and that many of my fondest hopes quite well may.
More important, we have established a core group with a coherent common understanding
which we can collectively easily and reliably communicate to our peers.
On the other hand, my preference for small slow piecemeal proposed changes to our brpp's
has been overtaken by others' desires to make some fairly comprehensive and wordy proposals.
by the fact that the placement of these changes will be thoughtfully considered.
1). How many votes?
the more we recreate the former all or nothing dynamic; the more we do none of this,
(the proposal of only having one month to do it is still just a proposal?).
state to state collaboration towards collation of similar materials.
2). Regardless of how we address 1)., irreconcilable divergence between state proposals will some day arise.
The more states that submit large chunks of material independently, the more often it will happen,
and the harder it will be to notice and flag such contradictions. How do we resolve differences the states cannot?
Slice away just the conflicting parts and rank (by NC vote).
3). Shall platcom have the power to resection, or compile, proposals,
to obtain reasonable sized pieces of material to make a decision upon?
Yes, as little as possible.
First let's determine a likely reasonable number of such decisions and then size them to that?
4). Shall platcom have the power to edit facts, style, grammar, or syntax?
No, but we should definitely compile a list of meaningful criteria, publicize it,
help the states know when they have not conformed to it, and help the delegates know this in turn, as well.
This list would have to drafted on a provisional basis during this cycle,
and only afterwards be proposed to the NC for exposure and publicity.
To ensure it's own continued understanding by the NC, consensual nature,
and ongoing development, such a list of criteria should be amended for re-approval, when beginning each cycle.
5). Committee submission and/vs platcom's advisory needs?
Why can't committees submit? 'cuz they are not members! but members appointed committees
to deal with major concerns covered by our platform, shall they NOT be involved?!
If the committees are busy submitting amendments, when will they advise upon the states' proposals?
Would it not be easier for the states and the committees, and have more coherent results,
to just allow committees to submit such proposals as they desire and may have expertise in?
Would the committees simply competing with the states in their areas of expertise
be less effort all around than their trying to collaborate with all members?
Would committee competition with state parties have the effect of exclusion or inclusion
for members of state parties who are not committee members?
Many will initially say "committees are not members" and feel that is all there is to say, as i have.
I now consider that we should allow (indeed, require!) committees to have direct oversight of subject matter
they have been formed to be vested with having expertise in, and/or to draft proposals of their own.
This could help reduce the number of NC decisions, facilitate, ensure, and vet, the work of the states,
and the platcom, and give more "neutral", "factual", or well reasoned, solutions to conflicts,
depending on the processes we use for dealing with other diverse core issues.
The only committees currently asking for the right to submit proposals seems to be eco action and international,
these are also the only two that come to mind as being relevant to large sections of our platform
(though i could see Ballot Access, Campaigns, Diversity, GPAX, & PCSC, at least, having the ability,
and/or desire to fullfill such functions. Consideration of such reaffirms my increased willingness
to support committee submissions if they are reasonably limited to their own fields of concern).
Excluding the committees from work on the platform, heart and soul of the party,
begs the question then of what are committees for?
If a committee sees such responsibility as distracting from more important work,
then they must have the right to decide for themselves,
but we are not being efficient, democratic, nor wise,
if we leave only the current rules for the Platcom's standard committee right,
for one committee to request another committee to appoint an advisor,
as the only formally allowed direct link between committees and the Platform.
On the other hand, committees can always ask a state to submit for them,
maybe we first need to explore why this is not enough for some?
6) I believe Nan, and the rest of BRPP, have demonstrated enough concern with proper placement of changes,
sufficient flexibility with wording, deference to experience, and information, which the platcom has not yet achieved,
and plenty of concern with platcom's preferences, concerns, and needs,
to assure me that many of platcom members' worst fears are no longer important.
On the other hand, i hear a stated willingness, and actual desire, to wait for platcom's deliberations
to at least advise on the platcom side of the (the internal) process,
even while there is a definite push to get the NC's responsibilities and processes expedited as quickly as is feasible.
It is the BRPP's responsibility to ensure the NC is covered, not really ours, as some have said all along.
It is our responsibility to cover internal concerns, and the BRPP has expressed a reluctance to make it theirs,
as some have said before.
If we do not address internal concerns eventually, BRPP will feel they need to do so.
As i've intimated before, this is as i feel it must be.
I fully support Bruce's call for a working group to explore past, current, and future needs for Platcom process,
and how our process will dovetail in concert with the NC, and, soon, the PNC.
I volunteer for that committee, and am seeking some feedback from any who may be uncomfortable with that.
All is largely as it should be, in this delegate's arrogant opinion,
WIGP CC, GPUS NC Delegate