Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have voted yes on this proposal. While I am concerned about the National Party using state sharing funds for loans, I feel that ballot access is a very urgent matter and that ballot access campaigns do great work for growing the party. The GPUS also has a very good reputation of repaying loans like this in a timely manner.My vote can be changed but only up to the close of the vote this evening.
…Continued (Part 2 of 2)One other thing that I thought I would mention that I haven't before. We use the term "Chapters" a lot on the website yet our bylaws refer to locals. I try to use the term "locals" internally but I find it is easiest to use the term "chapters" when talking to the Secretary of State office. I notice that the GPUS generally uses the term "locals". A Google search reveals that state Green Parties use various terms including locals, local chapters, and (rarely) chapters. What I am getting at is that the term "locals" is more proper but the term "chapters" is more recognizable to the general public. The term "local chapters" may be the best of both worlds but it is a lengthy term for navbar links (such as "Join a Local Chapter"). Maybe we could mostly use the term "local" but use the term "local chapter" in some instances. I know there are bigger priorities than this and this is something we could easily change later, but I thought I would at least mention it now. It feels great that this is finally under way. Thanks so much for you input, Tanya; you have certainly improved upon my original ideas. Jonesy
Tanya,Great input. I know my reply is lengthy but a good portion of it is quoted text that you can skim over. I tried to italicize my original text that you quoted. I think we are mostly in agreement except for the information on the "Party Structure" and "Contact Us" pages. If you could, can you please put the most priority into reading my concerns that I wrote under your quoted text of "GPCO Structure"? I think we are close to an agreement on this and I am willing to be very flexible, I just want to be sure my concerns are considered.
-I AGREE except for About GPCO. I think it should be "About the Greens" or "Colorado Greens" or "Meet the Greens" or "Meet the Green Party" or "Who we are" something else. I just don't like the acronym GPCO because it is so vague and unemotional and not inspiring or something to feel connected to. Some companies just put "About Us" or some parties put "Learn" or "Learn More" so it doesn't really have to say Colorado or CO in it because people know they are on the Colorado Green Party website already and when they get to each menu item or section, they will read about Colorado Greens, not the national greens.
I completely agree with changing "About GPCO" to something else. This is a change that I hadn't even considered but I think it would be an improvement. I think my first to choices would be "Who we are" or "About Us" or even just "About". I am up for some other ideas too. I am less in favor of "About the Greens" because it isn't specific to the GPCO.
About GPCOThis links to the "About" page. The title of this page should say "About the GPCO" instead of what it currently says, "About GPOC". I think the body of text on this page could use some re-writing to pertain more to the Green Party of Colorado. (see above for my issue with GPCO and suggestion for different heading)
I hear your concerns about the GPCO abbreviation being uninspiring. I agree in some instances but I don't think I am as opposed to it in all cases as you are. That being said, I agree that this would be an ideal spot to use something different than the abbreviation. My main concern with this is that it says GPOC instead of GPCO (or something better). I feel that the GPOC abbreviation should never be used because it is not the official abbreviation (GPCO is used in the bylaws). I think we should just use "About The Green Party of Colorado" as the title on this page (but not the navbar). I would also suggest that we do a search for the word "GPOC" on the website and replace all instances of it with either "GPCO" or a non-abbrevated variation when appropriate.
GPCO StructureCurrently, "About GPCO" lists the following sub items: Board Members & Contacts, Bylaws, Procedures & Guidelines, and Financials. The sub items Council Proposals and Committees are currentlylisted under the News and Get Involved navbar links respectively. All of these sub items mentioned should be merged into one page. This is the GPCO Structure page.. The easy thing to do would be to just create this page and put links to all these pages on it. It would be nice to someday have a description and perhaps a diagram of how the GPCO is organized. This could be added later though. -I don't like the GPCO Structure title; could it be "Party Organization" or something else? Or actually it seems like these should be revised into two different menu items with some info moved to other website pages (i.e. contacts) as follows:1 new menu heading- State Officers (use Board Members & Contacts) and I would take off the contact info from this page as it will be on the contact page. In place of contact info, you could put photos of each person plus a very brief bio (40-70 words) or a link to a less brief bio (150-250 words) plus you could add a couple paragraphs about state officer terms and some relevant info from the bylaws or P&G to help website visitors and prospective state officer candidates see details about what officers are/do.2 new menu heading: Bylaws & Procedures (Bylaws, Procedures & Guidelines) only,Then, I think Financials should go at the bottom of the History page or mixed in with the history so for example: years with officers first, state meeting minutes second, and Financials last for each year (2011-2012 etc).
I think how we organize this page is going to require the most discussion of anything in this proposal. The area of disagreement it seems is surrounding what information should appear on the "Contact Us" page. I want to begin by saying that I am alright with not using the GPCO abbreviation as the name of this page. I think "Party Organization" or "Party Structure" would be good alternatives. I also agree that "State Officers" (or perhaps "Party Officers") is a far better title than "Board Members & Contacts" I believe that my original comments were accurately understood but as I read what I wrote, I understand that my description was a bit convoluted. The following is a listing of links that would appear as sub items on the "Party Structure" page as well as directly on the this page. Hovering the mouse on "Party Structure" would reveal these sub items and clicking on "Party Structure" would show a page with these same links and a possibly brief descriptions. This links are (in this order more or less):State OfficersCommitteesBylawsProcedures & GuidelinesCouncil ProposalsFinancialsTanya, I think the brief description of what these items are (such as officer terms, etc.) is an excellent idea. I would happily assist in writing these descriptions. I think this descriptions should appear at the top of each individual page as a synopsis about what it means. I also really like the idea about the picture and the bio for the state officers. I think there is room for their contact info on this page even if it also appears on the "Contact Us" page. I would be alright with merging the "Bylaws" and "Procedures & Guidelines" into one page but this would complicate things a bit because clicking the suggested "Bylaws and Procedures" sub item would have to present the visitor with the two documents merged into one page. These are both relatively long documents so it would make searching them more difficult. We could put anchor links for both these documents at the top of the page that would scroll to the proper document. We could even expand on this and create a table of contents for each document by creating a table of contents for each with anchor links for each section. Any variation on this though would take a lot more work than just giving each document its own sub item heading. For now, I think we should just take the path of least resistance on this, especially since there is much talk of revising both of these documents. I do disagree with moving financials to the "History" page. To understand my disagreement, I feel it is important to explain where I am coming from. The primary principles that I had in mind when making improvements to this website were "who is viewing using this website" and "how can it be structured to best serve them". The first question (who) has three answers: People that are not involved with the GPCO and want to learn more (prospective members or others just seeking information), those that are somewhat involved and want to get more involved, and those that are very involved and need reference to things (such as bylaws, P&G, financials, state officer contacts, etc). The first group I feel is the most important to cater to because viewing our website may be their first impression of the GPCO. If they see a website that is mostly made for insiders, they will feel unwelcome. We also must consider how are website appears to non-Greens such as press and average people just wanting to learn more. We won't be taken seriously if our website isn't welcoming to the general public. While that first group should be the priority, I do feel that we can and should serve the other two audiences without compromising the first. We do this by organizing the information in such a way so that the insider GPCO stuff is still available to but doesn't interfere with the browsing experience of the general public. I am saying all this now because I feel that the history page is something that is useful to the general public. I think adding our financials information to this page would complicate it and make it less appealing. I do believe in making our financials transparent to the public, but transparency should be balanced with great organization. Give the public access to what they want, but don't overload them with information. I feel that the "Party Structure" page is the best spot for the financials because the information on this page mostly appeals to those that are already involved in the GPCO. It is still very accessible to the public but won't get in their way if they don't care to see it. I feel the very same way about what information appears on the "Contact Us" page. I feel that the "Contact Us" page should be intended mostly for the general public. The contact items that pertain most to the general public are the P.O. Box, Co-chairs, and lastly the webadmin in case there are issues with the website (though this is the least of my concerns). The next items listed should be the the link to the chapters' contact info and link to the Green office holders page. These are arguable the most important items on the contact page because it allows people to directly to tap in to our decentralized structure. I do agree with identifying the Co-chairs as the media contacts. Below these links, I would encourage us to put a link to our "State Officers" page with the contact info. I say this because your average person has no need to contact the secretary, treasurer, or NC delegate. That is all internal party stuff which I feel best fits on the "Party Structure" page. I suppose I would be alright with putting the other state officer contact info directly on the "Contact Us" page, but only with the more nessicary information appearing first and seperated somehow from the information that is more pertinent to the general public. The downside to this is that it would require a lot more maintenance at officer changes than just putting a link on the "Contact Us" page to the "State Officers" page in the "Party Structure" section. I say this because if we are going to have the bios on the "State Officers" page and their contact info on the "Contact Us" page, that is two separate pages that need to be updated when we get new officers.
This is probably a good time to explain that I think we have to make our procedures and rules more easily accessible to people who are looking for info about specific roles/ways to get involved. Right now, we always refer people to the bylaws or the P&G which are such long documents and you have to search through them to find specific info. It would be more helpful of us if we created pages/downloadable info sheets about specific items such as: State Officers (duties, terms and qualifications), Public Office Candidates (qualifications, process, timelines, etc.), New Chapters (how to begin, who can do it, how to find support, requirements for approval by state, etc.).
Tanya, I very much agree. I am willing to help out with this as well. I am glad you are bringing this up because this is the kind of thing we need to be working towards and we need to think about how the website will accommodate such information.
Resolutions and Position StatementsThis link currently is "GPCO Resolutions". I would be fine with keeping this title but I feel that "Position Statements" adds a meaningful description. We should add items like our endorsement of Occupy and such. The GPCO has issued several endorsements and position statements and I wish it was something that was done more often. It is a great way for visitors to see what the GPCO stands behind. -I AGREE or Platform or Political Platforms but whatever you think is most understandable.
It sounds like we are all on board with this one. I just thought I should mention that someday I would like to have a "Platform" sub item on this menu. It doesn't make sense to add this now because we currently don't have a platform. I see a platform growing out of our position statements. I also wanted to point out that we have a news category called "Position Statements". For now, we could just link the "Resolutions and Position Statements" page to the news category page http://www.coloradogreenparty.org/category/position-statements/
E-ListsI think this page can stay for now. I do think the section about how to get on the Council listerv should be removed. It instructs people to contact Claire Ryder. This info really doesn't need to be there. Any local that is forming can get instructions on how to join the council listserv by contacting the Co-Chairs. -This page will need to be changed to "Forums" as soon as possible and describe and have links to the various forum participation opportunities. For example, it would start with how to join a discussion forum, and then how to observe state council forum activities, and how to become a state online council/forum voting member, etc. I also think this should have a subheading/drop down menu item for "Join a Chapter" and that page would link back to the Local Chapters pages but have more details on how to find your chapter and what it takes to join chapter activities and what to do if no chapter exists in your area.
Right now we are just promoting the forum to the GPCO council. I believe we will soon open it up to all GPCO registered voters in the next few months. Bill and I have been considering how non-council forum members will register and be verified. For now, lets just keep the eLists page up and we will update it when the forum is ready to accept general members. I don't really see much of a need to have information about how to sign-up for council on this page because new council members are handled internally. It would be best to just have general information about how council members are selected on the "Party Structure" page. I like the idea of describing how to observe council activities. We should add that as soon as we are accepting general members to the forum. I love the "Join a Chapter" page. Great idea, Tanya. I agree that we should be sure it contains a link to the "Chapters" page, and I also think the "Chapters" page should contain a link to the "Join a Chapter" page.
ContactThis currently says contacts. I think it should say Contact.. I prefer the verb to the plural noun. -Actually "Contact" is still a noun though it could be a verb but it is unclear with just the one word. If we want it more active, it should probably be "Contact us" (just like Get Involved).I would like to change this page to more of a "this is how you get in touch with the GPCO" rather than just a listing of officers. It would be very helpful to add a paragraph that explains reasons for contacting the GPCO. Something like, "If you have any questions or are interested in starting a local of the GPCO, contact the co-chairs. You can get in touch with the GPCO local in your area by visiting our Chapters page." Right now it is a little bit intimidating because it is a somewhat long list of official positions. Someone may not know who to begin with. I also think that the State representatives and the GPCO Council facilitator should be listed on GPCO structure page. We have to remember that people visiting the contact page are probably not already involved with the GPCO. -I AGREE that sentences describing who to contact for what would be more useful, but probably all the current contacts need to remain there for some reason or another, just better identified. For example, we should also list who is the media contact (co-chairs for now).
I love how grammatical we got on this subject. I agree that "Contact Us" is far better that just "Contact". Please see my comments about the "Contact Us" page in the "GPCO Structure" a.k.a. "Party Structure" section.
DonateThis is arguably the most important page of the whole website. It is usually the last link on the navbar for easy access. It is also sometimes highlighted. We should make it stand out. - I AGREE. We also have to think about where Green merchandise can be located. Would it be a second dropdown menu item under donate? Or would it be under Get Involved or where? Kevin has been wanting this link for a while. And, my chapter members were recently asking how to get GPCO paraphenalia so it would be good to finally add our Colorado Green Store (which would also be needed if we sell that ebook that Eric proposed at the state meeting).
That is great news about the merchandise. I would love to see that. Let's give it its own Navbar link between "Contact" and "Donate" we could call this "Store" or "Merch" or something.
I also like this from the Libertarian site and think it could go under Get Involved or Who we are: http://lpcolorado.org/learn/am-i-libertarian/http://www.theadvocates.org/quizPlus I think we need to have some links on our site to the League of Women Voters and VoteSmart websites that help people figure out which political districts they are in and which offices are in those districts and when the elections are. Our chapter members have no idea about these matters and keep talking about researching it. It is slowing us down, so it would be great to have those links to help people figure those out. They would probably be under the Get Involved section under new dropdown menu items such as "Support a Candidate" and "Run in an election" or "Become a Candidate" and "Get appointed to office" (this last one would explain about how there are so many opportunities for Greens to get appointed to local, state and regional boards, commissions, etc. and begin their political career or at least contribute their Green perspective to local and state government without seeking election).
Tanya, These are wonderful ideas. As I read them it clicks with another idea that I have been thinking of for a while. My pipe dream is that we will someday have the resources to erect a billboard. My idea for what this bill board would say is something likeWe Were Green Before it Was Cool - Green Party of Colorado, since 1992 - Register Green|Vote Green|Be GreenThe key part of why I am mentioning this is the "Register Green|Vote Green|Be Green" motto. It just clicked as I was reading your suggestions here that we could create sub items under "Get Involved" titled "Register Green", "Vote Green", "Be Green". "Register Green" has already been proposed. "Vote Green" would have information (separate from the news section) about our current candidates for office and voter guides that issue recommending which ballot measures we support or oppose. The League of Women Voters and VoteSmart links would be here so people can see which Greens they can vote for. The "Be Green" section is all about taking it to the next level. This would have information about being a GPCO candidate and getting more involved with the internal workings of the GPCO. We would also link to the "Join a Chapter" page. This could also be the place to put the Am I Green section too. What do you think? I like the links that Bill suggested as well. I think they would probably fit best under "Vote Green"Continue...
Great comments everyone,I would like to add my thanks to everyone that made the trip to Carbondale, the GPCO candidates, and all who helped plan and organize the convention. The convention could not have happened without all of these elements. A big thank you to the San Miguel Greens for taking on the 2013 Annual State Meeting. I posted links to the radio coverage that we got on the front page of http://convention.gpco.org. I also added some information to the candidates section.
Thom,I am relatively new to the party too. I think you bring some great discussion to this item. Do you think that making the registration requirements a certain length of time prior to the nominating convention would satisfy what you are recommending? The issue that I see with specifying when our nominating convention takes place in relation to the general election is that it creates inflexibility in scheduling the convention. State law states that we have to have our convention a certain amount of time before the primary elections take place. I feel that it would further complicate the planning of the convention if we imposed more rules on ourselves concerning the length of time between the convention and the election. I hope I am understanding you post correctly. I feel like I may be misunderstanding something though. Jonesy
This posting style argument is a heated discussion in many circles. Top-posting (newest messages at the top) is good for things like a Facebook wall where just the newest stuff is read instead of all posts. Bottom-posting (oldest messages at the top) is best when the entire conversation should be read. In the case of this forum, I feel bottom posting is best because it makes it easier for people to follow the whole discussion. A classic example of why bottom-posting is best in many situations is:
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?A: Top-posting.Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Bill, thank you for providing a solution that allows people to customize this based on their preference.
I am working on a forum guide right now and I thought it was necessary to have a netiquette document that is very specific to this forum. I like everything we already have for netiquette, I just really wanted to build off of it so new users have a good idea of what to expect. As always, I am open to suggestions. What does everyone think? About this document. It is common for online communities to have guidelines that describe what communication is appropriate for the community. This document is often called netiquette. This document covers basic communication rules that will help us communicate as effectively as possible. In most cases, these rules will be self enforced. In extreme circumstances of misconduct, moderators may step in to remove posts or even ban repeat offenders. Let's hope it doesn't come to this. Please do your part and be aware of this forum's netiquette. Then again, we all make mistakes. The purpose of this document is not to impose a set of rules that we are all afraid of breaking. The purpose of this document is to create some basic expectations that will allow productive communication. The Basics"Be excellent to each other" - Bill and Ted's Excellent AdventureConsider the three doors that charitable speech must pass through. The first gatekeeper asks: "Is it true?" The second gatekeeper asks: "Is it helpful?" The third gatekeeper asks: "Is it kind?" (adapted from the writings of Krishnamurti by James Martin)1. Listen2. Take a deep breath and calm your emotions before replying.3. Focus on the content of the issue; do not abuse the messenger.4. Personal and ad hominem attacks (using a person’s character, characteristics, or associations as a verbal weapon) are to be strictly avoided.5. Refrain from using ALL CAPS (shouting), profanity, belittling, accusations, and threats.6. Eliminate sarcasm whenever possible. In emotional situations, wait a bit to clear your mind, then re-read your composition and make a sincere, conscious effort to clear your message of charged words.7. Stay on topic! Too many tangents will add to the confusion.8. Give praise when it is due. The SpecificsKnow where to post. When creating a new topic, make sure that it is under the appropriate board. Boards allow topics to be organized in a meaningful way. When in doubt, use your best judgment. If you post to the wrong place, your post may be moved by a moderator. This is no big deal. Don't hijack existing topics. If you have something new to say, create a new topic. Topics have a tendency to get off track. When in doubt, look at the title of the topic and see if your post fits. Moderators have the ability to split a single topic. If a topic has gotten off track or turned into something entirely different, notify a moderator so it can be split. Use proper spelling and grammar. It is best to use unabbreviated English; an example to avoid is "i HV not been 2 ur house B4."Always read your post before sending. This is to check for grammar and spelling errors and to make sure you are saying what you want to say. Many people will be taking the time to read your post. Please be courteous to them and read what you write before you post. Keep it non-commercial. Talking about companies and organizations is allowed when it fits within the purpose of the forum and is posted in the appropriate area. What is not allowed is advertising and self promotion when it does not pertain to this forum. When it is okay: "The organization I work for is hosting a panel on the impacts of mining in Colorado." What is not okay: "I am a dentist looking for new patients."Be respectful of privacy. Do not copy information from this forum and post it outside of this forum. Do not post things to this forum that violate other's privacy. For example, don't post a private email to this forum without the consent of all parties. Do not assume that this forum is secure. Avoid posting extra-sensitive information to this forum. Be civil. Treat others with consideration and respect. It is okay to disagree. Remember to deliberate about the topic of discussion instead of arguing about personalities. When others don't follow this rule, take the high road. Forgive and forget. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Report personal attacks for moderation. Do not allow personal attacks to escalate. Apologize when it is necessary. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility)Disputes, and even misunderstandings, can lead to situations in which one party feels injured by the other. The apology is a form of ritual exchange between both parties, where words are said that allow reconciliation. For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. Demanding an apology is almost never helpful and often inflames the situation further, though a polite, good faith request for an apology may be acceptable. Offering an apology is even better, and can be a key to resolving conflict. An apology provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.
The letter has been sent to the GPCO Council List and the GPOC [sic] Discuss list. Should I send this out to anyone else? I did add a review of council activity to the agenda.
Hey Team,I threw together a letter requesting convention agenda items intended for the the GPCO locals. I plan on sending it out in the next day or two. Let me know if you have any suggestions or additions. Also, I set up a simple form for collecting RSVPs at convention.gpco.org. It is mentioned in the letter. Any thoughts on this method of collecting RSVPs?(See attachment).
Great idea, Bill! I saw your email on the council that said you plan on inviting the candidates sometime this week. Thanks for doing this. Let us know how it goes. I did receive an email from the Barr campaign. I sent an email reply to Bill, but I thought I would also post it here so the whole Convention Committee is aware of what's going on. I got an email from the Barr campaign yesterday about them wanting to either send a representative or have Roseanne Skype in.
As much as I would love to Skype in all the candidates, I think it would make us very vulnerable to technical difficulties and it would be incredibly difficult to work into the agenda. I agree that we should invite all the candidates or a representative from their campaigns. I think we should also request a short (10 minutes or less) video or written statement from each candidate. If they can't attend or send a representative, we will screen their video or read their statement. If they can attend or send a representative, we should allow a maximum of 20 minutes for a statement and Q & A. We can put the video or statement of each candidate on the GPCO website before the convention. Only the candidates that are not present and don't have a representative present would have their video screened at the conference.
What are everyone's thoughts on this?
Gary Swing contacted FairVote for advise. They suggested an Iowa Caucus style vote:
From FairVote: The Democratic Paryt rules for the Iowa caucuses provide one example. You create a treshold [sic] (let's say 10%), and then people go to stand in groups based on their candidtae preferences. If their first choice is below the threshold, they move to their second choice. Hope that helps.
From this, Gary suggested that we use this formula: [Votes Cast/(n+1)]+1 = minimum number of votes required to elect a delegate, where n equals the number of delegates to be elected. I will do my best with this math. Lets say we have 50 attendees voting. The number of votes to receive one delegate is 7.25. Say the votes are Stein 26, Barr 16, Mesplay 8. The delegate count would be Stein 3, Barr 2, Mesplay 1. Stein would get the remaining fraction of the vote and be awarded one more delegate. It was just decided this week that Colorado will be awarded 7 delegates. Gary pointed out that we don't need to establish the arbitrary minimum vote threshold that FairVote suggests. Yes, there will still be a minimum amount of votes a candidate needs to receive in order to get a delegate. That will depend on how many votes are cast. We also need to consider how fractional delegates will be allocated. We could just round to the nearest whole number, or we could use a more complex formula such as the largest remainder method where the top vote getter is awarded the sum of the fractional delegate not to exceed one (if one exists), the second highest vote getter getting the second fractional delegates not to exceed one (if one exists), etc.Now, we can could potentially conduct this vote either by actually grouping up (like FairVote suggests), or by secret ballot. Grouping has the advantage of being simple and interactive. If a candidate does not receive enough votes to get a delegate, that candidates supporters may move to their second choice. Conducting this vote by secret ballot has the advantage of being secret. I would encourage the use of a ranked ballot. If a candidate does not have enough votes to receive a delegate, their vote would be transferred to their second choice candidate. I am up for either method. I would lean toward the Iowa inspired method but I also want to be sensitive to those who have privacy concerns. We could poll council beforehand, or we could prepare to do either method and poll the conference attendees. What are everyone's thoughts?
Thank you for the additions, Art. I added them to the working agenda here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uyCQWB95XoNeWJl1vq8J1x5Dp9IPqEcjUm5M-OrJPYM/editI would like to send out a call for agenda items to council by March 1st.
We need the state officers and/or the council facilitator to inform the Council of the proper voting procedure. Are we using agreement-seeking (both on this email listserve and the forum)?Therefore, are we looking for all online council reps from each local chapter (up to 4 for each chapter plus the state officers) to give their agreement or not? In the past, I believe the votes would have been: agree, standaside or block, and then we go to a vote if there are any blocks. Is that right, now?
Hey Tanya,I think it is important to have discussion and time to consider more options, but I also feel like we are running out of time. It would be great if we could begin voting on a location by the end of the week if not sooner. Because the listserv is still the official channel of communication for council, the official vote will have to be conducted there. Still, this is one of the first proposals since the moratorium on council activity and thus an opportunity to try out the proposal process on the forum. For the sake of saving time, let's not try to conduct a vote on the forum this time around. I also must admit that this is my first council proposal and I am unfamiliar with the process. How do I submit it to the council facilitator for a vote?
