[Pnp-wg] moving forward

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:52:46 -0800

I agree. We can talk all day, but without a structure, it is just noise and 
rendundant to discussion that has already taken place. I haven't even read 
all the emails that immediately went flying out.

Do we have co-chairs? Do we have agreed upon teleconference dates (or is 
that a suitable mechanism)? Do we have a Secretary that is going to 
co-ordinate all the paperwork, prepare agendas, etc.? Do we have access to a 
web site to post rosters, agendas and minutes, etc.?

How do we know what the work we are supposed to do is? It seems we have a 
lot we still have to agree on.

Is this mailing list going to be our only communications infrastructure? I 
think some of the topics might work better in a web based forum environment, 
or being hashed out via phone conference.

I think it makes a lot more sense to hold on, before plunging into things, 
and plan out the next few weeks of work in detail.

Thomas

--
Thomas Leavitt -- thomasleavitt@hotmail.com, Sr. Systems Admin For Hire
Resume at http://www.thomasleavitt.org/personal/resume/

Wired since 1981. Internet-enabled since 1990. Web-enabled since 1993. 
Older, wiser, and poorer, post-crash. :)

>From: Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com>
>To: Presidential Nominating WG <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
>Subject: [Pnp-wg] moving forward
>Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:19:37 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from greens.org ([216.27.184.14]) by MC6-F18.hotmail.com with 
>Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:23:01 -0800
>Received: (qmail 26910 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 00:22:02 -0000
>Received: from localhost (HELO petra-k.cagreens.org) (127.0.0.1)  by 
>localhost with SMTP; 23 Feb 2005 00:22:02 -0000
>Received: (qmail 26829 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 00:20:01 -0000
>Received: from lakermmtao10.cox.net (68.230.240.29)  by 
>cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2005 00:20:01 -0000
>Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.9.130.54])          by 
>lakermmtao10.cox.net          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 
>201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP          id 
><20050223001933.NJFW17761.lakermmtao10.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]>          
>for <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:19:33 -0500
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jHHIJuhfSD4E/LDaDkITlys18nVy2f9oU4=
>Return-Path: <gerritt@mindspring.com>
>Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6
>Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org
>X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Help: <mailto:pnp-wg-request@lists.gp-us.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg>,<mailto:pnp-wg-request@lists.gp-us.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: list for working group, nominating process 
><pnp-wg.lists.gp-us.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg>,<mailto:pnp-wg-request@lists.gp-us.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/pnp-wg/>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2005 00:23:01.0525 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[D57B3C50:01C5193D]
>
>So far this working group has not developed a plan for pulling its work
>together.  We have already gottien into a discussion of important issues,
>but we appear to be doing it without a strong grounding or an understanding
>of how to use the information.
>
>I would like to suggest a work plan.  I believe that first we need good
>information.  We need to know exactly what was done last time.  We can
>divide the timeline events, and a few others
>
>(Note I left off the time line the passage of rules laying out the size of
>the various stae delegations  Nov 2003, and the passage of convention rules
>may 2004.  both were done rather late in the game and should be finished
>much earlier next time.P)
>
>up and small teams can do more intensive research into what was actually
>done.
>
>While issues of strategy can beimortant, this working group has a wide
>divergence on strategy issues, and it may be that no two peolle on it would
>have done these thngs exactly the same way. Therefore to bring up strategy
>until the wg has developed a habit of working together and found some 
>common
>ground is likely to create tensions that make it nearly impossible to do
>much productive work.
>
>Therefore I reiterate.  Let us do some serious research, divide up into
>small gorups to research and report on the various segments of the tie 
>line.
>After we have knowledge about what was actualy done, we can look at it for
>weaknesses ands strengths.  At that point we can also integrate strategy
>into the mix.
>
>I am willing to work on almost any segment of the timeline to go back to 
>the
>voting page and recover the original documents, to look into impementation
>and write a short report laying out first the facts, and then some 
>analysis.
>
>As a way to getting this started I volunteer to fully research and describe
>the Initial Point of Contact program unles someone else really has a jones
>to look into that. If so i will volunteer to lok into the materials
>available on how the size of each states delegation was determined and to
>provide a chart of options for determinig delegation sizes.
>
>Is there someone who would be willing to keep a record of who volunteers 
>for
>which topic that are listed in the timeline (please note I am most open to
>anyone adding a similar type of topic to the list laid out in the timeline
>and for research to be undertaken on that topic) ?
>
>I will also suggest that each of these reports be circulated to the working
>group by March 10.
>
>greg gerritt
>_______________________________________________
>Pnp-wg mailing list
>Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg