[PLUG] What PLUG needs

[Neil Anuskiewicz]

On 10 Jun 2002, Russell Senior wrote:

> More effective _at what_?

That is not up to me to decide. That would be for the officers and the 
members of PLUG.

> I disagree that PLUG needs "official" officers.  David does a fine job
> of coordinating things.  The danger of the kind of bureaucracy you are
> suggesting is that someone gets into a position of "authority" and
> then for whatever reason (e.g. "burnout", "distractions", "malice",
> etc.)  becomes an "obstruction".  No authority, no obstruction, people
> with the energy just "do".

Yes, and David could stand for election and be elected. He could then ask 
what the group wants to see happen and coordinate making it happen. This 
is *not* in any way denigrating his leadership.

I think we need leadership that is directly accountable to the members. 
One year terms to reduce the possibility of burnout. And, if someone is 
getting tired, they simply say so and call early elections. No shame in 
saying look I am tired of this. If an officer still wants to continue in 
one year then he or she says so and stands for election again.

> What do you mean by "more could be done"?  Are you referring to your
> "big-name" speakers idea?  You need to do a better job of motivating
> this idea.  _Why_ is it a good idea?  _How_ will it advance _which_
> goals?

Again, the goals are not up to me. I am merely suggesting that there is no 
process in place for any sort of goals.

As for my big speakers idea, yes, that could possibly be one of the goals. 
If we had officers then yes we could recruit more officers.

> We've had a series of outstanding speakers and presentations recently.
> It is hard to see how we could be "doing better".  Maybe you didn't
> see them.

And I said yes we have had good speakers. I was not in any way denigrating 
the speakers.


-- 
Neil Anuskiewicz