props 2010 article, are the "topics" Props2010/18,
>Props2010/19, etc.
>
>Please digest the above. Also, I think my names for these things suck. So if
>someone has a better set of names for use in conversations just like
>this one,
>then say so and we'll use them.
>
>Use each of the questions to locals (above) as a?Topic?
>?
>ie: "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012" is a Topic.
>?
>Use each of the "questions" posted by Shane and Jim, and anything
>else that is
>brought forward by State level Greens as a?Topic as well?:
>
>?
>ie: "?What are realistic voter registration goals?
>
>But then....how do we break that out into timelines..."2011/2012", "In 5
>Years"..."In 10 Years"...
>
>
>??? Step 1:
>
>Am I creating a new category? Or am I extending the Green 2012 category?
>
>Unless I hear otherwise: I will create a new category named "Moving
>Forward: A
>Party Strategy" (or something hifalutin like that). Why? Because
>Green 2012 is a
>two year plan and this "strategy thing" seems to have different horizons.
>
>Does Wiki just have the 2 layers of Category and then Topic?
>
>?
>If so, that is kind of limiting....can we create a whole new Wiki
>link just for
>this?
>Or, do we want ONE Wiki for all things Greens for the entire State?
>Can one Wiki
>accomodate everything we do?
>
>??? Step 2:
>
>Throughout all of the email threads, there have been a number of questions
>suggested. So the next decision is:
>
>(a) Do we want one big topic for the whole thing (broken into sections),
>
>OR
>
>(b) Do we want to break the discussion up into separate topics (ex:
>one for each
>of the questions posed by various co-co's)
>
>Again, depends on what Wiki allows for...
>
>Unless I hear otherwise: I will assume a separate topic for each
>question. Why?
>Because I am anal-retentive that way. Also I see it as helping "people who
>contribute" to stay focused (see "direction" below). And so that "people who
>collate" have an easier time of it.
>
>Lets visit this soon unless its already done? Its probley best to all look at
>Wiki together at the same time if we can manage it. Maybe a conference call?
>
>??? Step 3:
>
>Who do we expect to contribute? County councilpersons? State party
>Co-co's? CC
>members? Any CA registered Green? Any Green at all? Any person at all?
>
>YES, all.....open, so no one feels left out if they are not on a
>certain list or
>committee or council.
>
>We have to be VERY CLEAR that this request needs to go out further
>than just the
>person who gets the County Contact email.. Plus, we can post it to all of the
>working groups...Cal-Forum, etc..
>
>I will get in touch with IT and we'll see about logins and rights
>and such like.
>
>??? Step 4:
>
>I can/will read back through all of the email and create a "question list". I
>can present the "question list" to THIS list for comment.
>
>Sounds Good!
>
>Note the "question list" is needed w/o regard to the decision in Step 2.
>
>Really Note: the "question list" could be just the one question posed by Jim.
>
>I'm not certain what this one question is any more!
>
>
>Though I agree with Kendra: if we ask one question w/o any
>additional direction,
>I fear we will receive responses that are "all over the map".
>
>The direction can come from?the 14 or so Questions that "we've" come up with
>that locals will see on Wiki. So, there is space for them to respond to our
>specifics, and space for them to come up with entirely new or
>different issues
>we might not be thinking about. I'm all about balancing the 2 approaches.
>
>Really Really Note: If someone else wants to do Step 4, then say so
>and I won't
>spend MY time on it.
>
>??? Step 5:
>
>Assuming I am doing the work, I want to create the wiki category and topic
>page(s) next weekend (12/18..12/19). That is when I have the time. So, if I
>don't hear anything, or if what I do hear are equivocations and
>ambiguity, then
>what work I do will be subject to my mind-reading skills (and all
>overly-harsh
>passive-aggressive post-facto armchair quarterbacking will be met with Bert's
>Standard Two Word Response).
>
>Please get back to me ASAP; let's get this done together,
>
>Bert
>
>
>As always, I may be a day late and a dollar short....its now Monday.....wah.
>
>
>
>
>
>Kendra Gonzales wrote:
> >
> > Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the
> right questions.?
> >Though these are? very relevent issues to raise and thank you Jim
> and Shane (and
> >others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will glaze
> over....mine are!?
> >Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask
> he locals ONE
> >question:
> >? "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?"
> >? But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the
> >answer(s)!
> > Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it out. If it
> >doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from locals and
> >documenting them somewhere ourselves.
> >? We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues
> we've been
> >bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with
> from this one
> >very simple question.
> >? How about it?
> >?
> >?
> > Kendra Gonzales
> > www.vccool.org
> > www.cagreens.org/ventura
> > "All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and
> natural gas
> >? is matched? by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned
> >Scientists
> >
> >
> > *From:* shane que hee <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/20101
> 212/096bcb59/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/20101
> 212/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
>
>
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan/attachments/20101220/25cce14f/attachment.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>StrategyPlan mailing list
>StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
>
>
>End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18
>*******************************************
More information about the strategyplan
mailing list