Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.
|
Is this entire thread not a prompt to examine the feasibility of the district model in California? Pretty sure that's why Mike, Pauline, et al made the document. The most recent posts have been exploring venue locations, since that's one of the major challenges for the transition.
I see a lot of people from outside CA offering data, suggestions, and their own experiences with different venue layouts. It seems very gracious that people are offering help for a cause that they won't benefit from at all. These are mostly people who have seen the benefit of the district model, and want California to enjoy the same benefits. I can't imagine that any of them have some nefarious agenda that they're trying to push CA (or MN) into - just that they have seen and know that the district model can (and has) worked everywhere that it has been implemented, and that it has numerous advantages over the regional model.