[StrategyPlan] Wiki and Announcement

Wed Jan 12 17:40:17 PST 2011

I'm not going to waste my time responding to this. You have never listened to 
single thing I've said on this issue, you have just plowed ahead with whatever 
you wanted to do.

That Current Topic list is exclusively Shane's comments. Show me where there 
was consensus that these represent the state party's ideas. Some of them 
aren't even accurate.

The instructions you wrote make no sense and certainly don't jibe with any 
reasonable structure for this wiki project.

But go ahead and keep putting out your snipes about cooperation and consensus, 
while demonstrating that you don't know the meaning of the words.

Jim

On 1/12/2011 11:07 AM, Kendra Gonzales wrote:
> My responses below in bold
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org>
> *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org
> *Sent:* Tue, January 11, 2011 5:28:59 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [StrategyPlan] Wiki and Announcement
>
> So, we are still having the same debate about whether or not we should be
> telling the counties what topics to discuss. How many more months do you want
> to spend on this issue? And, who said *these* are the topics we need to
> discuss? I don't remember any consensus around that.
> /*I don't see how _asking _counties to comment on _some _topics is "telling
> the counties....". Its an _invitation_, its _optional,_ its _voluntary_. It
> lets the counties know what what we "state leaders" have been thinking and
> talking about...so far. Its not the end-all, end product, its just a starting
> point. However, its all moot anyway because the email has gone out with just
> the 3 broad questions and no reference to any specific topics. You got what
> you wanted, so what is your argument?. Are you blocking that we at the state
> level do any strategic planning ourselves?. If not, then just as we are doing
> with the counties, we need a repository for our ideas and data as well. If we
> are using Wiki for all Greens, then lets be consistent and also use Wiki for
> specific topics that we can add as we go through this. ...*/
> /*The topics were to also include the many points _you _put forth. As to
> consensus, you and Shane were the only ones to put forward any specific
> topics. I didn't because between the 2 of you, all the bases were pretty much
> covered, as starting points...again, JUST to get conversation started. Please,
> lets not get stuck on "this is it...these are the topics....there is nothing
> else we need to talk about....obviously there is much more, there will be
> more, we are in the _beginning _stages of this process. */
> /*As to spending months on this....I don't want to, didn't want to.... but we
> obviously have to. Its about compromise and building consensus. I'm guessing
> that if this proposal, which seemed to have consensus quite a while ago had
> gone to an IT person who didn't have blocking concerns then it would have gone
> out quite awhile ago. So, you need to take some responsibility in the length
> of time this has taken. Shane also had some suggestions and concerns, we
> talked about them, and he stepped aside. The other co-co's have been
> supportive. The CC is supportive. That sounds like consensus to me, except for
> you. So, here we are...again. */
> /**/
> /*However, you deleted any reference to specific topics in the email that went
> out an hour after you posted this anyway!. Thats fine, thats great!. If I were
> a Green going to Wiki for the first time to post my county's ideas on the 3
> very broad questions and also saw some specific topics being openly discussed,
> I would not think...."oh no! The state party is telling me what to do". I
> would think "oh, here are some specifc things being discussed, and we are
> invited to post our ideas too...and we are even invited to create new topics!"
> */*/So, if its an open invitation to everyone, any topics can be added, I
> don't get why you think Greens will think this is top-down?. /*
> *//*
>
> If you and Shane think these topics are the most important, then bring them up
> when you have your county/group meeting.
> */Can we then say the same for the specific topics _you_ brought up?. The plan
> was to include your suggested topics in the Wiki as well. Are you suggesting
> we don't have any topics on the Wiki ever?. If so, then how do you suggest the
> State Party do any strategizing?. How do you suggest we create a documented
> Strategic Plan?. What other methods to you have in mind?. We've chosen Wiki as
> the tool, and we eventually need to have some way to keep the ideas organized.
> How else do you suggest we keep ideas organized, than by topic?. /
>
> *I am adamantly opposed to listing these topics in the intro to the wiki as if
> they are some definitive list ordained by the GPCA.
> /*I had sent an email saying...go ahead, delete "topics" from the intro. I
> thought we were done. Then you sent this....I'm confused as to what you are
> asking. */
> /**/
> /*Are you suggesting we don't have any specific topics on the Wiki ever?. If
> so, then how do you suggest the State Party do our strategizing?. How do you
> suggest we create a documented Strategic Plan?. What other methods to you have
> in mind?. Let me reiterate, nothing here is definitive....nothing on the Wiki
> is definitive....none of the topics are ever definitive....strategic planning
> is all about having some kind of goal in mind and some ideas of how to get
> there and the ability to be flexible and allow the Plan to change and evolve
> with the times. I honestly do not know where you keep getting "definitive"
> from....I've never put this proposal forth as being that. I've been saying
> over and over that is what we don't want and couldn't possibly create. */
>
> If you really want to
> pursue creating such a list, it's going to need a lot more buy-in than just
> you and Shane.
> */We have the buy-in!. We've had the buy-in for awhile!. Seemingly, you are
> the only one that keeps blocking! /**/How much more assurance do you need that
> this is NOT a definitive, rigid, state-created, top-down strategic planning
> process?. Quite the opposite!. Please assure me that you are not blocking for
> just blocking's sake?/*
> *//*
> */Jim, please clarify what you are asking for. I know what you DON"T want, and
> I AGREE. Please describe _the how_ of Strategic Planning if you don't want a
> "topics" format on Wiki. How else do you suggest we gather information?. /*
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> On 1/10/2011 6:01 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote:
>  > For the sake of getting this done, I'll agree to removing the list of topics,
>  > *_for now. _*
>  > I'd like to add those topics back in after we start seeing some feedback from
>  > locals...maybe in beginning of March?. We are supposed to be strategizing
>  > also, so using Wiki makes sense to faciliate that process. These topics are
>  > certainly some of the things we need to start talking about.
>  >
>  > 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:* Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org <mailto:jims at greens.org>>
>  > *To:* strategyplan at cagreens.org <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>
>  > *Sent:* Mon, January 10, 2011 5:18:05 PM
>  > *Subject:* [StrategyPlan] Wiki and Announcement
>  >
>  > This is a carry-on from our previous thread.
>  >
>  >
>  > The text of the current draft announcement is pasted below. It includes
>  > instructions for posting comments. But, after comparing the announcement and
>  > the wiki, it seems that they are aimed more at individual responses rather
>  > than group responses.
>  >
>  > We've been talking all along about counties having group meetings. A secondary
>  > purpose of this project was to encourage counties to get together with their
>  > neighbors for an afternoon. As I reported, the CC wants this and is planning
>  > on promoting it in a follow-up announcement.
>  >
>  > Our primary interest is in getting these group reports. Then we can have
>  > individuals adding responses to those reports, or adding new topics.
>  >
>  > I'm going to change the bullet-list instructions in the announcement. The last
>  > two bullets will be:
>  >
>  > * Click the Discussion tab and type or paste your group's report directly on
>  > the page.
>  >
>  > * Individuals are invited to comment on these reports, or to add new topics.
>  >
>  >
>  > For an intro on the wiki main page, I suggest we just use pertinent paragraphs
>  > from the announcement. We can add a ToC when we decide on how to sub-divide
>  > the responses.
>  >
>  > And I assume we're removing that list of Current Topics.
>  >
>  > Jim
>  >
>  > =================================================================
>  >
>  > [ The final announcement is in HTML with links, highlights and emphasis. ]
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Fellow Greens,
>  >
>  > 2011 is the ideal time to set goals for the Party and develop strategies to
>  > implement them!
>  >
>  > The Green Party of California is very excited about creating "The GPCA
>  > Strategic Action Plan"
>  >
>  > Your input is absolutely vital in making this happen!!
>  >
>  > We have very basic questions to ask Greens in every County:
>  >
>  > * What can The Green Party of California accomplish in 2011/2012? How?
>  > * What can The Green Party of California accomplish in the next 5 years? How?
>  > * What can The Green Party of California accomplish in the next 10 years?
>  > How?
>  >
>  >
>  > Please forward this message to your local lists, present and discuss at your
>  > next meeting, or however else you want to share this exciting project with
>  > other Greens.
>  >
>  > We plan to collect your responses, blend them with things we've been talking
>  > about, and create a draft outline GPCA Strategic Action Plan for our Spring
>  > Plenary.
>  > This document will be continually evolving throughout 2011 and needs to be
>  > something useful for all of us as we plan ahead.
>  >
>  > We've made it really easy!.
>  >
>  > * Just go to this wiki page: Strategy Plan Wiki.
>  > * Log-in or create an account. (10 seconds; link in upper right corner).
>  > * Click the Discussion tab and type or paste your input directly on the page.
>  > * You are invited to share your ideas on all the Strategy Topics.
>  >
>  >
>  > Please keep your comments short, specific, realistic and action-based.
>  >
>  > We also have an email lists as an alternative to the wiki for your responses
>  > if you prefer. The address to send a message to this list is
>  > strategyplan at cagreens.org <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>>.
>  >
>  > Wiki is a much better format than email for gathering lots of data, please
>  > give it a try.
>  > Its really quite easy!
>  >
>  > Please post your input on Wiki no later than the End of February.
>  > We look forward to hearing from you........
>  >
>  > Let's get this Party started!!
>  >
>  >
>  > -- GPCA Standing Groups and the Coordinating Committee
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> StrategyPlan mailing list
> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan