[badgerstatevolunteers] Re: Leaders

  • From: "Joe" <virtualadonis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <badgerstatevolunteers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:40:53 -0600

I am not talking about a military structure here not directives not assignments 
NOT AUTHORITY simply direction and a contact person on the topic so everyone 
has the same information. I gave you an example of what I am talking abut with 
the com situation. I can say the same about the potential sites you mentioned 
here. Who can name them? I cannot. Who is working on the site selection or 
where they should be? I admit this conversation happened but nothing solid came 
from it. I had no Idea X was working on a SOP or that we even needed one. In 
fact I thought we decided not to worry about stand stuff. 

I realize that anyone can bring up something in a meeting but we rarely get 
that far. Points of order is great!


From: lomax 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 7:50 AM
To: badgerstatevolunteers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: [badgerstatevolunteers] Re: Leaders

LOL....ok french fry, consensus is a good thing, I think the leadership 
concept, more than anything else releases the rest of the group from critical 
thinking and people will have a tendancy to wait for the leader to start some 
thing up. The structure concept for the meetings however is easy. Anyone can 
set a topic for the meeting, each person that comes up with a topic brings 
their concerns and research to the meeting and takes the lead in the 
discussion. Personally Spike, I'm not sure what you're looking for, are you 
looking for someone to give directives? Make assignments? We seem to be moving 
in the right direction. So far in review, as a group we have chosen and tested 
close quarter coms, field tested a variety of gear and have decided which works 
best, ie; GI sleep system vs Walmart Sleeping bag. We've tried a variety of 
foods, cooking and hydration systems, and have a couple of range outings under 
our belts. We have decided on one firm bivy point and have 2 or 3 more 
potential sites pending, I repeat, as a group, without a Potato. Right now X is 
working on an SOP for future outings and such and for the next meeting we can 
discuss an SOP for meeting structure. I prefer a leaderless system only because 
it eliminates pissing contests and because everyone has something to bring to 
the table and should be able to take the lead in their area of expertise. Boy 
Scout, have you asked your Grampa about us camping out on his land? Just 

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Joe <virtualadonis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

  I say leader you say potato. WTF

  Everyone here gets what I am saying.

  I am vary pleased with the leaps our communications has made since my first 
meeting. We have had Google, WRAM, Facebook, cell phone, tri square, and 
designs to move to VHF for weeks now and still not everyone is up to speed. For 
example: I do not know who can or cannot get into Google. We should all be 
involved in setting those rules. No? Who are the web people and is there a back 
up plan? Who do I pose these questions to? I know lets call them a potato.

  How many times have we turned around because of going the wrong way?

  Please don’t just answer here. Lets talk and make decision through consensus.

  Structure is all we are missing. Whatever you want to call it “potato” needs 
to happen for us to be successful. 

  The structuring of the group should be the topic of the next meeting.

  Is that to much to ask? LMAO By the way; some of us could stand to drop and 
blast out 20. So get to it! Up down one. Up down two...


freeman lomax

Other related posts: