From: parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr)
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:53:51 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <atterlep.724635384@vela> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:
>parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr) writes:
>
>>1) the BoD (brace yourselves) is an impediment to the SCA
>>   and should be radically trimmed and concievably 
>>   eliminated entirely.
>
>  That may be true--but they are still the people who can tell the CoA what to
>do.  It can't hurt to talk to them.
>
>>2) I would rather speak to the populace than a bureaucrat,
>>   which is what i do when I post here.
>
>  OK, now you're insulting my friends as well as me.  The people on the BoD
>aren't "bureaucrats," they're SCA members just like us (well, actually, more
>experienced and careful than us.)  I know two of the people on the BoD 
>personally--one is a local knight and a fierce defender of the right to have
>fun (ask me about Sir Flamingo sometime...)  Another is a duke who helped hook
>me on the SCA with his war stories.
>  The BoD are people in the SCA.  They care about the SCA and enjoy it as much
>as you or I, and have no interest in bogging it down.  Of course, since you've
>never bothered to meet any of them, you wouldn't know this.

Ahem. The Chairman lives 2 miles from me. I spoke to him, at
length at our baronial council meeting eight days ago. His
name is Keith Cartmel, In the SCA Ragnar the Bold. Nice
guy. He's our baronial exchequer.

It is my not at all humble opinion that the SCA outgrew
the BoD and the concept of centralized bureaucracy about
the same time that the concentration of membership shifted
from "all of us live in California" to "we live all over 
north america".

That is why the BoD is an impediment. That is why the
COA cannot function...They are too big, they are trying to
address too many conflicting concerns.

The SCA should split into smaller groups. I'd like to see it
split into kingdoms.

>>3) The ombudsman, if not already aware of these problems 
>>   from any number os sources (for example, Arval,
>>   Kwelland Njal, and any number of others who's opinions
>>   actually carry weight and prestige), certainly won't
>>   be swayed by *my* letter.
>
>  Actually, that isn't true.  The BoD reads letters, and pays attention to
>them.  Also, the problem isn't persuading the BoD (at least one member has 
>told me that the Board is as annoyed with the CoA as everyone else), but giving
>them the ammunition to say, "this is what the populace wants."  A pile of
>letters supporting, for example, the elimination of mundane conflict-checking,
>would be a strong lever for the BoD to act.
>>4) I intend to write such a letter, right after I fix
>>   my armour, finish pellwork, cook dinner, clean my house,
>>   do my christmas shopping, and have anervous breakdown.
>
>  I don't buy that.  In the time it took you to write this, you could have
>pounded out a short letter to the BoD and mailed it off.  Why don't you take
>half and hour off of reading the Rialto and send a letter to the Board instead?
>It would have a much greater effect.

Because to send a letter which I would consider adequately
researched will take some time, some correspondance, and
a tete a tete with a couple of heralds.

To send a blathering rant would be of no utility whatsoever.

Carolus Malvoix
-- 
Within the span of the last few weeks I have heard elements of
separate threads which, in that they have been conjoined in time,
struck together to form a new chord within my hollow and echoing
gourd. --Unknown net.person
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca