My concerns were indeed mostly about us not necessarily having individual expertise, such as what I would think I would need in order for me to vote with confidence on a narrowing of our operations or focus. That said, @Galphar has since clarified for me that our voting and narrowing of legislative ideas doesn’t preclude continued development on ideas outside the narrowed scope. And I think I’ve gained a better understanding of how we’re narrowing with collaboration, rather than voting.
To summarize my understanding constructively, it seems our discussions for narrowing our legislative scope ideally should enable a shared understanding of which ideas could be focused on first and why, perhaps because how they are most passable, feasible, or something.
[Second half]:
For our consideration, rather than saying operation hope may collectively organize around a narrowed scope, perhaps we should clearly disentangle the parts of operation hope which broadly invites community members to work on legislative or otherwise political subject matters as they can, from other parts of operation hope which would benefit from the narrowed focus. This way, all the subjects continue development with our community working where they would best fit, while focused teams also prioritize from among those subjects for various stages of development and implementation.
(Perhaps that is actually already some of our intent. If we are to have both focused and general development, I would clearly distinguish the narrowing of ideas to not be for operation hope in general, as it had seemed to me, but instead some operational sub-set of our operation hope).
All the ideas would develop continuously, with both general and focused development operations. As ideas develop some would transition for more focused strategizing, implementation, etc. And some ideas may need teams to help identify and/or resolve roadblocks. Some groups could have various types of operations irrespective of specific subject developments, (ie: general groups for resources such as phone banking, video editing, researching, critical feedback, etc).
I would point out, should we follow this suggestion, we’d anticipate feedback between various aspects of operation hope. Because for example, the development of resources we can provide, the development of strategies available, the viability of legislative ideas, etc., is all interdependent.
So, in total summary, the first half of this comment is my understanding of what we are doing, and I’d appreciate any feedback on that. The second half of this comment is my thoughts on how we could maybe be doing things, and I’d greatly appreciate feedback on that.