| LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/ |
|
| Do you want seperate state sections for Midwest? http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=41317 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | JJsTJ [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Do you want seperate state sections for Midwest? |
Please Vote for what sections you want most. Would like to see how many active folks are in each area and wanting their own section. |
|
| Author: | jeepfrog [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I voted "No". I don't think that that is the point of our discussions in the other thread http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/vie ... hp?t=41292. We're just trying to figure out practical ways of getting more folks active outside of the boards. As for a couple of suggestions for cleaning things up (mine included) - I just thought it was odd that Wisconsin, Iowa and Kentucky are "part" of two different regions. Vicki |
|
| Author: | overclocked [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ok voted no .. I think we still want a major overall umbrella thread to annouce open invites to meetings, rallies, etc. but I feel if we do subgroups in midwest that they should be subgroups by major metropoolitan areas....which the midwest region members can creat |
|
| Author: | callaway [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I voted no. I think you're reading what your want to read and not what we're trying to communicate to you guys... Check the first page of our discussion thread again... Dividing by state alone isn't really going to help matters - things need to be broken up by regions within a state. A guy in Carbondale is most likely not going to come to the Chicago area ( where most of the Illinois people seem to be ) for a monthly meeting. A guy in the upper part of Wisconsin is most likely not going to come to the Kenosha area for a monthly meeting. LOST Midwest - Northern Illinois or N. Illinois/S. Wisconsin - Southern Illinois - North Wisconsin - E/W Ohio - N/S Indiana and so on... Unless this is a precursor to breaking things up further I think this is a step in a sideways direction... |
|
| Author: | Inc [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So going more towards what overclocked said in the other thread then? By population/metro areas rather than states. |
|
| Author: | JJsTJ [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
only looking for info here folks. scrolling through pages of the same folks saying the same things over and over and the lurkers not saying anything isn't giving the big picture. at least in a poll people can vote and nobody knows who they are if they don't want anyone to know what they voted. If there is enough interest, we can add forum sections. If not, we won't no biggie. |
|
| Author: | callaway [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Inc wrote: So going more towards what overclocked said in the other thread then? By population/metro areas rather than states.
I think doing metro might narrow things down too much... splitting states N/S or E/W would be more practical imo |
|
| Author: | Inc [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
callaway wrote: Inc wrote: So going more towards what overclocked said in the other thread then? By population/metro areas rather than states. I think doing metro might narrow things down too much... splitting states N/S or E/W would be more practical imo Are there good boundaries to define where north begins and south ends and east vs west? Is so then cool, otherwise where exactly would these invisible boundaries be? I ask because I don't want a newb getting lost in the middle somewhere. |
|
| Author: | callaway [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
For Illinois I'd say 'North' could be considered from Peoria/Bloomington to the Wisconsin Border. Jeepmedic would be a better source for the Wisconsin division... Tom could provide a break for Ohio... Not too sure on the populations of other states... Maybe North and south of Indy? Maybe an East/West break to Missouri ? Iowa could be an East/West break? |
|
| Author: | Inc [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
callaway wrote: For Illinois I'd say 'North' could be considered from Peoria/Bloomington to the Wisconsin Border.
Jeepmedic would be a better source for the Wisconsin division... Tom could provide a break for Ohio... Not too sure on the populations of other states... Maybe North and south of Indy? Maybe an East/West break to Missouri ? Iowa could be an East/West break? I don't want to discourage the division for better organization but that is going to end up as a ton of different groups. All of these groups will need a leader right, so are there enough people for each group to fill those spots? Even if you broke down each state into rough E/W/S/N sections that is 28 groups. I know not all of the states in the Midwest section need 4 subgroups but even if the most active ones like OH and IL get 4 subsections each, that is 8 groups and are there 8 members willing and active enough to take on being a section leader? That is the rough part about such a massive collection of jeepers like we have here on LOST, it is hard to get together on a regular basis because of distance. So if you subdivide, the same people that were getting together are still getting together and people that weren't still aren't. LOST Rockies discussed this problem recently, and over in the NorCal section we are really spread out and getting together can be a nightmare of sorts but if we subdivided things into closer proximity the same people still get together and the same don't. |
|
| Author: | callaway [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Where'd you get breaking each state into 4 groups? Illinois would have 2 groups - N/S Ohio would have 2 groups - E/W Indiana could prob get away with 1 Wisconsin could prob have 1 group Misouria could have 1 Michigan could have 1 group Iowa could have 1 group or if you lived near another states group you could visit there... |
|
| Author: | Inc [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
callaway wrote: Where'd you get breaking each state into 4 groups?
Illinois would have 2 groups - N/S Ohio would have 2 groups - E/W Indiana could prob get away with 1 Wisconsin could prob have 1 group Misouria could have 1 Michigan could have 1 group Iowa could have 1 group or if you lived near another states group you could visit there... That is what I assumed because you mentioned north and south, then east and west before. I was looking for a more exact definition like what you just posted. So the next question is, are there 9 people active and willing to be leaders of these new groups? I am sure that IL and OH are but what about the other 5 states? Also I assumed it was always totally cool to intermingle with any chapter that is relatively close to you. |
|
| Author: | callaway [ Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I know of a few active people in indiana, michigan, and wisconsin... I probably do know folks from iowa and misourria but I'm drawing a blank... I don't think the roll call can be trusted to find active people... |
|
| Author: | Inc [ Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
callaway wrote: I know of a few active people in indiana, michigan, and wisconsin... I probably do know folks from iowa and misourria but I'm drawing a blank... I don't think the roll call can be trusted to find active people...
I agree about the roll call. So what this really boils down to is OH and IL wanted subgroups to facilitate ease of meeting planning, trail runs and other events. Since MI, WI and IN are in this LMW group but don't really have a lot of active members, what should we do about them? I mean, if we give the IL and OH guys 2 new divisions each in a subgroup, then most of the LMW activity will be centered in those sections and the ret will no doubt feel left out somewhat and the "general" activity, or activity in the larger LMW section will dwindle significantly would be my guess. Where is everyone else anyway? Not that I don't mind Callaway and I tossing ideas, but the more the better. I see some of you on here in the LMW section. Post up. |
|
| Author: | KJ kyle [ Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
i think if you devide IL, and OH into 2, and left MI as one, and indiana as one, thats 6 subchapters. and i would vounteer to head up MI, id imagine tom would take northern OH. we could always take another roll call, but i think we have a good idea of who the active midwest members are. |
|
| Author: | callaway [ Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
KJ kyle wrote: i think if you devide IL, and OH into 2, and left MI as one, and indiana as one, thats 6 subchapters. and i would vounteer to head up MI, id imagine tom would take northern OH.
At the moment I think illinois and ohio are the ones causing the most ruckus - Give us our changes, shut us up for a while, and see how it plays out for a few weeks. Do it as a trial run - if WI/MI/IA/IN/MO feel left out we can either try and incorporate them into one of the new regional sub chapters or try and work something out for that states needs |
|
| Author: | tommudd [ Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Inc...I am just watching and listening for now, continue on 
I will say as far as I am concerned Ohio doesn't really need to be two areas , heck last Saturday we had 2 from the east side of Ohio ( 90 plus miles away), one from the south,( around 90 miles again) as well as IN and IL. Also as more members get to be known in say Michigan, they can start building their sub groups, don't think it will shove anyone away at all |
|
| Author: | KJ kyle [ Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
i think people in the less active states like myself understand if you devide the state your going to have about 3 people at each meeting. |
|
| Author: | tommudd [ Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
KJ kyle wrote: i think people in the less active states like myself understand if you devide the state your going to have about 3 people at each meeting.
provide me with food and I will cross the state line 
|
|
| Author: | Inc [ Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
tommudd wrote: Inc...I am just watching and listening for now, continue on
I will say as far as I am concerned Ohio doesn't really need to be two areas , heck last Saturday we had 2 from the east side of Ohio ( 90 plus miles away), one from the south,( around 90 miles again) as well as IN and IL. Also as more members get to be known in say Michigan, they can start building their sub groups, don't think it will shove anyone away at all The more input on this the better. And about OH being 1 group, can't IL do the same thing? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|