DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;	
 =?utf-8?q?h=3DMessage-ID=3AReceived=3ADate=3AFrom=3ASubject=3ATo=3ACc=3AIn-?=
 =?utf-8?q?Reply-To=3AMIME-Version=3AContent-Type=3AContent-Transfer-Encodin?=
 =?utf-8?q?g=3B=09b=3DxyM/FOoUEFx3wSnk2eZthqqdKN7ITjlYc0V6H0TFyfrP9LhqZz8TIe?=
 =?utf-8?q?KNE3pcQUwu6GJY3IEdM96+fGyFQn73OZjaTaHr6H1kZTemobr+stgeqp2PjVje1Dm?=
 =?utf-8?q?F6px6dayv4EOFpxg0cKCRPDUuXG45JU41llLDictamWp82+y46hI=3D?=	;
Message-ID: <20051115160518.67709.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:05:18 -0800 (PST)
From: David Wilbur <drwsf@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Future of SF Green party - November 19
To: marc <marc@cybre.net>,
	"susan_e_vaughan@juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan@juno.com>
Cc: active@sfgreens.org, transpo@sfgreens.org, jimdorenkott2@yahoo.com,
	chkalish@ix.netcom.com, hill@newamerica.net, drwsf@sbcglobal.net,
	ErikaSF@aol.com, jmc@cmpharm.ucsf.edu, green@bionictoad.com,
	dave@livablecity.org, brucewolfe@brucewolfe.net, funking@mindspring.com,
	mbarn2002@yahoo.com, micheas@freep.org, rmirk@msn.com,
	amylaitinen@hotmail.com, c_olague@yahoo.com, cmsmythe2002@yahoo.com,
	jlc92458@yahoo.com, patvillano@sbcglobal.net, mrplutocrat@aol.com,
	plattburger@yahoo.com, btraynor@energy-net.org,
	maureen_deboer@hotmail.com,
	nmarmol@aol.com, barbara@senioractionnetwork.org, drwsf@yahoo.com
In-Reply-To: <4379FBC5.4090701@cybre.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1119725446-1132070718=:66910"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

--0-1119725446-1132070718=:66910
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I think Sue Vaughn and Marc are combining two separate threads.
 
As to the planned meeting this Saturday being organized by Charles, my understanding is that its sole purpose is to talk about what we, as individuals, hope to accomplish in the next 2-5 years on issues we care about, and whether any of us can work together to achieve mutual goals. Although references to how the Green Party might play a role in our individual issue advocacy over the next few years might come up, I don't expect it to be a major topic of discussion.
 
The second thread is focused on what the Green Party might do to be more organized, or effective, or whatever. It sounds like a meeting is being planned to discuss these issues. Dave Snyder, Marc and others have made thoughtful comments about some of the opportunities and challenges for the SFGP, which could start a discussion of what should be on that meeting's agenda.
 
As to Matt's offer to talk with the Green Party, I wouldn't support taping it, and surely not "broadcasting" the meeting. I would think it should be a frank, probing discussion where people should be free to speak their mind, which might be inhibited if it were being taped. I don't even think I'd support putting it into the weekly SFGP email announcements since Matt's (and Ross') star power attract too many people seemingly more interested in their celebrity than they are in devoting their time and energy to social and economic change. The SFGP provides lts of oppotunites for people to show up at events, learn about us an get inbvolved, however they see fit.
 
I see the two separate meetings as more about taking with people who already have some experience working together over the past couple of years, and candid discussions related thereto.
 
dw
 

marc <marc@cybre.net> wrote:
For a change, I've been reading this thread rather than writing to it.

The Green Party has three (or more) basic classes of functions that it 
has to carry out at various times:

1. Election Campaigns
-Candidate
-Ballot Measure

2. Issue Advocacy
-BofS
-SFUSD
-Commissions and Boards

3. Infrastructure
-Office
-Fundraising

As we move through the election cycles, there are different demands 
placed on each of these classes of function. Sometimes, candidate 
campaigns dominate. This happened in 2003 and 2004 with Matt and 
Ross/Renee. We almost quit doing policy advocacy or infrastructure.

The task for us is to figure out how to "fire on all cylinders," sorry 
for the internal combustion metaphor, all the time even when events push 
us otherwise.

The Green Party in my conception serves as a collaborative skill-share 
where folks can develop expertise in politics and work together to bring 
the 10KV to the light of day. That collaborative is like a toolkit, 
that contains different, complimentary tools that we use to do our three 
main classes of function.

In order for us to move past our current malaise, we have to expand not 
only our toolkit to tools we don't currently have (fundraising, 
infrastructure, etc) but to bring in more, new people to use them as we 
are getting burned out with our relatively small numbers.

So I would differ with Charles' idea that we agree on a campaign and do 
what Rob and Steve have done so well with Voter Owned Elections. I have 
never seen 30+ progressives sitting patiently at an Ethics Commission 
meeting before.

As an alternative, we need to do an inventory assessment, agree on what 
is missing, and devise plans to make up for them.

-marc


--0-1119725446-1132070718=:66910
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


   I think Sue Vaughn and Marc are combining two separate threads.

   As to the planned meeting this Saturday being organized by Charles, my
   understanding is that its sole purpose is to talk about what we, as
   individuals, hope to accomplish in the next 2-5 years on issues we
   care about, and whether any of us can work together to achieve mutual
   goals. Although references to how the Green Party might play a role in
   our individual issue advocacy over the next few years might come up, I
   don't expect it to be a major topic of discussion.

   The second thread is focused on what the Green Party might do to be
   more organized, or effective, or whatever. It sounds like a meeting
   is being planned to discuss these issues. Dave Snyder, Marc and others
   have made thoughtful comments about some of the opportunities and
   challenges for the SFGP, which could start a discussion of what should
   be on that meeting's agenda.

   As to Matt's offer to talk with the Green Party, I wouldn't support
   taping it, and surely not "broadcasting" the meeting. I would think it
   should be a frank, probing discussion where people should be free to
   speak their mind, which might be inhibited if it were being taped. I
   don't even think I'd support putting it into the weekly SFGP email
   announcements since Matt's (and Ross') star power attract too many
   people seemingly more interested in their celebrity than they are in
   devoting their time and energy to social and economic change. The SFGP
   provides lts of oppotunites for people to show up at events, learn
   about us an get inbvolved, however they see fit.

   I see the two separate meetings as more about taking with people who
   already have some experience working together over the past couple of
   years, and candid discussions related thereto.

   dw

   marc <marc@cybre.net> wrote:

     For a change, I've been reading this thread rather than writing to
     it.
     The Green Party has three (or more) basic classes of functions that
     it
     has to carry out at various times:
     1. Election Campaigns
     -Candidate
     -Ballot Measure
     2. Issue Advocacy
     -BofS
     -SFUSD
     -Commissions and Boards
     3. Infrastructure
     -Office
     -Fundraising
     As we move through the election cycles, there are different demands
     placed on each of these classes of function. Sometimes, candidate
     campaigns dominate. This happened in 2003 and 2004 with Matt and
     Ross/Renee. We almost quit doing policy advocacy or infrastructure.
     The task for us is to figure out how to "fire on all cylinders,"
     sorry
     for the internal combustion metaphor, all the time even when events
     push
     us otherwise.
     The Green Party in my conception serves as a collaborative
     skill-share
     where folks can develop expertise in politics and work together to
     bring
     the 10KV to the light of day. That collaborative is like a toolkit,
     that contains different, complimentary tools that we use to do our
     three
     main classes of function.
     In order for us to move past our current malaise, we have to expand
     not
     only our toolkit to tools we don't currently have (fundraising,
     infrastructure, etc) but to bring in more, new people to use them
     as we
     are getting burned out with our relatively small numbers.
     So I would differ with Charles' idea that we agree on a campaign
     and do
     what Rob and Steve have done so well with Voter Owned Elections. I
     have
     never seen 30+ progressives sitting patiently at an Ethics
     Commission
     meeting before.
     As an alternative, we need to do an inventory assessment, agree on
     what
     is missing, and devise plans to make up for them.
     -marc

--0-1119725446-1132070718=:66910--