Yes - CNP and SWNP have merged! You can see the announcement thread here. The announcement thread has been locked (it's posted simultaneously on SWNP) so that we can have all discussion here in this one thread.
Guys I think this is a great Idea, while I dont travel much, I know several who do. I'm not sure if you all are taking naming suggestions yet, but the name needs to start with A or B. Why you may ask, so I dont have to scroll down the menu of course.
How about RMNP for a name? Rocky Mountain Nature photographers which really can Cover from Canada Eh to Mexico and West to the Sierras! Iknow I know RMNP can also mean Rocky Mountain National Park but I didn'teve think of it that way first! Seriously! LOL Ok I did. I remember way back in the day both groups worked under CNP but I think maybe the time for a Name change could be in order. Not like the member list wil change at all!
Todd, you can blame it on Brent D.
He posted his upcoming trip on both forums and this is the result
James, RMNP is the obvious choice. But, if the park sues us, how about "Cordilleran Nature Photographers"? We keep CNP and I don't need to buy a new bumper sticker. (Cordillera = mountainous western section of North America)
Or, how about "eCNP" - (extended Colorado Nature Photographers) ????
We don't merge, we assimilate !!
I'm with Todd. I really like the idea of just a Colorado forum, but this new change is probably a great reflection of the interests of many who actively participate at CNP/SWNP. This group ought to really get big now!! Hey, more great photos within one forum can't be bad. I don't spend a lot of time photographing outside the state, so the new images, perspectives and discussions will be refreshing.
RMNP sure wouldn't be a very distinct vehicle sticker! I like Mountain West NP, but that conflicts with the Midwest group (MWNP). Rocky Mountain Southwest Nature Photographers. This could hurt my brain. Good luck.
I'm just finishing a ten week road trip that took in all the states in question plus California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. I've got to say that based upon geography your idea makes sense with the possible addition of Nevada to the list. CA/OR/WA are distinctly different, but from the Great Basin to the Graet Plain and from the northern Rockies to the Hatchet Mountains in New Mexico (furthest south distribution of rocky mountain bighorns) I already think of it as one big region.
An idle thought for the marketers to chew on: It seemed like everywhere I went in the deserts and mountains I kept passing signs saying "Continental Divide."
Not that I have anything against beating up Mr. Doerzman ... but, this wasn't his doing.
Here are my thoughts - not as a moderator, but as a CNPer. I don't disagree with anything stated so far. My initial reaction wasn't much different - I'm not personally attached to much, but I do have a personal attachment to the people that make up CNP. To some extent I'm attached to the cozy concept of CNP itself, but the lion's share of my personal enjoyment from this experience has much more to do with the people than the name or the concept. Shaking up that nice comfortable and familiar world honestly didn't hold strong appeal at first.
But as I was thinking about what I might be 'giving up', I also reflected on the fact that my richest experiences with CNP have all had to do with the personal interactions - bantering back & forth here; getting out hiking, backpacking and shooting with people, or getting together at the shindigs. And none of that has to change.
In my mind, if I look at the inclusion of others - and it's a rather small group of people at this time - who share such similar interests and who we know from personal experience are great folks to hang with...if I look at that and see only the downside, then I lose.
And, at the risk of sounding pejorative - which I'm absolutely not trying to be - it's worth noting that the opportunity that we currently have to display our work at Great Sand Dunes NPP was brought about by Adam from SWNP.... The only reason I bring this up is to make the point that what may be seen as "change" has already been going on...and we've been all for it.
I'd suggest MWNP - Mountain West Nature Photographers. (Oops. I just saw Jesse's post. I'm not worried about being confused with the midwest group, especially if we have our own logo, so I'm sticking with MWNP.)
Rick, I've got to say that your announcement is one of the best pieces of writing I've seen in a long time. As our (American) communication skills continue to deteriorate it is tremendously refreshing to read something written in such a clear, concise and effective manner. You get an A+ and a gold star for your homework.
With regard to the merger and addition, I think it's a fine idea but I'm keeping my CNP bumper sticker even after the change.
I don't think this was covered above, but wasn't it not that long ago that SWNP was a group that broke away from CNP (or whatever it used to be) to start their own group?
I agree with CAZ and Jesse in the name Mountain West Nature Photogs. I think it captures the idea of both the mountains and western landscapes that our region is known for. Maybe our logo could capture something of a mix of red rock cliffs with green mountains.
Wow, one cross post between forums, and I get creamed!!! Sheesh!!
Well, like many others, I have mixed feelings! From one standpoint, I don't want to see the CNP moniker go away. I've literally been here since the very beginning, and it's played big part fro me in the last few years. Listen to me, I sound like I'm delivering a eulogy! On the other hand, I totally welcome the folks from SWNP and beyond into the fold, even though most technically already are.
Of course the biggest issue will be the name. I have a few ideas, none that great, but here goes:
I really think this is the one: CNMAUWIMNP -- ColoradoNewMexicoArizonaUtahWyomingIdahoMontana Nature Photographers!!!
Maybe not?
OK, a little more seriously:
RMP-- Rockies Nature Photographers
RRNP-- Rockies Region Nature Photographers
RMRNP -- Rocky Mountain Nature Photographers (a bit unwieldy in my opinion though)
RMSNP -- Rocky Mountain States Nature Photographers (again, a bit long)
I don't know, just random ideas!
Of course the biggest question of all is this. What the heck and I gonna do with the CNP stickers I have left over!?!?!?
Oh, and Darren, don't worry, I AM in fact going to "Leave town now while you still can" HA!
wasn't it not that long ago that SWNP was a group that broke away from CNP (or whatever it used to be) to start their own group?
.
I don't recall the specifics - someone else may be able to help. SWNP didn't break away from CNP. I think the deal was that there was interest in having the southwestern states represented in a forum, and one approach was expanding CNP to acccommodate . The consensus was that CNP should stand on it's own, and so SWNP formed a separate group. The challenge is creating a critical mass of members to make it successful. It's clear that its not going to happen soon.
Who knows if CNMAUWIMNP will exist forever - probably not. If we're successful at what we're doing, at some point the membership should grow to the extent that smaller regional groups can survive on their own - ala the NPN model that spawned these groups.
It is interesting to me that this merge is happening. I just started posting to SWNP but have begun viewing threads at CNP because my husband and I are contemplating a roadtrip to Colorado this summer. Obviously I have no emotional reaction to the merge, I'm too new. But it seems okay to me. Living in Tucson, I'm kinda far from my fellow SWNP's anyway, so getting together with anyone to shoot would be an undertaking, whether they hail from Utah or Colorado.
Ideas for names:
Wild West Nature Photographers
Frontier West Nature Photographers
Mountain States Nature Photographers
Colorado Plateau Nature Photographers
I'm glad to see people aren't taking this news too hard . . . Except Todd. But you could probably expect him to be a troublemaker no matter what we did.
Like other CNPers, I've grown attached to the CNP name and to the community we've built here. And while I know we have a very active Colorado-based community, we Coloradans often post information and photos from around the region. And many folks from outside of Colorado visit CNP often for information, advice, or just to participate. Like it or not, CNP has really maintained its status as a regional group, even after SWNP was formed. When SWNP was created a while back, it was expected that it would end up being nearly as active as CNP, but that growth has just not happened, and SWNPers still spend much of their time on CNP.
CNP has also been known to have participants from Wyoming, often has photographs or trip reports from Wyoming, and occassionally even plans backpacking trips up there.
As I said, like it or not, CNP is a regional forum, so the name change only makes sense. This should only help strengthen our identity as a regional group, and create a more active community. While I enjoy my participation in CNP, I'm sure CNMAUWIMNP will be even better.
Well said Brent, I agree that CNP is more of a regional forum. Even after the creation of SWNP many people continued to use CNP to ask questions and give advice about Arizona, Utah, and Colorado which unfortunately has made it difficult to build SWNP. A side effect of this has been that SWNP did not become the resource it could have been to new members who would come to the site and see a lack of activity and information. With the merger and the expansion of the group I think we are shaping ourselves to become the place on the web for western landscape photography.
I'm a little sad to lose the CNP identity, but I do support this move as it will help to meet a real need in the western region. Perhaps in the future when these other places are strong enough we can go back to being CNP. Since there are some folks who aren't too happy about the change, we could call it CDP the "Continental Divided Photographers".
Bad news though, I just discovered that CNMAUWIMNP is already being used by the Canadian Norwegian Moroccan Australian Ugandan Wallis-et-Futunan Indonesian Myanmar (formerly Burma for you Seinfeld fans...) Nature Photographers. We either rearrange a couple of states in our moniker, or wait for Myanmar to change its name again.
Growing up, one thing I have come to understand and reluctantly accept, is that things change, no matter how comfortable it may be to keep things as they are. The sad part however is that CNP has in many ways become a model for the rest of the groups through the way we uniquely work together. I know of no other Group that has put together as many Group displays as CNP even if one was put together by someone who is a member of another group too!
I lurk a lot on the SWNP site and like everyone there, yet there's something to be said for having a Group wheree the majority of it's members are all from the same state and get together as often as we all try to do.
I know it is a challenge to start something new and to draw the audience in and i know that the SWNP group has not seen the traffic that CNP has, but maybe it's impatience. CNP wasn't an over night success, It took time and a little potty training of our resident trouble maker (just kidding Todd!) to make CNP a success. I know I spend a great deal of time recruiting new members by word of mouth! I meet a shooter I don't know and I invite them to the group! Sorta like finding a stray dog for me. So I ask, do we as a majority group in Colorado need to change the name of the group? Nope, do we as a majority want to? that remains to be said yet.
So I guess we should take a blinde vote poll? I dunno, but sentimentally my vote is no, yet I also think the inclusiveness nature of this group can go beyond the borders of Colorado to New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, Idaho and MANYBE Kansas and Nebraska. Nahh it'll never work! Those people from Montana are too spooky for me! LOL
If i were to vote today I would say that SWNP group should remain SWNP and CNP remain CNP and we just get along that way. I would suggest however a little heavier recruitment on the part of SWNP. It doesn't take much just to invite someone even over the net while browsing about to see what's out there. Just drop an email saying, hey i like your photography and website, why not join a group of fellow photographers who try to gather and share the passion of the outdoors and photography! Not to mention a few beers here and there!
Ummmm....I don't think that will work. Obviously we need to change the name. Sticking with CNP is not an option. Despite the fact that a bunch of people in that survey we recently chuckled about didn't know that Delicate Arch is in Utah, I suspect that even that crowd would recognize that Utah in not in Colorado.
Good idea, this merging of CNP and SWNP! Since the Rocky Mountains touch all of the states involved, I concur with those suggesting Rocky Mountain Nature Photographers, RMNP, and to hell with any conflicts.
Unfortunately I am not in support of this idea, it appears that this is a done deal though. Call it what you like, it will always be CNP to me. ........................J
By the way.... Who's idea was it? Was it a group measure? I mean early on, it has always been told that we as a group dictate or at least have some say in what happens to the group right?
I am not prone to mutiny in any fashion, but being that CNP is a part of NPN and if someone were to go and restart CNP after the merge, there would still be a CNP.
Obviously this was not put to the group as a whole to ponder and while the statement of Most of us travel to and fro as ythe reason for a merger, I just don't buy it. Frankly at first I was rather jokingly about it , now... I'm getting frustrated with the whole thing. Once the merger goes through, who is stopping someone from reforming a new CNP? As far as I know, it's up to Jim on that seeing he owns NPN who owns all the groups really.
I dunno.. the more I think about it the more upset I get.
How about WCUWTSI. (Who came up with this silly idea?)
or CNPRIP.
I think the reason this idea is so intriguing to some of my fellow CNPers is that you enjoy going to states like Utah and Arizona to shoot (as do I), you've made friends in those places, and you want it all to be one big club. I still think Colorado deserves its own forum. Put it to a vote.
If California and Florida can have their own Group and not be totally gobbled up by groups spread thinly around them, then CNP should also remain as it is and anyone who wants to Start a "Regionally Non-Overly-Specific Group" Should do so and leave the Colorado group to those who want to keep it just as it is.
Harry Truman once said, " It It Ain't Broke, Don't... It" Well you can fill in the blank!
I joined CNP because I didn't live in any other state at the time and was proud to be a part of a group with my Home State's Name in it! The Same Group held in high regard at the State Capital of Colorado, Not the Non-Specific-Non-Descript Capital of a region.
Im not saying that Any other State sucks, I just am attached to the idea of a Colorado Group and leaving it alone! I think i've only been this upset one other time on here and flamed remarks one other time, but that was nothing compared to this move!
I just realized that even though I wasn't the founder of CNP or even one of the first 10 members of CNP, I was One of the first 570th contributing members of NPN.
I'm sorry, but I'm not budging on this. I stand by my dicontent over this. I don't have a problem with working with others outside of Colorado, I have a problem of CNP not being CNP anymore. If you want to form another group, do so and be happy, but leave the CNP group to those who want to keep it as is and let us work out any issues that need to be worked out.
I have so far refrained from posting, but I guess it's time to let everyone know my thoughts...
FWIW, I did found CNP and I put in many, many hours building the CNP community. And I believe the merging and expansion of CNP and SWNP can be a good thing.
The change and growth of a successful entity like CNP is inevitable. It's how we react to the changes that ensures the continued success of the community. We can never go back to those days of a group of 20. Changing the CNP name or the area it encompasses doesn't bother me, because the success of the group does not depend on either. It's the people, the community atmosphere and the content contributed that make CNP a success.
I think maybe the time for a Name change could be in order. Not like the member list wil change at all!
to this:
I have a problem of CNP not being CNP anymore.
Within 24 hours.
Not only are you not being consistent, but I don't see any argument to support this transition.
Though I haven't done the math, just digging throught he archives, I think the percentage of topics that are not unique to Colorado (i.e. generic questions or discussion involving neighboring states) is relatively high and the group could only stand to benefit from consolidating.
You can ask any number of native Coloradans here who askedn me on and off line for information on travel to Utah. Not only am I happy to help and build stronger relationships, but I think this same exchange can also occur in a larger group and benefit others in the process. I just can't see how you can claim this is a bad thing.
This has nothing to do with us against them mentality. Like I said in my last post, I wasn't taking it very seriously at first and then when i got to thinking about it, i realized that CNP was unique and for many of us (some just have yet to speak up) it is something we don't want to loose. I see no Need to merge or change the name. I feel if someone wants to go to another group, they should do so without forcing others to do the same.
I joined CNP not any other group as my main group, but I also participate in the NWNP group, The NENP Group and other groups if i plan to travel to those locations. I even went to the Florida group once for the same reason. So does that mean that we should also merge with them? NO! In reality we all are already merged through NPN, but regional groups were formed for whatever reasons they did and over time they developed a personality that encompassed the membership. Their entire membership not just a few members.
To change a group for the last set of reasons you propose is bewildering at best.
hey fellas... i haven't checked-in in quite a while and look what i've been missing
take all of what follows as the inputs from an outsider. i am not native, but rather one of the CNP adopted sons - i guess they were desperate for head count when i first showed up! i am also one of the personalities that floats between various communities on the NPN network, and in doing so, noticed long before this thought was even a discussion, that a lot of the folks that i enjoyed communicating with here were also participating over at SWNP. I said a lot of folks, not all of the folks, which meant that if one was seeking information on a trip through Colorado and Utah, they had to post twice to ensure 'complete coverage', which always seemed rather unnecessary. it's kinda like when my wife goes shopping at one of those 'food-snob' grocers, we have central market (aka sinful markup) here in texas, and then has to run through albertsons on the way home to buy garbage bags and toilet paper. the produce at sinful markup is good, but is it really worth having to do our grocery shopping in two separate stores? is it christine? IS IT??? but i digress.
the reality is that we would all be checking in here regardless of what the banner at the top of the forum read... i don't come here because i like how the letters CNP look when taken together. i come here for you guys - and that's not going to change with our group name. some playwright a while back said something about that... something about the odoriferous emanations from a rose
why would anyone think what makes this group great would change simply through an expansion of the scope of the group? there's already a fairly high level of spill-over between the groups... merging the two will just result in the inclusion of all the wise inputs from the few that choose to only monitor one forum presently, and i don't think there's one amoung us that will argue against the benefit of expanding the resources and contacts we have here. james, i know there are some folks over at SWNP that could benefit from all your knowledge, and likewise, i'm certain there are folks over there that you would gain from communicating with.
as the guy that designed the logo for all the CNP swag, i'm not thrilled with my work being obsoleted, but am fully on-board for this change none-the-less
just my 2 cents, worth about what you paid for it.
To change a group for the last set of reasons you propose is bewildering at best.
Here's what's bewildering to me (and no disrespect intended) - you acknowledge that the membership will not change (if anything it will grow), that the discussion topics will not change (if anything there will be better sources of information on the group) and the one thing you're going to bat for is an acronym?
In my own pro/con analysis this just doesn't balance out.
I responded to an email from Jim Egbert that I am watching this thread and will do all I can to address all concerns. I am working on some ideas now. The idea behind this merge is to unify, not fracture. I see no reason why all concerns cannot be addressed and a consensus reached if everyone offers their thoughts and concerns in a constructive, non-divisive manner.
I think there is a lot of merit to the idea of a merge and when asked about my thoughts on the idea, I offered my support. At the same time, the Colorado Nature Photographers group has made a name for itself. One idea I have offered is to have CNP remain as a state group within a new, larger regional chapter forum.
IMO, the concerns raised in this thread should be easy to address.
Posted by Doug Andrews on May 20, 2006 at 11:32 AM
"Changing the CNP name or the area it encompasses doesn't bother me, because the success of the group does not depend on either. It's the people, the community atmosphere and the content contributed that make CNP a success."
I agree with Scott's thoughts on this change. I do understand those who don't want to change. We have a special group here and it is nice to be able to say one is apart of that. But I don't think of myself as just a Colorado Nature Photographer, but a nature photographer who lives in Colorado and specializes in the entire region that the proposed change will cover. For me this will be a welcome change as I look forward to the added people and content it will bring. Hopefully it will also make me a better photographer as well.
Like Scott, I have refrained from posting my thoughts on the CNP/SWNP merger. Perhaps now is a good time for me to share my ideas on the topic.
As Scott noted, the members are what makes this group special. By expanding our reach to include SWNP and our neighbors to the north we only stand to benefit from the participation of these new members. Yes, losing the CNP identity is an emotional change and certainly one that I, as the other founding member, am a little sad to see happening. But this emotional reaction is vastly outweighed by the potential I see in the new group.
I, for one, am 100% behind the idea of merging the groups and am confident that it will be a positive change for this community.
My point being this if it such a hassle to gather information about a particular place by posting in two different groups with different flavors, why not abolish all the regional grpoups and go back to the days of JUST NPN? I mean if I were coming from outside the US I would have to post in several places to get info right? Let's just go back to the one size fits all and forget about it.
Note the hint os scarcasm in my tone.
Let's do away with California and Florida's groups too! I'm sure the members of those groups wouldn't mind the merger right?
Hey, I think it sucks - losing the longstanding CNP identity/format. It's a knee jerk reaction really. But like anything that has a good thing going, it's going to grow and evolve. I'll get over it very quickly. It's a forum. The "real life" part of this place, interacting with people away from the net, won't change. I've made many friends here, and likely will continue to do so, despite the geographical coverage or acronym. The nature of this group has been changing constantly ever since I came along, and I expect to see these types of evolutions. I certainly don't feel that the normal posting habits will get lost in this new format. There's hardly more than several new topics per day on this forum, let alone SWNP's. This might be an issue if there were already dozens of topics per day, but that isn't the case here. Like I said, I'll keep coming here to observe what other photographers are talking about and shooting. If they live near the Canadian border, I could care less. We already have people from all over the country participating here. If they decide to talk about Montana, I'm sure the Colorado topics aren't going be tainted or lost. For me, I care more about meeting new people, networking and contributing a few images ... under this particular format. I really don't see how the new merger can literally hurt this NPN experience. Sure, this was quite a shock the way it was handled. But I'm sure the traffic numbers prove that, even considering the existing merger, this is a heavily Colorado-oriented group. I don't expect that to change. If it does, and it actually becomes a "problem", I'm sure there will be other options to enjoy in the future. I suggest we all just let the new change play out, and then revolt if it simply doesn't work. If we had a vote, the exact same discussion and dissent would still be going on - this is probably just a faster "recovery" time. It's done. Now, off to do something really important - photograph!
I gotta say, the funniest tidbit from all this is from Bret's post just above: "I, for one, am 100% behind the idea of merging the groups..."
Dude, didn't you just move to Utah? Of course you'd be 100% for it!
I guess this change is happening whether I like it or not, so here's my postscript. What I don't like about this is losing the CNP identity. I remember running into Tom Mangan at the Rock Cut when Jerry and I were up there one evening. He told me I should check out this nice little conglomeration of Colorado photographers. I still remember almost everyone's name from our first fall gathering, and for me, who never heard a name he couldn't instantly forget, that's saying something! CNP was a perfect autonomous group. It's not like I don't want to associate with Guy and Adam and other SWNP members, many of whom are artistic heroes of mine. It's just that this merger dilutes what I thought was a perfectly defined group.
Oddly enough, I also liked SWNP being a separate entity, so I felt like I was leaving Colorado and going somewhere exotic whenever I surfed over to that forum.
Your last post was neither constructive nor insightful. It's one thing to have an opinion but quite another to waste forum space with sarcastic comments that do nothing to further the cause. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the discussion at hand.
Todd:
I knew someone would call me on the UT move! I'm glad it was you.
Wow this sure has gotten heated! My vote is with Jim's idea:
..One idea I have offered is to have CNP remain as a state group within a new, larger regional chapter forum.
Still using CNP (or a modified form) within a larger entity will diffuse much of this debate. Here's my name for the new, larger, forum, "Inner Mountain West Regional Forum" (IMWRF) or just (IMW)
What bothers people about scarcasm is the truth that is within it. I guess I am making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to it. But like Todd said there was something very nice about each group having its own wonderful flavor. There was just enough difference, but I guess if some people felt left out of the functions in Colorado, I can understand it. I was NEVER aginst anyone posting images from outside of Colorado. That would be totally obsurd and I would remove myself from the group for even thinking that.
What I find disturbing was how the choice was made and the way it was handled amoungst a few. I understand one was the Local Forum Founder and another the Webmaster, and likewise with the other group, butthere are others involved who liked things as they were. In I never saw any complaints from within the group that said we were too small or too exclusive. I don't think we were ever exclusive at all.
Anyway, it seems that the powers that be have spoken and like it or not it, will happen. If over time I feel I don't fit in, I will move on. I was just voicing my frustration of being a member of something like others,and not even being asked what I felt about it formally. Both Todd, Jesse and actually others I have talked to privatelyand they have expressed the same thoughts to me.
One thing I cannot be knocked for is speaking truth about my feelings and even if in a tone some may not like. funny I watched the BIOGRAPHY on Simon Cowell last night.
I apologize for hurting anyone's feelings and like one other time here on CNP, I am humbled by the fact that maybe the harsh tome of my choice of words did that.
Well, how things can change in 24 hours! Just finished reading all the posts to this point and while I can sympathize with both viewpoints, I'd be sorry to see the CNP logo "go away". Shoot - I just applied the sticker to my window a couple months ago! Maybe Jim's idea of a sub-group within SWNP has some merit.
There was just enough difference, but I guess if some people felt left out of the functions in Colorado, I can understand it
I rather suspect this move has absolutely zero to do with this statement. I've felt entirely included in every event CNP has ever promoted. Every CNP'er I've talked to has been open and friendly to me. I think of myself as CNP’er as much as SWNPer. I think this has more to do with the reality that CNP really already is SWNP. Most all SWNP'ers started in CNP and regularly visit CNP. Truthfully, almost as much meaningful discussion of the Southwest has occurred on CNP as on SWNP. I think this move is just recognition of that reality, rather than some outcry by disgruntled non-Coloradoans set on destroying CNP's identity.
Newsflash: CNP has been, and always will be more than just Coloradoans. As pointed, your logo comes from a Texan, one of your photo contests was arranged with the hard work of a New Mexican, among numerous other examples I could list here. The tone of some of these threads has been extremely disrespectful to a large and distinct portion of the very community you’re so staunchly trying to defend as unique. Over the years, from thread to thread and meeting to meeting, outsiders have contributed to the unique identity of CNP that we all embrace.
I’ve had nothing to do with this move. I’m a bit sad that SWNP did not take off that way we all hoped, and disappointed in myself for not being able to help get SWNP moving. On the other hand, any objective look at the situation makes it clear that this move reflects reality (as I previously described), and therefore I support it. I understand the desire to keep the CNP name. I personally think it would be a shame to eliminate the CNP name. How about CNP+ ? Or how about CNP, as in the Colorado River Nature Photographers, as the Colorado River really gives life to the entire region we encompass.
But regardless of name, the identity of CNP will not significantly change: Like any cohesive culture, we all share the common language of love of mountains, canyons, outdoor life, photography, and an ice-cold beer over an impromptu campfire after a long day of adventures and photography in the shadows of the Rocky Mountains.
For Petes Sake people get a grip.
This is and should be just an on-line group that enjoy interacting about nature photography and live in the Rocky Mountain west and Colorado Plateau region. What it is called and who participates should not really matter!!!!
Steve
It seems to me that most of the people who are unhappy about the merger feel the way they do because they are concerned/saddened/upset about the loss of the group identity of CNP. We have had a (mostly) cohesive, supportive, and active group in part because of the realtively limited geographic range covered and the resulting familiarity and closeness. I get the feeling that people are concerned about losing that.
I do not feel that encouraging input from other photographers in the region will in any way diminish our photographic experiences. People from outside the state have always been encouraged to post images, respond to postings and otherwise participate in any appropriate manner. As such, this change will be in name only and have little effect on the actual functioning of members situated in dictinct geographic regions. There will still be winter outings to Mayflower Gulch, happy hours available for those who are available and care to attend, annual get-togethers, regional photo weekends and other similar events. The on-line name change will simply encourage participation from others within our part of the country and spread the sense of community that we have shared for the past few years to other nature photographers.
As such, I remain in favor of the expansion and look forward to encountering in Utah, Arizona, Montana, etc., other photographer members of the as-yet-unnamed forum.
My only regret is that I was no where close to being as quick as Todd was with his Bret Edge comment. Hey Todd, think about this: If we merge with the rest of the region and drop the CNP moniker then it's all yours! Caudle Nature Photographers!
TO ALL WHO READ THESE POSTS: Please keep in mind that no one other than Rick or Brent may speak on behalf of the group as a whole. Neither I, nor Mr. Egbert, nor anyone else who posts here speaks for anyone other than himself or herself.
After looking back at all that has been said, it appears to me that a form of "sides" has developed. While in my original post I stated that I wasn't in favor of the idea, it occured to me in the last 24 hrs, that I really don't care what its called or what it encompasses, as long as the friendships I have made remain, and the network/forum to make more friends who enjoy this hobby is still there. Its the people, not the name, not the region, it just simply boils down to the people. So in summation, I will echo what I said before, call it what you like, if the people and the friendships remain, it can be known as the Buttsauce Photographers Source, for all I care. See you guys on the trail soon....................J
"Newsflash: CNP has been, and always will be more than just Coloradoans." Brian VanDenzen
As a participant in the group, I have as much right to speak out and say, I don't like the idea and it does not mean I think anyone outside of Colorado is worthless! Who ever thinks I said that needs to read again! I never implied or said that!
I already apologized for the rather Childish way I was reacting and how I was personally embarrassed about it. So for the third time, I am sorry that my tone was rough and to the point of rude. However I will not apologize for the way I feel about the whole thing.
Like many of you I had wished the new SWNP group all the best and had my own hopes that it would do better than it did.
I don't disrespect anyone from New Mexico, Utah, Texas, Wyoming, Arizona, Montana or any other of the 50 States and International Groups for that matter.
As I was trying to say, that if people want to form a more loosly based group that is more expansive in it's reach like SWNP was originally inteded to do, I am all for it!
But why not just do that with SWNP as it is? It's not a bad group, it's not the Name of the group either. I actually joined both groups and on occasion participated in random discussions in the SWNP group. I was rather proud to have had the blessing to be able to photograph in Utah, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas where I have actually lived for some years. I was even hoping to see groups do State Capital Shows like we had here, but in every state with a State Themed program open to all who wanted to participate. I think they are great for everyone involved. The whole image thing last July, I don't know what happened there! I've shown images of Utah in the CNP site, Arizona and New Mexico. Had I more time when I was in Louisiana, I would have brought back shots from there and shown them.
I have a strong affection for New Mexico, Utah and many other places that all have their own unique beauty worth taking the time to learn about and photograph. So like I've said for the upteenth time. My distaste was not about exclusion of others, it was the way all of the CNP members did not have a chance to be asked if we wanted to change or not.
It's like having a home for years and having the city just rezone it and tell you that you have to move, in my opinion. It's just a shock and rude in itself. When CNP and SWNP reorganize under whatever it's going to be called, it will be filled with basically an unchanged member base, which in my opinion is a great group of people. It's not the change that gets me, it's the manner in which it was done.
But like I said, I was spouting my opinion, and some took it as a personal attack. Like I said if I don't like how things turn out, I'll go off and do what ever and I am sure others who feel the same would say the same thing.
I'm pretty much with Steve Weaver. Seems like a lot of toodoo over a small thing and we are all in same general area.. If we're counting pluses and negatives, I'd the Colorado folks will probably continue (I hope) to be very active and may just overshadow Utah and other SW areas. On the plus side I hope for a few more exchanges with Bret, Guy and the other SW guys, which I'd consider a good thing.
I typed a long-winded philosphical reply. It was pure bullsh!t, so I deleted it.
You're welcome.
This group is growing and changing all the time, whether we like it or not. It's not the same as it was when Todd found it; it's not what it was when I found it a year later. But as long as the spirit remains, it doesn't much matter what name is on the banner.
Just don't ask me to give up Velvia or to remove the CNP sticker from my truck. That's where I draw the line.
The emotions behind this change are much like those I've seen during a business reorganization. When teams, or larger groups of people, are renamed or shuffled around under a new management hierarchy it makes them uncomfortable. Many people have clearly established a strong identity with CNP and, from my perspective, it is perfectly reasonable that they are worried and edgy about the change -- after all, the group probably wouldn't be as successful if they didn't feel strongly about it. At the same time, others clearly see the change as an opportunity. Unfortunately, the result is usually some ruffled feathers...
Much like Brian, and I suspect Adam and Phil among others, I too would have liked SWNP to be more successful and wish I could have done more to help it along -- unfortunately, my recent schedule has made it difficult for me to participate at a level I had hoped for...
I do worry that such a large region might pose a problem in terms of the diversity of subjects that could exist on the forum -- making it difficult to track down, or easy to loose, a particular subregion/topic.
In general, my take is that a welcoming community where we can share ideas, regional information and a love for photography and nature are the most important aspects. Regardless of the name and the set of included regions, I hope to get a chance to get out, shoot more and hopefully meet several of you from the new larger community.
while nothing will ever sound quite as cool as Colorado Nature Photographers, what we're incorporating together basically turns into "Four Corners Nature Photographers" does it not?
Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona are the Four Corners States.
James, you're like the energizer bunny. (And thank you CAZ for speaking up while I'm out!) Man, I hate to keep this going, but I don't identify with all the words you've posted here James. Don't throw my name around like I feel the same way you do. You got what was supposed to be an encouraging response from me via email, as you seemed very upset. I hope you're feeling better. I didn't like the idea at first, but it's NOT that big of a deal. I really enjoy interacting with the PEOPLE here. Not going to change. If it's not going to be a Colorado forum anymore, then big deal. Life goes on. Enough said. I'll post for myself please. Man, let's see a new logo and new forum soon!
"while nothing will ever sound quite as cool as Colorado Nature Photographers, what we're incorporating together basically turns into "Four Corners Nature Photographers" does it not?
Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona are the Four Corners States."
Not exactly. The new regional forum will also include Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.
This is and should be just an on-line group that enjoy interacting about nature photography and live in the Rocky Mountain west and Colorado Plateau region. What it is called and who participates should not really matter!!!!
Yes I am feeling better as it turns out I was actually sick and dehydrated yesterday. I think it was due to a ad habit of CocaCola I had gottenin o working at the Gazette which I just left and started in a new job that gives me little time for soda's now. Whew I am really sorry for the tyrade I pulled yesterday. I went to the hospital early this morning, in not so good condition. I was treated for severe dehydration for a few hours. Still feelin a little shaky but better. However I cannot offer all this as an acceptable excuse for my tyrade. All I can do is ask for forgiveness.
I have one question though? How do we make a license plate for this new conglomeration? Hmm Gives me a Banner idea of using all the State License Plates to make a banner!
WWNP! Wild West Nature Photographers! Yeah I like the sound of it.
Still like RMNP too!
Posted by Phillip Noll on May 22, 2006 at 11:00 AM
What the hell???
Man, you take a little vacation from photography and look what happens!
Disclaimer: All that follows is my OPINION. I mean no disrepsect to anyone.
After reading through this thread I have a few comments (not that they will make any difference). As the founder of SWNP I guess I am to blame for its demise. I didn't work hard enough to expand the membership and make SWNP a success. For this I am truly sad. When I formed SWNP I first contacted CNP to see if there would be interest in a combined/expanded forum. ABSOLUTELY NOT was the concensus (which is completely fine--I prefer that CNP remain seperate for reasons given below). CNP was to remain a separate entity. I find it odd that now the tables are turned. If people post topics related to Az, Nm, Nv, and Ut in the CNP forum, why not help SWNP grow and redirect these people to the proper forum?
Anyway, as I said, this was absolutely fine with me as I was already a member of CNP and continued to participate there after SWNP was established. The thought of not participating in CNP never even occurred to me. I enjoy the posts there and have made numerous friends there. I plan to continue my membership in both forums.
I think one of the reasons CNP is so successful is because its geographic area is limited and people can actually get together for events relatively easily. This has been very hard to do in SWNP because the region is so vast. Adding in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana will make it nearly impossible to have any cohesive field-type or social activities. If all you are looking for is stimulating conversation on a forum then the name and the membership don't matter. Like James said, why not just use the General Discussion forum? I feel it is the field/social activities that have built the strong relationships/friendships that have allowed CNP to become so successful. Don't discount this before making a final decision to merge.
CNP is uniquely successful and serves as a very important resource for Colorado photographers. Anyone can post a question about Colorado and get a flood of advice for that state. Combining CNP with 7 other states will dilute that resource to the point of no longer being useful. Either posts about Colorado will become lost in the new huge forum, or the forum will stay mainly a Colorado forum and folks from other states may not feel comfortable posting there. I do not see the problem with keeping SWNP and CNP seperate. I have no problem visiting and participating in multiple forums. Is it really that difficult?
I haven't participated here in quite a while due to personal reasons and I really miss the posting, learning, and comraderie. Becasue of my absence, perhaps I no longer have a say in how things happen but I will provide my 2 cents anyway. With all due respect to those who have proposed the merge, I feel it is inappropriate for a small group of members (whether they are moderators or not) to dictate to the general membership that the two groups will be combined. To be fair to everyone I think such a large decision should be put to the participants of both forums. If the majority are in favor of the merge, so be it. Put this decision to a vote.
I have been avoiding posting out here but will pipe in with my overall opinion anyways.
I understand the merger but am a little concerned about 2 things.
1) Getting diluted with such a huge region
2) Losing the "brand identity" that we have managed to achieve over the past few years. I mean think about it CNP is a real brand (like Coke, IBM etc). Merging and then throwing away the name is kinda foolish. IMHO
Merging in the business world usually involved lining the pockets of shareholders and senior management rather than benefitting the customers/users. In that scenario it makes sense to leverage the financial potential of a good brand.
In this scenario though - we're talking about the benefit to members. To me, as a non-Coloradan, keeping CNP tells me I'm a guest in your house rather than a member of the family. I don't see it as being conducive to creating a sense of community (try saying that 3 times quickly!). Think about it.
The brand issue is one that I was concerned about as well, and I raised that issue in the discussions. I don't think there's anything preventing us from keeping CNP as part of a name/brand/identity. Some name change seems to be necessary, and Jim E. suggested a structure that is interesting, in that CNP would remain and be part of a yet-to-be-named larger regional forum.
Regarding the comments about people and topics getting 'lost' or diluted in the expansive new forum, let me ask this: what are people envisioning when they're expressing concerns over getting lost? Let's assume that as of tomorrow the merge is complete and there is one forum for all of the states. Where is the heavy influx of people/topics coming from?
Since this is part of the rationale that I considered in the process of contributing my thoughts to the merge discussion, I'd be concerned if I'm way off base on this.... My perspective is that following the merge, the participants and topics don't change much, at least initially. It's not as though there are hundreds of new people with irrelevant topics waiting to have a place to post.
One reason for merging is to better include the SWNP membership that currently suffers from a relatively meager level of participation. Hopefully, by providing a forum where those states (and a few others) are specifically included, that will encourage a growth in membership in those areas, possibly resulting in transitioning back to smaller regional forums at some point when there is a critical mass of membership to support it.
Having been involved with many groups over time, I have learned one major thing, if you prevent it from changing you will contribute to its demise. (I have been on the antichange side before and I have regretted it.) I can easily see why people want to preserve the group's name, but we have become a broader group due to our interests in other locales and relationships with members in other areas, so effectively we have not been specifically a Colorado group for atleast a couple of years.
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the postings over time and the merger will not prevent people from posting and talking. So the group may cover a larger area, but the individual personalities should not change.
I like the name Cordilleran Nature Photographers, but I think only a hand full of people have heard of much less know what Cordilleran means.
It would be nice to have an acronymn that would be earlier on the list than CANP, but I do not know if that is possible and express the regional name that would attract new people or help peple know where to get information about our area to allow others to enjoy what we enjoy on a regular basis
.
"I like the name Cordilleran Nature Photographers, but I think only a hand full of people have heard of much less know what Cordilleran means."
Yeah, it would be a perfect solution for the logo, if people understood the meaning or could pronounce it. Really bad marketing - except for the geologists in this group.
So you 6 have declared that CNP and SWNP have merged. Just curious. Who at NPN granted you 6 the decision making authority for the entire membership of the SWNP and the CNP Forums? I don't remember voting for your representation. How can you make a post declaring the merger a done deal without even discussing it with all the moderators and the membership of CNP and SWNP? Did Jim E. give you this authority?
I can understand your point of view and your reasons for proposing a merger (though I disagree with them, I can respect them). However, PROPOSING a merger, and declaring that one has already occurred are two VERY different things! I guess what has me really riled up is from my point of view, you 6 just took it upon yourselves to start speaking for eveyone. Not very diplomatic or democratic. If you had proposed the merger, allowed for a discussion of the pros and cons, and then opened the decision up for a vote, I wouldn't be angry. Afterall, these are NPN Regional Forums we are talking about. Not the "Adam, Guy, Bret, Scott, Brent and Rick Forums". I urge you to retract your (rather pompous) statement that CNP and SWNP have merged (past tense) and solicit input from the masses--then vote on the subject.
I kept telling myself that I wouldn't post on this topic, but here I go.
Come on folks, this is getting out of hand. It seems that just a handfull of people are getting riled up because their online forum is changing. Personally, I don't care what happens online. My interest is in taking pictures. The main reason I visit this discussion board is for advice on pics I've taken, ideas on new shooting locations, and of course, for entertainment. (Which this thread definitely is!)
Why can't the board be set up for critiques, technical advice, photo postings etc. in the main area, with a sticky at the top for each individual state? If I want to shoot in Utah, for example, I just click on the Utah sticky and ask my questions.
"Just because everything is different doesn't mean anything has changed." ~Irene Peter
Phil, please read your email. I tried to answer these questions off line in the hope that it would prevent this type of personal attack. For someone who hasn't visited or expressed interest in NPN in months, it seems a little disingenuous to take such a strong stance.
I hesitate to say this again, but here its goes: Relax people!: go out and make some photographs. You as photographers are not defined by what group or groups you "belong to" , you are defined by your creative vision and artistic ethos. Enough said
Steve
Still having e-mail difficulties--haven't seen your message yet. I will not comment further until I read your e-mail. After which I will either continue to voice my opinion or crawl back under my rock and beg forgivness.
Wow, this thread is bigger than a years posting on SENP! Hey, can SENP merge with CNP & SWNP? Wow, that would be great, I wouldn't have to talk to myself!
Good luck guys, I hope you all work this out. CNP is a great group and with the dudes from SWNP thrown in it should be awesome!
Even with the merge I'm keeping my CNP sticker. It could be a collectors item in a few years.
I am actually not too polarized on the issue, since I love road trips to Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. I will definitely miss the CNP identity, but I suspect those folks will still make up the majority of the posts.
Here are my suggestions for new names:
RMS NP – Rocky Mountain States Nature Photographers
WMS NP - Western Mountain States Nature Photographers
PMS NP – Plains & Mountain States Nature Photographer (yes it is a joke! …well reading some of the posts, maybe not!)
BTW – why are the forums merging so abruptly rather than discussing/voting on this?
if you prevent it from changing you will contribute to its demise.
I have a more appropriate saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If CNP was having problems as an entity, I could see your point. But CNP was just fine, thank you.
And Guy, there isn't anything in Phillip's post that even mildly resembles a personal attack. I'm impressed that, even through the haze of anger, he's able to spell it out so concisely.
And Steve W., you're making it sound like we're either forum denizens OR photographers. The two are mutually exclusive. It's fine that you don't think it's a big deal, but I feel compelled to be a bit protective of the "e-lationships" I gained through CNP. I just didn't want to see the group diluted.
Why can't the board be set up for critiques, technical advice, photo postings etc. in the main area, with a sticky at the top for each individual state? If I want to shoot in Utah, for example, I just click on the Utah sticky and ask my questions. ~ Renee C
Highlands Ranch, CO
You know... That's a pretty cool idea, however is this functionality available with the NPN Forum program?
"I like the name Cordilleran Nature Photographers, but I think only a hand full of people have heard of much less know what Cordilleran means."
Yeah, it would be a perfect solution for the logo, if people understood the meaning or could pronounce it. Really bad marketing - except for the geologists in this group.
Bill Pelzmann
I dunno, I kinda like it cause I can say it and people think I'm more important because they have no freakin idea what I'm saying! LOL
Hey Rich, why not come see me and get that drink of water you need? LOL I can take a joke!
Did I miss Why?
While I am not active on either forum if I want to catch up on the southwest I don't care to wade through the latest Colorado buzz and vice versa.
Wasn't the reason for two groups to have the ability to easily access disscussion on both?
"...but I feel compelled to be a bit protective of the "e-lationships" I gained through CNP."
Todd, I'm curious as to how you think the merger would have a detrimental effect on your CNP e-lationships? I'm not trying to be flipant or a smart ass here. I'm honestly curious how you think it would change for the worse. Off-hand I don't see how it would unless you let it, but then I don't know the nature and extent of your CNP e-lationships (I love this word). Thanks.
Did I miss, Why? "provide a richer experience for all"
While I am not active on either forum if I want to catch up on the southwest I don't care to wade through the latest Colorado buzz and vice versa.
Wasn't the reason for two groups to have the ability to easily access disscussion on both?
To answer the question of why not put it to a vote... I'll do the best to answer from my own perspective. But it won't mean anything if people believe that putting it to a vote would somehow have precluded any of the angst, frustration, worry, concern, etc. It would only have delayed it; we would have had the debate that is now documented here and regardless of how the vote came out a large number of people would be on the 'other' side of the outcome and the same angst, frustration, worry, concern would have been perpetuated. But that's not why we didn't put it to a vote.
Obviously its an issue that has (and has before) divided the group. Knowing that there would be polarized opinions, my personal contribution to the discussion was to suggest doing what we'd have to do when faced with a vote that reflected the polarized opinions - reconcile the split vote by considering what would best serve both CNP and SWNP in the long-term and act accordingly; not with disregard to the varied opinions, but in a manner consistent with perhaps the only thing that seems to be common even amongst the varied opinions here: the interactions with the people are what's most important, more so than the name of the group.
There were 6 of us participating in that discussion, representing what we know from past experience to be the concerns of the group. Some may see it as 'pompous', but as a matter of practicality not everything decided here can be decided via voting. At least that was the consensus of the group. Jim does not put it to a vote every time he needs to make a decision about how to best operate/structure NPN, and this was a situation where it seemed appropriate to act in a similar manner.
You may not agree that it's right, and I respect that even if I disagree. However, is it pompous? For someone who hasn't been very active in trying to promote SWNP, I find it a little distasteful to now complain about the manner in which others have stepped up, have managed the forum and what they've done and are doing to find ways to allow the SWNP membership to have a more rewarding interaction with nearby photographers. To feel disenfranchised because it wasn't put to a vote seems peculiar to me given that there was a much bigger opportunity available to help guide SWNP that went unattended.
Phillip had sent me an email voicing his concerns. What follows is my reply to him, which is also appropriate for this thread.
Phillip,
Thanks for contacting me with your concerns.
As you know, I take a "hands-off" approach when it comes to the regional group forums. I allow those who moderate the RG forums a good deal of leeway in the way they handle those forums. As you also know, moderating/running the RG forums is truly a thankless job. IMO, all of the SWNP and CNP moderators, past and present, have done a magnificent job and my hat is off to them.
When I was approached by the current SWNP and CNP moderators with their proposal, I considered it and gave my approval to proceed. To me, the merge makes sense as CO is certainly part of the "southwest" and there is a great deal of "cross activity" between those two groups.
I concurred completely with the suggestion to not have the decision made by popular vote, as that is not the way the regional groups were formed in the first place. When any regional group is formed, we don't take a vote - someone simply steps up to the plate with the offer to run a group and we take it from there. You know this yourself, and that I empower those who take initiative, responsibility and help promote NPN.
In regards to voting - even with a vote, there would have been those who approved and those who do not, so a vote would not have spared us from any of the debate or hard feelings. Thankfully, judging by the responses in this thread, most SWNP/CNP members appear to concur that it's a good idea. If that had turned out different, we would have had to rethink this idea.
I truly appreciate your time and effort to get SWNP rolling, and you should take some pride in this great group of "southwest" photographers that you have been a part of. I see great things ahead for all members of this group, and I look forward to your participation in its continued growth.
Thanks again for taking the time to voice your concerns!
I'm feeling a little Vaclempt! It'
s coffee time, talk amongst yourselves...
Posted by Phillip Noll on May 22, 2006 at 11:00 PM
"For someone who hasn't been very active in trying to promote SWNP, I find it a little distasteful to now complain about the manner in which others have stepped up, have managed the forum and what they've done and are doing to find ways to allow the SWNP membership to have a more rewarding interaction with nearby photographers. To feel disenfranchised because it wasn't put to a vote seems peculiar to me given that there was a much bigger opportunity available to help guide SWNP that went unattended."
Fair enough. For personal reasons I have not been able to even touch my cameras let alone participate in the forums. For this reason I asked Adam and Patrick to be co-moderators of SWNP because I knew this would be the case for about a year. I told them they have free reign to do what ever they think is best for SWNP. (Never thought that meant a merger! ). Your point, Rick, is well taken and I concede that "pompous" is the wrong word and regret saying this.
I'm not peeved about a merger, or the name of the group. I'm peeved about how it was done. It was just sprung on everyone as a done deal. No discussion. Yeah Jim doesn't put everything up to a vote. He OWNS the site and can do what ever he chooses. However, I would argue that a decision of this magnitude is not yours alone to make. When I became a moderator, I never felt I had the authority to make sweeping decisions about SWNP with no input from the participants. It's not MY forum. I felt I was a caretaker and that I should act as the majority of the membership directed me. Maybe not everything needs to be put up to a vote but we're talking about the very existence of these forums--isn't that worth some discussion? Some pros and cons? I can't think of anything else related to the regional forums that could supercede this issue.
I apologize for ruffling feathers and resorting to petty name-calling. In poor taste for sure and all of you deserve better. I do believe that the actions taken were done so with the best interest of the forum participants at heart. We just disagree on how it was done. Let's leave it at that and get on with it. What ever the outcome, I'll support it. Now, I'm sure everyone has had their fill of Phil by now so I'll shut up.
It is my opinion that we have the moderators for a reason, and that is to run the forum and maintain it to the best of their ability. As a part time participant, I realize that it must take a lot of effort to constantly maintain and stay active with these duties. But it proves to me that they honestly care about what they are doing and strive to make the decisions that benefit the majority of participants. I think we should respect what they are doing and trust that everything will turn out as it needs to. It won't be perfect, but who cares, this forum thrives because of the respect and open-mindedness of everyone involved. So, maybe this merge won't work, and in time we can suggest that it goes back to the way it was. Or it turns out to the be the greatest idea ever. Either way, I don't believe it was ever worth getting anyones blood pressure up.
As far as the name goes, I don't think it necessarily needs to be changed. If you think about why this happened, it was because there was not enough traffic on the SWNP forum, but CNP seems to do well. So, why not just leave the name alone but merge the members list and hot spots areas. I know the SWNP guys want to feel included, but the ultimate plan is to have a forum that generates interest and brings in new people who are excited about photography. and if CNP as a name does that, than that seems to be the greatest good. I don't feel the name excludes anyone, as others have pointed out from various members from far away states. If in time the SW guys feel they need their own identity again, then maybe try UNP (Utah Nature Photographers) or something of that sort, as that might spark more interest as a specific locale. BUT, if the consensus is to pick a new name, I do not have a problem with it, because CNP owes me nothing, and I owe it a helluva lot, so it can do whatever it pleases. I truly believe that after the smoke clears, most of us won't even see the difference, except that we will have a few more topics posted daily, which I look forward to.
It will be interesting to see if this helps NPN to grow or shrink.
I suppose if someone did feel a need to have a seperate Southwest group they could just follow Jim's instruction.
"When any regional group is formed, we don't take a vote - someone simply steps up to the plate with the offer to run a group and we take it from there."
If not, lets move on.
Posted by Scott Buckel on May 22, 2006 at 11:46 PM
Todd - I was not saying that CNP was ailing at all and I did not mean to offend. Sorry if you thought I implied this.
Others - I learned about Cordilleran from the flycatcher by that name. I remember trying to figure it out and I was told it referred tothe Rockies region - I did not know it was a geological term! I learned yet one more thing from the forum.
Now that everyone has had ample opportunity to voice his/her concerns and in light of the most recent postings by Rick and Jim, I would like to second Phil's suggestion that we "leave it at that and get on with it". So...
What can we, as members, do to facilitate the change?
What can we, as members, do to support and enhance the membership in SWNP and in the other states/regions that will be added to the forum?
What can we, as members, do to carry on the traditions, perpetuate the great experiences, and continue to strengthen the group in Colorado?
What can we, as members, do to support the decisions of Jim and the moderators?
CAZ
("Jim and the Moderators"? Wasn't that a 1960's band that played surf tunes? )
oh my god, fellas, this horse stopped breathing about 35 posts ago!
here's the reality, and for anyone that feels slighted by this, by all means appeal to jim to start your own regional group - THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY! it is at best a benevolent oligarchy. it seems like the central point of contention here is that the decision was passed down, not decided upon by the community-at-large. well guess what - the moderators weren't selected by popular vote, nor should all their decisions be. there's a reason we have moderators, and there's a reason moderators are charged with certain responsibilities. they steer the ship. it's that simple. if you don't like where the ship is going, get your own boat.
as one who benefits from the fruit of their labors, i for one am more grateful than i could possibly express for the work they do and the time they commit to make this community what it is. Adam, Guy, Bret, Scott, Brent, Rick - you guys are doing a hell of a job here - this is one of only two forums i actually find useful these days, something that's not likely going to change with the moniker.
if this post comes off as too abrasive, feel free to use one of those other moderator powers and nix it. it was never my intention to further incense anyone, but come on fellas, is this really that big a deal???
The main reason for this merge was to bring a greater level of activity to the SWNP forum, which is not as active as the CNP forum, but not DOA like the Texas or Florida forums. The reason for looking for a new name for the merged group is that "Colorado Nature Photographers" may not be an ideal name for those photographers from other states. So we arrived at a proposal for a merged group with a new name, and that is where some issues were raised.
I offer the following proposal that I believe addresses most (if not all) concerns;
1. Both the SWNP and CNP groups would remain completely "as is" with their own websites (their own events pages, links pages, etc.), own membership rosters, etc.
2. Both SWNP and CNP would use a new, single "regional chapter" forum, which would be constructed by combining all of the threads of the current two forums. The "Forum" links on both sites would point to this common chapter forum.
3. The new "NPN southwest regional chapter forum" would use modified NPN header graphics, and include the SWNP and CNP logos in the header section that would serve as links to the respective group websites.
The plan above would accomplish the following;
1. Merge the SWNP and CNP forums to produce one, more active forum. It would have no other impact on either group, their websites, activities, etc.
2. Retain the identity and "trademark" that the SWNP and CNP groups have already established.
3. Serve as a model for organizing the other regional group forums into regional chapter forums, which would be more active and of greater value to the participants.
I think this plan accomplishes much of what he original merge propsal set out to do while avoiding the most of the downsides. As always, your comments to this are most certainly appreciated!
I think Jim’s suggestion is an excellent compromise, although personally I would not be opposed to a complete merge as Darren describes.
I also think that we need to respect the opinions of those individuals who are opposed to the merge, even if they are in the minority. They also contribute to the forums and make this site what it is today.
(IMHO – it would have been much more “diplomatic” approach if we had known WHY this is happening before this was even announced as a done-deal.)
I agree with Rene (and Jim). Personally I don't see a reason why we should not do a full merge but I think Jim's approach strikes a good balance and addresses most of the concerns raised.
The CNP brand/identity is retained, and forum traffic/value will be enhanced.
My first weigh in here as I'm only really a guest and not a true (paid) member - The only difference between Jim's idea and a full merger would be a click or two more to get into the specifics of each site, such as "Events".
Just like it is now, but with access to all posts in the regular forum. I kind of like this idea. The identies are retained yet the whole "pallete" of what's available is laid out in the regional forum.
I have to admit that at first I thought this was much "ado" over something really small. But the pride and identity of a group shouldn't and can't really be overlooked. So, I think the long discussion is warranted...IMO.
Hey, us Coloradoans are almost as proud as Texans...almost!
After reading through all these posts, I find that my thoughts and concerns about this merge have been expressed most adequately by Phil N., and Todd C. So, I will not repeat them here. I have two additional points:
1) Colorado is a special place...IMHO, THE most special place! Thats why I live here. I just finished moving to Pagosa Springs and I suspect my hobby will take me thru all the 4 corner states. I still would like being refered to as a CNPer.
2) I am a member of other non-photography multistate regional forums and while they are interesting, I find it is a bit tedious reading about multiple get-togethers/outings/parties in another state far away, where I will not be able to attend the event.
ps. CNP forever. The bumper sticker will remain. And I'll keep telling people who ask what it means.
A group of nature and landscape photographers who love to discuss all things concerned with COLORADO photography.
'Exactly!!!!
I don't see anything changing. If the conecern is being "under" the umbrella of another regional forum then why are we satisfied being under NPN (which has been discussed a bit here before.)
Posted by Brent Murphy on May 24, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Actually, as mentioned a number of times in this thread, CNP has never been limited to Colorado photographers or Colorado photography. Quite a bit of forum activity throughout CNP's existence has been related to Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona photography, from photographers living here in Colorado and throughout the region.
This mill is known as both "Crystal" and .........
And yet we keep beating it...
If, indeed the equine has perished and she can not be saved, then maybe my post was as you suggest. I was just letting my feelings be known as a CNP member like all you others have been doing for the past 6 days.
I wasn't directing that at you, Ken, or anyone else. I've been bludgeoning the beast myself. Not sure we've resolved anything, but it looks like time to move on, regardless.
I joined to share photos, stories, and great locations to visit in order to get more great photos and stories. Merging should not change that I would hope. I've never met anyone in this group (CNP) that I didn't like and I'm sure the same can be said of future meetings with new members or merged members. If there is one constant in life, it is change, be it good or bad. My duty is to embrace the changes as they come and to steer them in a direction that someday will be considered good by the majority.
Possible suggestions: WNP - Western Nature Photographers
WWNP - Wild West Nature Photographers
C/SW-NP - Colorado and Southwest Nature Photographers
MSNP - Mountain States Nature Photographers
Don Grall
Woodland Park
Posted by Phillip Noll on May 25, 2006 at 12:23 AM
Jim,
A very well thought out compromise proposal. I thank you for taking the time to get involved and for your thoughtfulness.
So, fellow forum members, what's it going to be? Jim's proposal, a full merge, or keep things the way they are?
"The way they are" is not an option. Seems to me that the options are: either the original decision is reinforced, or we comment on Jim's new proposal. Either way, it's been established that this is not a voting system. While I think it's important for those coming in late to post their general thoughts and reaction, I encourage everyone to contribute their reaction to Jim's proposal ASAP ... so that the powers that be can make the final decision. I keep reading this thread in hopes of seeing a decision. Or maybe it's the watching-a-train-wreck factor.
It's my opinion that this thread, and this process, keeps misfiring with each new day - as we digress further from the original announcement. It's important to see everyone voice their input. But I think this new proposal doesn't really address the heart of the matter, though thoughtfully and generously offered. The identity of this group as I see it (apart from offline friendships and casual or formal events) lies in the actual forum ... the Colorado discussions ... the Colorado photos ... NOT a logo, member list, hot spots, links or any other related page. Sure, those things add to the identity. But when you boil down the complaints and their corresponding solutions, it's mostly "merge it all the way" and get it over with, or "don't touch it". That's because most in opposition want to see a Colorado-only forum. FORUM. Not entry page, member list and so on - or whatever else that would comprise separate identities offering access to a very broad message board. Convoluted IMO. If you change the logo - people wouldn't revolt. If you took away the other web pages in this "site", people wouldn't revolt. But if you mess the actual forums, well, there's the rub. It's all about the content here. IMO
Therefore, I think the original announced decision is the best direction for this NPN creature, with the current state of things. The forums ARE merging (and new areas will be included in this super forum) no matter what the final format happens to be. A majority of those in opposition don't care for the proposal, and would rather just see a complete merger. So just do it!!! Keep it as simple as possible. Stick with Plan A. There's a lot of sense in what Rick said, about getting past the transition junk ASAP. It seems that those who are likely to comment have already done so, after so many days of passionate discussion.
This is obviously NOT going to be a Colorado-only forum, so I see absolutely no sense in anything other than a full merger that presents a singular identity and doesn't try to appease using multiple personalities that can dilute the beautiful simplicity of the NPN model.
Knowing we're not voting as a group here, I vote for a decision.
Discussion
116 repliesThanks!
Adam, Guy, Bret, Scott, Brent and Rick
Good luck and good work.
He posted his upcoming trip on both forums and this is the result
James, RMNP is the obvious choice.
Or, how about "eCNP" - (extended Colorado Nature Photographers) ????
We don't merge, we assimilate !!
Bill: "We don't merge, we assimilate"... is this a Texas mentality I see coming through.
RMNP sure wouldn't be a very distinct vehicle sticker! I like Mountain West NP, but that conflicts with the Midwest group (MWNP). Rocky Mountain Southwest Nature Photographers. This could hurt my brain. Good luck.
An idle thought for the marketers to chew on: It seemed like everywhere I went in the deserts and mountains I kept passing signs saying "Continental Divide."
Here are my thoughts - not as a moderator, but as a CNPer. I don't disagree with anything stated so far. My initial reaction wasn't much different - I'm not personally attached to much, but I do have a personal attachment to the people that make up CNP. To some extent I'm attached to the cozy concept of CNP itself, but the lion's share of my personal enjoyment from this experience has much more to do with the people than the name or the concept. Shaking up that nice comfortable and familiar world honestly didn't hold strong appeal at first.
But as I was thinking about what I might be 'giving up', I also reflected on the fact that my richest experiences with CNP have all had to do with the personal interactions - bantering back & forth here; getting out hiking, backpacking and shooting with people, or getting together at the shindigs. And none of that has to change.
In my mind, if I look at the inclusion of others - and it's a rather small group of people at this time - who share such similar interests and who we know from personal experience are great folks to hang with...if I look at that and see only the downside, then I lose.
And, at the risk of sounding pejorative - which I'm absolutely not trying to be - it's worth noting that the opportunity that we currently have to display our work at Great Sand Dunes NPP was brought about by Adam from SWNP.... The only reason I bring this up is to make the point that what may be seen as "change" has already been going on...and we've been all for it.
Rick, I've got to say that your announcement is one of the best pieces of writing I've seen in a long time. As our (American) communication skills continue to deteriorate it is tremendously refreshing to read something written in such a clear, concise and effective manner. You get an A+ and a gold star for your homework.
With regard to the merger and addition, I think it's a fine idea but I'm keeping my CNP bumper sticker even after the change.
Mel-
Well, like many others, I have mixed feelings! From one standpoint, I don't want to see the CNP moniker go away. I've literally been here since the very beginning, and it's played big part fro me in the last few years. Listen to me, I sound like I'm delivering a eulogy!
Of course the biggest issue will be the name. I have a few ideas, none that great, but here goes:
I really think this is the one: CNMAUWIMNP -- ColoradoNewMexicoArizonaUtahWyomingIdahoMontana Nature Photographers!!!
Maybe not?
OK, a little more seriously:
RMP-- Rockies Nature Photographers
RRNP-- Rockies Region Nature Photographers
RMRNP -- Rocky Mountain Nature Photographers (a bit unwieldy in my opinion though)
RMSNP -- Rocky Mountain States Nature Photographers (again, a bit long)
I don't know, just random ideas!
Of course the biggest question of all is this. What the heck and I gonna do with the CNP stickers I have left over!?!?!?
Oh, and Darren, don't worry, I AM in fact going to "Leave town now while you still can" HA!
They're collector's items now. Sell them for $25 a pop!
And where was it you were going again?
Guy
I don't recall the specifics - someone else may be able to help. SWNP didn't break away from CNP. I think the deal was that there was interest in having the southwestern states represented in a forum, and one approach was expanding CNP to acccommodate . The consensus was that CNP should stand on it's own, and so SWNP formed a separate group. The challenge is creating a critical mass of members to make it successful. It's clear that its not going to happen soon.
Who knows if CNMAUWIMNP
Ideas for names:
Wild West Nature Photographers
Frontier West Nature Photographers
Mountain States Nature Photographers
Colorado Plateau Nature Photographers
Stacy Egan
Like other CNPers, I've grown attached to the CNP name and to the community we've built here. And while I know we have a very active Colorado-based community, we Coloradans often post information and photos from around the region. And many folks from outside of Colorado visit CNP often for information, advice, or just to participate. Like it or not, CNP has really maintained its status as a regional group, even after SWNP was formed. When SWNP was created a while back, it was expected that it would end up being nearly as active as CNP, but that growth has just not happened, and SWNPers still spend much of their time on CNP.
CNP has also been known to have participants from Wyoming, often has photographs or trip reports from Wyoming, and occassionally even plans backpacking trips up there.
As I said, like it or not, CNP is a regional forum, so the name change only makes sense. This should only help strengthen our identity as a regional group, and create a more active community. While I enjoy my participation in CNP, I'm sure CNMAUWIMNP will be even better.
Oooooh! I like that one. We could have shoot outs with our Colt 4x5's.
Bad news though, I just discovered that CNMAUWIMNP is already being used by the Canadian Norwegian Moroccan Australian Ugandan Wallis-et-Futunan Indonesian Myanmar (formerly Burma for you Seinfeld fans...) Nature Photographers. We either rearrange a couple of states in our moniker, or wait for Myanmar to change its name again.
I lurk a lot on the SWNP site and like everyone there, yet there's something to be said for having a Group wheree the majority of it's members are all from the same state and get together as often as we all try to do.
I know it is a challenge to start something new and to draw the audience in and i know that the SWNP group has not seen the traffic that CNP has, but maybe it's impatience. CNP wasn't an over night success, It took time and a little potty training of our resident trouble maker (just kidding Todd!) to make CNP a success. I know I spend a great deal of time recruiting new members by word of mouth! I meet a shooter I don't know and I invite them to the group! Sorta like finding a stray dog for me. So I ask, do we as a majority group in Colorado need to change the name of the group? Nope, do we as a majority want to? that remains to be said yet.
So I guess we should take a blinde vote poll? I dunno, but sentimentally my vote is no, yet I also think the inclusiveness nature of this group can go beyond the borders of Colorado to New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, Idaho and MANYBE Kansas and Nebraska. Nahh it'll never work! Those people from Montana are too spooky for me! LOL
If i were to vote today I would say that SWNP group should remain SWNP and CNP remain CNP and we just get along that way. I would suggest however a little heavier recruitment on the part of SWNP. It doesn't take much just to invite someone even over the net while browsing about to see what's out there. Just drop an email saying, hey i like your photography and website, why not join a group of fellow photographers who try to gather and share the passion of the outdoors and photography! Not to mention a few beers here and there!
Ummmm....I don't think that will work. Obviously we need to change the name. Sticking with CNP is not an option. Despite the fact that a bunch of people in that survey we recently chuckled about didn't know that Delicate Arch is in Utah, I suspect that even that crowd would recognize that Utah in not in Colorado.
I am not prone to mutiny in any fashion, but being that CNP is a part of NPN and if someone were to go and restart CNP after the merge, there would still be a CNP.
Obviously this was not put to the group as a whole to ponder and while the statement of Most of us travel to and fro as ythe reason for a merger, I just don't buy it. Frankly at first I was rather jokingly about it , now... I'm getting frustrated with the whole thing.
I dunno.. the more I think about it the more upset I get.
or CNPRIP.
I think the reason this idea is so intriguing to some of my fellow CNPers is that you enjoy going to states like Utah and Arizona to shoot (as do I), you've made friends in those places, and you want it all to be one big club. I still think Colorado deserves its own forum. Put it to a vote.
Harry Truman once said, " It It Ain't Broke, Don't... It" Well you can fill in the blank!
I joined CNP because I didn't live in any other state at the time and was proud to be a part of a group with my Home State's Name in it! The Same Group held in high regard at the State Capital of Colorado, Not the Non-Specific-Non-Descript Capital of a region.
Im not saying that Any other State sucks, I just am attached to the idea of a Colorado Group and leaving it alone! I think i've only been this upset one other time on here and flamed remarks one other time, but that was nothing compared to this move!
I just realized that even though I wasn't the founder of CNP or even one of the first 10 members of CNP, I was One of the first 570th contributing members of NPN.
FWIW, I did found CNP and I put in many, many hours building the CNP community. And I believe the merging and expansion of CNP and SWNP can be a good thing.
The change and growth of a successful entity like CNP is inevitable. It's how we react to the changes that ensures the continued success of the community. We can never go back to those days of a group of 20. Changing the CNP name or the area it encompasses doesn't bother me, because the success of the group does not depend on either. It's the people, the community atmosphere and the content contributed that make CNP a success.
to this:
Within 24 hours.
Not only are you not being consistent, but I don't see any argument to support this transition.
Though I haven't done the math, just digging throught he archives, I think the percentage of topics that are not unique to Colorado (i.e. generic questions or discussion involving neighboring states) is relatively high and the group could only stand to benefit from consolidating.
You can ask any number of native Coloradans here who askedn me on and off line for information on travel to Utah. Not only am I happy to help and build stronger relationships, but I think this same exchange can also occur in a larger group and benefit others in the process. I just can't see how you can claim this is a bad thing.
Guy
I joined CNP not any other group as my main group, but I also participate in the NWNP group, The NENP Group and other groups if i plan to travel to those locations. I even went to the Florida group once for the same reason. So does that mean that we should also merge with them? NO! In reality we all are already merged through NPN, but regional groups were formed for whatever reasons they did and over time they developed a personality that encompassed the membership. Their entire membership not just a few members.
To change a group for the last set of reasons you propose is bewildering at best.
take all of what follows as the inputs from an outsider. i am not native, but rather one of the CNP adopted sons - i guess they were desperate for head count when i first showed up! i am also one of the personalities that floats between various communities on the NPN network, and in doing so, noticed long before this thought was even a discussion, that a lot of the folks that i enjoyed communicating with here were also participating over at SWNP. I said a lot of folks, not all of the folks, which meant that if one was seeking information on a trip through Colorado and Utah, they had to post twice to ensure 'complete coverage', which always seemed rather unnecessary. it's kinda like when my wife goes shopping at one of those 'food-snob' grocers, we have central market (aka sinful markup) here in texas, and then has to run through albertsons on the way home to buy garbage bags and toilet paper. the produce at sinful markup is good, but is it really worth having to do our grocery shopping in two separate stores? is it christine? IS IT??? but i digress.
the reality is that we would all be checking in here regardless of what the banner at the top of the forum read... i don't come here because i like how the letters CNP look when taken together. i come here for you guys - and that's not going to change with our group name. some playwright a while back said something about that... something about the odoriferous emanations from a rose
why would anyone think what makes this group great would change simply through an expansion of the scope of the group? there's already a fairly high level of spill-over between the groups... merging the two will just result in the inclusion of all the wise inputs from the few that choose to only monitor one forum presently, and i don't think there's one amoung us that will argue against the benefit of expanding the resources and contacts we have here. james, i know there are some folks over at SWNP that could benefit from all your knowledge, and likewise, i'm certain there are folks over there that you would gain from communicating with.
as the guy that designed the logo for all the CNP swag, i'm not thrilled with my work being obsoleted, but am fully on-board for this change none-the-less
just my 2 cents, worth about what you paid for it.
Here's what's bewildering to me (and no disrespect intended) - you acknowledge that the membership will not change (if anything it will grow), that the discussion topics will not change (if anything there will be better sources of information on the group) and the one thing you're going to bat for is an acronym?
In my own pro/con analysis this just doesn't balance out.
Guy
I think there is a lot of merit to the idea of a merge and when asked about my thoughts on the idea, I offered my support. At the same time, the Colorado Nature Photographers group has made a name for itself. One idea I have offered is to have CNP remain as a state group within a new, larger regional chapter forum.
IMO, the concerns raised in this thread should be easy to address.
I agree with Scott's thoughts on this change. I do understand those who don't want to change. We have a special group here and it is nice to be able to say one is apart of that. But I don't think of myself as just a Colorado Nature Photographer, but a nature photographer who lives in Colorado and specializes in the entire region that the proposed change will cover. For me this will be a welcome change as I look forward to the added people and content it will bring. Hopefully it will also make me a better photographer as well.
As Scott noted, the members are what makes this group special. By expanding our reach to include SWNP and our neighbors to the north we only stand to benefit from the participation of these new members. Yes, losing the CNP identity is an emotional change and certainly one that I, as the other founding member, am a little sad to see happening. But this emotional reaction is vastly outweighed by the potential I see in the new group.
I, for one, am 100% behind the idea of merging the groups and am confident that it will be a positive change for this community.
Note the hint os scarcasm in my tone.
Let's do away with California and Florida's groups too! I'm sure the members of those groups wouldn't mind the merger right?
Dude, didn't you just move to Utah? Of course you'd be 100% for it!
I guess this change is happening whether I like it or not, so here's my postscript. What I don't like about this is losing the CNP identity. I remember running into Tom Mangan at the Rock Cut when Jerry and I were up there one evening. He told me I should check out this nice little conglomeration of Colorado photographers. I still remember almost everyone's name from our first fall gathering, and for me, who never heard a name he couldn't instantly forget, that's saying something! CNP was a perfect autonomous group. It's not like I don't want to associate with Guy and Adam and other SWNP members, many of whom are artistic heroes of mine. It's just that this merger dilutes what I thought was a perfectly defined group.
Oddly enough, I also liked SWNP being a separate entity, so I felt like I was leaving Colorado and going somewhere exotic whenever I surfed over to that forum.
Your last post was neither constructive nor insightful. It's one thing to have an opinion but quite another to waste forum space with sarcastic comments that do nothing to further the cause. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the discussion at hand.
Todd:
I knew someone would call me on the UT move! I'm glad it was you.
What I find disturbing was how the choice was made and the way it was handled amoungst a few. I understand one was the Local Forum Founder and another the Webmaster, and likewise with the other group, butthere are others involved who liked things as they were. In I never saw any complaints from within the group that said we were too small or too exclusive. I don't think we were ever exclusive at all.
Anyway, it seems that the powers that be have spoken and like it or not it, will happen. If over time I feel I don't fit in, I will move on. I was just voicing my frustration of being a member of something like others,and not even being asked what I felt about it formally. Both Todd, Jesse and actually others I have talked to privatelyand they have expressed the same thoughts to me.
One thing I cannot be knocked for is speaking truth about my feelings and even if in a tone some may not like. funny I watched the BIOGRAPHY on Simon Cowell last night.
I apologize for hurting anyone's feelings and like one other time here on CNP, I am humbled by the fact that maybe the harsh tome of my choice of words did that.
Regards, Ken
I rather suspect this move has absolutely zero to do with this statement. I've felt entirely included in every event CNP has ever promoted. Every CNP'er I've talked to has been open and friendly to me. I think of myself as CNP’er as much as SWNPer. I think this has more to do with the reality that CNP really already is SWNP. Most all SWNP'ers started in CNP and regularly visit CNP. Truthfully, almost as much meaningful discussion of the Southwest has occurred on CNP as on SWNP. I think this move is just recognition of that reality, rather than some outcry by disgruntled non-Coloradoans set on destroying CNP's identity.
Newsflash: CNP has been, and always will be more than just Coloradoans. As pointed, your logo comes from a Texan, one of your photo contests was arranged with the hard work of a New Mexican, among numerous other examples I could list here. The tone of some of these threads has been extremely disrespectful to a large and distinct portion of the very community you’re so staunchly trying to defend as unique. Over the years, from thread to thread and meeting to meeting, outsiders have contributed to the unique identity of CNP that we all embrace.
I’ve had nothing to do with this move. I’m a bit sad that SWNP did not take off that way we all hoped, and disappointed in myself for not being able to help get SWNP moving. On the other hand, any objective look at the situation makes it clear that this move reflects reality (as I previously described), and therefore I support it. I understand the desire to keep the CNP name. I personally think it would be a shame to eliminate the CNP name. How about CNP+ ? Or how about CNP, as in the Colorado River Nature Photographers, as the Colorado River really gives life to the entire region we encompass.
But regardless of name, the identity of CNP will not significantly change: Like any cohesive culture, we all share the common language of love of mountains, canyons, outdoor life, photography, and an ice-cold beer over an impromptu campfire after a long day of adventures and photography in the shadows of the Rocky Mountains.
This is and should be just an on-line group that enjoy interacting about nature photography and live in the Rocky Mountain west and Colorado Plateau region. What it is called and who participates should not really matter!!!!
Steve
I do not feel that encouraging input from other photographers in the region will in any way diminish our photographic experiences. People from outside the state have always been encouraged to post images, respond to postings and otherwise participate in any appropriate manner. As such, this change will be in name only and have little effect on the actual functioning of members situated in dictinct geographic regions. There will still be winter outings to Mayflower Gulch, happy hours available for those who are available and care to attend, annual get-togethers, regional photo weekends and other similar events. The on-line name change will simply encourage participation from others within our part of the country and spread the sense of community that we have shared for the past few years to other nature photographers.
As such, I remain in favor of the expansion and look forward to encountering in Utah, Arizona, Montana, etc., other photographer members of the as-yet-unnamed forum.
My only regret is that I was no where close to being as quick as Todd was with his Bret Edge comment.
TO ALL WHO READ THESE POSTS: Please keep in mind that no one other than Rick or Brent may speak on behalf of the group as a whole. Neither I, nor Mr. Egbert, nor anyone else who posts here speaks for anyone other than himself or herself.
Pax,
As a participant in the group, I have as much right to speak out and say, I don't like the idea and it does not mean I think anyone outside of Colorado is worthless! Who ever thinks I said that needs to read again! I never implied or said that!
I already apologized for the rather Childish way I was reacting and how I was personally embarrassed about it. So for the third time, I am sorry that my tone was rough and to the point of rude. However I will not apologize for the way I feel about the whole thing.
Like many of you I had wished the new SWNP group all the best and had my own hopes that it would do better than it did.
I don't disrespect anyone from New Mexico, Utah, Texas, Wyoming, Arizona, Montana or any other of the 50 States and International Groups for that matter.
As I was trying to say, that if people want to form a more loosly based group that is more expansive in it's reach like SWNP was originally inteded to do, I am all for it!
But why not just do that with SWNP as it is? It's not a bad group, it's not the Name of the group either. I actually joined both groups and on occasion participated in random discussions in the SWNP group. I was rather proud to have had the blessing to be able to photograph in Utah, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas where I have actually lived for some years. I was even hoping to see groups do State Capital Shows like we had here, but in every state with a State Themed program open to all who wanted to participate. I think they are great for everyone involved. The whole image thing last July, I don't know what happened there! I've shown images of Utah in the CNP site, Arizona and New Mexico. Had I more time when I was in Louisiana, I would have brought back shots from there and shown them.
I have a strong affection for New Mexico, Utah and many other places that all have their own unique beauty worth taking the time to learn about and photograph. So like I've said for the upteenth time. My distaste was not about exclusion of others, it was the way all of the CNP members did not have a chance to be asked if we wanted to change or not.
It's like having a home for years and having the city just rezone it and tell you that you have to move, in my opinion. It's just a shock and rude in itself. When CNP and SWNP reorganize under whatever it's going to be called, it will be filled with basically an unchanged member base, which in my opinion is a great group of people. It's not the change that gets me, it's the manner in which it was done.
But like I said, I was spouting my opinion, and some took it as a personal attack. Like I said if I don't like how things turn out, I'll go off and do what ever and I am sure others who feel the same would say the same thing.
You're welcome.
This group is growing and changing all the time, whether we like it or not. It's not the same as it was when Todd found it; it's not what it was when I found it a year later. But as long as the spirit remains, it doesn't much matter what name is on the banner.
Just don't ask me to give up Velvia or to remove the CNP sticker from my truck. That's where I draw the line.
Much like Brian, and I suspect Adam and Phil among others, I too would have liked SWNP to be more successful and wish I could have done more to help it along -- unfortunately, my recent schedule has made it difficult for me to participate at a level I had hoped for...
I do worry that such a large region might pose a problem in terms of the diversity of subjects that could exist on the forum -- making it difficult to track down, or easy to loose, a particular subregion/topic.
In general, my take is that a welcoming community where we can share ideas, regional information and a love for photography and nature are the most important aspects. Regardless of the name and the set of included regions, I hope to get a chance to get out, shoot more and hopefully meet several of you from the new larger community.
Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona are the Four Corners States.
Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona are the Four Corners States."
Not exactly. The new regional forum will also include Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.
So you're saying there's no need to merge, right?
I have one question though? How do we make a license plate for this new conglomeration? Hmm Gives me a Banner idea of using all the State License Plates to make a banner!
WWNP! Wild West Nature Photographers! Yeah I like the sound of it.
Still like RMNP too!
Man, you take a little vacation from photography and look what happens!
Disclaimer: All that follows is my OPINION. I mean no disrepsect to anyone.
After reading through this thread I have a few comments (not that they will make any difference). As the founder of SWNP I guess I am to blame for its demise. I didn't work hard enough to expand the membership and make SWNP a success. For this I am truly sad. When I formed SWNP I first contacted CNP to see if there would be interest in a combined/expanded forum. ABSOLUTELY NOT was the concensus (which is completely fine--I prefer that CNP remain seperate for reasons given below). CNP was to remain a separate entity. I find it odd that now the tables are turned. If people post topics related to Az, Nm, Nv, and Ut in the CNP forum, why not help SWNP grow and redirect these people to the proper forum?
Anyway, as I said, this was absolutely fine with me as I was already a member of CNP and continued to participate there after SWNP was established. The thought of not participating in CNP never even occurred to me. I enjoy the posts there and have made numerous friends there. I plan to continue my membership in both forums.
I think one of the reasons CNP is so successful is because its geographic area is limited and people can actually get together for events relatively easily. This has been very hard to do in SWNP because the region is so vast. Adding in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana will make it nearly impossible to have any cohesive field-type or social activities. If all you are looking for is stimulating conversation on a forum then the name and the membership don't matter. Like James said, why not just use the General Discussion forum? I feel it is the field/social activities that have built the strong relationships/friendships that have allowed CNP to become so successful. Don't discount this before making a final decision to merge.
CNP is uniquely successful and serves as a very important resource for Colorado photographers. Anyone can post a question about Colorado and get a flood of advice for that state. Combining CNP with 7 other states will dilute that resource to the point of no longer being useful. Either posts about Colorado will become lost in the new huge forum, or the forum will stay mainly a Colorado forum and folks from other states may not feel comfortable posting there. I do not see the problem with keeping SWNP and CNP seperate. I have no problem visiting and participating in multiple forums. Is it really that difficult?
I haven't participated here in quite a while due to personal reasons and I really miss the posting, learning, and comraderie. Becasue of my absence, perhaps I no longer have a say in how things happen but I will provide my 2 cents anyway.
Personally, I feel the merge would be a mistake.
Long Live CNP!
Long Live SWNP!
Guy
I understand the merger but am a little concerned about 2 things.
1) Getting diluted with such a huge region
2) Losing the "brand identity" that we have managed to achieve over the past few years. I mean think about it CNP is a real brand (like Coke, IBM etc). Merging and then throwing away the name is kinda foolish. IMHO
RichieV
Merging in the business world usually involved lining the pockets of shareholders and senior management rather than benefitting the customers/users. In that scenario it makes sense to leverage the financial potential of a good brand.
In this scenario though - we're talking about the benefit to members. To me, as a non-Coloradan, keeping CNP tells me I'm a guest in your house rather than a member of the family. I don't see it as being conducive to creating a sense of community (try saying that 3 times quickly!). Think about it.
Guy
Regarding the comments about people and topics getting 'lost' or diluted in the expansive new forum, let me ask this: what are people envisioning when they're expressing concerns over getting lost? Let's assume that as of tomorrow the merge is complete and there is one forum for all of the states. Where is the heavy influx of people/topics coming from?
Since this is part of the rationale that I considered in the process of contributing my thoughts to the merge discussion, I'd be concerned if I'm way off base on this.... My perspective is that following the merge, the participants and topics don't change much, at least initially. It's not as though there are hundreds of new people with irrelevant topics waiting to have a place to post.
One reason for merging is to better include the SWNP membership that currently suffers from a relatively meager level of participation. Hopefully, by providing a forum where those states (and a few others) are specifically included, that will encourage a growth in membership in those areas, possibly resulting in transitioning back to smaller regional forums at some point when there is a critical mass of membership to support it.
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the postings over time and the merger will not prevent people from posting and talking. So the group may cover a larger area, but the individual personalities should not change.
I like the name Cordilleran Nature Photographers, but I think only a hand full of people have heard of much less know what Cordilleran means.
It would be nice to have an acronymn that would be earlier on the list than CANP, but I do not know if that is possible and express the regional name that would attract new people or help peple know where to get information about our area to allow others to enjoy what we enjoy on a regular basis
.
Thanks for the heads up, Guy. I'll have to see what I can do to fix it. In the meantime use:
shinumo@earthlink.net
Phil
Or how to pronounce it!
Yeah, it would be a perfect solution for the logo, if people understood the meaning or could pronounce it. Really bad marketing - except for the geologists in this group.
So you 6 have declared that CNP and SWNP have merged. Just curious. Who at NPN granted you 6 the decision making authority for the entire membership of the SWNP and the CNP Forums? I don't remember voting for your representation. How can you make a post declaring the merger a done deal without even discussing it with all the moderators and the membership of CNP and SWNP? Did Jim E. give you this authority?
I can understand your point of view and your reasons for proposing a merger (though I disagree with them, I can respect them). However, PROPOSING a merger, and declaring that one has already occurred are two VERY different things! I guess what has me really riled up is from my point of view, you 6 just took it upon yourselves to start speaking for eveyone. Not very diplomatic or democratic. If you had proposed the merger, allowed for a discussion of the pros and cons, and then opened the decision up for a vote, I wouldn't be angry. Afterall, these are NPN Regional Forums we are talking about. Not the "Adam, Guy, Bret, Scott, Brent and Rick Forums". I urge you to retract your (rather pompous) statement that CNP and SWNP have merged (past tense) and solicit input from the masses--then vote on the subject.
Sincerely,
J/K....
Come on folks, this is getting out of hand. It seems that just a handfull of people are getting riled up because their online forum is changing. Personally, I don't care what happens online. My interest is in taking pictures. The main reason I visit this discussion board is for advice on pics I've taken, ideas on new shooting locations, and of course, for entertainment.
Why can't the board be set up for critiques, technical advice, photo postings etc. in the main area, with a sticky at the top for each individual state? If I want to shoot in Utah, for example, I just click on the Utah sticky and ask my questions.
"Just because everything is different doesn't mean anything has changed." ~Irene Peter
Guy
Steve
NO!
Still having e-mail difficulties--haven't seen your message yet. I will not comment further until I read your e-mail. After which I will either continue to voice my opinion or crawl back under my rock and beg forgivness.
Phillip, please drink several glasses of water.
J/K....
I'd rather drink several glasses of beer!
Good luck guys, I hope you all work this out. CNP is a great group and with the dudes from SWNP thrown in it should be awesome!
Even with the merge I'm keeping my CNP sticker. It could be a collectors item in a few years.
Here are my suggestions for new names:
RMS NP – Rocky Mountain States Nature Photographers
WMS NP - Western Mountain States Nature Photographers
PMS NP – Plains & Mountain States Nature Photographer (yes it is a joke! …well reading some of the posts, maybe not!)
BTW – why are the forums merging so abruptly rather than discussing/voting on this?
I have a more appropriate saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If CNP was having problems as an entity, I could see your point. But CNP was just fine, thank you.
And Guy, there isn't anything in Phillip's post that even mildly resembles a personal attack. I'm impressed that, even through the haze of anger, he's able to spell it out so concisely.
And Steve W., you're making it sound like we're either forum denizens OR photographers. The two are mutually exclusive. It's fine that you don't think it's a big deal, but I feel compelled to be a bit protective of the "e-lationships" I gained through CNP. I just didn't want to see the group diluted.
Enough said.
You know... That's a pretty cool idea, however is this functionality available with the NPN Forum program?
Bill Pelzmann
I dunno, I kinda like it cause I can say it and people think I'm more important because they have no freakin idea what I'm saying! LOL
Hey Rich, why not come see me and get that drink of water you need? LOL I can take a joke!
Good suggestion, Rene! But I would make it "Plateau & Mountain States Nature Photograpers".
My view on the merger is similar to Rene's. I can certainly see the benefits, even though my first reaction was negative.
I would also like someone to explain why the merger was announced with no prior discussion/vote from the membership of both groups.
While I am not active on either forum if I want to catch up on the southwest I don't care to wade through the latest Colorado buzz and vice versa.
Wasn't the reason for two groups to have the ability to easily access disscussion on both?
Todd, I'm curious as to how you think the merger would have a detrimental effect on your CNP e-lationships? I'm not trying to be flipant or a smart ass here. I'm honestly curious how you think it would change for the worse. Off-hand I don't see how it would unless you let it, but then I don't know the nature and extent of your CNP e-lationships (I love this word). Thanks.
While I am not active on either forum if I want to catch up on the southwest I don't care to wade through the latest Colorado buzz and vice versa.
Wasn't the reason for two groups to have the ability to easily access disscussion on both?
Obviously its an issue that has (and has before) divided the group. Knowing that there would be polarized opinions, my personal contribution to the discussion was to suggest doing what we'd have to do when faced with a vote that reflected the polarized opinions - reconcile the split vote by considering what would best serve both CNP and SWNP in the long-term and act accordingly; not with disregard to the varied opinions, but in a manner consistent with perhaps the only thing that seems to be common even amongst the varied opinions here: the interactions with the people are what's most important, more so than the name of the group.
There were 6 of us participating in that discussion, representing what we know from past experience to be the concerns of the group. Some may see it as 'pompous', but as a matter of practicality not everything decided here can be decided via voting. At least that was the consensus of the group. Jim does not put it to a vote every time he needs to make a decision about how to best operate/structure NPN, and this was a situation where it seemed appropriate to act in a similar manner.
You may not agree that it's right, and I respect that even if I disagree. However, is it pompous? For someone who hasn't been very active in trying to promote SWNP, I find it a little distasteful to now complain about the manner in which others have stepped up, have managed the forum and what they've done and are doing to find ways to allow the SWNP membership to have a more rewarding interaction with nearby photographers. To feel disenfranchised because it wasn't put to a vote seems peculiar to me given that there was a much bigger opportunity available to help guide SWNP that went unattended.
Phillip,
Thanks for contacting me with your concerns.
As you know, I take a "hands-off" approach when it comes to the regional group forums. I allow those who moderate the RG forums a good deal of leeway in the way they handle those forums. As you also know, moderating/running the RG forums is truly a thankless job. IMO, all of the SWNP and CNP moderators, past and present, have done a magnificent job and my hat is off to them.
When I was approached by the current SWNP and CNP moderators with their proposal, I considered it and gave my approval to proceed. To me, the merge makes sense as CO is certainly part of the "southwest" and there is a great deal of "cross activity" between those two groups.
I concurred completely with the suggestion to not have the decision made by popular vote, as that is not the way the regional groups were formed in the first place. When any regional group is formed, we don't take a vote - someone simply steps up to the plate with the offer to run a group and we take it from there. You know this yourself, and that I empower those who take initiative, responsibility and help promote NPN.
In regards to voting - even with a vote, there would have been those who approved and those who do not, so a vote would not have spared us from any of the debate or hard feelings. Thankfully, judging by the responses in this thread, most SWNP/CNP members appear to concur that it's a good idea. If that had turned out different, we would have had to rethink this idea.
I truly appreciate your time and effort to get SWNP rolling, and you should take some pride in this great group of "southwest" photographers that you have been a part of. I see great things ahead for all members of this group, and I look forward to your participation in its continued growth.
Thanks again for taking the time to voice your concerns!
Best regards,
Jim
s coffee time, talk amongst yourselves...
Fair enough. For personal reasons I have not been able to even touch my cameras let alone participate in the forums. For this reason I asked Adam and Patrick to be co-moderators of SWNP because I knew this would be the case for about a year. I told them they have free reign to do what ever they think is best for SWNP. (Never thought that meant a merger!
I'm not peeved about a merger, or the name of the group. I'm peeved about how it was done. It was just sprung on everyone as a done deal. No discussion. Yeah Jim doesn't put everything up to a vote. He OWNS the site and can do what ever he chooses. However, I would argue that a decision of this magnitude is not yours alone to make. When I became a moderator, I never felt I had the authority to make sweeping decisions about SWNP with no input from the participants. It's not MY forum. I felt I was a caretaker and that I should act as the majority of the membership directed me. Maybe not everything needs to be put up to a vote but we're talking about the very existence of these forums--isn't that worth some discussion? Some pros and cons? I can't think of anything else related to the regional forums that could supercede this issue.
I apologize for ruffling feathers and resorting to petty name-calling. In poor taste for sure and all of you deserve better. I do believe that the actions taken were done so with the best interest of the forum participants at heart. We just disagree on how it was done. Let's leave it at that and get on with it. What ever the outcome, I'll support it. Now, I'm sure everyone has had their fill of Phil by now so I'll shut up.
Respectfully,
As far as the name goes, I don't think it necessarily needs to be changed. If you think about why this happened, it was because there was not enough traffic on the SWNP forum, but CNP seems to do well. So, why not just leave the name alone but merge the members list and hot spots areas. I know the SWNP guys want to feel included, but the ultimate plan is to have a forum that generates interest and brings in new people who are excited about photography. and if CNP as a name does that, than that seems to be the greatest good. I don't feel the name excludes anyone, as others have pointed out from various members from far away states. If in time the SW guys feel they need their own identity again, then maybe try UNP (Utah Nature Photographers) or something of that sort, as that might spark more interest as a specific locale. BUT, if the consensus is to pick a new name, I do not have a problem with it, because CNP owes me nothing, and I owe it a helluva lot, so it can do whatever it pleases. I truly believe that after the smoke clears, most of us won't even see the difference, except that we will have a few more topics posted daily, which I look forward to.
I suppose if someone did feel a need to have a seperate Southwest group they could just follow Jim's instruction.
"When any regional group is formed, we don't take a vote - someone simply steps up to the plate with the offer to run a group and we take it from there."
If not, lets move on.
Others - I learned about Cordilleran from the flycatcher by that name. I remember trying to figure it out and I was told it referred tothe Rockies region - I did not know it was a geological term! I learned yet one more thing from the forum.
What can we, as members, do to facilitate the change?
What can we, as members, do to support and enhance the membership in SWNP and in the other states/regions that will be added to the forum?
What can we, as members, do to carry on the traditions, perpetuate the great experiences, and continue to strengthen the group in Colorado?
What can we, as members, do to support the decisions of Jim and the moderators?
CAZ
("Jim and the Moderators"?
here's the reality, and for anyone that feels slighted by this, by all means appeal to jim to start your own regional group - THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY! it is at best a benevolent oligarchy. it seems like the central point of contention here is that the decision was passed down, not decided upon by the community-at-large. well guess what - the moderators weren't selected by popular vote, nor should all their decisions be. there's a reason we have moderators, and there's a reason moderators are charged with certain responsibilities. they steer the ship. it's that simple. if you don't like where the ship is going, get your own boat.
as one who benefits from the fruit of their labors, i for one am more grateful than i could possibly express for the work they do and the time they commit to make this community what it is. Adam, Guy, Bret, Scott, Brent, Rick - you guys are doing a hell of a job here - this is one of only two forums i actually find useful these days, something that's not likely going to change with the moniker.
if this post comes off as too abrasive, feel free to use one of those other moderator powers and nix it. it was never my intention to further incense anyone, but come on fellas, is this really that big a deal???
The main reason for this merge was to bring a greater level of activity to the SWNP forum, which is not as active as the CNP forum, but not DOA like the Texas or Florida forums. The reason for looking for a new name for the merged group is that "Colorado Nature Photographers" may not be an ideal name for those photographers from other states. So we arrived at a proposal for a merged group with a new name, and that is where some issues were raised.
I offer the following proposal that I believe addresses most (if not all) concerns;
1. Both the SWNP and CNP groups would remain completely "as is" with their own websites (their own events pages, links pages, etc.), own membership rosters, etc.
2. Both SWNP and CNP would use a new, single "regional chapter" forum, which would be constructed by combining all of the threads of the current two forums. The "Forum" links on both sites would point to this common chapter forum.
3. The new "NPN southwest regional chapter forum" would use modified NPN header graphics, and include the SWNP and CNP logos in the header section that would serve as links to the respective group websites.
The plan above would accomplish the following;
1. Merge the SWNP and CNP forums to produce one, more active forum. It would have no other impact on either group, their websites, activities, etc.
2. Retain the identity and "trademark" that the SWNP and CNP groups have already established.
3. Serve as a model for organizing the other regional group forums into regional chapter forums, which would be more active and of greater value to the participants.
I think this plan accomplishes much of what he original merge propsal set out to do while avoiding the most of the downsides. As always, your comments to this are most certainly appreciated!
PS - Now I want a CNP sticker too!
I also think that we need to respect the opinions of those individuals who are opposed to the merge, even if they are in the minority. They also contribute to the forums and make this site what it is today.
(IMHO – it would have been much more “diplomatic” approach if we had known WHY this is happening before this was even announced as a done-deal.)
The CNP brand/identity is retained, and forum traffic/value will be enhanced.
Guy
Just like it is now, but with access to all posts in the regular forum. I kind of like this idea. The identies are retained yet the whole "pallete" of what's available is laid out in the regional forum.
I have to admit that at first I thought this was much "ado" over something really small. But the pride and identity of a group shouldn't and can't really be overlooked. So, I think the long discussion is warranted...IMO.
Hey, us Coloradoans are almost as proud as Texans...almost!
BTW, when's the next CNP shindig?
1) Colorado is a special place...IMHO, THE most special place! Thats why I live here. I just finished moving to Pagosa Springs and I suspect my hobby will take me thru all the 4 corner states. I still would like being refered to as a CNPer.
2) I am a member of other non-photography multistate regional forums and while they are interesting, I find it is a bit tedious reading about multiple get-togethers/outings/parties in another state far away, where I will not be able to attend the event.
ps. CNP forever. The bumper sticker will remain. And I'll keep telling people who ask what it means.
A group of nature and landscape photographers who love to discuss all things concerned with COLORADO photography.
'Exactly!!!!
I don't see anything changing. If the conecern is being "under" the umbrella of another regional forum then why are we satisfied being under NPN (which has been discussed a bit here before.)
Guy
If, indeed the equine has perished and she can not be saved, then maybe my post was as you suggest. I was just letting my feelings be known as a CNP member like all you others have been doing for the past 6 days.
Possible suggestions: WNP - Western Nature Photographers
WWNP - Wild West Nature Photographers
C/SW-NP - Colorado and Southwest Nature Photographers
MSNP - Mountain States Nature Photographers
Don Grall
Woodland Park
A very well thought out compromise proposal. I thank you for taking the time to get involved and for your thoughtfulness.
So, fellow forum members, what's it going to be? Jim's proposal, a full merge, or keep things the way they are?
It's my opinion that this thread, and this process, keeps misfiring with each new day - as we digress further from the original announcement. It's important to see everyone voice their input. But I think this new proposal doesn't really address the heart of the matter, though thoughtfully and generously offered. The identity of this group as I see it (apart from offline friendships and casual or formal events) lies in the actual forum ... the Colorado discussions ... the Colorado photos ... NOT a logo, member list, hot spots, links or any other related page. Sure, those things add to the identity. But when you boil down the complaints and their corresponding solutions, it's mostly "merge it all the way" and get it over with, or "don't touch it". That's because most in opposition want to see a Colorado-only forum. FORUM. Not entry page, member list and so on - or whatever else that would comprise separate identities offering access to a very broad message board. Convoluted IMO. If you change the logo - people wouldn't revolt. If you took away the other web pages in this "site", people wouldn't revolt. But if you mess the actual forums, well, there's the rub. It's all about the content here. IMO
Therefore, I think the original announced decision is the best direction for this NPN creature, with the current state of things. The forums ARE merging (and new areas will be included in this super forum) no matter what the final format happens to be. A majority of those in opposition don't care for the proposal, and would rather just see a complete merger. So just do it!!! Keep it as simple as possible. Stick with Plan A. There's a lot of sense in what Rick said, about getting past the transition junk ASAP. It seems that those who are likely to comment have already done so, after so many days of passionate discussion.
This is obviously NOT going to be a Colorado-only forum, so I see absolutely no sense in anything other than a full merger that presents a singular identity and doesn't try to appease using multiple personalities that can dilute the beautiful simplicity of the NPN model.
Knowing we're not voting as a group here, I vote for a decision.