CR - No P-word for now!

[Lee Martindale]

Galen wrote:

> Now, Llereth, don't gloat, it isn't seemly.

Awww, Galen.  I would have thought by now you would know that,
had my purpose been to "gloat", I would not have been so mild
in my phrasing and far more pointed in its delivery.

> > I am one of those "typical" rank-and-file members whom several
> 
> I wish!  Llereth, you are a very special, very hard-working
> person of the sort that every branch could use a few of.

That was precisely my point, Galen.  I *am* a typical member.
Typical in contribution, most of it either "behind-the-scenes"
and/or doing things that too many people forget are necessary
to successful events.  To lapse into mundanity and bluntness,
a stagehand. The grunt work.  More to the point, however, I
am typical in the perspective of reaching the point at which,
regardless of how necessary *I* know the work to be or whether
or not I still enjoy doing it, I am getting "burned-out".  I
find myself being tempted by other opportunities and other,
different and - in all honesty - more enjoyable pursuits.

Any discussion of correcting our problems has to include
that portrait of a "typical, rank-and-file member" in the
mix.  Talk of recruitment must be coupled with talk of
retention.  Talking about new awards, more events, and
royalty does not answer the root questions and problems.

> Many of those on the
> _con_ side (subject to correction) seem to me to be afraid.
> I won't presume to guess of what.

It seems to me that the potential of resolving the
the conflicts of opinion and working toward regional
cooperation and, ultimately, establishment of a principality
necessitates finding out if, in fact, it is fear speaking
on the "con side", and what those fears might be.

> How might we be worse off after last Saturday's meeting?
> If people have become less inclined to work together, if
> friendships have been strained, or respect lost, or if
> problems we could address get shunted aside, then the region
> is worse off.

In large part, that was my thinking.

> The Central Region exists now, as an administrative level
> between the populace and the kingdom.  No one has suggested
> abolishing it.  Our proposal would simply change the level
> from "region" status to "principality" status.   No one
> ever suggested adding an additional level.

Perhaps it would help my understanding, then, to put it in
contexts with which I am familiar.  As Steppes Chronicler, I
answered to the local seneschale and treasurer, and reported
to the Kingdom Chronicler by way of the Central Regional
Chronicler.  As Central Regional Chronicler, I was (theoretically)
responsible for the local chroniclers in the region and reported
to the Kingdom Chronicler.  Along the way, requirements were
in-person meetings were added.

How would the creation of a principality effect the above?

> no additional "chiefs" have been added among which to
> > divide the volunteer efforts of a finite number of "Indians".
> 
> Frankly, I think the chiefs we have could use a chief providing
> a little overall direction.  None of the regional officers
> have any authority over any of the others, and they have
> little incentive to coordinate their efforts.

I'm afraid that does not speak to the point I was making.
But it does raise an interesting point.  How would it be
decided what areas of concentration would have authority
over other areas of concentration and their relative importance?
How would such invoke incentive to coordinate efforts, and
what kind of coordination do you envision?

> "Push", you say?  No one's pushing, by any definition of the
> word I'd use.

Unfortunately, by my own, there has been an element of it.

> What
> sort of damage do you suppose discussion will do?

To quote your own words, Galen:

  > If people have become less inclined to work together, if
  > friendships have been strained, or respect lost, or if
  > problems we could address get shunted aside, then the region
  > is worse off.

> So, what are you saying here?  We shouldn't even try to work
> together at a regional level?  At a kingdom level?  Inter-kingdom?

I am saying what you, yourself, have said.  That it is for each
of us, individually, to decide our own levels of activity and
where those efforts are directed.

> Most groups can't hope to do something as special as a Steppes
> Warlord Tourney without some sort of cooperation.

Is that so bad?  Is there no room for diversity in the size and
complexity of events?  Is it not either desirable or beneficial
to have a mix of large and small events available on the calendar?

> Actually, the "regionalism" proposals originated with Amra and
> Richard in this forum, and pre-date the suggestion by Llywelyn
> that we consider principality status.

That is as I remember it.  But it also seems that the discussion
of regional cooperation has been replaced by (and please forgive
for being unable to adequately describe this is other than
blunt terms), the "selling of the principality".

> > You keep saying "we" must do this, and "we" must do that, but
> > it is unclear to me just whom you mean when you say "we".
> 
> To me, "we" means whomever might decide to focus more on the
> improvement of the region.

As long as there is no suggestion of disregard for those who
decide to concentrate efforts on a local basis, I certainly
have no problem with this.

>  If you were to decide that, it
> might be at the expense of spending energy on the Steppes.

Exactly the concern I had in questioning the possible
weakening of local branches.

> How would it benefit the "typical member"?  I dispute that there
> is such a thing.

A mindset which, I believe, limits the ability to think in
terms of overall benefits/disadvantages to the membership
as a whole.  Are we, perhaps, merely tangled in semantics?

> Llereth, I think if I took your arguments back in time 21 years
> or so, I could use them effectively against upgrading the Region
> of Ansteorra to principality status.

And were I to take your arguments into any one of a number of
other organizations with which I have been or currently am involved,
they would sound very much like those that were used to promote
overly-enthusiastic or prematurely-attempted recruitment and/or
reorganization campaigns.  Both your statement and mine and
leads me, once again, to the conclusions that:

1) As much as we would like to think that the SCA is unique,
it has more in common than not with other organizations; and

2)  Organizational experience, regardless of where gathered,
translates.

-- 
Lee Martindale / Llereth Wyddffa an Myrddin / The Copper Bard
email: lmartin at airmail.net
http://web2.airmail.net/lmartin

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