Avoiding Duplication of Efforts
In an attempt to avoid any duplication of efforts, what do you all see as the similarities and differences in the mission and core plans and goals (albeit proposed efforts in some cases) of the Right to Vape group and CASAA?
Was thinking that as I read through a couple of othe threads. I have a feeling that 2 or even 3 organisation will be better than one. As to their different foci, scope and modes of action, no immediate thoughts, but good to see this come up for consideration; it will probably need time to evolve ...
Let me toss out a ball of string...
Originally Posted by Webby
From what I see, there seem (IMHO) to be several organizations handling somewhat different activities, all with varying degrees of success. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. All have similar visions, but different strengths. We all want to change the world’s preconceived conceptions of e-cigs, but no one’s resources are unlimited, so let’s be realistic:
ECA (Suppliers) is strong in legislative issues and an active eye on Washington.
Right to Vape (Users) has heavy pro-activism roots (i.e.; Amicus Brief and other efforts) and an established forum member base.
CASAA (Users/Suppliers) is the new kid on the block, but we have different (and evolving) viewpoint, a very strong IT/PR/Marketing base and deep supply of networking/graphic design/IT resources.
Each group has their own strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I see no reason we can’t all share in research, resources and member base to work toward a common goal. Where we disagree, we simply disagree. But where we come together, we create a formidable force.
I had a very interesting phone conversation today with someone from another “camp”. It was enlightening and quite informative, although I could tell there were some core differences in our philosophies that made our core beliefs incompatible. No one was right or wrong; mind you – we just had different ways of seeing this battle fought.
It did make me realize, however, that our differences are not so great as to say were fighting on totally different fronts. After talking with several other people (on all sides of this big picture) it is my realization that we don’t have to fight every battle together, but where we DO come together we should fight alongside each other.
CASAA shouldn’t have to fight a war in Washington, ECA has that covered. ECA doesn’t need to coordinate grassroots efforts with user, that’s Right to Vape’s job. Neither Right to Vape nor ECA should waste time and resources designing a knowledge database CASAA is better equipped to build and run.
Not to say we don’t ALL build toward these goals, we just don’t each try to reinvent the wheel (to steal a phrase from a friend) and dilute our efforts trying to be the end-all, be-all for the e-cig community.
ECA and RtV, the olive branch is tossed. Individually, we have a lot to bring to the table in rallying the user community, although we may not agree on enough to incorporate under one umbrella. As a collective, with shared resources, we can do what none of us have been able to do separately.
What say ye?
Last edited by Webby; 09-16-2009 at 06:05 AM.
If we are a navy, say, then we are better as a (somewhat) coordinated team of submarines, tankers and speedboats that a committe deciding that either a tanker or a speedboat is best and having a fleet only of those.
I feel good that we are pretty close to an idea arrangement of forces.
And never forget the silent one by one 'resistance' movement that is every one of us as individuals spreading the word in our daily lives ...
Plus those who submit a comment on a news item, get on their local radio etc.
One last thing. I really hope that while we have forthright debate, we do try to understand the other side, particularly when it is a minority voice; we should try to maintain some openness of mind to keep our integrity. And not get personal. It;s usually more neneficial to ponder the thoughts of those who see things differently than the thoughts of those with whom you agree.
Last edited by kinabaloo; 09-16-2009 at 06:19 AM.
I am only one volunteer over at RtV, but I feel confident in saying that RtV would welcome the opportunity to work with other organizations to achieve common goals. In fact, our Mission Statement specifically recognizes our desire to work cooperatively with other organizations:
Right to Vape is an international volunteer organization aimed at initiating and supporting activism and education on behalf of those wishing to use personal vaporizers, including nicotine where desired, and to encourage scientific study, product safety and effectiveness. Right to Vape holds no national or political allegiances and aims to work with other organizations world-wide which share its goals.
Too be fair - here are the apples to compare it with -
Originally Posted by kinabaloo
The mission of the The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association is to inform, educate and promote and preserve the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective alternatives to smoking. It is an unbiased, non-profit organization dedicated to the advocacy of its members and their rights.
" aims to work with other organizations world-wide which share its goals."
Surly no difference in that.
I wonder though why CASAA would be getting into newbie FAQs for example. It is trying to do everything / too much. I have already put a lot of effort into building a FAQ, and some others, such as Soupourvapor, and the ECF will also be doing so. Then CASAA says it will do so too. There can be too much concentration of activities. I can understand ECF wanting to do this - though nothing happened when i pushed for it many months ago; and it's a different style to what I have done, so I don't care about it. My FAQ is open to anyone to edit and anyone can add articles. I don't get why CASAA wants to duplicate this effort by ECF, myself and others when you could simply link to them and concentrate on your key goals.
What starts out as an advocacy organisation is already becoming a monolith.
I only just saw the thread detailng these plans. I was feeling positive about CASAA as a campagning and public education group, but it seems to want to do everything.
Last edited by kinabaloo; 09-16-2009 at 07:29 AM.
There is no competition between organizations with similar goals, only different agendas to reach those said-same goals; especially in this field. Period.
Last edited by eric; 09-16-2009 at 07:28 AM.
I only just became aware that RtV is doing anything like this. I've now browsed the RtV site a bit to try to form a picture.
I does seem that the two groups have many similarities. And that there will be duplication of effort if both continue independently without finding a way to avoid duplication and/or to share resources.
Some differences I can see so far:
RtV wants no involvement by suppliers, not even as users. CASAA welcomes suppliers, relying on its mission statement, objectives, membership, and blocking of advertising to ensure that supplier concerns will be secondary to consumer concerns when there is a conflict. Due to the donation of effort by suppliers (thank you especially Webby!) CASAA may have better resources in specific areas.
RtV seems to be evolving from an e-cig user community site. It isn't clear whether they'll operate as an extension of that site or branch off. Their name suggests that they'll stay there as an extension of that community. CASAA will be starting from scratch with a new web site devoted to its goals, not to also becoming an e-cig community.
CASAA is at the moment evolving openly on these forums. RtV is not evolving in the public eye. So I can't tell how much progress RtV has made and can't compare its status to CASAA's. In visible developments CASAA would appear to be a bit further ahead - web site mockup and finalizing its objectives. In practice I suspect that RtV is further ahead. They've been at it longer and seem to have more active participants. But this is guesswork on my part.
I do hope that more RtV members will post here. They can see the state of both developments and hopefully will have thoughts about how the organizations can proceed most productively.