Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 14:40:57 EST
From: justin@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Mark Waks)
Message-Id: <9401171940.AA14137@dsd.camb.inmet.com>
To: schuldy@math.harvard.edu
Cc: north@bransle.ucs.mun.ca, carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9401171915.AA05061@math.harvard.edu> (schuldy@math.harvard.edu)
Subject: Re: Principality Meeting

[Note that I'm starting to get into both vaguer impressions and
more personal opinions here...]

Tibor writes:
>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.

I got the distinct impression that it was a last-minute decision,
probably due to them getting a lot of people calling and asking.
Katherine went around to everyone who she knew to be interested and
told them (including me, one of the most vocal opponents), and they
announced it in Court, but it definitely felt like they didn't
decide to hold the meeting until that morning. I *assume* that the
meeting at the Northern Fencing Thingy will still be happening...

(No, it wasn't announced in advance, but even if it was last-minute,
I have to agree that getting some information out is a Good Thing...)

>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. 

Which is pretty much what they're doing next time, I believe. They
are going to be making the point as loudly as possible that, if you
want to make your voice heard, you *must* vote next time. (Of course,
it's still going to be limited to members of the Corporation, but that's
the Corporation's bloody rules...)

>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.

Unfortunately, there has been no uniform standard in the past -- as
far as Randy could tell, the rules have been basically ad hoc. However,
we didn't know of any case where this kind of return has been either
required or produced, which should give him a pretty strong argument
when asking Sedalia to relax it...

>  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?

In fact, I don't think even Randal was surprised. I got the distinct
impression that, although he still in theory wants the entire northern
and central regions, he is quite prepared to accept the reality that
not all groups from those regions will want to go. (He cited as an
example some of the groups from southern NY as fairly unlikely to
want in.)

> [fund-raising for the next poll]
>
>Hmm, not with my dollars.

Personally, I want to see this thing through. Regardless of whether
Central becomes its own Principality or not, I *do* think that a
North-only Principality would be quite good for everyone in the
Kingdom. (I think that a North&Central Principality would be less
benefit for everyone, which is why I oppose it.) So I'm going to
continue supporting the process, and continue voting "no" for being
in it...

Tibor includes a proposed alternate wording. I rather like it, and
suggest that he send it to Their Graces. I *suspect* that they
won't go for it, but it can't hurt to try...

>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.

Well, yes, but bear in mind that voting others in or out is exactly what
the heart of that debate is about. The Far North (in general) doesn't
much want the south in the Principality, because it would "dilute" the
Principality to the point where the benefit wouldn't necessarily
outweigh the costs. Personally, I agree with this. Unfortunately,
there's no good way that I've seen to create a polling that is
simple, clear, and still allows you to gripe about the borders.

(R&K were pretty clear that they expect to need at least a couple
of pollings whose primary purpose is going to be to figure out the
borders. The *final* polling is likely to be extremely firm, with a
map of the borders and all...)

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

Again, I think it's worth talking with them about it...

>	Tibor (PS, what did this polling cost?)

About $300, I think...

				-- Justin

Random Quote du Jour:

Re: Usenet Etiquette & talk.bizarre
">I know. This place has got to be the most dismal example of rudeness and
 >inhumanity known to man. 
 Actually, we'd like to think that this is quite an outstanding example of
 rudeness and inhumanity."
		-- Sho