ANST - Second-Guessing

[Gunnora Hallakarva]

Viscount Galen of Bristol said:

> In every new project large and small, there
> comes a time when those who are resonsible
> for the project must make decisions about
> the scope and method of that project.  The
> "vision" is finally defined, the committment
> is made to proceed (or not to proceed).

And if the people who the project and vision will affect do not agree with the vision and/or project, then the planners failed miserably.  I don't mean one or two who disagree - I mean a majority element.

> At this point, the great mass of people
> who are interested in passing, but who are
> not sufficiently committed to attend meetings
> or serve in decision-making offices, step
> forward with all their revisions.

Specious argument, I think.  There are plenty of us who have served in offices, and/ro acted as autocrats, and/or who serve the kingdom as peers and/or officers who have comments and suggestions which are valuable and worthwhile, but who may not be able to attend the original meetings.

Nor can one say that the people at a given meeting are always doing the right thing.  If you make a bad decision in a meeting or from an office and the mass of the people revolt, you made the wrong decision.  I point as an example to the BoD fiasco a while back when they not only failed to release the SCA books to reasonable inspection, they spent OUR
money to hire a lawyer to prevent US from seeing those books.  I guarantee that there are PLENTY of times when leadership not only should be questioned but MUST be questioned.

This is why the American legal and political process has things such as impeachment, repeal of laws, "town meetings", candidate debates...

<snip>
> Sometimes, this input can have positive effect.
> But not usually.

I think that this is completely wrong.  Galen, I usually don't disagree with you this strongly, but obviously somebody got a hot button for you and I don't think you considered parts of your post carefully. Certainly your comments are a hot button for me.

Input is not only desirable, it is necessary.  This is a volunteer organization whose members pay site fees and make donations to enhance their recreation time.  If a bad decision is made that lots of people object to strongly, they withdraw their financial support from the organization.  The SCA Inc. fiasco above is a prime example of that.

You have to solicit advice and listen to advice anytime you propose to take money in the organization and use it for a major purchase.  Every Ansteorran is entitled to have, and voice, and opinion.  And our leadership, the Crown and Great Officers, would only be wise to listen to the voice of their people -- you cannot lead them if they will not
follow.

> Will this year's Gulf War autocrat volunteer
> again, after the horrific treatment he received
> on the Ansteorra list from people who were
> disappointed not to get scarce bed space?  I
> wouldn't blame him if he didn't.

Not the same thing at all.  That was not an issue of opinions being voiced, but personal attacks, death threats, and vicious abuse.  The opinions were fine and valid.  The attacks were not.

> Is Pug on the verge of withdrawing his proposal
> regarding Ansteorran technology?  I'd be sorry,
> but not surprised, if he felt the slings and
> arrows to be not worth the benefit.

I don't know what Pug may do here, but if you propose to spend this much money -- and we're NOT talking about $1000 or $2000 dollars, we are talking about on-going moneys over time as has been cogently explained here already -- you have to expect that some people will panic, some people will disagree, and many will attempt to second-guess.  Pug
himself has not been shy about questioning aspects of SCA functioning in the past, nor should he have been.  Nor should anyone who has a valid and logical concern not get to speak their opinion.

Jeepers, there may be things that have not been considered that these discussions may prompt thought on.  Pug might get an idea he would not have otherwise had, or he may see something that he overlooked.  I am a web professional, and I guarantee that when I submit this type of proposal at work my peers try to pick it apart and punch holes in it.  If
they are successful, it means I wasn't well enough prepared.  Anyone in the real world who submits capital purchase proposals expects to have to work and rework such a proposal.

> Will a lady who got too much flack in trying
> to bring a new tourney idea to the field try
> it again?  I doubt it.

That's a different case altogether.  But the SCA is set up in such a way that new tourney ideas ARE harshly critiqued - we vote with our feet and with our dollars.  Better to get flack and rework an unworkable or hideously unpopular idea than to throw and event where noone comes and your group loses money because of it.

> How about the lord who proposed a new fund-raising
> idea for his branch, only to have it endlessly
> nit-picked?

Again, if the people didn't like it, it doesn't have a large chance of working.

> ATYC has been gently treated (for the most part)
> on this list, but I've had my share of second-
> guessing with it, too.

As you should.  Your name wasn't John Paul the last I looked ;-) so one assumes that you might occasionally be fallible.  Are you seriously saying that you wouldn't listen to a good suggestion if it came from someone who wasn't volunteering to work the event?  That's frankly silly -- for instance, I can't attend due to mundane responsibilities, but I
might conceivably have a good idea that would be helpful to you.  I'd certainly think that the autocrat of any event, and most especially a large event, should pay attention to all these complaints and fears (since that's what a lot of the objections amount to) and either seriously consider the suggestion, or take steps to calm the fear.  In my
opinion, you haven't done *your* job as autocrat if you do any less.

<snip>
> (And no, we've cut the budget on site tokens, so
> we're not spending $1000 on them.)

I suspect you caught a lot of flack over that.  I was one of the people who sat here and shouted "WHAT!!" when I saw that.  I didn't bother to post anything at the time on it or email you because I knew that probably many others did.  But there's an example of a case where the event planners needed to respond to kingdom feedback - I doubt there were
many people who looked at the statement that we had $1000 budgeted for site tokens who sat back and said, "That seems reasonable - think I'll budget $1000 for site tokens at the next large event I autocrat"".  Especially since SCA/Ansteorran tradition is to make small inexpensive tokens. but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

<snip>
> Shall we replace our King and Queen
> with a committee?

That's not the issue here.  But if the Crown does something disasterously stupid, it is the responsibility and obligation of the Peers to try and talk them out of it.  That's a committee, if you like.  The Royal Family in a very real way acts as a committee that advises and to varying degrees sways the Crown.

> Must we take _every_ rumor at face value?

Again, not the case nor issue here.   We're looking at a solid proposal, fact not rumor, and people are responding in an appropriate, well-considered way.  You cannot ignore the fears or the reasonable concerns that were raised by several responsible computer professionals on the list.  If the proposal has merit, each of the questions, objections,
etc, can be responded to so as to logically and reasonably overcome those objections and to soothe the fears.

> Do we have so little trust in our leaders?

Yes, we have little trust in our leaders.  That's our legacy as Americans.  And I have to say that I've seen some *spectacular* boo-boos on the part of SCA leaders as well.  I've been guilty of  doing dumb things as an officer - luckily nothing unfixable - and I know others have at least an equal chance to do incorrect, stupid, or wrong-headed things
as well in SCA leadership positions.

> How can it be that, with so many financial
> philosophers in Ansteorra, there was only
> one applicant for Kingdom Treasurer last
> month?

It all started as *our* money, donated to the kingdom, or paid at events.  We contributed to get it there, we are justly concerned as to how it is used.  I guarantee you do not WANT me to be Treasurer - what would happen to the accounting would make Hiroshima look good.  But that doesn't mean that I can't have, and voice, an opinion.

<snip>
> Do _you_ hope to ever propose a new idea in this
> kingdom?  Are you looking forward to your baby
> getting the kicking-around and second-guessing
> Pug's idea has gotten?

I don't necessary look forward to it with glee, but I've worked for several changes in the Laurels Circle and will continue to do so.  Sometimes these are not popular ideas, and I have to expect to back up my ideas with facts, explain where explanations are needed, and to win over those who disagree.  Or else my idea will not be adopted.  I *expect*
to have to justify my proposals.

> This kingdom has been crawling with computer experts
> for decades.  I've been doing websites for five years.
> Why hasn't anyone _already_ done Pug's computer idea?

Because it is rife with pitfalls and giant piles of menure to fall into.  About three dozen reasonable, valid concerns have been raised about owning a server vs. outsourcing.  I've got the same reservations -- my take is that owning the server is OK *so long as we allot a budget into the future to handle growth*.  I personally wouldn't try to
establish nor set up the server myself because there are *way* too many problems with keeping it running - more power to Pug for being willing to take it on.

How come *you* didn't propose it if it's such a wonderful idea?

> Please.  Public critique of ideas is not appropriate.

I tried to say this more politely.  Take this as being meant politely, I can't see how to say it so that it sounds good, it's late and I'm still at work.

Galen, that's a crock.  It's a server that will be used by the Ansteorran people, bought with money that the Ansteorran people raised, maintained by Ansteorrans, with webpages created and updated by Ansteorrans, lists moderated and participated on by Ansteorrans.  It is a public idea, a public proposal, and public commentary, critique, and suggestions
are *entirely* appropriate -- with the proviso that they are reasonable, logical serious comments and suggestions, not emotional diatribes or ad hominem attacks. *

> If you have questions, criticisms, or objections, send
> them in private.

The Ansteorran list is a forum for discussing ideas, kicking them around to see what works and what doesn't.  An idea that has survived the test of public review and has been modified to overcome objections until people are happy with it is a stronger idea.  And public discussion back and forth is where that happens.  I hope Pug looks at these things
and considers them - there are several ideas that I'd hope he's added to his proposal.  It would be really nice to see a side-by-side cost analysis of outsourcing vs. ownership of a server, and I suspect that Pug has the basics of that already done or could put one together -- and that's the type of information that is needed to make a good decision
with.

> If Pug doesn't make you happy, write
> directly to the Kingdom Seneschal, because I promise
> you he won't take action based on postings to this
> list.

It is certainly good advice for those with opinions pro and con to write them up in a logical presentation and send them to the Kingdom Seneschal -- but CC: Pug too, it's not only polite, it gives Pug a chance to figure out how to respond to these concerns.

> Complaints, nit-picking, second-guessing
> and "helpful" suggestions for what someone else could
> do -- when posted publically -- have no positive effect,
> and indeed a palpable negative effect.

I don't see your "negative effect".  A very positive effect is that Pug's proposal probably needs to be expanded to take into account the useful and serious suggestions and objections.  It will make the proposal stronger.  I don't doubt that he can create a "business justification" that takes all the different concerns into account - it's what I would
do in his shoes.

> I love you all, but sometimes you make me crazy.

Right back at you - your post made me equally crazy.  This is the political process.  We have to hash things out!  The SCA being a volunteer organization only makes it more important. Specious nitpicking has no place, but well-reasoned, politely offered commentary and criticism is absolutely necessary.

Wæs Þu Hæl (Waes Thu Hael)

::GUNNORA::

Baroness Gunnora Hallakarva, OL

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Ek eigi visa þik hversu oðlask Lofstirrlauf-Kruna heldr hversu na
Hersis-Aðal
(Ek eigi thik hversu odhlask Lofstirrlauf-Kruna heldr hversu na
Hersis-Adhal)



============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.