[badgerstatevolunteers] Re: Leaders

  • From: lomax <chac2ook@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: badgerstatevolunteers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:53:13 -0600

I'm pretty sure everyone on the email list got the discussion about the SOP
and those at the re hump can remember the bivy locations we discussed and
confirmed, as far as a contact person, that should be all of us, no? As far
as the meetings, we will have the meeting SOP to discuss, and it is right
here in these emails for you to look at.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Joe <virtualadonis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>   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 <chac2ook@xxxxxxxxx>
> *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 curious.
> 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*
> *www.1revolutionnow.com*

*freeman lomax*

Other related posts: