[StrategyPlan] Strategy Plan Announcement

[Bert]

Good points. Maybe my issues in re procedures and "project planning" 
/are/ a little premature.

The "represents current thinking" was an attempt at saying both "this 
strategy is evolving and will continue to do so", AND an attempt to 
recognize that a set of wiki pages is not a blog or an email listserv - 
there are limitations to the way the "feedback and comment" process will 
work using that particular tool.

I completely agree that we should avoid having this perceived as some 
sort of "heavy hand of the state party". The "presented by" was just 
trying to say "there are multiple state-level groups working together on 
this".  Maybe I should have just written it that way.

"Step 2" was about Kendra reading through the scads of email and pulling 
out the content ideas thereby saving me the trouble of doing so.

Last thing; less about "content" than it is about "process". Taking your 
statement: "I'm assuming that counties will send a report that contains 
all their ideas". I think we should not assume and that we should be 
very specific, in an announcement to whomever, about how the feedback 
should be given or "Write an email and send it to X", or "go to the wiki 
page, log in, and use X procedure", or "send a report with these headers 
in it...". Something like that. We should, ahead of time, tell people 
HOW to respond to whatever question(s) are posed.  Some people will not 
follow instructions for "how to fill in the 'little ovals'" but most 
will.  That keeps the discussion "on track" and helps in our effort to 
collate responses.

Bert



Jim Stauffer wrote:
> Bert - I thought this wiki was something you did a while ago, didn't 
> realize it was just last Sunday. And my comment on your "original idea" 
> was in reference to the wiki structure, not content.
> 
> 
> I have to say, it appears we're back to the same disagreements we've had 
> for three months - that of putting out a list of topics for people to 
> comment on. That is exactly what I've been campaigning against since the 
> beginning of this project. The announcement to the counties and the wiki 
> must agree, and the announcement asks only three broad questions in an 
> attempt to get counties to tell us what they think the goals should be.
> 
> I especially have concerns over the list that's now on the wiki. These 
> are Shane's issues. These are what he should bring up when his Local has 
> their strategy discussion. They should not be the definition of this 
> goal/strategy exercise. Personally, I disagree with some of those items, 
> like the one about quitting GPUS. I don't think it's appropriate to push 
> that issue, and Sanda specifically asked us not to.
> 
> Equally troubling is the introductory statement on the wiki: "This 
> collection of pages, presented by the state party Committees and Working 
> Groups, presents the current thinking, and an opportunity to comment."
> 
> Again, I have been arguing for months that what we don't need is another 
> top-down project where the state party has decided the topics of 
> discussion, and we're just asking the counties to comment on them.
> 
> If we're just going to have another round of arguing over a topics list, 
> I'm going to invoke the CC's authority over this project. It is the CC 
> that's mandated to facilitate the goals and strategy process. They have 
> heard the arguments about a topics list, and they have approved the 
> announcement without such a list.
> 
> 
> I'm not clear on the purpose of "step 2." We're going to post all the 
> messages from this list onto the wiki? I'm not sure it's relevant to 
> what we're asking from the counties. If we want to share the discussions 
> on organizing this project, let's just link to the list archives. But I 
> don't think they'll be too many people interested.
> 
> 
> The purpose of the wiki is to collect and organize ideas sent by the 
> counties. Planning the details of tasks is a ways down the road. First 
> we have to agree on some goals, then develop strategies to attain them, 
> then develop prioritized tasks to execute the strategies.
> 
> 
> So, how should the wiki be structured to collect county input? I put out 
> my ideas in my last message. But just to get the counties' initial input 
> we probably need only the existing page. As I said, I'm assuming that 
> counties will send a report that contains all their ideas. We will then 
> have to sort out all the ideas into categories, with each having their 
> own sub-page. We could work out all the L2 and L3 categories later.
> 
> I'll send the announcement out tomorrow. But there's going to be trouble 
> if the counties get a message asking them to submit ideas, then be 
> confronted with a wiki that says we want their comments on the state 
> party's ideas. The state party should have their own L2 page for their 
> ideas.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/9/2011 10:36 AM, Bert wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> I wouldn't say you've blown it at all. Kendra and I started that wiki 
>> page set
>> last Sunday morning. What is there now was "thrown up" while we were 
>> on the
>> phone together simply as a way to get started. It is still very much a
>> work-in-progress.
>>
>> As a second step, Kendra has collated the emails sent to this list - 
>> including
>> your suggestions and has sent me the file. My part of "step 2" is to 
>> put all
>> of that information into the wiki pages "as best I can".
>>
>> The third step was to then ask for what would then be the second round of
>> opinions on (what would then be) the "prototype".
>>
>> Also, and just to set the record straight, what you attribute as "Bert's
>> original idea" wasn't mine at all. I have yet to advocate what should or
>> should not be the content of our party strategy. I have argued only that:
>>
>> (a) Whatever discussion points are decided upon, whether that's a list of
>> questions or something else entirely, should be open to active input 
>> from the
>> various county parties.
>>
>> (b) That we all recognize that any goals, and strategy to acheive 
>> those goals,
>> implies "tasks to be done".
>>
>> (c) That we must agree ahead of time what "completion" means for each 
>> task (or
>> set of tasks).
>>
>> (d) That responsibility for those tasks has to be both assigned and 
>> accepted,
>> and that part of that responsibility is agreeing to some manner of 
>> deadline.
>>
>> (e) That there must be ongoing and active monitoring of our progress 
>> toward
>> our goals.
>>
>> I am trying to express my feeling that we must teach ourselves that we 
>> can
>> have reasonable expectations of one another and, furthermore, that the 
>> best
>> way to satisfy those expectations is to learn to practice the most 
>> basic of
>> management techniques. I know we're not a business and that we cannot 
>> run GPCA
>> as though it were a business. But I also know that any strategy, no 
>> matter how
>> well conceived, will not survive lack of execution.
>>
>> Bert Heuer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim Stauffer wrote:
>>>
>>> I really blew it on this one. I somehow missed Kendra's message on 
>>> Thursday
>>> morning. Then I was out all day Friday and just saw the message last 
>>> night.
>>>
>>> I was going to send it out today and then push the CC for a follow-up
>>> message to send next Thursday.
>>>
>>> But, in preparing the message I revisited the wiki, which I hadn't 
>>> seen in a
>>> while, and I have to ask if that's really the final version.
>>>
>>> There are two headings with sub-lists of specific topics:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/GPCA_Strategic_Action_Plan
>>>
>>> > This seems to be Bert's original idea based on the counties getting 
>>> a set
>>> of questions they're suppose to answer. But now we're sending out 
>>> just three
>>> broad categories to catch all comments.
>>>
>>> Consider the responses we're going to get. The counties, or 
>>> county-groups,
>>> will send minutes or notes of their meeting. They will contain a 
>>> variety of
>>> opinions and topics in no categorized manner. We (whoever will do 
>>> this) will
>>> have to sort through these messages and copy/paste each item into a
>>> category/sub-topic.
>>>
>>> The wiki has to be structured to accommodate this. We need one level for
>>> counties to submit their minutes. Then we need a structure of
>>> category/sub-topics for discussion threads.
>>>
>>> Here's an update of a suggestion I made a while back:
>>>
>>> L1 - Main Page
>>>
>>> Posts from county/group meetings
>>>
>>> Index (of L2 headings):
>>>
>>> L2 - Immediate Future (up to Nov 2012) Goals page
>>>
>>> Index (of L3 headings):
>>>
>>> Political Goals
>>> L3 - Partisan and non-partisan candidates page
>>> L3 - Campaigns and ballot proposition page
>>> L3 - Election reforms page
>>>
>>> Other topics are gathered on the L2 page
>>>
>>> Internal / Party Goals
>>> L3 - Voter registration page
>>> L3 - Developing county Locals page
>>> L3 - Fundraising page
>>> L3 - Internal structure and administration page
>>>
>>> Other topics are gathered on the L2 page
>>>
>>> L2 - Five Year Goals
>>>
>>> [same index of L3 headings]
>>>
>>> L2 - Ten Year Goals
>>>
>>> [same index of L3 headings]
>>> ----------------------
>>>
>>> Or, we could switch the L2s and L3s:
>>>
>>>
>>> L2 - Partisan and non-partisan candidates page
>>>
>>> L3 - Immediate Future (up to Nov 2012)
>>> L3 - Five Year Goals
>>> L3 - Ten Year Goals
>>>
>>> L2 - etc.
>>>
>>> (This structure might actually be best)
>>> --------------------------
>>>
>>> But we need to get this set up before we send the announcement. There 
>>> may be
>>> individuals who want to comment before their county has a meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> P.S. Bert - I think it's time you subscribed to this list. We're past 
>>> the
>>> planning phase and now into the input and wiki maintenance phase.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/6/2011 9:33 AM, Kendra Gonzales wrote:
>>>> Great! Thank you.
>>>> Kendra Gonzales
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org>
>>>> *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org
>>>> *Sent:* Wed, January 5, 2011 6:03:52 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] CC on Strategy Plan Announcement
>>>>
>>>> I can make the change to the last draft regarding the strategyplan 
>>>> list as the
>>>> alternate send-to address and get the message out tomorrow. Messages 
>>>> sent on
>>>> weekends have a higher rate of being missed.
>>>>
>>>> To clarify, the issue wasn't about prohibiting people from 
>>>> subscribing to the
>>>> strategy list, it was about having all responses on the wiki.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> StrategyPlan mailing list
>> 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
>