Federation/Confederation/Council/Board/Academy - pick your one

[highlydubious]

I gave the subject more thought. Still I am not sure as to the benefits, but I can think of a way to make it happen.
It is possible, yet highly unlikely.

Comments

[nightface]

Intewesting, but unlikely, I agree. Giving up money to support other organizations and giving up a certain level of control seem to me like they would be the sticking points.

I would be happy to see something that reduced the sectarian fragmentation of Israeli fandom to a less agressive process.

[shiffer]

I think you misunderstand - any proposal of a confederation stands a zero chance of reducing fragmentation and politics. It *will* create more factionalism and inter-politicking.

[nightface]

But since more factionalism seems inevitable at this point in time, maybe this will reduce the friction and agression between groups, giving them all a framework to work together within, if they want one. I very much doubt this would happen, but the situation now ain't that great.

[highlydubious]

As I said, provided the financial issues raised above will be solved, there won't be a fundemental change from today. Each such group will have its own politics, but the parent association will have none, because it's composed of the heads of the small groups. Only difference is that in this situation (it being one legal association) everyone will have a vested interest to see the other succeed.

[avgboojie]

(1) As mentioned before, all existing associations will have to close down and move their infrastructure to the parent association.
Call me a pessimist, but... not a chance in hell.
I believe that any solution with a chance to work will have to at least BEGIN as something which lets the organizations maintain their independence.
Mind you, I'm not saying this is a bad idea. I can see the pluses. I just can't see it happening.

Also, the idea of forming the High Command with the heads of all organizations is, in my opinion, bad. Heads of organizations are not necessarily chosen for their ability to work well with others. The representatives of each organization should be people chosen particularly for this purpose.
Honestly, would YOU like to see Erez as the Society representative to the Powers That Be?

[highlydubious]

I agree, and I said it, that chances of that happening are slim to none, but not because of that. For most, the legal association behind the scenes doesn't matter much, each group will keep it's board and infrastructure, but legally it will be one association.

Even though I tried not to mention any names, Erez already functions (or at least functioned in my times as Starbase chairman) as the society's representative to all talks that had to do with finances or cooperations.

[avgboojie]

Erez was no more than an example. My point was that the reasons for which people choose chairmen are not necessarily the reasons for which they would choose liaisons for cooperation purposes.

[highlydubious]

Chairmen are responsible and have the best knowledge of the financial state of the association and future plans, and they have the "power" to make things happen. They are the top choice for being liasons...

[miketheman]

I actually like this idea.
Obviously, it needs polishing and needs to be presented in a manner that works with everyone's ego.
But the likelihood of it happening doesn't seem anywhere close to this universe.
I like the name "Grey Council". It fits.