From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Re: What is a Baron 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:44:57 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

Greetings from Arval!  Fiacha wrote:

F> 1. Decree that all seneschals may hold court and had out awards
F>    on behalf of, and with the agreement of the branch officers.

Vashti made some good points in reply.  I'd like to make what I think is a
more fundmanetal point: barons are solely part of the feudal hierarchy of
the SCA; seneschals are part of the official (mundane) hierarchy.  In which
of those hierarchies do you want to vest the power to give awards?  I think
it is important to maintain the separation of these two hierarchies, and to
leave ceremonial power in the hands of the feudal hierarchy.

F>  2. Decree that branch status be Shire/Canton/College. Status of
F>     Province, Barony, Principality or Kingdom applies to accumulations
F>     of branches sharing borders (leaving the current membership limits
F>     intact).

Vashti replied: 

V>  Huh?  Why?  You imply that all Baronies have a problem group, that must
V> be split off to maintain peace, and then must agree to have a Barony.

No, I don't think that was his point.  Or, if it was, I think there is a
better argument for what he proposed.  Baronies are organized from the top
down: A barony forms, and then if a sub-group wants more autonomy they have
to convince the powers that be to allow them to split off.  Instead,
Fiacha's suggestion is that baronies should organize bottom-up, like
principalities or kingdom: Groups should form on their own, and if they
want to combine for ceremonial purposes, then they may do so at many
different levels.  On the other hand, Vashti made a good point: If groups
combine, then they ought to be able to eliminate unnecessary officers.  On
Cariadoc's third hand, she then wrote:

V> Here in the Barony of the Steppes, we have at least 3 and sometimes four
V> meetings on weeknights per week, in addition to events and special
V> Saturday projects/lessons, and Sunday afternoon fighter practice.  I
V> can't see where we could add much more, without inventing a new day of
V> the week.

What stops you from adding more?  If there are enough people to support a
dozen meetings on a particular night, why not have a dozen meetings?  I
think that many of the problems that plague large branches grow from a
mistaken notion that everybody should play together.  That's silly: Not
everybody is playing to same game, and some people simply don't like each
other.  Nothing is gained by forcing them to attend the same meeting or
fighting practice, and a great deal can be lost.  Far better to
enthusiastically support their desire to organize their own activities,
whether as baronial meetings or as canton events.
 
F>  3. Decree that to maintain branch status, the branch must hold at
F>     least one event a year, publicised in the Kingdom newsletter.

V>  As far as I know, this is already a requirement.  

Maybe in your kingdom, but not SCA-wide.  And note that the corporation's
definition of an event includes any meeting, class, practice, or revel
which is publicized to the membership of the branch.  Which leads me to a
question to Fiacha: Why should a branch be required to have an event which
is published in the kingdom newsletter?  What's wrong with a branch which
simply holds workshops, classes, and practices on its own?  If that's what
they want to do, what does the Society gain by forcing them to put on an
event?  (NB: There is a very good reason for them to want to be a branch in
spite of their limited interests; even local meetings need insurance
coverage.) 

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com