Post date: Mar 13, 2019 7:2:15 PM

From: 'Bob McNally' via Executive Board - Current Members <execboard@folkproject.org>

Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2019 4:21 PM

To: Paul Fisher <paul.folk.fisher@gmail.com>

Cc: George Otto <g_otto@comcast.net>; bluesq5555 <bluesq55@gmail.com>; The Minstrel <Mike.Agranoff@folkproject.org>; <execboard@folkproject.org> <execboard@folkproject.org>; Steven Humphries <sh50984@gmail.com>; George Otto <GeorgeOtto@mac.com>

Subject: Re: Name change

Excellent job by the whole board!

1. Our responsiveness to a MUF problem is admirable and timely. Nothing communicates responsiveness better than prompt positive action to remedy a difficulty.

2. Societal recognition of racial injustice has increased, and if that’s a tide, it has flooded the name Minstrel. Too bad, so sad. Better to surf the wave than to be inundated by it, especially since it is a good tide and a late tide, and a tide we support.

3. Technically we could have announced the intention to change now, and appointed a committee to chew it over, and arrived at a new name in one or two months. The board started down that direction. After considerable debate, the board superseded that direction with a vote to accept “Folk Project Friday Concerts” rather than to push the decision and many competing suggestions down the road by a month or more. That vote passed by a clear and large majority.

4. Our brand is Folk Project. We probably should have named our Friday series the Folk Project Coffeehouse in the beginning, I suppose, (and shifted to “Concerts” as “coffeehouse” took on newer meanings). But we were in an era of quirky coffeehouse names and did not know the stature “The Folk Project” would build.

5. The new name:

a. Re-connects to our prime brand “Folk Project”

b. Maintains continuity with existing venue audience loyalty with the words “Friday Concerts”.

c. Differentiates with other FP venues (Open Stage, Special Concerts, Valentines Show, Birthday Show, Any Other Concert Series We Might Start, etc) by (again) “Friday Concerts.”

d. Eliminates our un-intentional association with a (now) tainted word.

e. Balanced Venue Autonomy with reasonable Board Oversight.

Pretty good design, considering “Folk Project” already takes up two words.

Yes there might be flashier, more clever, more poetic names possible than “Folk Project Friday Concerts”. However the enduring coffeehouse or concert names over time did not become great because of their names, they became great because of their style and presentations.

Bottom Line

Passim’s

Cafe Lena

Godfrey Daniels

Mine Street

Sanctuary Concerts

Outpost in the Burbs

There was nothing especially magic about the word “Minstrel”, the magic is US. The new name connects to us. Not bad to emerge from a rising tide with our reputation, audience base, and most valuable resource, US, intact!

Bob

From: Paul Fisher <paul.folk.fisher@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2019 7:07 PM

To: Bob McNally <bobmcnally@me.com>

Cc: George Otto <g_otto@comcast.net>; bluesq5555 <bluesq55@gmail.com>; The Minstrel <Mike.Agranoff@folkproject.org>; <execboard@folkproject.org> <execboard@folkproject.org>; Steven Humphries <sh50984@gmail.com>; George Otto <GeorgeOtto@mac.com>

Subject: Re: Name change

Well said!

Paul

From: Paul Fisher <paul.folk.fisher@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2019 7:09 PM

To: Bob McNally <bobmcnally@me.com>

Cc: George Otto <g_otto@comcast.net>; bluesq5555 <bluesq55@gmail.com>; The Minstrel <Mike.Agranoff@folkproject.org>; <execboard@folkproject.org> <execboard@folkproject.org>; Steven Humphries <sh50984@gmail.com>; George Otto <GeorgeOtto@mac.com>

Subject: Re: Name change

While the Folk Project is our main brand, most of the other names have been single focus concert venues.

The Folk Project does do more and in more locations but the change should not be painful.

Paul

From: The Minstrel <mike.agranoff@folkproject.org>

Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 9:36 AM

To: '<execboard@folkproject.org>' <execboard@FolkProject.org>

Subject: FW: Name change

BOB McNALLY: Our brand is Folk Project. We probably should have named our Friday series the Folk Project Coffeehouse in the beginning, I suppose, (and shifted to “Concerts” as “coffeehouse” took on newer meanings). But we were in an era of quirky coffeehouse names and did not know the stature “The Folk Project” would build.

I don’t know if this makes any difference, but from a historical standpoint, we chose the name “Miinstrel Coffeehouse before there was a Folk Project. At the time the group that ran it was still Project 21, which was an entirely different animal.

Mike Agranoff

Program Chair

The Minstrel Acoustic Concert Series

Morristown, NJ. USA

www.Minstrel.FolkProject.org

From: jcriemer@gmail.com <jcriemer@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2019 2:04 PM

To: 'Elly Faden' <elly.faden@folkproject.org>

Cc: '<execboard@folkproject.org>' <execboard@FolkProject.org>

Subject: RE: Name change.

I agree with those who've expressed the view that this isn't an emergency, although I appreciate that Mike wants to get on with it.

I had earlier suggested (to Mike) that it might be a good occasion to involve the membership. Maybe hold a contest for name suggestions. That might be sort of fun, and could also be another element in a larger rebranding campaign. He didn't see it that way, thinking it would just add complexity and additional contention.

In any case, if in the next newsletter we announce that we are changing the name (with George's caveat that it be clearly stated that we're not April fooling), that should deal with the immediate situation at MUF. If we take a month or two to settle on what the new name will be, that wouldn't be a big deal. We've tweaked it, but haven't made a real change in all my years with the organization. We want to get it right, because it will hopefully outlive many of us.

Chris

From: Allan Kugel <kugel@connect.rutgers.edu>

To: fullboard@folkproject.org <fullboard@folkproject.org>

Sent: Mon, Mar 11, 2019 1:32 pm

Subject: Concerning FP board process

Note: while this message makes reference to the current Minstrel naming discussion, its purpose is to discuss FP board process.

Dear Board,

I feel compelled to comment on some aspects of Tuesday's board discussion. This message has mostly to do with Board process and relative authority of committees, rather than the topic itself. In particular, I argue that we're making an important long-term decision way too fast (and that we should know better), and that a decision with such wide effects really does need a correspondingly wide discussion.

First, on our process. Last year, some months after an unusually significant but quickly decided board decision, several board members expressed the idea that any important board decision needed more than one meeting's consideration; that for anything big, the relevant decisions should be made at a meeting after the one where the issue was introduced and first discussed. This allows more time for board members to think of relevant aspects of the decision, for relevant background information to be found and considered, for absent board members to become aware of the issue and weigh in, and just more time for people to mull the issue over. Even when longer consideration would come to just the same conclusion, this extra consideration time should improve the implementation and followup coordination. I also suspect that the extra discussion time helps those who “lose” on an issue to at least feel like their concerns have gotten full consideration.

In this case, most of us had only seven days from when we first heard about this issue to the board meeting, and, (if the new name was really decided then) no time at all to figure out how comfortably that new name sits with us.

If we want to improve our process based on our past experience, we need to be willing to spend more calendar time to process this or any other such big decision.

Second, on who should be in on the renaming decision: At the meeting, the idea was put forward that this was a board-level issue only because the Getaway and Special Concerts committees were affected. I'm going to argue against that on a couple of different grounds.

1. After the “Minstrel” committee, the next most affected committee is going to be Publicity. Artwork, boilerplate, webpages, and other support all need to be changed to support this (or any other) name change. Publicity outlets/channels need to be informed so those can change their process. And we're giving up a well-know, prominent brand. So it's pretty major hit for at least one non-venue committee.

2. I don't think committee autonomy should be absolute anyway. I support substantial committee autonomy. That's because of all the hard work the committee members do, and “those who do the work should get the say.” But if other FP members do substantial work for general organizational support, haven't they earned some say as well? We should fight outside-committee micro-management of the myriad small and medium decisions that committees make. Their work should not be made unnecessarily annoying or painful. But for certain big, visible, and organization-impacting decisions, at least some wider discussion seems warranted and earned.

As a side note, the web committee (and particularly me) has just finished a huge and time critical project in November and December, I've been working on a large and annoying (but not so critical) project since then, and we've got a really huge web redesign project in the works. So we weren't looking for a sizable new project. The easiest way of handling the Minstrel re-branding on the FP website would be to make it part of that web redesign. But that would push the name-change roll-out into the six-month range, probably longer.

Without waiting for the redesign, this could still take significant time to implement on the FP website. I've spent more than a day trying to develop an estimate; my current estimate is that there's 1740 references to “Minstrel” in 220 files (not counting images), only some of which need to be changed. (this may miss references in the database or elsewhere). All of these need to be checked and either fixed or determined to be tolerable. And this definitely misses references to the Minstrel on external sites.

Given that this is likely to take some time anyway, and the sudden and unexpected workload it dumps on us, shouldn't the publicity team (and I) have the satisfaction of knowing that we're changing to the best new name the FP can come up with, and not just the first replacement name we'd be willing to tolerate?

But what I really want to get across is that there's a way of handling big decisions that should work better than how we've let ourselves do it, and that defining the decision makers too narrowly misses people who are critical to the success of such decisions and will need to do substantial work to make those happen.

Or, even shorter: big decision? Go wide, use time.

-AK

From: 'Nancy Kelner, Publicity Committee' via Fullboard - Current and some former board members <fullboard@folkproject.org>

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 4:27 PM

To: fullboard@folkproject.org

Subject: Re: Concerning FP board process

Haste makes waste. I agree that at a minimum, a motion should be made at one meeting and voted on at the next meeting at the earliest. Can remember, years ago, being asked to vote on adding Cafe Zion as a Folk Project activity at the same meeting where it was moved and wishing I'd had more time to think about it.

Strongly urge that we wait until January 2020 for the Minstrel name change. What's the rush? Start the new year with a new name. Personally, don't like the new name and would prefer Folk Project Acoustic Concerts. Using the word 'Friday' is not a good idea - some time in the future we may have to change the night and then we'd have to change the name again. A January start would take of once yearly, boilerplate postings (such as I do now for certain outlets).

Nancy K.

From: jcriemer@gmail.com <jcriemer@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 5:29 PM

To: fullboard@folkproject.org

Subject: RE: Concerning FP board process

(I believe Mike asked for this discussion to be restricted to execboard, but since I've seen fullboard show up in the most recent comments, I'm also speaking to the broader community.)

I've already made essentially the same point as Allan and Nancy. We can and should let MUF know that we've agreed to drop Minstrel. I believe there were some contrary opinions on that, but I sense they were in the minority. MUF will certainly not expect us to come up with a new name in ten business days. It's not an emergency.

In the consulting business, clients often want an outcome that is Good, Cheap and Fast. That works, but you only get to pick two. "Folk Project Friday Concerts" is the Fast result, and a number of people have objected to it for various reasons. Do we really want to move forward with a new name that's considered only so-so by at least some folks on our own board of directors? I think we could do better.

And did you hear? Esso's changing its name to Exxon!

Chris

From: The Minstrel <mike.agranoff@folkproject.org>

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 6:56 PM

To: fullboard@folkproject.org

Subject: RE: Concerning FP board process

When John informed me of the scope of the website changes, I was convinced that it would be a colossal effort that would only be in effect for the short time between the time the changes were made, and the time when the current website was abandoned in favor of new one. So that convinced me to change my mind and say I would be OK with introducing the new name with the new website, which John tells me could be as long as 6 months from now. And that would give us time to reconsider both way we made the decision and the name itself. My only concern about such a delay would be how MUF would feel about that.

If MUF could be patient, here’s what I propose: At the next regularly scheduled Board meeting let’s repeal the decision we made at the last meeting and start again. We should convene a special meeting, consisting only of those Board members who have a stake in this decision. (And Board members can decide for themselves if they have such a stake.) And the agenda for that meeting would be solely to decide on a new name. There won’t be the time pressure of the other Board business, and we could devote the time this decision deserves. Of course that decision would not be binding without a quorum. But that group could come to a consensus, that name could be proposed at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting and voted on officially.

(By the way, I never got Alan’s original email I only saw it in Chris’ reply to it.)

Mike Agranoff

Program Chair

The Minstrel Acoustic Concert Series

Morristown, NJ. USA

www.Minstrel.FolkProject.org

From: bluesq5555 <bluesq55@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 8:13 PM

To: FPboard <fullboard@folkproject.org>

Subject: Name change

Friends:

As VP, but more importantly as someone who's been around the Project for a while, I feel compelled to weigh in with my *very* strong opinion that the discussion concerning the name change should end. I'm well aware that people have serious and valid concerns, and that major decisions should be made slowly and deliberatively when that is possible. However:

The issue surfaced suddenly, and as the result of very strong feelings on the part of the MUF community. We needed to drop the Minstrel name quickly to show our understanding and good faith, and it just didn't, and doesn't, seem workable to drop a name for an ongoing series without adopting a new name at the same time.

Perhaps we could find a better name, and one that reflects everyone's concerns, after months of discussion. However, "Folk Project Friday Concerts" was adopted by the Board by a nearly unanimous vote, after a very wide-ranging and intense discussion and debate at a regular Board meeting. That's how the process is supposed to work. I'll also add that the major participants in the discussion were Mark and Mike, who I believe to be the people most directly involved in the issue; and, although Pam could not be at the meeting, her written statement was read before the vote was taken.

Again, we had to do this quickly, and we did it by the book. I think that the name that we chose will serve, and that ultimately people will either come or not come to the series because of the quality of the concerts. Incidentally, I think that people will come because the concerts are terrific and will continue to be.

Let's turn our eyes forward.

Jay

From: Elly Faden <elly.faden@folkproject.org>

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 10:15 PM

To: bluesq5555 <bluesq55@gmail.com>

Cc: FPboard <fullboard@folkproject.org>

Subject: Re: Name change

Yes. I second!! Moving on to rebranding is a good idea.

🌳 Elly

From: The Minstrel <mike.agranoff@folkproject.org>

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:24 AM

To: 'FPboard' <fullboard@folkproject.org>

Subject: RE: Name change

The vote was taken, to change the name to Folk Project Friday Concerts, but the schedule of when that change was to take effect was not specified. In order to put the name change into effect, the website must be updated. With John’s report on the amount of work it would take to change the website, only to abandon that website in favor of the new one, I am in favor of making the change effective with the introduction of the new website, provided that MUF would be OK with that.

And contrary to the opening statement in Jay’s proposed Newsletter article, I don’t think that any of us are really “happy to announce” the new name. It is something we were compelled to do by circumstances, and we’re doing it. Assuming MUF will accept the delay, I want to try to find a name that we can truly be happy with. (Or at least happier.) As I said, I will be absent from the April meeting. But I will by proxy have someone introduce a motion to repeal the decision we made last meeting, and convene an ad hoc committee to find a better one, now that we have the time to deliberate it.

Mike Agranoff

Program Chair

The Minstrel Acoustic Concert Series

Morristown, NJ. USA

From: markschaffer100@gmail.com <markschaffer100@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 11:00 AM

To: Mike.Agranoff@folkproject.org

Cc: FPboard <fullboard@folkproject.org>

Subject: Re: Name change

Good plan.

Mark

From: Patricia Brangs <pbrangs18@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:32 AM

To: The Minstrel <Mike.Agranoff@FolkProject.org>

Cc: FPboard <fullboard@folkproject.org>

Subject: Re: Name change

It certainly doesn’t make sense to make massive changes to our website, only to have to do it all over again. And given that we would have more time, it also makes sense to use it to choose a name with which we are happier.

Pat

From: Paul Fisher <paul.folk.fisher@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:38 AM

To: Patricia Brangs <pbrangs18@gmail.com>

Cc: The Minstrel <mike.agranoff@folkproject.org>; Folk Project <fullboard@folkproject.org>

Subject: Re: Name change

I think a 6 to 9 month delay is unacceptable. We can change the primary web pages, most publicity outlets and signs and literature in a much shorter time and that would fit with what has been promised to MUF.

More later.

Paul

From: 'John Lamb' via Fullboard - Current and some former board members <fullboard@folkproject.org>

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 11:26 AM

To: Mike.Agranoff@FolkProject.org; fullboard@folkproject.org

Subject: Re: Name change

Although not a board member, as your Webmaster I would like to state my full support for Mike's latest plan of action.

It would be ideal if we can synchronize the debut of the new website with the name change. I realize that may not be possible, particularly since I cannot yet promise a completion date for the new site. Should it become necessary for The Folk Project to demonstrate our good will, I believe we can make changes to the most visited pages of the current website with perhaps eight to ten hours of work. We can also add a page explaining the rationale behind the change and stating that work is ongoing to expunge the word Minstrel from the remainder of the site.

What I would really like to avoid is having to change the name more than once, so I don't want to start any of this work until receiving the report from Mike's proposed ad hoc committee, in which I hope to participate.

John Lamb

From: George Otto <g_otto@comcast.net>

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:05 AM

To: FPboard <fullboard@folkproject.org>

Cc: George Otto <GeorgeOtto@mac.com>; bluesq55@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Name change

To all,

I'm sorry not to have been at the last board meeting, but I was involved with a prior commitment.

As many old-time board members may recall, I have often acted in the past as a sort of break when issues have come before the board with a rush to "get something decided at once," asking instead that time to given to reflect on the full consequences of a decision we might make. Without naming names, I think we can all recall a couple of decisions the board made in the past that, in retrospect, we should not have made because of problems that emerged after the fact, problems we could have anticipated with a little more thought.

That being said, I think the amount of discussion about the name change of the Minstrel since the board meeting would indicate a certain dissatisfaction with the decision voted on at that meeting. While things were done "by the book," it turns out the book provides means for reversing decisions if need be as well as making them.

Keep in mind that meeting rules, such as Roberts Rules of Order, have as their goal helping an organization determine the will of the majority in a reasonably efficient manner without infringing on the rights of the minority. If the will of the majority changes, an organization should have the right to alter its rules accordingly.

In parliamentary procedure, the act of unmaking a motion is called rescinding. The rules allow for a previously passed motion to be rescinded by a 2/3 vote. Why make rescinding more difficult than passing the original motion? To avoid the trap of having two evenly matched factions go back and forth in meeting after meeting, making and unmaking the same motion based on one-vote majorities at alternate gatherings. The idea is that rescinding should only be done if the board "really means it," hence the 2/3 vote. It makes it much more difficult for two factions to keep reversing each other time after time.

One of the stated goals for making a rapid decision about this matter was to assure MUF that we took their concerns seriously and wanted to be responsive. However, it is also clear that implementing a name change for the Minstrel is going to take some time and planning before it can be done, perhaps over several months. Reporting back to MUF about the seriousness of our current discussion should take care of the first goal without needing to commit ourselves to a specific new name just yet. I think we have time to get this name change right and should take the time to choose a name that we can all buy into. I don't like the idea of choosing a name that is just "good enough." We are better than that.

As Mark Twain observed, the difference between the right word and one that is just good enough is the same as the difference between lightening and a lightening bug.

George Otto

Folk Project Newsletter Editor

newsletter@folkproject.org

From: 'Bob McNally' via Fullboard - Current and some former board members <fullboard@folkproject.org>

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 11:28 AM

To: George Otto <g_otto@comcast.net>

Cc: FPboard <fullboard@folkproject.org>; George Otto <GeorgeOtto@mac.com>; bluesq55@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Name change

Name Analysis:

The design constraints were:

Reasonably prompt action called for,

Be responsive to our hosts

Let go of a name that became unfortunately tainted,

Use our brand recognition,

Maintain what continuity we could,

Avoid confusion with other events of ours,

Be as concise a name as possible.

Get a strong majority to agree.

Poetic would be nice.

We hit 8 out of 9.

The discussion by the board, prior to voting included several suggestions of deferring the choice of a specific name, of forming a committee, even discussion of who would be on that committee. A lot of possible names were suggested, and one thing emerged for sure; names are like Ice-cream flavors; everybody has their own favorite and there are at least 25 favorites.

The near-unanimous vote of the board reflected the clear consensus that “Folk Project” be part of the name. It became clear that a qualifier word was needed to differentiate from Special Concerts and Open Stage etc,) “Friday” was chosen.

Concerts is the event type (not a dance, not a party, not a jam, etc).

So we have Folk Project (qualifier)(event type) as the name structure.

The word Coffeehouse used to be a better event type word than Concerts, because it connotes a warm friendly gathering with interactive opportunity, (in the way that “Pub” does). Unfortunately, Coffeehouse has been diluted by shops that sell coffee. “Concerts” seems more formal and more passive. But a better word has not emerged (gathering, party, shindig, happening, get-together, Cabaret, club, joint, dive, nope nope nope).

A poetic Brand name (such as “Flowing Waters”, “Mountainside”, “Inspiration”, “Good Time”, “Warm Fuzzy” etc) is an attractive strategy, but has zero already existing brand-recognition.

A poetic word as qualifier, attached to “Folk Project” (say, “Folk Project Rainbow Concerts”)

does not maintain continuity with whatever brand recognition ”Minstrel” may have held. “Friday” was recognized as a very good qualifier because it salvages some brand continuity from previous name (even though not poetic).

If we were starting our organization, and our Friday concert series from scratch, we might find “better” names for both. We might even get 21 people to agree on those names. But for good or ill, “Folk Project” has meaning, recognition, and even stature (who’d a thunk it?). Our special brand of music, fun, community is poetry in action.

8 1/2 out of 9 ain’t bad...

Bob