Results of vote on new system

10 messages

Laurel Hagen () Results of vote on new system

Reply Threaded

Hello, all CSSers--

26 votes were cast on whether to switch CSS from an open forum to a
moderated list. Results:

YES: 15 (57.7%)
NO: 11 (42.3%)

So, it was close, but the Yeas have it. The main sentiment in favor of the
new system was not that we want to censor political speech, but that there
was too much unnecessary traffic, and people were having trouble paying
attention to everything.

So that I'm not the only arbiter here, I invite anyone, especially
subcommittee leaders, who wants to issue a weekly, or monthly, or
whenever-they-feel-like-it digest or update on the topics covered by their
CSS subcommittee, please do. Also, if anyone wants to have their own news or
commentary updates, such as a local foraging calendar or a running
commentary on the environmental movement among evangelicals, drop me an
email. Digests should be no more frequent than once a week.

Unless it gets crazy, I'll try to be pretty loose about what gets posted to
the list, especially the digests. Someone mentioned that they liked that
frog article, for example--that sort of thing would go into the news digest.
The main goal is not to stop the flow of information, but to make the
traffic a little more manageable.

Also, this will be an evolving system. If anyone has suggestions as to how
it could be improved, I want to hear them. If it's just not working out--if
people miss the informal conversations of the previous format, or if I just
don't have time to collect and send emails, then we can go back. I'll
probably request an assessment sometime around the beginning of the year, to
see what we think. I'll probably make the switch sometime in the next couple
of days, just as soon as I figure out how to do it. After that, I and any
subcommittee leaders will be the only ones allowed to post directly to the
list.

Thanks for everyone's input. If anyone wants to unsubscribe, the link to do
that is at the bottom of every CSS email, you don't need to ask. Also, if
you know anyone who wants to subscribe, that is done through the website,
canyonlandssustainable.org.

Laurel

Here's the original proposal:

***

Here's how the new system, the newsletter/message board would work:

1. All posts would be given to the moderator, and she¹d be responsible for
judging whether they should go straight to the group, or for condensing them
into "weekly digest" emails. The moderator would be the only person that can
send to the list. I'll volunteer to be the moderator for now, unless someone
else wants the position. That's right, I would be the Gatekeeper, just like
Sigourney Weaver. (Sorry, I was watching Ghostbusters last night). I would
be open to bribery, especially chocolate or Colorado beer.

The list would still be open to all to read on the internet, and all to
submit posts. The moderator would not actually be writing them, just passing
them along. However, this would eliminate CSSers¹ ability to reply to the
list with casual comments on an item. You can decide if you like that change
or not. This system would probably bring the number of posts down to 15 or
so a week.

2. Proposed criteria for posting to the list:

A. Announcements of events directly related to sustainability and
localization go straight out to the list. (Examples include the Youth
Garden's agriculture/husbandry/hunting classes, sustainable building tours
and workshops, informational talks on peak oil or climate change, or a City
Council vote on a chicken-keeping ordinance).

B. News items directly related to sustainability and localization (such as
an article on new wind farm technology, a congressional vote on solar power
subsidies, a study of the effects of climate change on elk hunting) would be
condensed into a weekly digest. This would be a once-a-week email with all
the stories' titles and links to the full text. Any short comments the
submitter wanted to add would be put next to the link.

C. Lance Christie gets his own weekly digest, if he wants it. (Hope you're
recovering nicely, Lance!) Anyone else who comes up with the amount of
wonderful information that Lance does can have their own digest too.

D. Substantive analysis by locals of any issues, votes, philosophies,
policies, political candidates etc. as they relate to sustainability and
localization would go straight out to the list. (Examples include a
discussion of the effects of Lion¹s Back or Cloudrock on Moab¹s groundwater,
a comparison of Obama¹s and McCain¹s renewable energy proposals, report on
soil amendment strategies in Castle Valley, or an argument as to why
anarcho-capitalism is better for Moab agriculture than state-sponsored
syndicalism). General articles or opinion pieces by non-locals on these
topics would go into the news digest.

E. Announcements of community events NOT directly related to sustainability
and localization would be allowed, but would be condensed into their own
weekly digest. (Examples include Planning Commission meetings on a
development proposal, arts and cultural festivals, candidate forums, indie
films on freeing Tibet, or concerts). This puts us up to three possible
digests a week.

F. Anything that doesn¹t fit into these categories would be rejected.
(Examples include articles mocking the ineptitude of Sarah Palin, reports on
the kick-ass rapids in Westwater this spring, a theory that Randy Day is
secretly in charge of the Earth Liberation Front, invitations to vote in
online polls, or ³reply all² type emails that say ³Thanks for all the great
information on the upcoming role of fungi in new home construction,
Lance!²).

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canyonlands Sustainable Solutions" group.
To post to this group, send email to [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [hidden email]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/canyonlandssustainable?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

solarmon () Re: Results of vote on new system

Reply Threaded

26 votes.

pretty pathetic

this is how people like Bush get elected . .by indifference on the
part of the voters

wonder how many votes there would have been if the email address had
been correct from the start

On Oct 26, 12:44 pm, Laurel Hagen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello, all CSSers--
>
> 26 votes were cast on whether to switch CSS from an open forum to a
> moderated list. Results:
>
> YES: 15 (57.7%)
> NO: 11 (42.3%)
>
> So, it was close, but the Yeas have it. The main sentiment in favor of the
> new system was not that we want to censor political speech, but that there
> was too much unnecessary traffic, and people were having trouble paying
> attention to everything.
>
> So that I'm not the only arbiter here, I invite anyone, especially
> subcommittee leaders, who wants to issue a weekly, or monthly, or
> whenever-they-feel-like-it digest or update on the topics covered by their
> CSS subcommittee, please do. Also, if anyone wants to have their own news or
> commentary updates, such as a local foraging calendar or a running
> commentary on the environmental movement among evangelicals, drop me an
> email. Digests should be no more frequent than once a week.
>
> Unless it gets crazy, I'll try to be pretty loose about what gets posted to
> the list, especially the digests. Someone mentioned that they liked that
> frog article, for example--that sort of thing would go into the news digest.
> The main goal is not to stop the flow of information, but to make the
> traffic a little more manageable.
>
> Also, this will be an evolving system. If anyone has suggestions as to how
> it could be improved, I want to hear them. If it's just not working out--if
> people miss the informal conversations of the previous format, or if I just
> don't have time to collect and send emails, then we can go back. I'll
> probably request an assessment sometime around the beginning of the year, to
> see what we think. I'll probably make the switch sometime in the next couple
> of days, just as soon as I figure out how to do it. After that, I and any
> subcommittee leaders will be the only ones allowed to post directly to the
> list.
>
> Thanks for everyone's input. If anyone wants to unsubscribe, the link to do
> that is at the bottom of every CSS email, you don't need to ask. Also, if
> you know anyone who wants to subscribe, that is done through the website,
> canyonlandssustainable.org.
>
> Laurel
>
> Here's the original proposal:
>
> ***
>
> Here's how the new system, the newsletter/message board would work:
>
> 1. All posts would be given to the moderator, and she¹d be responsible for
> judging whether they should go straight to the group, or for condensing them
> into "weekly digest" emails. The moderator would be the only person that can
> send to the list. I'll volunteer to be the moderator for now, unless someone
> else wants the position. That's right, I would be the Gatekeeper, just like
> Sigourney Weaver. (Sorry, I was watching Ghostbusters last night). I would
> be open to bribery, especially chocolate or Colorado beer.
>
> The list would still be open to all to read on the internet, and all to
> submit posts. The moderator would not actually be writing them, just passing
> them along. However, this would eliminate CSSers¹ ability to reply to the
> list with casual comments on an item. You can decide if you like that change
> or not. This system would probably bring the number of posts down to 15 or
> so a week.
>
> 2. Proposed criteria for posting to the list:
>
> A. Announcements of events directly related to sustainability and
> localization go straight out to the list. (Examples include the Youth
> Garden's agriculture/husbandry/hunting classes, sustainable building tours
> and workshops, informational talks on peak oil or climate change, or a City
> Council vote on a chicken-keeping ordinance).
>
> B. News items directly related to sustainability and localization (such as
> an article on new wind farm technology, a congressional vote on solar power
> subsidies, a study of the effects of climate change on elk hunting) would be
> condensed into a weekly digest. This would be a once-a-week email with all
> the stories' titles and links to the full text. Any short comments the
> submitter wanted to add would be put next to the link.
>
> C. Lance Christie gets his own weekly digest, if he wants it. (Hope you're
> recovering nicely, Lance!) Anyone else who comes up with the amount of
> wonderful information that Lance does can have their own digest too.
>
> D. Substantive analysis by locals of any issues, votes, philosophies,
> policies, political candidates etc. as they relate to sustainability and
> localization would go straight out to the list. (Examples include a
> discussion of the effects of Lion¹s Back or Cloudrock on Moab¹s groundwater,
> a comparison of Obama¹s and McCain¹s renewable energy proposals, report on
> soil amendment strategies in Castle Valley, or an argument as to why
> anarcho-capitalism is better for Moab agriculture than state-sponsored
> syndicalism). General articles or opinion pieces by non-locals on these
> topics would go into the news digest.
>
> E. Announcements of community events NOT directly related to sustainability
> and localization would be allowed, but would be condensed into their own
> weekly digest. (Examples include Planning Commission meetings on a
> development proposal, arts and cultural festivals, candidate forums, indie
> films on freeing Tibet, or concerts). This puts us up to three possible
> digests a week.
>
> F. Anything that doesn¹t fit into these categories would be rejected.
> (Examples include articles mocking the ineptitude of Sarah Palin, reports on
> the kick-ass rapids in Westwater this spring, a theory that Randy Day is
> secretly in charge of the Earth Liberation Front, invitations to vote in
> online polls, or ³reply all² type emails that say ³Thanks for all the great
> information on the upcoming role of fungi in new home construction,
> Lance!²).

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canyonlands Sustainable Solutions" group.
To post to this group, send email to [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [hidden email]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/canyonlandssustainable?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Nancy Kurtz () Re: Results of vote on new system

Reply Threaded

Jeez. I would have voted no if I thought there were so few. But there
was so much confusion surrounding where to send the vote, not to
mention a million and a half other things going on, I figured, hey,
kick back kid it'll just take care of itself. Thought, actually,
everyone would agree with the ever-cogent Ron George, seemed like a no
brainer, silly me.

If people are serious about what seems to be a riveting disagreement
(WHY?) that I have been blissfully ignorant of the seriousness of
until this very moment! I think we need to make a decision that is
based on reality and not 26 votes. Just one person's opinion. And I
am really confused at this point as to how to use the list serve. It's
just so dense and full of caveats that it really turns me off.

And, btw, I vote no. Thanks.

Nancy
On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:39 PM, solarmon wrote:

>
> 26 votes.
>
> pretty pathetic
>
> this is how people like Bush get elected . .by indifference on the
> part of the voters
>
> wonder how many votes there would have been if the email address had
> been correct from the start
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 12:44 pm, Laurel Hagen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hello, all CSSers--
>>
>> 26 votes were cast on whether to switch CSS from an open forum to a
>> moderated list. Results:
>>
>> YES: 15 (57.7%)
>> NO: 11 (42.3%)
>>
>> So, it was close, but the Yeas have it. The main sentiment in favor
>> of the
>> new system was not that we want to censor political speech, but that
>> there
>> was too much unnecessary traffic, and people were having trouble
>> paying
>> attention to everything.
>>
>> So that I'm not the only arbiter here, I invite anyone, especially
>> subcommittee leaders, who wants to issue a weekly, or monthly, or
>> whenever-they-feel-like-it digest or update on the topics covered by
>> their
>> CSS subcommittee, please do. Also, if anyone wants to have their own
>> news or
>> commentary updates, such as a local foraging calendar or a running
>> commentary on the environmental movement among evangelicals, drop me
>> an
>> email. Digests should be no more frequent than once a week.
>>
>> Unless it gets crazy, I'll try to be pretty loose about what gets
>> posted to
>> the list, especially the digests. Someone mentioned that they liked
>> that
>> frog article, for example--that sort of thing would go into the news
>> digest.
>> The main goal is not to stop the flow of information, but to make the
>> traffic a little more manageable.
>>
>> Also, this will be an evolving system. If anyone has suggestions as
>> to how
>> it could be improved, I want to hear them. If it's just not working
>> out--if
>> people miss the informal conversations of the previous format, or if
>> I just
>> don't have time to collect and send emails, then we can go back. I'll
>> probably request an assessment sometime around the beginning of the
>> year, to
>> see what we think. I'll probably make the switch sometime in the next
>> couple
>> of days, just as soon as I figure out how to do it. After that, I and
>> any
>> subcommittee leaders will be the only ones allowed to post directly
>> to the
>> list.
>>
>> Thanks for everyone's input. If anyone wants to unsubscribe, the link
>> to do
>> that is at the bottom of every CSS email, you don't need to ask.
>> Also, if
>> you know anyone who wants to subscribe, that is done through the
>> website,
>> canyonlandssustainable.org.
>>
>> Laurel
>>
>> Here's the original proposal:
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Here's how the new system, the newsletter/message board would work:
>>
>> 1. All posts would be given to the moderator, and she¹d be
>> responsible for
>> judging whether they should go straight to the group, or for
>> condensing them
>> into "weekly digest" emails. The moderator would be the only person
>> that can
>> send to the list. I'll volunteer to be the moderator for now, unless
>> someone
>> else wants the position. That's right, I would be the Gatekeeper,
>> just like
>> Sigourney Weaver. (Sorry, I was watching Ghostbusters last night). I
>> would
>> be open to bribery, especially chocolate or Colorado beer.
>>
>> The list would still be open to all to read on the internet, and all
>> to
>> submit posts. The moderator would not actually be writing them, just
>> passing
>> them along. However, this would eliminate CSSers¹ ability to reply to
>> the
>> list with casual comments on an item. You can decide if you like that
>> change
>> or not. This system would probably bring the number of posts down to
>> 15 or
>> so a week.
>>
>> 2. Proposed criteria for posting to the list:
>>
>> A. Announcements of events directly related to sustainability and
>> localization go straight out to the list. (Examples include the Youth
>> Garden's agriculture/husbandry/hunting classes, sustainable building
>> tours
>> and workshops, informational talks on peak oil or climate change, or
>> a City
>> Council vote on a chicken-keeping ordinance).
>>
>> B. News items directly related to sustainability and localization
>> (such as
>> an article on new wind farm technology, a congressional vote on solar
>> power
>> subsidies, a study of the effects of climate change on elk hunting)
>> would be
>> condensed into a weekly digest. This would be a once-a-week email
>> with all
>> the stories' titles and links to the full text. Any short comments the
>> submitter wanted to add would be put next to the link.
>>
>> C. Lance Christie gets his own weekly digest, if he wants it. (Hope
>> you're
>> recovering nicely, Lance!) Anyone else who comes up with the amount of
>> wonderful information that Lance does can have their own digest too.
>>
>> D. Substantive analysis by locals of any issues, votes, philosophies,
>> policies, political candidates etc. as they relate to sustainability
>> and
>> localization would go straight out to the list. (Examples include a
>> discussion of the effects of Lion¹s Back or Cloudrock on Moab¹s
>> groundwater,
>> a comparison of Obama¹s and McCain¹s renewable energy proposals,
>> report on
>> soil amendment strategies in Castle Valley, or an argument as to why
>> anarcho-capitalism is better for Moab agriculture than state-sponsored
>> syndicalism). General articles or opinion pieces by non-locals on
>> these
>> topics would go into the news digest.
>>
>> E. Announcements of community events NOT directly related to
>> sustainability
>> and localization would be allowed, but would be condensed into their
>> own
>> weekly digest. (Examples include Planning Commission meetings on a
>> development proposal, arts and cultural festivals, candidate forums,
>> indie
>> films on freeing Tibet, or concerts). This puts us up to three
>> possible
>> digests a week.
>>
>> F. Anything that doesn¹t fit into these categories would be rejected.
>> (Examples include articles mocking the ineptitude of Sarah Palin,
>> reports on
>> the kick-ass rapids in Westwater this spring, a theory that Randy Day
>> is
>> secretly in charge of the Earth Liberation Front, invitations to vote
>> in
>> online polls, or ³reply all² type emails that say ³Thanks for all the
>> great
>> information on the upcoming role of fungi in new home construction,
>> Lance!²).
> >
>

"We're gonna need a bigger boat."

[hidden email]
435-259-0734

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canyonlands Sustainable Solutions" group.
To post to this group, send email to [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [hidden email]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/canyonlandssustainable?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

solarmon () Re: Results of vote on new system

Reply Threaded

I personally feel that the whole voting thing should be done again to
get a REAL picture of what the members here want.

I feel that there was vast confusion due to the email for voting not
being posted correctly, and also feel that the person who proposes to
be the moderator (censor) should NOT be the one in charge of the
voting.

Also wonder if the sentiments that were expresed as postings here were
counted as "official" votes, or if only the ones emailed to the
nebulous address count.

On Oct 26, 6:44 pm, Nancy Kurtz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jeez. I would have voted no if I thought there were so few. But there
> was so much confusion surrounding where to send the vote, not to
> mention a million and a half other things going on, I figured, hey,
> kick back kid it'll just take care of itself. Thought, actually,
> everyone would agree with the ever-cogent Ron George, seemed like a no
> brainer, silly me.
>
> If people are serious about what seems to be a riveting disagreement
> (WHY?) that I have been blissfully ignorant of the seriousness of
> until this very moment! I think we need to make a decision that is
> based on reality and not 26 votes. Just one person's opinion. And I
> am really confused at this point as to how to use the list serve. It's
> just so dense and full of caveats that it really turns me off.
>
> And, btw, I vote no. Thanks.
>
> Nancy
> On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:39 PM, solarmon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 26 votes.
>
> > pretty pathetic
>
> > this is how people like Bush get elected . .by indifference on the
> > part of the voters
>
> > wonder how many votes there would have been if the email address had
> > been correct from the start
>
> > On Oct 26, 12:44 pm, Laurel Hagen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Hello, all CSSers--
>
> >> 26 votes were cast on whether to switch CSS from an open forum to a
> >> moderated list. Results:
>
> >> YES: 15 (57.7%)
> >> NO: 11 (42.3%)
>
> >> So, it was close, but the Yeas have it. The main sentiment in favor
> >> of the
> >> new system was not that we want to censor political speech, but that
> >> there
> >> was too much unnecessary traffic, and people were having trouble
> >> paying
> >> attention to everything.
>
> >> So that I'm not the only arbiter here, I invite anyone, especially
> >> subcommittee leaders, who wants to issue a weekly, or monthly, or
> >> whenever-they-feel-like-it digest or update on the topics covered by
> >> their
> >> CSS subcommittee, please do. Also, if anyone wants to have their own
> >> news or
> >> commentary updates, such as a local foraging calendar or a running
> >> commentary on the environmental movement among evangelicals, drop me
> >> an
> >> email. Digests should be no more frequent than once a week.
>
> >> Unless it gets crazy, I'll try to be pretty loose about what gets
> >> posted to
> >> the list, especially the digests. Someone mentioned that they liked
> >> that
> >> frog article, for example--that sort of thing would go into the news
> >> digest.
> >> The main goal is not to stop the flow of information, but to make the
> >> traffic a little more manageable.
>
> >> Also, this will be an evolving system. If anyone has suggestions as
> >> to how
> >> it could be improved, I want to hear them. If it's just not working
> >> out--if
> >> people miss the informal conversations of the previous format, or if
> >> I just
> >> don't have time to collect and send emails, then we can go back. I'll
> >> probably request an assessment sometime around the beginning of the
> >> year, to
> >> see what we think. I'll probably make the switch sometime in the next
> >> couple
> >> of days, just as soon as I figure out how to do it. After that, I and
> >> any
> >> subcommittee leaders will be the only ones allowed to post directly
> >> to the
> >> list.
>
> >> Thanks for everyone's input. If anyone wants to unsubscribe, the link
> >> to do
> >> that is at the bottom of every CSS email, you don't need to ask.
> >> Also, if
> >> you know anyone who wants to subscribe, that is done through the
> >> website,
> >> canyonlandssustainable.org.
>
> >> Laurel
>
> >> Here's the original proposal:
>
> >> ***
>
> >> Here's how the new system, the newsletter/message board would work:
>
> >> 1. All posts would be given to the moderator, and she¹d be
> >> responsible for
> >> judging whether they should go straight to the group, or for
> >> condensing them
> >> into "weekly digest" emails. The moderator would be the only person
> >> that can
> >> send to the list. I'll volunteer to be the moderator for now, unless
> >> someone
> >> else wants the position. That's right, I would be the Gatekeeper,
> >> just like
> >> Sigourney Weaver. (Sorry, I was watching Ghostbusters last night). I
> >> would
> >> be open to bribery, especially chocolate or Colorado beer.
>
> >> The list would still be open to all to read on the internet, and all
> >> to
> >> submit posts. The moderator would not actually be writing them, just
> >> passing
> >> them along. However, this would eliminate CSSers¹ ability to reply to
> >> the
> >> list with casual comments on an item. You can decide if you like that
> >> change
> >> or not. This system would probably bring the number of posts down to
> >> 15 or
> >> so a week.
>
> >> 2. Proposed criteria for posting to the list:
>
> >> A. Announcements of events directly related to sustainability and
> >> localization go straight out to the list. (Examples include the Youth
> >> Garden's agriculture/husbandry/hunting classes, sustainable building
> >> tours
> >> and workshops, informational talks on peak oil or climate change, or
> >> a City
> >> Council vote on a chicken-keeping ordinance).
>
> >> B. News items directly related to sustainability and localization
> >> (such as
> >> an article on new wind farm technology, a congressional vote on solar
> >> power
> >> subsidies, a study of the effects of climate change on elk hunting)
> >> would be
> >> condensed into a weekly digest. This would be a once-a-week email
> >> with all
> >> the stories' titles and links to the full text. Any short comments the
> >> submitter wanted to add would be put next to the link.
>
> >> C. Lance Christie gets his own weekly digest, if he wants it. (Hope
> >> you're
> >> recovering nicely, Lance!) Anyone else who comes up with the amount of
> >> wonderful information that Lance does can have their own digest too.
>
> >> D. Substantive analysis by locals of any issues, votes, philosophies,
> >> policies, political candidates etc. as they relate to sustainability
> >> and
> >> localization would go straight out to the list. (Examples include a
> >> discussion of the effects of Lion¹s Back or Cloudrock on Moab¹s
> >> groundwater,
> >> a comparison of Obama¹s and McCain¹s renewable energy proposals,
> >> report on
> >> soil amendment strategies in Castle Valley, or an argument as to why
> >> anarcho-capitalism is better for Moab agriculture than state-sponsored
> >> syndicalism). General articles or opinion pieces by non-locals on
> >> these
> >> topics would go into the news digest.
>
> >> E. Announcements of community events NOT directly related to
> >> sustainability
> >> and localization would be allowed, but would be condensed into their
> >> own
> >> weekly digest. (Examples include Planning Commission meetings on a
> >> development proposal, arts and cultural festivals, candidate forums,
> >> indie
> >> films on freeing Tibet, or concerts). This puts us up to three
> >> possible
> >> digests a week.
>
> >> F. Anything that doesn¹t fit into these categories would be rejected.
> >> (Examples include articles mocking the ineptitude of Sarah Palin,
> >> reports on
> >> the kick-ass rapids in Westwater this spring, a theory that Randy Day
> >> is
> >> secretly in charge of the Earth Liberation Front, invitations to vote
> >> in
> >> online polls, or ³reply all² type emails that say ³Thanks for all the
> >> great
> >> information on the upcoming role of fungi in new home construction,
> >> Lance!²).
>
> "We're gonna need a bigger boat."
>
> [hidden email]
> 435-259-0734- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Anne Urbanek () Re: Results of vote on new system

Reply Threaded

In reply to this post by Laurel Hagen

Hi Laurel,

Thank you for taking on this job. I was beginning to realize by the answers
to some emails that appeared that I was not getting all the emails to CSS.
I had written to all the leaders of the various committees to be on their
list.

What I would like to see is a Home Page that has all the goals of the
various committees instead of Lorum Ipsen. I would like to see the calendar
kept up to date for all CSS meetings. Most of all I am looking forward to a
report on what is going on. Last month Julianne had the minutes of the
meeting. I appreciated receiving them. How many members does CSS have? An
up-to-date list of members would be good.

I can hear some people say, well help out. Sorry, I can't right now. I'm
taking care of my husband who has cancer and am having back problems myself,
so I don't get out much. Someday, I would hope to take a more active role
in CSS. In the meantime, it would be nice to know what is going on. If
each group could make a list of people who are in Moab and work in their
specialty, so we would know where to go if we wanted to make our home,
utilities, mode of transportation, etc, more sustainable, that would be very
helpful. I will need a smaller home in the near future or might want to
remodel my home to live on one level and rent the upper part. I'm depending
on this organization to have done the footwork. Hopefully the people in
each group would have checked this out more efficiently than I can who
would be the best for the job.

I'm retired, and a bookkeeper, good at organizing, an artist, and hope
someday to help this organization with the more non-physical work.

I know many of you have a job, belong to more organizations, but surely each
group would have somebody that can help with keeping calendars, etc, up to
date.

I'm looking forward to getting the digests.

Anne Urbanek

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canyonlands Sustainable Solutions" group.
To post to this group, send email to [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [hidden email]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/canyonlandssustainable?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Laurel Hagen () Re: Results of vote on new system

Reply Threaded

Hi guys--As always, I'm happy to post stuff to the website as soon as anyone
sends it to me. Also, I believe all of the subcommittee leaders have the
passwords to put items on the calendar, is that right?

The website has languished this summer, mostly because everyone is busy, I
bet. I may try to crack the whip on subcommittee leaders to submit stuff
this winter. You should all be very afraid.

Laurel

On 10/27/08 9:37 AM, "Anne Urbanek" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Laurel,
>
> Thank you for taking on this job. I was beginning to realize by the answers
> to some emails that appeared that I was not getting all the emails to CSS.
> I had written to all the leaders of the various committees to be on their
> list.
>
>
>
> What I would like to see is a Home Page that has all the goals of the
> various committees instead of Lorum Ipsen. I would like to see the calendar
> kept up to date for all CSS meetings. Most of all I am looking forward to a
> report on what is going on. Last month Julianne had the minutes of the
> meeting. I appreciated receiving them. How many members does CSS have? An
> up-to-date list of members would be good.
>
>
>
> I can hear some people say, well help out. Sorry, I can't right now. I'm
> taking care of my husband who has cancer and am having back problems myself,
> so I don't get out much. Someday, I would hope to take a more active role
> in CSS. In the meantime, it would be nice to know what is going on. If
> each group could make a list of people who are in Moab and work in their
> specialty, so we would know where to go if we wanted to make our home,
> utilities, mode of transportation, etc, more sustainable, that would be very
> helpful. I will need a smaller home in the near future or might want to
> remodel my home to live on one level and rent the upper part. I'm depending
> on this organization to have done the footwork. Hopefully the people in
> each group would have checked this out more efficiently than I can who
> would be the best for the job.
>
>
>
> I'm retired, and a bookkeeper, good at organizing, an artist, and hope
> someday to help this organization with the more non-physical work.
>
>
>
> I know many of you have a job, belong to more organizations, but surely each
> group would have somebody that can help with keeping calendars, etc, up to
> date.
>
>
>
> I'm looking forward to getting the digests.
>
>
>
> Anne Urbanek
>
>
>
>
> >

Judy Powers () Re: Results of vote on new system

Reply Threaded

In reply to this post by solarmon

I voted and I want to change my vote. I voted to change and then decided
I like the informality. What do I do about that? Wasn't the swing vote
however. Judy

solarmon wrote:

>26 votes.
>
>pretty pathetic
>
>this is how people like Bush get elected . .by indifference on the
>part of the voters
>
>wonder how many votes there would have been if the email address had
>been correct from the start
>
>
>
>On Oct 26, 12:44 pm, Laurel Hagen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>Hello, all CSSers--
>>
>>26 votes were cast on whether to switch CSS from an open forum to a
>>moderated list. Results:
>>
>>YES: 15 (57.7%)
>>NO: 11 (42.3%)
>>
>>So, it was close, but the Yeas have it. The main sentiment in favor of the
>>new system was not that we want to censor political speech, but that there
>>was too much unnecessary traffic, and people were having trouble paying
>>attention to everything.
>>
>>So that I'm not the only arbiter here, I invite anyone, especially
>>subcommittee leaders, who wants to issue a weekly, or monthly, or
>>whenever-they-feel-like-it digest or update on the topics covered by their
>>CSS subcommittee, please do. Also, if anyone wants to have their own news or
>>commentary updates, such as a local foraging calendar or a running
>>commentary on the environmental movement among evangelicals, drop me an
>>email. Digests should be no more frequent than once a week.
>>
>>Unless it gets crazy, I'll try to be pretty loose about what gets posted to
>>the list, especially the digests. Someone mentioned that they liked that
>>frog article, for example--that sort of thing would go into the news digest.
>>The main goal is not to stop the flow of information, but to make the
>>traffic a little more manageable.
>>
>>Also, this will be an evolving system. If anyone has suggestions as to how
>>it could be improved, I want to hear them. If it's just not working out--if
>>people miss the informal conversations of the previous format, or if I just
>>don't have time to collect and send emails, then we can go back. I'll
>>probably request an assessment sometime around the beginning of the year, to
>>see what we think. I'll probably make the switch sometime in the next couple
>>of days, just as soon as I figure out how to do it. After that, I and any
>>subcommittee leaders will be the only ones allowed to post directly to the
>>list.
>>
>>Thanks for everyone's input. If anyone wants to unsubscribe, the link to do
>>that is at the bottom of every CSS email, you don't need to ask. Also, if
>>you know anyone who wants to subscribe, that is done through the website,
>>canyonlandssustainable.org.
>>
>>Laurel
>>
>>Here's the original proposal:
>>
>>***
>>
>>Here's how the new system, the newsletter/message board would work:
>>
>>1. All posts would be given to the moderator, and she¹d be responsible for
>>judging whether they should go straight to the group, or for condensing them
>>into "weekly digest" emails. The moderator would be the only person that can
>>send to the list. I'll volunteer to be the moderator for now, unless someone
>>else wants the position. That's right, I would be the Gatekeeper, just like
>>Sigourney Weaver. (Sorry, I was watching Ghostbusters last night). I would
>>be open to bribery, especially chocolate or Colorado beer.
>>
>>The list would still be open to all to read on the internet, and all to
>>submit posts. The moderator would not actually be writing them, just passing
>>them along. However, this would eliminate CSSers¹ ability to reply to the
>>list with casual comments on an item. You can decide if you like that change
>>or not. This system would probably bring the number of posts down to 15 or
>>so a week.
>>
>>2. Proposed criteria for posting to the list:
>>
>>A. Announcements of events directly related to sustainability and
>>localization go straight out to the list. (Examples include the Youth
>>Garden's agriculture/husbandry/hunting classes, sustainable building tours
>>and workshops, informational talks on peak oil or climate change, or a City
>>Council vote on a chicken-keeping ordinance).
>>
>>B. News items directly related to sustainability and localization (such as
>>an article on new wind farm technology, a congressional vote on solar power
>>subsidies, a study of the effects of climate change on elk hunting) would be
>>condensed into a weekly digest. This would be a once-a-week email with all
>>the stories' titles and links to the full text. Any short comments the
>>submitter wanted to add would be put next to the link.
>>
>>C. Lance Christie gets his own weekly digest, if he wants it. (Hope you're
>>recovering nicely, Lance!) Anyone else who comes up with the amount of
>>wonderful information that Lance does can have their own digest too.
>>
>>D. Substantive analysis by locals of any issues, votes, philosophies,
>>policies, political candidates etc. as they relate to sustainability and
>>localization would go straight out to the list. (Examples include a
>>discussion of the effects of Lion¹s Back or Cloudrock on Moab¹s groundwater,
>>a comparison of Obama¹s and McCain¹s renewable energy proposals, report on
>>soil amendment strategies in Castle Valley, or an argument as to why
>>anarcho-capitalism is better for Moab agriculture than state-sponsored
>>syndicalism). General articles or opinion pieces by non-locals on these
>>topics would go into the news digest.
>>
>>E. Announcements of community events NOT directly related to sustainability
>>and localization would be allowed, but would be condensed into their own
>>weekly digest. (Examples include Planning Commission meetings on a
>>development proposal, arts and cultural festivals, candidate forums, indie
>>films on freeing Tibet, or concerts). This puts us up to three possible
>>digests a week.
>>
>>F. Anything that doesn¹t fit into these categories would be rejected.
>>(Examples include articles mocking the ineptitude of Sarah Palin, reports on
>>the kick-ass rapids in Westwater this spring, a theory that Randy Day is
>>secretly in charge of the Earth Liberation Front, invitations to vote in
>>online polls, or ³reply all² type emails that say ³Thanks for all the great
>>information on the upcoming role of fungi in new home construction,
>>Lance!²).
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Laurel Hagen () In response to anyone who didn't like the vote

Reply Threaded

In reply to this post by solarmon

I administered this vote as fairly as I could. If Mr. Larson, Ms. Kurtz, or
anyone else wants to come up with a better system of collecting votes,
please send that proposal out to the list, and offer to administer it in a
way that no one can say is vulnerable to tampering. I have a limited amount
of time and energy to spend on this, and can't just keep holding votes until
no one finds a reason to complain. However, if someone else wants to do it,
be my guest.

As for the weird email address in the original message, here's the deal:
Google, our list host, will not post a complete email address in the body of
an email because all of this goes online. I didn't know that when I sent it
out. However, my email address was clearly visible in the "from" column of
the email, and Heather kindly sent it out typed in a different way as well.
Also, anyone could have voted in an email to the entire list, as several
did.

If anyone was unable to cast their vote because they were confused by where
to send it, speak up now.

Yes, I did count every vote that was cast, including those that were sent to
the list and not directly to me. Even with the new comments people have made
after I posted the results (3 new votes, and one switched vote) the results
still come out 16-14 in favor of the change.

FYI, here are comments from some of the "yes" voters as to why they voted
that way:

"I do like the open forum concept, but it does seem to have become a bit
fraught with drama and irrelevant posts."

"A more structured format would be a godsend for me."

"I'm glad to see someone stepping up to streamline things with the list."

"Much better than slogging through the minutia."

"Great idea we definitely need a gate keeper."

"A digest would be great."

On 10/27/08 9:23 AM, "solarmon" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I personally feel that the whole voting thing should be done again to
> get a REAL picture of what the members here want.
>
> I feel that there was vast confusion due to the email for voting not
> being posted correctly, and also feel that the person who proposes to
> be the moderator (censor) should NOT be the one in charge of the
> voting.
>
> Also wonder if the sentiments that were expresed as postings here were
> counted as "official" votes, or if only the ones emailed to the
> nebulous address count.
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 6:44 pm, Nancy Kurtz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Jeez. I would have voted no if I thought there were so few. But there
>> was so much confusion surrounding where to send the vote, not to
>> mention a million and a half other things going on, I figured, hey,
>> kick back kid it'll just take care of itself. Thought, actually,
>> everyone would agree with the ever-cogent Ron George, seemed like a no
>> brainer, silly me.
>>
>> If people are serious about what seems to be a riveting disagreement
>> (WHY?) that I have been blissfully ignorant of the seriousness of
>> until this very moment! I think we need to make a decision that is
>> based on reality and not 26 votes. Just one person's opinion. And I
>> am really confused at this point as to how to use the list serve. It's
>> just so dense and full of caveats that it really turns me off.
>>
>> And, btw, I vote no. Thanks.
>>
>> Nancy
>> On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:39 PM, solarmon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 26 votes.
>>
>>> pretty pathetic
>>
>>> this is how people like Bush get elected . .by indifference on the
>>> part of the voters
>>
>>> wonder how many votes there would have been if the email address had
>>> been correct from the start
>>
>>> On Oct 26, 12:44 pm, Laurel Hagen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hello, all CSSers--
>>
>>>> 26 votes were cast on whether to switch CSS from an open forum to a
>>>> moderated list. Results:
>>
>>>> YES: 15 (57.7%)
>>>> NO: 11 (42.3%)
>>
>>>> So, it was close, but the Yeas have it. The main sentiment in favor
>>>> of the
>>>> new system was not that we want to censor political speech, but that
>>>> there
>>>> was too much unnecessary traffic, and people were having trouble
>>>> paying
>>>> attention to everything.
>>
>>>> So that I'm not the only arbiter here, I invite anyone, especially
>>>> subcommittee leaders, who wants to issue a weekly, or monthly, or
>>>> whenever-they-feel-like-it digest or update on the topics covered by
>>>> their
>>>> CSS subcommittee, please do. Also, if anyone wants to have their own
>>>> news or
>>>> commentary updates, such as a local foraging calendar or a running
>>>> commentary on the environmental movement among evangelicals, drop me
>>>> an
>>>> email. Digests should be no more frequent than once a week.
>>
>>>> Unless it gets crazy, I'll try to be pretty loose about what gets
>>>> posted to
>>>> the list, especially the digests. Someone mentioned that they liked
>>>> that
>>>> frog article, for example--that sort of thing would go into the news
>>>> digest.
>>>> The main goal is not to stop the flow of information, but to make the
>>>> traffic a little more manageable.
>>
>>>> Also, this will be an evolving system. If anyone has suggestions as
>>>> to how
>>>> it could be improved, I want to hear them. If it's just not working
>>>> out--if
>>>> people miss the informal conversations of the previous format, or if
>>>> I just
>>>> don't have time to collect and send emails, then we can go back. I'll
>>>> probably request an assessment sometime around the beginning of the
>>>> year, to
>>>> see what we think. I'll probably make the switch sometime in the next
>>>> couple
>>>> of days, just as soon as I figure out how to do it. After that, I and
>>>> any
>>>> subcommittee leaders will be the only ones allowed to post directly
>>>> to the
>>>> list.
>>
>>>> Thanks for everyone's input. If anyone wants to unsubscribe, the link
>>>> to do
>>>> that is at the bottom of every CSS email, you don't need to ask.
>>>> Also, if
>>>> you know anyone who wants to subscribe, that is done through the
>>>> website,
>>>> canyonlandssustainable.org.
>>
>>>> Laurel
>>
>>>> Here's the original proposal:
>>
>>>> ***
>>
>>>> Here's how the new system, the newsletter/message board would work:
>>
>>>> 1. All posts would be given to the moderator, and she¹d be
>>>> responsible for
>>>> judging whether they should go straight to the group, or for
>>>> condensing them
>>>> into "weekly digest" emails. The moderator would be the only person
>>>> that can
>>>> send to the list. I'll volunteer to be the moderator for now, unless
>>>> someone
>>>> else wants the position. That's right, I would be the Gatekeeper,
>>>> just like
>>>> Sigourney Weaver. (Sorry, I was watching Ghostbusters last night). I
>>>> would
>>>> be open to bribery, especially chocolate or Colorado beer.
>>
>>>> The list would still be open to all to read on the internet, and all
>>>> to
>>>> submit posts. The moderator would not actually be writing them, just
>>>> passing
>>>> them along. However, this would eliminate CSSers¹ ability to reply to
>>>> the
>>>> list with casual comments on an item. You can decide if you like that
>>>> change
>>>> or not. This system would probably bring the number of posts down to
>>>> 15 or
>>>> so a week.
>>
>>>> 2. Proposed criteria for posting to the list:
>>
>>>> A. Announcements of events directly related to sustainability and
>>>> localization go straight out to the list. (Examples include the Youth
>>>> Garden's agriculture/husbandry/hunting classes, sustainable building
>>>> tours
>>>> and workshops, informational talks on peak oil or climate change, or
>>>> a City
>>>> Council vote on a chicken-keeping ordinance).
>>
>>>> B. News items directly related to sustainability and localization
>>>> (such as
>>>> an article on new wind farm technology, a congressional vote on solar
>>>> power
>>>> subsidies, a study of the effects of climate change on elk hunting)
>>>> would be
>>>> condensed into a weekly digest. This would be a once-a-week email
>>>> with all
>>>> the stories' titles and links to the full text. Any short comments the
>>>> submitter wanted to add would be put next to the link.
>>
>>>> C. Lance Christie gets his own weekly digest, if he wants it. (Hope
>>>> you're
>>>> recovering nicely, Lance!) Anyone else who comes up with the amount of
>>>> wonderful information that Lance does can have their own digest too.
>>
>>>> D. Substantive analysis by locals of any issues, votes, philosophies,
>>>> policies, political candidates etc. as they relate to sustainability
>>>> and
>>>> localization would go straight out to the list. (Examples include a
>>>> discussion of the effects of Lion¹s Back or Cloudrock on Moab¹s
>>>> groundwater,
>>>> a comparison of Obama¹s and McCain¹s renewable energy proposals,
>>>> report on
>>>> soil amendment strategies in Castle Valley, or an argument as to why
>>>> anarcho-capitalism is better for Moab agriculture than state-sponsored
>>>> syndicalism). General articles or opinion pieces by non-locals on
>>>> these
>>>> topics would go into the news digest.
>>
>>>> E. Announcements of community events NOT directly related to
>>>> sustainability
>>>> and localization would be allowed, but would be condensed into their
>>>> own
>>>> weekly digest. (Examples include Planning Commission meetings on a
>>>> development proposal, arts and cultural festivals, candidate forums,
>>>> indie
>>>> films on freeing Tibet, or concerts). This puts us up to three
>>>> possible
>>>> digests a week.
>>
>>>> F. Anything that doesn¹t fit into these categories would be rejected.
>>>> (Examples include articles mocking the ineptitude of Sarah Palin,
>>>> reports on
>>>> the kick-ass rapids in Westwater this spring, a theory that Randy Day
>>>> is
>>>> secretly in charge of the Earth Liberation Front, invitations to vote
>>>> in
>>>> online polls, or ³reply all² type emails that say ³Thanks for all the
>>>> great
>>>> information on the upcoming role of fungi in new home construction,
>>>> Lance!²).
>>
>> "We're gonna need a bigger boat."
>>
>> [hidden email]
>> 435-259-0734- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> >

Judy Powers () Re: In response to anyone who didn't like the vote

Reply Threaded

I must say that even I (the switched vote) found Laurel's instructions
clear and easy to follow. Guys, this is the PERFECT example of why
people need to vote. Judy

Laurel Hagen wrote:

>I administered this vote as fairly as I could. If Mr. Larson, Ms. Kurtz, or
>anyone else wants to come up with a better system of collecting votes,
>please send that proposal out to the list, and offer to administer it in a
>way that no one can say is vulnerable to tampering. I have a limited amount
>of time and energy to spend on this, and can't just keep holding votes until
>no one finds a reason to complain. However, if someone else wants to do it,
>be my guest.
>
>As for the weird email address in the original message, here's the deal:
>Google, our list host, will not post a complete email address in the body of
>an email because all of this goes online. I didn't know that when I sent it
>out. However, my email address was clearly visible in the "from" column of
>the email, and Heather kindly sent it out typed in a different way as well.
>Also, anyone could have voted in an email to the entire list, as several
>did.
>
>If anyone was unable to cast their vote because they were confused by where
>to send it, speak up now.
>
>Yes, I did count every vote that was cast, including those that were sent to
>the list and not directly to me. Even with the new comments people have made
>after I posted the results (3 new votes, and one switched vote) the results
>still come out 16-14 in favor of the change.
>
>
>FYI, here are comments from some of the "yes" voters as to why they voted
>that way:
>
>"I do like the open forum concept, but it does seem to have become a bit
>fraught with drama and irrelevant posts."
>
>"A more structured format would be a godsend for me."
>
>"I'm glad to see someone stepping up to streamline things with the list."
>
>"Much better than slogging through the minutia."
>
>"Great idea we definitely need a gate keeper."
>
>"A digest would be great."
>
>
>
>On 10/27/08 9:23 AM, "solarmon" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I personally feel that the whole voting thing should be done again to
>>get a REAL picture of what the members here want.
>>
>>I feel that there was vast confusion due to the email for voting not
>>being posted correctly, and also feel that the person who proposes to
>>be the moderator (censor) should NOT be the one in charge of the
>>voting.
>>
>>Also wonder if the sentiments that were expresed as postings here were
>>counted as "official" votes, or if only the ones emailed to the
>>nebulous address count.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Oct 26, 6:44 pm, Nancy Kurtz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jeez. I would have voted no if I thought there were so few. But there
>>>was so much confusion surrounding where to send the vote, not to
>>>mention a million and a half other things going on, I figured, hey,
>>>kick back kid it'll just take care of itself. Thought, actually,
>>>everyone would agree with the ever-cogent Ron George, seemed like a no
>>>brainer, silly me.
>>>
>>>If people are serious about what seems to be a riveting disagreement
>>>(WHY?) that I have been blissfully ignorant of the seriousness of
>>>until this very moment! I think we need to make a decision that is
>>>based on reality and not 26 votes. Just one person's opinion. And I
>>>am really confused at this point as to how to use the list serve. It's
>>>just so dense and full of caveats that it really turns me off.
>>>
>>>And, btw, I vote no. Thanks.
>>>
>>>Nancy
>>>On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:39 PM, solarmon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>26 votes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>pretty pathetic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>this is how people like Bush get elected . .by indifference on the
>>>>part of the voters
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>wonder how many votes there would have been if the email address had
>>>>been correct from the start
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Oct 26, 12:44 pm, Laurel Hagen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hello, all CSSers--
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>26 votes were cast on whether to switch CSS from an open forum to a
>>>>>moderated list. Results:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>YES: 15 (57.7%)
>>>>>NO: 11 (42.3%)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So, it was close, but the Yeas have it. The main sentiment in favor
>>>>>of the
>>>>>new system was not that we want to censor political speech, but that
>>>>>there
>>>>>was too much unnecessary traffic, and people were having trouble
>>>>>paying
>>>>>attention to everything.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So that I'm not the only arbiter here, I invite anyone, especially
>>>>>subcommittee leaders, who wants to issue a weekly, or monthly, or
>>>>>whenever-they-feel-like-it digest or update on the topics covered by
>>>>>their
>>>>>CSS subcommittee, please do. Also, if anyone wants to have their own
>>>>>news or
>>>>>commentary updates, such as a local foraging calendar or a running
>>>>>commentary on the environmental movement among evangelicals, drop me
>>>>>an
>>>>>email. Digests should be no more frequent than once a week.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Unless it gets crazy, I'll try to be pretty loose about what gets
>>>>>posted to
>>>>>the list, especially the digests. Someone mentioned that they liked
>>>>>that
>>>>>frog article, for example--that sort of thing would go into the news
>>>>>digest.
>>>>>The main goal is not to stop the flow of information, but to make the
>>>>>traffic a little more manageable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Also, this will be an evolving system. If anyone has suggestions as
>>>>>to how
>>>>>it could be improved, I want to hear them. If it's just not working
>>>>>out--if
>>>>>people miss the informal conversations of the previous format, or if
>>>>>I just
>>>>>don't have time to collect and send emails, then we can go back. I'll
>>>>>probably request an assessment sometime around the beginning of the
>>>>>year, to
>>>>>see what we think. I'll probably make the switch sometime in the next
>>>>>couple
>>>>>of days, just as soon as I figure out how to do it. After that, I and
>>>>>any
>>>>>subcommittee leaders will be the only ones allowed to post directly
>>>>>to the
>>>>>list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for everyone's input. If anyone wants to unsubscribe, the link
>>>>>to do
>>>>>that is at the bottom of every CSS email, you don't need to ask.
>>>>>Also, if
>>>>>you know anyone who wants to subscribe, that is done through the
>>>>>website,
>>>>>canyonlandssustainable.org.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Laurel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's the original proposal:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>***
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's how the new system, the newsletter/message board would work:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>1. All posts would be given to the moderator, and she¹d be
>>>>>responsible for
>>>>>judging whether they should go straight to the group, or for
>>>>>condensing them
>>>>>into "weekly digest" emails. The moderator would be the only person
>>>>>that can
>>>>>send to the list. I'll volunteer to be the moderator for now, unless
>>>>>someone
>>>>>else wants the position. That's right, I would be the Gatekeeper,
>>>>>just like
>>>>>Sigourney Weaver. (Sorry, I was watching Ghostbusters last night). I
>>>>>would
>>>>>be open to bribery, especially chocolate or Colorado beer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The list would still be open to all to read on the internet, and all
>>>>>to
>>>>>submit posts. The moderator would not actually be writing them, just
>>>>>passing
>>>>>them along. However, this would eliminate CSSers¹ ability to reply to
>>>>>the
>>>>>list with casual comments on an item. You can decide if you like that
>>>>>change
>>>>>or not. This system would probably bring the number of posts down to
>>>>>15 or
>>>>>so a week.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>2. Proposed criteria for posting to the list:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>A. Announcements of events directly related to sustainability and
>>>>>localization go straight out to the list. (Examples include the Youth
>>>>>Garden's agriculture/husbandry/hunting classes, sustainable building
>>>>>tours
>>>>>and workshops, informational talks on peak oil or climate change, or
>>>>>a City
>>>>>Council vote on a chicken-keeping ordinance).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>B. News items directly related to sustainability and localization
>>>>>(such as
>>>>>an article on new wind farm technology, a congressional vote on solar
>>>>>power
>>>>>subsidies, a study of the effects of climate change on elk hunting)
>>>>>would be
>>>>>condensed into a weekly digest. This would be a once-a-week email
>>>>>with all
>>>>>the stories' titles and links to the full text. Any short comments the
>>>>>submitter wanted to add would be put next to the link.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>C. Lance Christie gets his own weekly digest, if he wants it. (Hope
>>>>>you're
>>>>>recovering nicely, Lance!) Anyone else who comes up with the amount of
>>>>>wonderful information that Lance does can have their own digest too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>D. Substantive analysis by locals of any issues, votes, philosophies,
>>>>>policies, political candidates etc. as they relate to sustainability
>>>>>and
>>>>>localization would go straight out to the list. (Examples include a
>>>>>discussion of the effects of Lion¹s Back or Cloudrock on Moab¹s
>>>>>groundwater,
>>>>>a comparison of Obama¹s and McCain¹s renewable energy proposals,
>>>>>report on
>>>>>soil amendment strategies in Castle Valley, or an argument as to why
>>>>>anarcho-capitalism is better for Moab agriculture than state-sponsored
>>>>>syndicalism). General articles or opinion pieces by non-locals on
>>>>>these
>>>>>topics would go into the news digest.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>E. Announcements of community events NOT directly related to
>>>>>sustainability
>>>>>and localization would be allowed, but would be condensed into their
>>>>>own
>>>>>weekly digest. (Examples include Planning Commission meetings on a
>>>>>development proposal, arts and cultural festivals, candidate forums,
>>>>>indie
>>>>>films on freeing Tibet, or concerts). This puts us up to three
>>>>>possible
>>>>>digests a week.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>F. Anything that doesn¹t fit into these categories would be rejected.
>>>>>(Examples include articles mocking the ineptitude of Sarah Palin,
>>>>>reports on
>>>>>the kick-ass rapids in Westwater this spring, a theory that Randy Day
>>>>>is
>>>>>secretly in charge of the Earth Liberation Front, invitations to vote
>>>>>in
>>>>>online polls, or ³reply all² type emails that say ³Thanks for all the
>>>>>great
>>>>>information on the upcoming role of fungi in new home construction,
>>>>>Lance!²).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>"We're gonna need a bigger boat."
>>>
>>>[hidden email]
>>>435-259-0734- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Kara Dohrenwend () Re: In response to anyone who didn't like the vote

Reply Threaded

In reply to this post by Laurel Hagen

My impression from the comments below, and some informal discussions here
and there face to face, is that many who have voted yes are less vocal in
using this list but want to have a means for people to distribute and gather
information relevant to sustainability issues. I had no problems sending an
email directly to Laurel to vote - so many computers with different
operating systems may also be a bit of the problem there.

My understanding of this group and list at its inception was intended to be
more like what Laurel is proposing - a means to keep us all connected on
issues related to making other arrangements post peak oil while we all are
also busy with our various means of making a living and just living.

While everything evolves and changes as groups grow and new personalities
become "members" the appeal to me of Laurel's proposal is that a moderated
list has less potential to become driven by a few vocal participants and
their interests, which may unintentionally reduce the participation of
others with different inetersts. I mean this in no way a criticism of vocal
participants of this group, but my experience with non-facilitated groups
(outside of this list) is that the most vocal personalities generally get
the most said and can dominate the discussion. And other perspectives and
interests that might come from people less comfortable speaking out when a
different, perhaps unrelated, topic is at hand and/or discussion gets a
little heated tend to be kept to ourselves.

I believe that Laurel is not interested in controlling what is posted so
much as organizing it a bit, and helping facilitate the discussion such that
those who do not generally speak up on this list feel more comfortable doing
so. My participation in public processes has gotten me less shy about
speaking my mind (even when I insert my foot in my mouth in the process and
repeatedly kick myself in the teeth), but even a semi-public list like this
can be intimidating for many to participate.

A way to ensure that things are not left out of the discussion (like toads
and frogs - which I think have all moved to my house down town!!) is if a
few people with time and interest in facilitating communication on this list
come up with a way of sharing this responsibility with Laurel. This would
also help ensure the list keeps "functioning" regardless of when Laurel
takes a river trip, goes home for a visit, or just doesn't want to
communicate with anyone in any venue for a day or two.

Just a few thoughts -- as Laurel mentioned in one email or the other -- we
can check in about this as a group in a few months and if it just is not
working we can always shift back......

Thanks to everyone who is tossing in their opinions -- a decision like this
should not be made lightly.

Happy Autumn!!!!

Kara

On 10/27/08 4:38 PM, "Laurel Hagen" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I administered this vote as fairly as I could. If Mr. Larson, Ms. Kurtz, or
> anyone else wants to come up with a better system of collecting votes,
> please send that proposal out to the list, and offer to administer it in a
> way that no one can say is vulnerable to tampering. I have a limited amount
> of time and energy to spend on this, and can't just keep holding votes until
> no one finds a reason to complain. However, if someone else wants to do it,
> be my guest.
>
> As for the weird email address in the original message, here's the deal:
> Google, our list host, will not post a complete email address in the body of
> an email because all of this goes online. I didn't know that when I sent it
> out. However, my email address was clearly visible in the "from" column of
> the email, and Heather kindly sent it out typed in a different way as well.
> Also, anyone could have voted in an email to the entire list, as several
> did.
>
> If anyone was unable to cast their vote because they were confused by where
> to send it, speak up now.
>
> Yes, I did count every vote that was cast, including those that were sent to
> the list and not directly to me. Even with the new comments people have made
> after I posted the results (3 new votes, and one switched vote) the results
> still come out 16-14 in favor of the change.
>
>
> FYI, here are comments from some of the "yes" voters as to why they voted
> that way:
>
> "I do like the open forum concept, but it does seem to have become a bit
> fraught with drama and irrelevant posts."
>
> "A more structured format would be a godsend for me."
>
> "I'm glad to see someone stepping up to streamline things with the list."
>
> "Much better than slogging through the minutia."
>
> "Great idea we definitely need a gate keeper."
>
> "A digest would be great."
>
>
>
> On 10/27/08 9:23 AM, "solarmon" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I personally feel that the whole voting thing should be done again to
>> get a REAL picture of what the members here want.
>>
>> I feel that there was vast confusion due to the email for voting not
>> being posted correctly, and also feel that the person who proposes to
>> be the moderator (censor) should NOT be the one in charge of the
>> voting.
>>
>> Also wonder if the sentiments that were expresed as postings here were
>> counted as "official" votes, or if only the ones emailed to the
>> nebulous address count.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 26, 6:44 pm, Nancy Kurtz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Jeez. I would have voted no if I thought there were so few. But there
>>> was so much confusion surrounding where to send the vote, not to
>>> mention a million and a half other things going on, I figured, hey,
>>> kick back kid it'll just take care of itself. Thought, actually,
>>> everyone would agree with the ever-cogent Ron George, seemed like a no
>>> brainer, silly me.
>>>
>>> If people are serious about what seems to be a riveting disagreement
>>> (WHY?) that I have been blissfully ignorant of the seriousness of
>>> until this very moment! I think we need to make a decision that is
>>> based on reality and not 26 votes. Just one person's opinion. And I
>>> am really confused at this point as to how to use the list serve. It's
>>> just so dense and full of caveats that it really turns me off.
>>>
>>> And, btw, I vote no. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Nancy
>>> On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:39 PM, solarmon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 26 votes.
>>>
>>>> pretty pathetic
>>>
>>>> this is how people like Bush get elected . .by indifference on the
>>>> part of the voters
>>>
>>>> wonder how many votes there would have been if the email address had
>>>> been correct from the start
>>>
>>>> On Oct 26, 12:44 pm, Laurel Hagen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Hello, all CSSers--
>>>
>>>>> 26 votes were cast on whether to switch CSS from an open forum to a
>>>>> moderated list. Results:
>>>
>>>>> YES: 15 (57.7%)
>>>>> NO: 11 (42.3%)
>>>
>>>>> So, it was close, but the Yeas have it. The main sentiment in favor
>>>>> of the
>>>>> new system was not that we want to censor political speech, but that
>>>>> there
>>>>> was too much unnecessary traffic, and people were having trouble
>>>>> paying
>>>>> attention to everything.
>>>
>>>>> So that I'm not the only arbiter here, I invite anyone, especially
>>>>> subcommittee leaders, who wants to issue a weekly, or monthly, or
>>>>> whenever-they-feel-like-it digest or update on the topics covered by
>>>>> their
>>>>> CSS subcommittee, please do. Also, if anyone wants to have their own
>>>>> news or
>>>>> commentary updates, such as a local foraging calendar or a running
>>>>> commentary on the environmental movement among evangelicals, drop me
>>>>> an
>>>>> email. Digests should be no more frequent than once a week.
>>>
>>>>> Unless it gets crazy, I'll try to be pretty loose about what gets
>>>>> posted to
>>>>> the list, especially the digests. Someone mentioned that they liked
>>>>> that
>>>>> frog article, for example--that sort of thing would go into the news
>>>>> digest.
>>>>> The main goal is not to stop the flow of information, but to make the
>>>>> traffic a little more manageable.
>>>
>>>>> Also, this will be an evolving system. If anyone has suggestions as
>>>>> to how
>>>>> it could be improved, I want to hear them. If it's just not working
>>>>> out--if
>>>>> people miss the informal conversations of the previous format, or if
>>>>> I just
>>>>> don't have time to collect and send emails, then we can go back. I'll
>>>>> probably request an assessment sometime around the beginning of the
>>>>> year, to
>>>>> see what we think. I'll probably make the switch sometime in the next
>>>>> couple
>>>>> of days, just as soon as I figure out how to do it. After that, I and
>>>>> any
>>>>> subcommittee leaders will be the only ones allowed to post directly
>>>>> to the
>>>>> list.
>>>
>>>>> Thanks for everyone's input. If anyone wants to unsubscribe, the link
>>>>> to do
>>>>> that is at the bottom of every CSS email, you don't need to ask.
>>>>> Also, if
>>>>> you know anyone who wants to subscribe, that is done through the
>>>>> website,
>>>>> canyonlandssustainable.org.
>>>
>>>>> Laurel
>>>
>>>>> Here's the original proposal:
>>>
>>>>> ***
>>>
>>>>> Here's how the new system, the newsletter/message board would work:
>>>
>>>>> 1. All posts would be given to the moderator, and she¹d be
>>>>> responsible for
>>>>> judging whether they should go straight to the group, or for
>>>>> condensing them
>>>>> into "weekly digest" emails. The moderator would be the only person
>>>>> that can
>>>>> send to the list. I'll volunteer to be the moderator for now, unless
>>>>> someone
>>>>> else wants the position. That's right, I would be the Gatekeeper,
>>>>> just like
>>>>> Sigourney Weaver. (Sorry, I was watching Ghostbusters last night). I
>>>>> would
>>>>> be open to bribery, especially chocolate or Colorado beer.
>>>
>>>>> The list would still be open to all to read on the internet, and all
>>>>> to
>>>>> submit posts. The moderator would not actually be writing them, just
>>>>> passing
>>>>> them along. However, this would eliminate CSSers¹ ability to reply to
>>>>> the
>>>>> list with casual comments on an item. You can decide if you like that
>>>>> change
>>>>> or not. This system would probably bring the number of posts down to
>>>>> 15 or
>>>>> so a week.
>>>
>>>>> 2. Proposed criteria for posting to the list:
>>>
>>>>> A. Announcements of events directly related to sustainability and
>>>>> localization go straight out to the list. (Examples include the Youth
>>>>> Garden's agriculture/husbandry/hunting classes, sustainable building
>>>>> tours
>>>>> and workshops, informational talks on peak oil or climate change, or
>>>>> a City
>>>>> Council vote on a chicken-keeping ordinance).
>>>
>>>>> B. News items directly related to sustainability and localization
>>>>> (such as
>>>>> an article on new wind farm technology, a congressional vote on solar
>>>>> power
>>>>> subsidies, a study of the effects of climate change on elk hunting)
>>>>> would be
>>>>> condensed into a weekly digest. This would be a once-a-week email
>>>>> with all
>>>>> the stories' titles and links to the full text. Any short comments the
>>>>> submitter wanted to add would be put next to the link.
>>>
>>>>> C. Lance Christie gets his own weekly digest, if he wants it. (Hope
>>>>> you're
>>>>> recovering nicely, Lance!) Anyone else who comes up with the amount of
>>>>> wonderful information that Lance does can have their own digest too.
>>>
>>>>> D. Substantive analysis by locals of any issues, votes, philosophies,
>>>>> policies, political candidates etc. as they relate to sustainability
>>>>> and
>>>>> localization would go straight out to the list. (Examples include a
>>>>> discussion of the effects of Lion¹s Back or Cloudrock on Moab¹s
>>>>> groundwater,
>>>>> a comparison of Obama¹s and McCain¹s renewable energy proposals,
>>>>> report on
>>>>> soil amendment strategies in Castle Valley, or an argument as to why
>>>>> anarcho-capitalism is better for Moab agriculture than state-sponsored
>>>>> syndicalism). General articles or opinion pieces by non-locals on
>>>>> these
>>>>> topics would go into the news digest.
>>>
>>>>> E. Announcements of community events NOT directly related to
>>>>> sustainability
>>>>> and localization would be allowed, but would be condensed into their
>>>>> own
>>>>> weekly digest. (Examples include Planning Commission meetings on a
>>>>> development proposal, arts and cultural festivals, candidate forums,
>>>>> indie
>>>>> films on freeing Tibet, or concerts). This puts us up to three
>>>>> possible
>>>>> digests a week.
>>>
>>>>> F. Anything that doesn¹t fit into these categories would be rejected.
>>>>> (Examples include articles mocking the ineptitude of Sarah Palin,
>>>>> reports on
>>>>> the kick-ass rapids in Westwater this spring, a theory that Randy Day
>>>>> is
>>>>> secretly in charge of the Earth Liberation Front, invitations to vote
>>>>> in
>>>>> online polls, or ³reply all² type emails that say ³Thanks for all the
>>>>> great
>>>>> information on the upcoming role of fungi in new home construction,
>>>>> Lance!²).
>>>
>>> "We're gonna need a bigger boat."
>>>
>>> [hidden email]
>>> 435-259-0734- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>
>
>
> >
>