SR - committee concept clarification

[Timothy A. McDaniel]

On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Aquilanne / Dennis and Dory Grace
<amazing at mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> 2) Another area of need is for Name/Heraldry
> conflicts/viability research for choices for the populace
> to eventually vote on. Would we deal with these as a
> combined heraldry research issue, or would we want one
> person to research Names suggestions and another person to
> research Heraldry suggestions? (As a clarifying note, we'd
> vote separately on name and heraldry suggestions once
> we're presented with viable choices.) Daniel?  What is
> your opinion on this? For that matter, would you be
> willing to be on the committee for one or both of these
> issues? I don't believe I could think of a better choice
> for that particular job.

I get a choice?  I thought I'd been dragooned months ago!

My personal suggestions are:

1.  One amorphous blob for a heraldry subcommittee.  It is
best to have a core group that have committed to doing the
work (comment quickly on names and arms, for example), but
others might drift in and out.  People devote time and
effort as life allows and according to their resources.
Some issues may interrelate (specifically, "canting arms",
where the arms refer to the name).  Some people have
expertise or sources in multiple areas.

2.  No formal structure unless needed.  If I started as a
leader by default, for example, I realize I'm not that good
at it, so if another person emerged, I'd give way to them.

> I think we need to keep in mind that this Committee is not
> supposed to be some bureaucratic, decision-making entity,
> it's mostly a loose collection of interested individuals
> doing work that they have a background and interest in.

I agree.  I hope to publish soon Herveus's letter on the
current Atlantian principality situation.  Given the strong
opposition and wariness from some, we must be good and
honorable, and must (like Caesar's wife) *appear* to be so
as well.  IMHO (In My Humble Opinion):

- The process MUST be public.
- The process MUST allow broad input and work spread among
  many.  I think three on the central cabal is too few, for
  example.
- The process MUST NOT appear to be dictatorial.  The
  committee should hesitate to make decisions.
- The process MUST be based on consensus.
- The process MUST NOT be rushed.
- It MUST be obvious to all that the process is all these things.

I'm sorry to SHOUT LIKE THAT -- please understand that those
are just my opinions.  However, I feel them strongly.

Daniel de Lincolia
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at crl.com; 
if that fail, tmcd at austin.ibm.com is my work address.
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.