[Procedures] Mapping out Owen's prolific episode (was Re: Two Proposals)

[Owen Broadhurst]

Scrolling below, the reader shall find a post raising concerns about a 
series of e-mails exploding from
my keyboard- estimated at perhaps 16 in number between last Sunday morning 
and ending with my second reply to Gil Obler regarding the "Two Proposals/ 
Proposed Bylaw 15.3" thread. I'm assuming Sunday here to refer to 5th of 
October.

Two such e-mails from me pertained directly to the thread above noted, and I 
have attempted to place them in context via my second thread summary: 
http://green-rainbow.org/pipermail/procedures/2003-October/000195.html

Locating the remaining 14 in question has been a bit of a challenge. In one 
of my prolific episodes, I am in fact quite likely to post far more than 
that to various committee lists. Pertaining to this particular working group 
(the Procedures Committee) these are the various e-mails I posted in the 
time frame noted:

http://green-rainbow.org/pipermail/procedures/2003-October/000185.html
http://green-rainbow.org/pipermail/procedures/2003-October/000187.html
http://green-rainbow.org/pipermail/procedures/2003-October/000188.html
http://green-rainbow.org/pipermail/procedures/2003-October/000192.html
http://green-rainbow.org/pipermail/procedures/2003-October/000193.html

Placing these e-mails in context, it should be noted that posts 
000192-000193 pertain to the recently ressurected "Two Proposals" thread and 
were posted in reply to Gil Obler, as noted above.

000185 is a reply to Jim Bosman's post 
http://green-rainbow.org/pipermail/procedures/2003-October/000184.html

000187 is a reply to Jim Bosman's post 
http://green-rainbow.org/pipermail/procedures/2003-October/000186.html

000188 pertains directly to no prior thread, but is a new proposal that I 
hope to see vetted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The remaining eleven emails noted as a concern therefore must not originate 
in this particular list.

Can I presume that the reference is to posts that I have made to the state 
committee?

Such posts within the timeframe noted include the following, and I must warn 
the Procedures Committee beforehand that my discussion of these remaining 
eleven e-mails does not in fact pertain to Procedures Committee business 
(save, perhaps, obliquely). The discussion of these remaining e-mails is 
therefore not something that I should participate in on this particular 
list, but for the fact that this matter was raised on this list. I shall not 
address any further questions regarding my state committee posts unless such 
questions are posed in private correspondence or posted to the state 
committee discussion list. Now, these eleven state committee posts follow:

http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004300.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004301.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004304.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004308.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004309.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004314.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004315.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004323.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004325.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004326.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004327.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

Several of these posts are not, in fact, to be placed in ANY sort of context 
but are very simply matters
regarding GPUS committees that I believe ought to be called to the state 
committee's attention. Given how the state committee does appoint its GPUS 
committee representatives, and that representation on such committees- and 
accessibility to such committees' archives- are matters that therefore 
certainly fall under state committee business, I believe it is appropriate 
to post them.

The following two posts pertained to two GPUS committees on which I have no 
knowledge of the GRP having representation:

http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004326.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004325.html

The following two posts pertained to closed archives of certain GPUS 
committees, a matter that is of especial concern to me lately:

http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004314.html
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004300.html

The following one post is the new proposal noted that I hope to see vetted:

http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004315.html

Such posts pertain to GRP state committee business regarding the state 
committee's appointees and approriate avenues of ensuring accountability 
standards. Not one was posted in reply to someone.

____________________________________________

The remaining six state committee posts concern:

1) An e-mail update reminder that I regularly post to the state committee 
list-
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004327.html

2) My reply to one state committee member's request for directions to 
Boltwood Walk in Amherst, pertaining to the facilitation training workshop 
noted on that same list-
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004323.html

3) My reply to matters raised by state committee member Betty Zisk regarding 
the proposed Development Director position- 
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004308.html

4) My reply to Jonathan Leavitt's withdrawal of the Development Director 
position proposal from consideration at what seems to have been an aborted 
e-mail meeting-
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004309.html

5) My announcement of the GPUS Steering Committee's call for action 
regarding the FTAA-
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004301.html

6) My explanation of what that acronym FTAA means-
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2003-October/004304.html

Of these six posts, only posts 004304, 004308, 004309, and 004323 were 
posted in reply to someone
else, and that someone else- together with the verbatim post by that someone 
else- were referenced
in those e-mails I made.

I hope this helps to clarify these matters and provide context to the posts 
that I have made.

Owen




----Original Message Follows----
From: eva kerr <eva.kerr at incoming.verizon.net>

To Owen,
Between last Sunday and about 9:45 this evening, I received 16 e-mails from 
you
alone. They are packed with information. Many of them unfortunately present 
what
for me is context-free information. Others appear to be responses to the 
other
end of a conversation I have not been privy to.

I have had no orientation to many items you discuss, just having asked to 
become
part of the procedures committee and not having ever been to a meeting. 
E-mail
does not lend itself to the efficient question and answer process 
(preferably
face-to-face) I need in order to participate. I suspect others are in the 
same
boat.

Do you want me...and probably others, to be part of all this? If not, who 
are
you talking to?. I cannot cope with the deluge...and it doesn't serve us 
well
because it is numbing, not enlightening. Can this be fixed?

Owen Broadhurst wrote:

 > Said protections are, however, tenuous.

_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month.  Limited time offer-- 
sign up now!   http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup