[statecom-discuss] Who is on the SPWG committee ?

[Eli Beckerman]

Dear Ron,

Some things you say in your last email worry and confuse me.

Chuck resigned citing that the framework had already been determined. The
fact is that we had made some determinations of the framework, and were
still in the process of determining the framework, and open to changing the
framework as we moved ahead. I don't think he cited "the closed nature of
the SPWG process" and if you weren't referring to him then I am VERY
confused!

Who told you your documents would be presented at the meeting of the SPWG? I
replied to point out that they will be given as much weight as comments
presented in person. Not that they would also be presented. There was a
limited amount of time for those who showed up in person to speak, and
unlimited time for the SPWG to read your written comments.

Why do you make the assumption that we will only be digesting your comments
after we have gone down some irreversible track? We are very interested in
hearing broad input before we START to work out a strategy. As you note the
party has been doing things over the past few years with a zero growth rate.
I don't understand the apparent hostility to this process, which is a direct
response to this. You also said you want a strategy chosen through a
collective process, and this does that too. That's actually the whole point
-- that if the Party can collectively develop its strategy, perhaps we'll
adopt better strategies AND have more people on board.

I believe the SPWG has encouraged participation, inclusiveness, etc. Part of
my participation in the state party actually springs from feeling that the
state party wasn't including my voice in its decisions, and I don't think
the state party was making the best decisions.

Eli

On 5/9/07, Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On the process of SPWG:
> One member has already resigned citing the closed naure of the SPWG
> process.  Initially there were even wild suggestions that the meeting be
> closed to party members !

I was told that my documents would be presented at the meeting of SPWG, and
> not the 7th meeting of SPWG.  By that time who knows what irreversible track
> the group has gone down.  When I send stuff to Mike Heichman for CDLC, when
> I can't make those meetings, and he tells me that the ideas will be
> presented at the meeting, then he presents them at that meeting.
>
> We need to be more inclusive with this process and encourage, not attack,
> people who want to participate in the best way that they can.  The
> suggestion to block physical mail as a way of communiating to committees is
> bordering on censorship and must be aggressively fought against.
>
> Ron
>
>
>