[Pnp-wg] Introduction, announcements, and (proposed) organization

[Greg Gerritt]

I suggest that maybe Steve be one of the facilitators of this working group.
Who else is interested?  greg

> From: Steve Kramer <scooter@guisarme.net>
> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:04:12 -0500 (EST)
> To: pnp-wg@gp-us.org
> Subject: [Pnp-wg] Introduction, announcements, and (proposed) organization
> 
> First of all, I would like to introduce myself.  I'm Steve Kramer of
> Columbia, Maryland, a Green since only 2001, I'm afraid (previously
> unaffiliated/Independent)!  I'm former Coordinator of the Howard County
> Green Party, the current GPUS Delegate from Maryland, a former member of
> the GPUS Dispute Resolution Committee, and an assistant in the founding of
> the West Virginia Green Party.  I have been campaign manager for Lise
> Mendel for Howard County Board of Education (2004) and Maryland's field
> coordinator for the Cobb/LaMarche campaign, also in 2004.  I have
> represented the Green Party to local Muslim organizations in the Baltimore
> and D.C. areas, and to the Howard County Coalition for Peace and Justice.
> I am the founding member of the Fellowship of Christian Greens, a member
> of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee for Central Maryland, and an
> applicant member of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.  I'd
> like to thank everyone for allowing me the opportunity to serve as
> Maryland's representative to this Working Group - and ask everyone's
> forgiveness for being so longwinded.
> 
> The Maryland Green Party is keeping a close eye on our democratic process,
> across the spectrum.  I think it's an important quality for us to
> cultivate, because it differentiates us so strongly from the "major"
> political parties in this country.  One of our Baltimore County Greens,
> Dick Ochs <rjochs@comcast.net>, is convening a meeting on the democratic
> process in the MGP and GPUS in Baltimore on March 6th at noon.  The
> specific location has yet to be announced, and I will be slightly late
> because I'll be coming from church, but I will be there, and will convey
> our findings to this WG.  Dick hasn't responded to my question as to
> whether others are invited, but I honestly don't see him saying no, so I'm
> making this a general announcement, and I will keep everyone informed as
> to the venue.
> 
> So far, we've had some interesting proposals, and I must say that I
> appreciate the tone that they have been phrased in.  I think more than
> anything else, we must operate in a climate of mutual respect.  That's a
> very big point in our favor so far.  However, Greg had a good point in
> that we need to establish a few things before charging right ahead into
> strategies.  I'm not certain I agree with Greg that extensive fact-finding
> is necessary - a review of the Bylaws, Delegate Selection Process
> (Formula), and Floor Rules of the 2004 Convention should be all that is
> required, and that can be accomplished with an hour or so of Web
> searching.
> 
> I would instead like to suggest an overall process that we can follow.
> This is just a suggestion at this point, and I'm spelling it out here as
> something that we can begin kicking around as a precursor to consensus.
> 
> 1. Rules of conduct
> 
> First, we should choose a facilitator or facilitators, and agree on how we
> will discuss matters.  If we wish to form sub-groups or schedule
> discussions in some way other than this list, then we would do so in this
> phase.  We should choose who will speak for us, and under what
> circumstances (such as status reports), and what will constitute
> consensus.  I believe that we should choose a very few rules of discussion
> which are as open as possible, to allow for the broadest expression of
> opinion.
> 
> 2. Statement of purpose
> 
> Second, I would like to ask that we draft a *short* statement of purpose
> and release it publicly.  This would be a very plain statement of what we
> will decide, and what we won't.  The actual decisions shouldn't be made at
> this time, nor should any strategies be discussed.
> 
> 3. Goals
> 
> I suggest that we then discuss what our goals are in the Presidential
> Nominating Process.  I think this is the big discussion that we didn't
> have before, and perhaps should have - we developed different strategies
> because we were working toward different goals!  I would like to see this
> be a "brainstorming" session; there should be **no wrong answers** at this
> time!  Everything should be written down, and everything should be
> considered.
> 
> 4. Priorities
> 
> In this stage, I suggest that we decide what goals are most important to
> us, and which should take priority over the other.  Again, I believe we
> should avoid labeling a goal as "wrong", but instead advocate why a
> different goal should have priority.  We should think of priorities in
> terms of essential (as in, we could not proceed at all without this goal
> in mind), important, preferable, or incidental - or some similar fashion.
> By the end of this phase, we should have an ordered (or nearly so) list of
> priorities.
> 
> 5. Strategies
> 
> Now, we get to the nitty-gritty, and discuss specific voting methods,
> consensus methods, polling methods, vote-counting techniques, and the like
> to meet our priorities.  Discussion should center around how the strategy
> addresses that list that we spelled out in the last phase - starting with
> the most important goals first.
> 
> 6. Final report
> 
> At the end, we produce a report, review it, and publish it.  Significant
> minority views should be included, and we may wish to have a session on
> how to incorporate some of those views in the final recommended methods,
> in keeping with Green consensus.
> 
> Again, this is not set in stone!  These are just my ideas on how we might
> go about conducting our business.  I'd like to hear any comments or
> questions on them.
> 
> -- 
> Steve Kramer           ||         scooter (at) guisarme dot net         ||
> _____________________  ===================================================
> |  __/^\__        ,-^,|   "The white man says there is freedom and justice
> |/~       \_     {  / |     for all.  We have had 'freedom' and 'justice',
> \/\   |!  |   and that is why we have been almost exterminated.
> /  / )  |___           We shall not forget this."
> (_  \ \     /
> ~v^  ?_,-'  from the 1927 Grand Council of American Indians
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg