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