SR - Principality Preps Task Group

[maddie teller-kook]

Having each group representative assures any suggestions, comments, or
communication will get back to that group and not thru second hand information.
I guess I should ask, why shouldn't all the groups have a representative? This
way each group can feel they had input into the process.

In service,
Meadhbh

Dennis and Dory Grace wrote:

> Salut Cozyns,
>
> Lyonel aisai.
>
> Mistress Meadhbh says:
>
> >My statement had nothing to do with the size of the committee. You can
> have one
> >representative from each group. All I want to see is that person represent
> the group
> >NOT their personal interests no matter what it is. This does not
> necessarily mean the
> >committee member has voting power.
>
> I know Aquilanne has sent a few messages offering clarification of what she
> sees as the duties and responsibilities of the proposed principality task
> group, but I think we need to hear some clarification from the other end of
> this discussion.  I mean, hey, maybe we're missing something.
>
> So, for Mistress Meadhbh or Timo (or anyone else who wants to take up these
> questions):  why *should* the proposed task group include appointees from
> each involved barony and shire?  I mean, since the group will have no
> actual decision-making powers, what would representation accomplish?  Can
> you describe a theoretical situation in which a shire or barony might
> somehow miss out or lose something for *not* having a rep in the task group?
>
> lo vostre por vos servir
> Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace
>
> ============================================================================
> Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.



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