Getting Organized, State by State, and Schedule of Straw Polls

[Quantumystic]

Mentioned in the other thread...

Apparently there's a question of having State Coordinators for getting Ron Paul Support organized. Especially going into these straw polls, and other events.
While of course it's Dr. Paul's campaign, and decision...

...I think it would be a wise idea to develop a list of people by State., and then by City/Area. Break these down into 3 categories:

Totally Committed (prepared to invest 15+ hrs/wk OFFLINE to the campaign)
Very Committed (prepared to invest 7-14 hrs/wk OFFLINE to the campaign)
Committed (prepared to invest 1-6 hrs/wk OFFLINE to the campaign)

Everyone MUST be willing to beg, borrow, or steal to attend thier State's Straw Poll.

From among the "Totally Committed", we pick State Coordinators for each state. IF Dr. Paul's campaign needs them to function more directly to get the support out... then that's what they do. If it's only a sort of informal effort to help the formal campaign coordination, that's good too.

RP is raising some money, but volunteerism can help him use it where it makes the biggest difference, by NOT making him spend it on personnel.

I'm in Florida, and I'm Totally Committed!

What Say Ye?

 

[Quantumystic]

Hey Mods

We need some feedback on this one. It' important.

 

[Bryan]

I like this thread, maybe we should have some background information here for those not rehearsed on the matters, such as:
- Whats do the straw polls entail?
- Why are they important?
- When and where are they?
- What can be done to make a difference?



I can be put in the "Totally Committed" group. Sign me up.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

It's rare when I don't put in at least 12 hours A DAY for Dr. Paul, and that's 7 days a week! Most days I wake up, start working and don't stop till I drop... (with occasional mental health breaks to watch an hour of TV or listen to music and eat, or something...). I talk to a lot of people who also volunteer full time (over 8 hours a day) for him.

We are organized and getting more organized as we progress. But we also maintain our autonomy. Personally, I want a top down hierarchy of self appointed "bosses" to "manage" us and who are are not chosen by or associated with the PCC sometime after hell freezes over!

People that come from the bottom up and prove themselves by effort earn a seat and voice at the table. Not a pompous title for writing in and volunteering to be a leader. These people need to come from the grassroots and be commonly recognized by supporters as a major contributor of time and effort to the campaign. Name and icon recognition, or running a MeetUp or Internet site - that sort of thing.

There have been battles to keep these kind of organizations at bay. One was (is) completely BAD NEWS! Bunch of provocateurs bent on derailing the campaign. The intent of the others is undetermined. They might be well meaning, but all want to install themselves as a top level structure to control the grass roots.

I suspect this is part of the latest attempt - the 5th or 6th? to IMPOSE a top down control structure on us. "Ron Paul Friends USA": (I presume this has nothing to do with the banner ad promotional campaign "Friend of Ron Paul")...

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3164408

"We are a national organization desiring to pull together "boots on the ground" leadership from all organizations, chat groups, meetup groups, and local activists ...

Our first goal is to fill out eight National Regional Chairman, all 50 State Chairmen, State Senatorial Chairmen, Senatorial District Area Chairmen, Precinct Chairmen, and block captains."

VOMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Meetups in the same state contact other Meetups. They coordinate and cooperate. For support activities that are national assets, well - they support these people.

Yahoo, facebook, myspace, etc. state groups and major organizing groups network.

Internet sites and blogs, vlogs, etc. network.

Project groups, like DVD's network.

It comes together slowly. It's building.

Tech tools that enable communication and collaboration are coming online.

In time, systems to glue these communities together and pull in very active activists that don't fall into one of those categories will emerge. We DO NOT NEED titles, organizations, or any sort of a top down system of direction!

We don't NEED any self appointed masters!

just my 2 cents,

Nathan

 

[Bradley in DC]

If I could make a suggestion for consideration:

There are lots of Dr. Paul's supporters who want to help his campaign, and a lot that needs to be done. I suggest we identify tasks and let people work on different projects as it suits them. Jason Stoddard's got volunteers calling the Iowa voter rolls with great success (but needs lots more volunteers). There's the Students for Ron Paul group, DJloti is organizing a different effort.

The campaign is working on something similar to give lots of people different ways to help the cause--even if local Meetups bruise egos. Let all of the big personalities (let's face it, we're a disproportionately big bunch here) take leadership in different activities!

 

[Bryan]

Nathan- thanks for posting this, I understand the well founded concern. I have recently meet Dick who is starting this friend network and from all accounts I don't think his intent is to impose control, it is more to try and identify geographical support holes (and overlaps) on a county by county or precinct by precinct level and point them out and seek to address them. The issues Dick is interested in are block walking with push cards and being involved in the primary / voting /delegate process. I don't think Dick would expect for others to follow orders but he may be interested in their tactics, campaign awareness on issues, understanding of their local primary process, etc to know they can be counted on. This can go a long way to helping to create a task list that individuals can volunteer to help on.

I am actually meeting Dick tomorrow with one other in our meetup to discuss a breakdown of our county and the project in general. You bring up a good point on the power of 8 concept, I will talk with Dick on this and suggest that the meet-up groups and other area leaders be part of the focus. The way I'm seeing it, it would be nice to hear from each meet-up as to what geographical area they will coordinate traditional and generally considered very necessary campaign promotional elements (again block-walking, getting involved in the primary vote process in your precinct, etc). I would say that if a meet-up group isn't wanting to do these basic things then there is no reason why another group couldn't form in that area with people who support these elements. If a meet-up group pledges that they will do their best to coordinate efforts for their county (or whatever) then no one else should be concerned with their internal organizational structure. In some more rural areas (lots in Texas) there aren't enough people for a meetup so the power of 8 concepts can be of value there.

I completely agree that people need to prove themselves to earn a seat and voice and after recently meeting Dick, understanding his past experiences with 20-30 years involvement in the GOP / campaigning / voting process, his long time personal friendship with Dr. Paul and his current commitment to, by all accounts, spend as much time and money as needed and possible, he has my full support as a strong leader.

I can go on but I hope this helps- you've got my #, feel free to call me so we can discuss this more or other concerns-- I'm still learning too. We're meeting at 4PM Central tomorrow in case you want to talk before/during or after. I'm also going to try and get in touch with Bradley as to what the campaign is going forward with.

Thanks!

 

[austinphish]

This debate is the hot topic for those of us involved with any sort of actual rallying of supporters for RP. My experience comes from our struggles to form organizational responsibilty amongst those of us in the Austin Texas meetup.com group.

There are those, like Nathan, who are opposed to any leaders emerging, and those that argue that w/o leaders there is ambiguity of responsibilty, lack of direction and inefficiency. I am in the latter camp as I don't care who the leaders are, as long as I know my efforts are not redundant.

W/o a leader for a project, who can you point to and ask: "is this being accomplished?"?

 

[ccy]

Organizational Responsibility

Howdy all. I'm Chuck Young from the Austin Group (no need to hide behind the screen name...) :') I'm the "Tech Team Leader"... for what that's worth. More below.

Now that we have a reasonably functional website and mailserver and a firewall I feel pretty safe behind, etc etc, I'm going to spend a week on communications, something I've neglected as I and my fellow technoids have spent every free minute busting our butts getting all that happening.

I know a few of you... Bradley I've spoken with briefly. Nate (Tangent) and I have spent many hours trying to figure all this out... as for my Austin compatriot austinphish, well, let me comment on this:

There are those, like Nathan, who are opposed to any leaders emerging, and those that argue that w/o leaders there is ambiguity of responsibilty, lack of direction and inefficiency. I am in the latter camp as I don't care who the leaders are, as long as I know my efforts are not redundant.

W/o a leader for a project, who can you point to and ask: "is this being accomplished?"?

I'm a big agitator w/in the Austin group about the organization or lack thereof. But I've been repeatedly misinterpreted... and suspect it's me that is being misinterpreted here.

The short answer to the above quote is: leaders emerge by their efforts. They own what they do, and are responsible for what they take on, by virtue of the time they put in. And the organizational structure should support that. That's all tangent* is saying, and it's all I've been saying.

An organizational model should mirror the realities of the organization. Any business systems analyst will tell you that your first job is to find out what the natural, orgainic mode of getting things does is... and then design systems and implement organizational structure to support *that*.

The *reality* is that *everyone is a volunteer*. THERE CAN BE NO DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY. So a military/corporate organizational structure such as was adopted by the Austin Group is *broken from the outset*. Let me give y'all the event that finally and completely proved this for me:

We're sitting in a meeting, talking about Iowa. Things come up like "let's contact the meetup orgs in Iowa" and "let's contact Iowa libertarians" and "what is the exact electoral process for the straw polls" and on, and on. Now all these, *per our organizational structure*, all these fall under the purview of a particular team. And I turned to the leader of that team and said "Well, J***, that's your department...".

And he looked at me and said "Hey, don't volunteer me, man."

And you know what? *HE WAS CORRECT*. It's not that *he* is being slack or something. It's that *I* was working within a broken organizational paradigm. And *he* was just doing what is natural.

There *is* a way to do the authoritarian structure: start with the PCC and delegate straight down the line. But as far as "grassroots" goes, forget it.

This post is long, I'll stop. But in the next day or so I'll post what I think is an ideal organizational structure, with well defined protocols, to mobilize our grassroots people on a voluntary basis.

cy

 

[Bryan]

Great post Chuck. I see the best organizational structure as strong networks of volunteers that can look to a coordination element for areas where to help out that will have a maximum effect. Perhaps this could be best viewed as the meet-ups having a strong leadership team and then recruit help in specific areas to do specific things. Ideally each meet-up could understand the desires of the campaign and align with the specific goals.

 

[cowbot]

Meetup.com alternatives?

Could some of our websavvy programmers implement a simple, free meetup system to add to this site (or some other like ronpaul2008.com ronpaul-meetup.com meetupronpaul.com etc)?

My idea would be something like a zip-code based database of interested people.

You could sign-up, choose your zipcode, enter an email (and/or phone&fax), then select adjacent zipcodes you'd be willing to travel-to (on a map preferably).

You could then post mails or to a forum which included all people in your selected zip codes. If you are interested in travelling 200 miles to events, you'd see a wider set of people/posts. If you're only interested in your local area, you'd just see discussions about events there.

The main problem I have with the meetup.com is the fees to actually use it. This is a barrier to participation that i think we could circumvent.

Instead of debating hierarchies, I'd like to promote enabling technologies for faster organic growth.

Hope we can get some discussion about this.
Cheers
Cowbot

 

[ccy]

Hi Bryan,

I see the best organizational structure as strong networks of volunteers that can look to a coordination element for areas where to help out that will have a maximum effect.

Agree!

Here are the bylaws and protocols for the organization I'd like to see if I had my druthers:

I) PROJECTS
* The organization consists of one or more PROJECTS
* A PROJECT is the responsibility of its MANAGER
* The MANAGER of a PROJECT is initially the person who begins the PROJECT.
* The MANAGER may step down voluntarily at any time, relinquishing her duties to a designated successor.
* The MANAGER may designate one or more COMANAGERs. These may all then become equals, simply referred to as MANAGERs, or the previous sole MANAGER may be designated CHIEF MANAGER at the discretion of the MANAGERs.
* Other workers in a project may address grievances re the management of a PROJECT to its MANAGERS.
* If one or all aforesaid workers are unable to obtain satisfaction, they are free, at any time, to start a PROJECT of their own, even if identical in nature.

II) THE EXECUTIVE PROJECT
* The organization must have at least one PROJECT: the EXECUTIVE PROJECT (or the ROOT PROJECT, the PROJECTS PROJECT, etc for those with a penchant for recursion...)
* Anyone may join the EXECUTIVE PROJECT
* The EXECUTIVE PROJECT is subject to the same internal structural procedures as any other PROJECT. The initial MANAGER of the EXECUTIVE PROJECT should be the group organizer (eg meetup.com organizer), and shall be designated the CHIEF EXECUTVIE of the organization.
* The purpose of the EXECUTIVE PROJECT is to spawn other PROJECTS.
* Anyone may approach the EXECUTIVE PROJECT with project proposals; see PROJECT MANAGEMENT below for some guidelines about what a project should define (goals, timelines...). The EXECUTIVE PROJECT then must do the following for those proposing the new project (henceforth referred to as PROPONENTS):
i) If a project exists along the lines of the proposed project, direct the PROPONENTS to said project
ii) If none exists or the PROPONENTS do not wish to join a pre-existing, similar project, the proposed PROJECT should be declared begun. The EXECUTIVE PROJECT must then fulfill steps iii) and iv) below
iii) Once a new project is begun, the EXECUTIVE PROJECT must define which PROJECTS could offer some sort of support to the new project, and inform them accordingly.
iv) Once a new project is begun, the EXECUTIVE PROJECT must notify the whole organization of the instantiation of the new PROJECT, directing interested volunteers to the new PROJECT.

III) PROJECT MANAGEMENT
* These are suggestions as to efficient project management
* Internal organization of projects is totally discretionary based on the appraisal of participants.
* Projects should have
i) Goals
ii) Timelines
iii) Human Resource assignments / Task Lists based on i) and ii)
iv) Budgets (if necessary)

....
I'll stop. That's a rough sketch of my thoughts... and this is all a work in progress.

Note that the right of secession is built into this model, as anyone can start their own EXECUTIVE PROJECT at will (they'll need some others to join them however, or it won't be much of an organization). The model also acknowledges the reality that those who *do* are the *leaders*. It discourages redundancy, but allows for competition if folks can't find a way to cooperate.

The KEY is that RESPONSIBILITY is DELEGATED according to ACTION and COMMITMENT.

Comments and flames welcome, but IMO this is on the right track. This will avoid authoritarianism, encourage ownership and responsibility, and foster an atmosphere of creativity and cooperation.

I'll post a bunch of suggested projects in a couple of days. I'm sure y'all have plenty of ideas based upon your own experiences.

cy

 

[Bryan]

I really like that Chuck. Some possibilities of things to add:
. The EXECUTIVE PROJECT should maintain a list of all active PROJECTS and potential PROJECTS that have no MANAGER (ie: good ideas that are leaderless). These potential PROJECTS should be rated with a level of importance based on perceived cost-effectiveness to help steer interested new MANAGERS to create PROJECTS to maximize the payback of their talents, interests and resources.
. The EXECUTIVE PROJECT should seek status updates as necessary on important PROJECTS from PROJECT MANAGERS to determine if a new PROJECT that seeks the same purpose should be declared in case the existing PROJECT is ineffective.

These can be fixed up- just getting the idea across.

 

[Bryan]

Could some of our websavvy programmers implement a simple, free meetup system to add to this site (or some other like ronpaul2008.com ronpaul-meetup.com meetupronpaul.com etc)?

Here's a thread of interest:

Alternatives to meetup.com (free)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=1779

It sounds like facebook.com would work. This forum also offer a free sub-forum for any group of four or more in one area- see the Local Area section.

Personally I was a bit surprised about the expense of meet-up, for some reason I thought it would be free, likely because of the sorry user interface it has. It's OK by 1990s standards. At this point, I couldn't see a massive switch over, meet-up has too much momentum. Good thing it's only needed until late 2008.

 

[ccy]

Could some of our websavvy programmers implement a simple, free meetup system to add to this site (or some other like ronpaul2008.com ronpaul-meetup.com meetupronpaul.com etc)?

Cowbot, I agree that meetup.com is an atrocity. The reality is that it will probably remain the port of entry for RP supporters for some time. It is a profound challenge to get folks into more efficient communications channels (mailing lists, websites) and to capture user data for project management purposes. What we'll do is direct people straight to our website; we are about to put the meetup.com mailing list for the Austin Group into an announce only mode and move discussion onto a dedicated list.

I'd like to suggest, and it has been suggested by the PCC, that y'all try to get people to submit data to you (Name, Phone, email, Address) and track it anyway you can, even on paper if needs be. Data is data and once it is obtained in *any* form it can be morphed into other forms with a little effort.

cy

 

[ccy]

Hey Bryan,

. The EXECUTIVE PROJECT should maintain a list of all active PROJECTS and potential PROJECTS that have no MANAGER (ie: good ideas that are leaderless). These potential PROJECTS should be rated with a level of importance based on perceived cost-effectiveness to help steer interested new MANAGERS to create PROJECTS to maximize the payback of their talents, interests and resources.
. The EXECUTIVE PROJECT should seek status updates as necessary on important PROJECTS from PROJECT MANAGERS to determine if a new PROJECT that seeks the same purpose should be declared in case the existing PROJECT is ineffective.

These can be fixed up- just getting the idea across.

Yeah, I think the first one is good. A nice function of the executive would definitely be to keep a list of "ideas" around. They could rate 'em, but I'd say that the really meaningful appraisal of cost-effectiveness is going to come from the guy/gal who actually takes the project on. No harm in the exec communicating an opinion about which projects are important, provide best return on investment etc... as long as the PROPONENT is free to choose.

The second one, about monitoring projects, seems to veer into a top down thing to me. Getting updates is ok, to help communicate info to the group; but a good project manager does this anyway. The idea of the exec project "assigning" a new project, or "declaring" one, is really problematic however, IMO. To me, and this is just based on my experience here, to me the determination of new projects and the declaration thereof really has to happen from the ground up. From the rough spec:

* If one or all aforesaid workers are unable to obtain satisfaction, they are free, at any time, to start a PROJECT of their own, even if identical in nature.

and the exec *must* comply and help... no back channels, no bs. Just do it and compete straight up on an even playing field:

ii) If none exists or the PROPONENTS do not wish to join a pre-existing, similar project, the proposed PROJECT should be declared begun. The EXECUTIVE PROJECT must then fulfill steps iii) and iv) below

The idea is that if a project isn't working out, there's usually someone in the project who can *make it happen*, or something like it, whatever the project's goals are. And they are *FREE* to "rebel", get out there in a *free market*, where thier ideas and energy can "prove their point", and make it happen.

The reality is that if the project is *critical*, and you are in the EXEC PROJ, and you just feel it *must* be done... guess what? You better do it your self! :')

So the gist is that EXEC is a facillitator, not a boss. It makes resources available, information and maybe some analysis. It listens and provides feedback to projects and the whole group. It facilitates inter-project coordination - this is a biggie IMO that should probably be elaborated upon. But it musn't order folks to do stuff, or do stuff in a certain way. 'Cause that is the path to authoritarianism, and that will not work in a volunteer group, IMO... UNLESS you have an established "authority", like the PCC, calling the shots.

Make sense?

cy

 

[Bryan]

A nice function of the executive would definitely be to keep a list of "ideas" around. They could rate 'em, but I'd say that the really meaningful appraisal of cost-effectiveness is going to come from the guy/gal who actually takes the project on. No harm in the exec communicating an opinion about which projects are important, provide best return on investment etc... as long as the PROPONENT is free to choose.

Yes, it is the EXEC subjective analysis that a new PROJECT MANAGER could use or not use.

The second one, about monitoring projects, seems to veer into a top down thing to me.

Maybe I didn't explain it good enough but the point is to not do that. The idea is that if you are an EXEC and you want to know what is going on you ask, don't expect the PROJECT to have to report back to you on some arbitrary standard. If the EXEC doesn't like the answer then they are not to dictate how it should be done, simply start a new effort (worst case). Obviously there can be some discussions, offers of help and suggestions but the EXEC doesn't assign a new direction or tell them to speed things up.

The reality is that if the project is *critical*, and you are in the EXEC PROJ, and you just feel it *must* be done... guess what? You better do it your self! :')

Or let someone trusted do it and watch them like a hawk. But agreed, the EXEC is just a facilitator- not a boss.

I'm going to suggest all this for our meet-up-- we're sort-of in line with some of this informally.

 

[ccy]

Hi Bryan

If the EXEC doesn't like the answer then they are not to dictate how it should be done, simply start a new effort (worst case)

Cool... I think the only point I'm trying to drive home is that "simply start a new effort" is gonna have to translate into somebody from the exec initiating a new project with themselves as manager. They can't just tell someone else to "do it".

Formally, if the old project is totally broken and unworkable, in practice what will happen is that people will flock to the new project with that hip new manager Bryan... :')

I'm going to suggest all this for our meet-up-- we're sort-of in line with some of this informally.

That's great! A big goal for me here is to get a grasp of how to organize these sorts of efforts. FWIW I think a lot of us are on this page (the non-authoritarian page)... what I'm trying to do is dictate some formal protocol. And there's a good reason for this.

By agreeing on some formal protocol in an organization, even a purely volunteer one, you and I have really made a contract between us. It becomes a guide for our behavior. And if one of us strays, the other can say "uh uh uh... that's a no no... see clause I.iv" or what have you.

Obviously this stuff should be suited to people's taste and so on. I'd be curious to see what others adopt. I have a lot to learn about this.

There are a lot of people who feel like this RP thing is the "last chance". I'm not one of 'em. I've been around long enough, been into liberty and so on for awhile, that I have come to believe that the struggle for liberty is eternal.

The bottom line is that this is not a "last chance", IMO it is the opening round in a struggle that will take up the rest of my life. So let's grow. Let's learn from our mistakes. We're forming tools and networks that I hope will last a long time. Because, folks, the struggle to take this country back is going to take a lot more than a single presidential election.

cy

 

[Nathan Hale]

I disagree with your claim that there is no need for top-down direction when it comes to organizing the grassroots in a campaign.

Of course, the Ron Paul campaign shouldn't devolve into the fiscal inefficiency of traditional campaigns. Right now the Paul campaign is getting for $1 what Rudy Giuliani gets for $10. It's because Paul isn't overcomplicating his central campaign with a huge bureaucracy of state affiliates. So in a way, you're right - huge bureaucracy in a campaign isn't good for a campaign, especially when it comes to managing the grassroots.

But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any oversight or direction. Libertarianism is a great theory for the political world. It is a terrible theory in campaigning. There needs to be a central entity providing direction. That entity should be the Paul campaign, and it should be represented to the grassroots by a person chosen to organize and facilitate grassroots efforts.

On the grassroots end, each state should organize at least enough to choose a person to "be in charge" in that they work directly with the Paul campaign representative to handle funding and organization of the grassroots when needed. Beyond that, each state should decide how much organization is needed. In New Hampshire, likely nothing in the way of formal organization. However in California and New York, you'd likely need to create another system similar to the one I just laid out.

 

[ccy]

Hi Mr. Hale... thanks for your input...

I disagree with your claim that there is no need for top-down direction when it comes to organizing the grassroots in a campaign.

OK. Where is the top down direction?

It's June. Straw Polls are in August. PCC is still trying to figure out how to centralize communications for the grassroots organizers. This is the same entity that chose meetup.com in the first place. And what a train-wreck that has turned out to be.

Of course, the Ron Paul campaign shouldn't devolve into the fiscal inefficiency of traditional campaigns. Right now the Paul campaign is getting for $1 what Rudy Giuliani gets for $10. It's because Paul isn't overcomplicating his central campaign with a huge bureaucracy of state affiliates. So in a way, you're right - huge bureaucracy in a campaign isn't good for a campaign, especially when it comes to managing the grassroots.

I agree that top down control is a workable model; its efficiency is debatable. The point is moot, as there is no top down control. So, now what?

But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any oversight or direction. Libertarianism is a great theory for the political world. It is a terrible theory in campaigning. There needs to be a central entity providing direction. That entity should be the Paul campaign, and it should be represented to the grassroots by a person chosen to organize and facilitate grassroots efforts.

Maybe you're right. Other than arguing from authority, do you have any proof that you're correct? Has there in fact ever been a grassroots organization that isn't authoritarian?

I see, right now, in practice, that authoritarianism originating from (non PCC) folks does not work. And I see, in practice, that authoritarianism based on a central planning authority, while grossly inefficient by your own admission ("Right now the Paul campaign is getting for $1 what Rudy Giuliani gets for $10"), does work, sort of. However, I'm not aware of whether a more dispersed model such as I'm describing could work, or has worked. Are you?

On the grassroots end, each state should organize at least enough to choose a person to "be in charge" in that they work directly with the Paul campaign representative to handle funding and organization of the grassroots when needed.

Who chooses? How? I've watched a bunch of self appointed "leaders" go to work here; around half of them get something done. There's no communications protocols. Backchannels dominate. There was infighting from day one.

Now if the folks at National want to show up and wave a magic wand, that's ok by me. When should I expect that? I can't get a clear answer from them. Can you?

Beyond that, each state should decide how much organization is needed. In New Hampshire, likely nothing in the way of formal organization. However in California and New York, you'd likely need to create another system similar to the one I just laid out.

Did I miss something in another post? What is the "system" you're describing? Is it "each state should organize at least enough to choose a person to "be in charge" in that they work directly with the Paul campaign representative to handle funding and organization of the grassroots when needed."?

Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to communicate. I've been a systems analyst a really long time. What you've described is a notion, an idea, a mission statement. But it isn't what I would call a "system". Which is what I'm trying to get at and define.

thanks again
cy

 

[nayjevin]

most important thread i've read in my activist career. lovely work!