Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 15:56:01 EST
From: justin@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Mark Waks)
Message-Id: <9401182056.AA07429@dsd.camb.inmet.com>
To: augment@world.std.com
Cc: carolingia@world.std.com
In-Reply-To: <199401182020.AA12512@world.std.com> (message from Michael Bergman on Tue, 18 Jan 1994 15:19:58 -0500)
Subject: Re: The Principality -- various discussions

Harald writes:
>But the "last time the principality movement happened" *wasn't* five
>years ago!  If it was, I'd have no complaint about discussing it
>again.  What happened is that *within* *six* *months* of it finally
>being voted down, after a couple of years of meetings, and special
>newsletters, and on and on, someone new "picked up the torch" and
>started all over again -- that's NOT my idea of taking "no" for an
>answer.

Not quite a fair summary of what happened. Here's at least my
recollection of the way things have proceeded:

The last major Principality movement started five or six years ago,
and ran for a year or two. It never really got as formal or well-
organized as this one is, and sputtered out (I believe) around three
or four years ago. Bear in mind that the "no" from many quarters
(certainly in my case) was not a "no" to *any* Principality, but a
"no" to *that* Principality. (As I mentioned earlier, I felt rather
strongly that the whole thing was being poorly put together.)

After that, there was much talk, and *very* little action. As you
say, people "picked up the torch", but it never really went anywhere.
There were a few inconclusive meetings, and a modest amount of talk,
but things pretty much stayed on the back burner for several years.

The *current* movement really got kicked off about a year or so ago by
Randy and Katherine. That is, they actually said, "we're going to try
this again" instead of the vague "is this a good idea"s that we'd been
hearing for quite a while. There was a span of at *least* two years
between the failure of the previous movement and the vote in this one,
and in that time they had considerably revised the notion of what they
were doing, and how it should be done. In particular, this movement has
*far* more grass-roots support than the last one did.

You seem to assume that this is some sort of binary yes-or-no thing.
I think that's wildly oversimplified. It's *very* clear that there is
considerable support for the notion; otherwise, there wouldn't be so
much passionate debate about it. Just because the last movement was
half-assed doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile to try and fix the
mistakes and try again...

>That all the polls so far have been poorly designed and
>yielded useless results doesn't please me either!

Quite true, but hey, it's a learning process. The Society has never
had any clear guidelines about what goes into forming a Principality,
and may well never develop any. This means that you have to feel your
way along, and make some mistakes along the way. Mind you, the
AEthelmearc movement (the one that succeeded) needed *five* pollings
in order to figure out all of the issues. We're not doing so badly...

>Its hard to tell the difference between people who "don't want to be
>part of" a new principality, and people who don't want there to *be* a
>new principality -- especially when all the polling assumes that of
>course there will be a new principality and just offers choices about
>where and when.

True. However, as I mentioned before, you are the only person I've ever
heard who is actually opposed the notion of letting *other* groups
form a Principality -- and I've talked to a helluva lot of people about
this. I think it's fair to guess that you're in a relatively small
minority here...

>The way to get things done in many organizations, including the SCA,
>is to stand up and say "I will be doing such and such, at this time"
>and see who shows up.  I think this is a fine way to form guilds, but
>not an appropriate way for making major changes to the structure of
>the Kingdom/Society.  

Why not? Given that the really *important* question here is how much
grassroots support there is for the notion, it seems like a generally
fine model to me, *provided* you get reasonably decent representation...

>To some extent, my objection to forming a new principality is the same
>as that many people have expressed about the way the BOD handles our
>insurance.  "Hey!  Who said you could do *that*!"

The people. I mean, they're *not* telling the groups that they have
to be part of the Principality, they're asking, as fairly and honestly
as they can. That's a far cry from BoD decisions, which are usually
taken with little or no advance notice, little attempt to consult the
populace, and only minuscule input...

>I think this much controversy over where the border should be
>indicates that we are not yet ready to have a border.  I don't feel
>that pricipalities should never be formed, though I realize that some
>of what I have said may sound that way.  I think it would be a very
>good idea to resolve some hanging questions of who is a member and
>what rights fo they have before we try to get their opinions.

While I agree with this sentiment, it's essentially the same thing as
saying, "never". Frankly, the SCA is divided down the middle on the
membership thing, and it's *quite* unlikely that it's going to be
resolved in the forseeable future. I dislike the "pay-to-play" system,
at least as implemented, but there are quite a number of people who
absolutely *adore* it, and will fight to make all benefits of the
Society conditional on paid membership. For now, it's fairly clear
that only paid members get a vote, annoying though that may be...

>I have to go fix my house.  Its' leaking.  Excuse me.

Good luck...

				-- Justin
				   Who has spent much of the past week trying
				     to keep his pipes from freezing...

Random Quote du Jour:

"Let's eat children," proposed Jonathan modestly.
		-- Arval