I'm in favor of a swift reduction in the number of states under consideration, but deciding on a state right away would require a change in the whole gameplan. We'd have to revise the Participation Guidelines and notify the membership, and I know some people would withdraw their consent if we made this change. Also, I think not deciding on a state right away gives us some advantages. It gives us some headway to build a strong organization before we begin the really strong publicity push (between getting 5000 and 20000 members we will likely be the highest-profile libertarian group in the country, and likely no more than a year will elapse between these stages). It will allow us to take a tour of the states under consideration next year. In the email group there has been a lot of discussion of where to hold our annual meeting next year (not so much here), and there's a feeling now that it might be best to hold 3 meetings: Delaware in April, Montana in July, New Hampshire in October for example. The Montana meeting would allow people to check out Idaho & even Wyoming. The New Hampshire meeting would allow people to check out Vermont as well - or if it is still in the running, Maine. Having 3 meetings would mean no one could make it to all 3 meetings, but it would increase the chances that most FSP members could attend at least 1 meeting. Holding these meetings in the candidate states will generate publicity and get people excited.
As to defining our principles more precisely, I am wholeheartedly and adamantly opposed to this proposal. As soon as we define whether we are right- or left-libertarians, or whatever, there will just be more pressure to define our principles even more narrowly. Ultimately, the FSP will only be open to orthodox but not completely conservative Protestant Christians who favor the ultraminimal state and Kantian philosophy, and who enjoy heavy metal music and Celtic philology. In other words, I would be the only member left in the FSP. Libertarians and classical liberals do agree on 95% of the issues, and the silly disputes over the remaining 5% should not be imported into our basic structure. Those silly disputes will continue to take place among approximately 10 people on these forums, while 99% of the group steadfastly ignores them. That's the way it should be. Let the silly disputes take place, and I'll even participate in them sometimes, but let's also leave them in perspective. They're not important.