[Artemisia] Re: thought for discussion-

[Greg Olsen]

> I hope to get input in defining the Five Pillars of 
> Peerage, so that folks have more information on what 
> they should be looking for when they start considering 
> recommending people for awards.

It sounds to me like you are asking for *how much* Prowess, or whatever
someone should have.  Or optionally which factors of Prowess *must* a
candidate have. 

You've already had Prowess defined by you by several peers... ability,
body of work, teaching, amount of research/practice, etc.  None of this
is a stretch really; it's whatever goes into
practicing/performing/passing on your skill, be it cooking, fighting, or
autocratting. Some peers may add more things to the list but the basics
almost everyone agrees on. And it is also agreed that it Prowess can't
be considered by itself, it mainly serves perhaps a starting point and
to define what Orders may people fit into.

These things aren't a checklist, but if we see a promising person we are
pretty much bound to let them know where they could improve, until they
stop listening anyway, and even then still maybe. So I guess, I'm not
sure what else you want to know. And if I'm right about what I think you
are asking, you aren't going to get an answer to those questions.

I'd also like to reiterate that the discussion is going to be hamstrung
if you try to stick to the so called "5 Pillars" because that idea is
not universally held by the Peerages.  Each Peer has at least a slightly
different take on what they are, how many etc.  You just got lucky that
Prowess most everyone agrees on.

Gregory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gallowglass.org/pipermail/artemisia/attachments/20031107/c67e6e90/attachment.htm