Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 13:53:07 EST
From: justin@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Mark Waks)
Message-Id: <9401171853.AA10575@dsd.camb.inmet.com>
To: north@bransle.ucs.mun.ca, carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Subject: Principality Meeting

There was a fairly short meeting about the Northern Principality at
Birka this weekend. I figure that someone ought to mention what
happened, so I might as well present my recollections. I didn't take
notes, so there may be some inaccuracies; I will endeavor to leave my
biases out of this report. Others who were there, please correct any
factual errors.

They (that is, Randy and Katherine) haven't gotten the full reports
from the people collating the votes yet, but they did get a basic
sense of how things ran. (They didn't speak at all about the Canadian
votes, just the US ones -- I don't know anything about the status up
in the Far North.)

The first thing that was clear is that the ballot was flawed in
several ways. The decision that no return equals a "no" pretty much
doomed things from the start, and they *do* intend to change that
next time. They had planned on figuring out who was in which group
based on the Kingdom zip code list, but discovered in the process
that the Kingdom list is wildly at odds with reality. Therefore,
they really don't have any way to reliably determine the totals
based on groups, which makes the ballot mostly useless to begin
with. Next time, they will be asking everyone to list their group
of residence on their ballot.

They have had some difference of opinion with the Society Seneschal
(Sedalia) about what is required to justify the creation of a
Principality. Sedalia asked for a 2/3 return of the ballots, with a
majority responding in the affirmative. Given that this ballot got
only about a 30% response rate (and everyone agreed that 30% is about
the best one can expect -- that's around what AEthelmearc got in its
last ballots), and that (as far as we can tell) no previous
Principality has had to meet such a stringent standard, it was
generally agreed that this requirement is unreasonable. Randy will
attempt to pursuade Sedalia to loosen the restriction a bit.

(Personally, I'd say that it's much more appropriate to require
somewhere between 25-35% return rate, with 2/3 positive -- this
demonstrates a broad consensus, without requiring an impossible number
of people to find a stamp...)

The rough estimates of the returns were unsurprising. Northern
New England (ie, VT, NH, ME) was broadly positive, with Maine
being particularly so (50% return, and "unanimously" positive -- I'll
be very impressed if this is literally true). The rest were more
mixed, increasingly so as you move southward, as a rule of thumb.

Randall and Katherine were clearly a little discouraged, although
not terribly so; they asked the group whether they should continue,
and try to put together a better ballot. The people present were
(as far as I could tell) entirely in favor of trying again, so they
probably will.

So, we're back to fund-raising for another ballot. Given the likelihood
that this next ballot won't be the last (AEthelmearc took five tries),
it was suggested that the hat be passed at major events, and that people
might stick a buck or two in with their ballots if they support the
process. (Which I think is an excellent idea.) Next ballot will probably
be in several months, assuming the fund-raising goes well. (The ballot
must be mentioned in advance in Pikestaff, which necessarily slows the
process down a bit...)

				-- Justin Debatemonger

Random Quote du Jour:

"Awakened by his presence, she proceeds in her frail, sensitive way to
 have sex with everyone in reach but the housemaid and perhaps the dog
 (though the dog wasn't talking)."
		-- Mark Leeper on HENRY AND JUNE