SCN: RE: Now what?

[J. Johnson]

In general terms I would agree with you.  But the various instantiations
of the SCNA Board over the years have not been able to hash things out,
and I don't see much hope of a replacement Board doing much better.  Note
that I am not saying anyone should (or even could) expect to know "exactly
what needs to happen", but they should _start_ out of the gate at least
going in the same direction.  

The notion of transferring assets to a successor organiation I believe is
a relict of the initial discussion, based on the lapsed registration, If
the Board is replaced there is no need for a successor organization.

=== JJohnson =====================================================

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, jmabel wrote:

> I disagree. A Board doesn't need to start with a strong consensus. It just needs
> to start with a willingness to work together and hash things out, including a
> willingness idividual not to get everything they want if they get a good bit of
> what they want. I'd actually be very doubtful that anyone who thinks they know
> exactly what needs to happen now would be a good person to be on the Board. What
> we need are a group of competent people willing to work together, first to work
> out how to keep things running on an interim basis, then to work out where to go
> from here to get SCN out of mere 'maintenance mode'.
> 
> As I understand it, though, the current Board are the only ones who can take the
> next steps:
> 1) Move forward on registration with the State so the group is legally
> constituted.
> 2) Either express their willingness to appoint an interim board and then resign,
> themselves (with the caveat that I'd like to see one member stay a while for
> continuity of memory).
> 
> At that point, a new Board can either hand over the assets appropriately to a
> successor organization or set a direction, fundraise, rebuild a membership
> organization, hold a general meeting an elections, etc.
> 
> --------------------
> Joe Mabel
> 
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > My views differ from Rod's, which illustrates a problem:  how do we agree
> > on the fixes when we don't agree on the problems?
> >
> > Of course, "we" (the membership at large) wouldn't have to agree exactly
> > on the problems and fixes if we had a Board of Directors competent enough
> > to sort it out themselves. If the replacements don't come in with a strong
> > consensus of what the problems are they are likely to be just as
> > ineffective.
> >
> > === JJohnson =====================================================
> >
> > * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * *
> > To unsubscribe send a message to:  majordomo at scn.org
> > In the body of the message, type:  unsubscribe scn
> >
> * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * *
> To unsubscribe send a message to:  majordomo at scn.org
> In the body of the message, type:  unsubscribe scn
> 

* * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * *
To unsubscribe send a message to:  majordomo at scn.org
In the body of the message, type:  unsubscribe scn