A. Erickson wrote: >>I think we should >> >focus on getting useful processes figured out and defined. That will >allow >for a better crew to be established and then distribute access where >needed >to support evolt.org. Things get handled well enough as they are, we >need >to do other things with our time. > >That sounds to me like complete doublespeak. How can you say "we should >focus on getting useful processes figured out and defined" and then say >"things get handled well enough as they are, we need to do other things >with our time." Those two things are mutually exclusive. > Things get handled well enough as they are now. This means things will not fall apart while we organize and define good processes (the other things we need to do with our time). >I'm shocked, >too, to hear you supporting processes. Haven't you been among the >rigorously anti-process? I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong. > I have never been anti-process. I have been against implementing an uneeded process and/or process that has not been thought through and planned to support evolt.org needs. >I want stronger and better leadership for our group. I want that >leadership defined. That's it. A solid leadership must be in place made >up of a group of people who are dispersed globally and across a range of >skill and mindsets for us to go forward with a degree of success. > I do also. However I believe our top leadership is just fine. >I think that there is much that can be salvaged out of current set-up. I >like all of the lists that we have going. I think the community features >are great. I like the amount of participation that is happening all over >the place. However, I think we're foundering without solid leadership. > I don't think the foundering is due to bad leadership. Ron D.