(no subject)

[msmemory_archive]

I won't say "star chamber" to them, I won't.

Explanation:
1> Effective January 1, 2008 the Grand Council mailing list will be
reset, and will be open only to members and officers of the Grand
Council. This will mean we will need to find replacements for our
non-member volunteers if they do not become members of the Grand
Council.

I have requested clarification on whether this is another Board restriction "privileges of SCA membership" thing, or whether they mean to exclude all those who are not members of the Grand Council from watching their deliberations, which is how I would read this.

Comments

[talvinm.livejournal.com]

Say "le Sterne-chamere"

[dsrtao]

Camera stellata.

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

Your is the second post I have read on this topic.

The other was from a former board member bemoaning another move away from transparency.

nobody panic

[faheud.livejournal.com]

expect the final result to be read only access to anyone who flipping wants it. said in a much more silky prose i am sure, but there you have it.

hang in there

Re: nobody panic

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

Excellent. That's only a modest downgrade from my current status of Moderated Nonmember.

Re: nobody panic

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Do you know what the professed reason is for this decision?

Re: nobody panic

[faheud.livejournal.com]

Anything I say would be a guess.

If *I* was going to limit submissions to a list it would probably be based on the workability of reading through all the volume. But that is just me. This one did not get sent by my plate for a stamp.

Re: nobody panic

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the explanation.

;)

Re: nobody panic

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

The volume is a problem - of that I am sure. Whether one can manage or reduce it without adversely affecting the quality of the work, is anyone's guess.

But, the quality of the work has been dropping as well - fewer discussions, missed deadlines, less in the way of results.

If I were in charge, I'd just kill the whole thing, frankly. It is hardly worth the bother.

But this conversion, coming out of the blue, and the sort of conversion it might be, is troubling. Especially with some of the other items on the horizon.

(If I were to be a complete gasbag in msmemory's LJ, I'd say that some of the discussion of the litigation, coming as it does on an SCA Board Committee's formal mailing list, scared the goolies off some people.)

Re: nobody panic

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

If I were in charge, I'd just kill the whole thing, frankly.

It continues to surprise me that they haven't. The GC hasn't produced real, concrete, suggestions on anything in quite some time. I don't think killing it would adversely impact anybody or anything.
(meow)

Re: nobody panic

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Well, it does keep them all in one place so they can have an eye kept on them.

Re: nobody panic

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

If I'm not mistaken, you don't have to hold a blue Milpitas card to serve on the GC, so I don't see it as another "privileges of membership" thing. But, yes, keeping the troublemakers -- who are and have been some of the brightest minds in the SCA -- in the paddock has clearly been a motivation from the start. Some cool ideas have been floated in the GC, but how many have been given serious consideration by the BoD, let alone actually implemented? And now we see that the BoD is apparently restricting the GC's "think-tank" role, claiming the right basically to set their agenda, and keep their work in camera. It does not well serve the BoD's (rather fitful) effusions of openness and "customer service".

goldsquare, I'd dearly love for you to shoot me down on this one. I'd really love to be shown as a cynical curmudgeon with a faulty memory. But I'm not counting on it.