[SCA] Can I say this?
May. 19th, 2008 09:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
newman(This isn't going to mean a lot to you if you're not in the SCA. Even if you are, it may not mean a lot to you)
A short note came across the wires this morning from Hal Simon (Chairman of the BOD) regarding the invalidation of the reign of the current King and Queen of The Middle because of a 3-day lapse in membership due to some unusual circumstances. At the conclusion of the brief letter, Mr. Simon (as ever) indicates that "Questions, suggestions and comments can be sent to [email address snipped]". This is the note I'm considering sending; do I bother?
Dear Mr. Simon:
Upon reading your recent brief note concerning the invalidation of the reign of Lutr and Tessa, I was struck by the fact that The Board of Directors seems increasingly hidebound, interested in enforcing the letter of our laws, regardless of the cost or of the original intent of those laws. Interest in the S.C.A. from senior members (such as myself) is waning, and The S.C.A. has not been able to increase new member recruitment. My question, suggestion, and comment are
1) Why aren't the Board of Directors focused more on improving the S.C.A. and less on preserving some perceived status quo?
2) Please increase the transparency of our government. Much of the Board's actions are in a sealed Star Chamber.
3) If the Board of Directors does not make some drastic changes in the next few years, the S.C.A. as an entity will cease to exist. It already has largely ceased to exist as an organization I wish to be part of.
Alternative text for #3: If the Board of Directors does not make some drastic changes in the next few years, the S.C.A. as an entity will cease to exist. It is already well on its way to becoming an organization I would not wish to be part of.
Signed,
me, with all the titles and O.P. stuff that apparently makes me worth listening to ;-)
A short note came across the wires this morning from Hal Simon (Chairman of the BOD) regarding the invalidation of the reign of the current King and Queen of The Middle because of a 3-day lapse in membership due to some unusual circumstances. At the conclusion of the brief letter, Mr. Simon (as ever) indicates that "Questions, suggestions and comments can be sent to [email address snipped]". This is the note I'm considering sending; do I bother?
Dear Mr. Simon:
Upon reading your recent brief note concerning the invalidation of the reign of Lutr and Tessa, I was struck by the fact that The Board of Directors seems increasingly hidebound, interested in enforcing the letter of our laws, regardless of the cost or of the original intent of those laws. Interest in the S.C.A. from senior members (such as myself) is waning, and The S.C.A. has not been able to increase new member recruitment. My question, suggestion, and comment are
1) Why aren't the Board of Directors focused more on improving the S.C.A. and less on preserving some perceived status quo?
2) Please increase the transparency of our government. Much of the Board's actions are in a sealed Star Chamber.
3) If the Board of Directors does not make some drastic changes in the next few years, the S.C.A. as an entity will cease to exist. It already has largely ceased to exist as an organization I wish to be part of.
Alternative text for #3: If the Board of Directors does not make some drastic changes in the next few years, the S.C.A. as an entity will cease to exist. It is already well on its way to becoming an organization I would not wish to be part of.
Signed,
me, with all the titles and O.P. stuff that apparently makes me worth listening to ;-)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-20 02:50 pm (UTC)But as far as I can tell, they *are* taking the path of amendation -- they're just doing it in a controlled way.
I think that's appropriate. Consider: most of the Society's worst disasters have been due to the Board getting panicked into making law changes in the heat of the moment. When you have a crisis is *not* the time to be making changes with long-term ramifications, if at all avoidable -- odds are better than usual that you will screw it up. (And historically, they often *have* screwed it up.) Over the years, the membership (with Carolingia leading the pack) have hammered into their heads that they shouldn't make significant changes in a clumsy rush.
Hal's note (at least in my reading) boils down to, "This was a mess. Help us figure out the best way to avoid it in the future." For the duration of the current crisis, they took the narrowest fix possible, but they are trying to understand a more correct approach for the next time it happens.
Mind, I think the most important part of your letter -- "follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law" -- is a perfectly fine point. Indeed, it's fairly similar to the thrust of my note to them, which recommends creating a framework that allows them to make judgement calls without violating SCA law themselves, so that they *can* contradict the letter when necessary.
I just think that the tone of your note hamstrings that point, and makes it more likely to be taken as personal rather than constructive criticism, and thus less likely to really be understood. It comes across as "*You* are screwing up and *I* am going to leave", rather than "The system is seriously messed up, and here's a recommendation of what needs to change". The problems are institutional; the fixes are going to have to be so, as well...