From: schuldy@math.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei)
Message-Id: <9401171915.AA05061@math.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Principality Meeting
To: justin@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Mark Waks)
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 14:15:23 -0500 (EST)
Cc: north@bransle.ucs.mun.ca, carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9401171853.AA10575@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Jan 17, 94 01:53:07 pm
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 4179      

Justin gave a short summary of the Northern Region Principality meeting, for
which I thank him. He, mercifully, kept his opinions to the minimum. Sadly,
I lack such mercy.

I, for one, had no idea there was to be such a meeting at the event. Had I
known, I would have attended, despite my opposition to the principality.
  
  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.

I agree that the ballot was fairly well biased for failure once a non-return
was a no.  I would have expected that a non-return was it's own category,
and they could have reported in the form: Group X, 12% No, 5% Yes, 83% no
return. 
  
  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.

I am fully in sympathy with Sedalia's desire for a strong and positive wish
for a principality before approving it. But methinks her standards are a tad
too high for any group to really achieve them. Would anyone know what
standards previous movements where held to, and what level of participation
they achieved?  It is worth noting that the Board does not get even 1%
response rates in their pollings in TI.

  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.

I am not surprised. Is anyone?
  
  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.

Shocking. Ask a biased sample, get a biased answer.
  
  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...)

Hmm, not with my dollars. Unless...

I would love to see the polling include these questions.

  1. Would you like your group to be in a Northern Region Principality, if
     it was formed?

  2. Would you like your group to be in a Central Region Principality, if
     it was formed?

  3. If yes to both, which is your preference?

That polling, I would help pay for.

I would desire this language for two reasons. One, much of the debate I have
seen has been surrounding the "far north" groups and the "far south" groups
wanting each other in whatever group forms.  Now, you can't vote someone
elses group in or out, but you can indicate your preference with the above.

The other reason is, I think we should have  central region principality
movement. However, I am torn. I don't want to compete with or strangle the
work that R & K are doing, but if we wait until they are done, it may be too
late.

I would, very much, appreciate comments from people on whether this is a
presumptuous idea, or a good one.

	Tibor (PS, what did this polling cost?)