[Consensus] [Facilitation] What To Do About GA?
Gregory Murphy
gsjmurphy at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 16:16:28 EDT 2012
+++1
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Mariama White-Hammond
<mariamawh at gmail.com>wrote:
> I just want to name that it feels like the tone of the discussion is
> starting to head into the direction of the very things that make the GA
> difficult. I want to suggest that it is possible to use the time and place
> of a GA to start a conversation about how to transform the decision-making
> process of OB. A team could work on the facilitation method for that
> conversation, because I don't think that the traditional method works well
> for deeper strategic conversations.
>
> My suggestion is that the first conversation be with those who have been
> faithful. The people who are currently holding that space have to decide if
> they only want to talk to those who are there now or if they want to open
> up and hear from those who have left because the space didn't work for
> them. If that is the desire, then those who have left should be invited
> back with the understanding that we are going to talk about how to make the
> space work for more people.
>
> I understand the concern that WGs might not be the best structure for a
> Spokescouncil. But I don't think that building our movement based on the
> depth of our relationships is a bad thing. I know that I will fight for the
> things I believe in but I will readily die for the people I love. The one
> thing that kept me from completely walking away from OB during some tough
> experiences was the people that I came into relationship with there. I held
> onto my hope that we can be a group of people with shared ideas who work
> from a place of love because I knew that would make us unstoppable.
>
> So I think that the framing of the conversation is not GA or Spokescouncil
> but the question is - How do we create a movement where people come to love
> each other and have common beliefs in such a way that we will have the
> power to go up against a system that has no intention of changing.
>
> So I don't have any authority to do so, but I want to suggest that this
> conversation move from email into a space where people can look at each
> other and talk this out. Folks may not take this invitation, but I am
> putting it out there. I don't know what the GA schedule is, but it seems to
> me that folks could take some time to just ask - is this working for us,
> and if not who do we want to bring together to talk about changing it.
> Maybe it is a summit, maybe a series of GAs, there are a number of
> structures that could work. I think it would be good to have some
> experienced facilitators like Morrigan, help to design that process, but
> let's work from a place of clarifying our concerns, then moving to
> solutions rather than arguing back and forth.
>
> Just my thoughts,
>
> Mariama
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Gregory Murphy <gsjmurphy at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Matt - I do not understand your use of the phrase "sketchy shadow
>> government" in reference to a Spokescouncil which had OB buy-in and full
>> participation. That is what I envision and am suggesting.
>>
>> It is unfortunate that you've "been around organizing where one thing got
>> decided at a meeting and that decision got changed behind closed doors."
>> What is the relevance of raising that experience in this dialogue, I am
>> not advocating for that and am unsure why you use it as an argument against
>> SC. It seems an inappropriate analogy. Where are the "closed doors" in a
>> Spokescouncil?
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Matt Carroll <mattbcarroll at yahoo.com>wrote:
>>
>>> If you can speak for yourself and aren't required to filter that through
>>> another group to be heard it's a better vehicle for discussing change.
>>> Having the change made using the tools already established in a space
>>> already established is above the board and easy to follow, and doesn't look
>>> like some sort of .
>>>
>>> I've 's not good. Moving towards decisions being made by wgs and ags
>>> away from public meetings is moving towards that.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 24, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Gregory Murphy <gsjmurphy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Matt - going through GA , which most everyone, including the GA
>>> faithful feel needs major overhaul, to execute that major overhaul, seems
>>> to me a faulty reasoning or argument.
>>>
>>> I disagree with your analysis, again:
>>>
>>> Since so many people have dropped out of GA, the only continuity is the
>>> fact that GA keeps happening, and that the GA faithful keep attending.
>>> (Please, this is observation, not a slight against anyone., I still attend
>>> GA, albeit, occasionally.)
>>>
>>> As per transparency - I do not understand your concern about that, at
>>> all. Every SpokesCouncil meeting can be live-streamed, and minutes can be
>>> kept - in accordance with the hoped for level of transparency at a GA. GAs
>>> are not inherently "more" transparent, in fact, I can't remember the last
>>> time a GA was live-streamed.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Matt Carroll < <mattbcarroll at yahoo.com>
>>> mattbcarroll at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a flawed process that works well enough to get things done, even
>>>> if those things often get done in a slow and painful manner. Going through
>>>> ga to change ga keeps continuity and is more transparent.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Anthony Bucci < <abucci at occupyboston.org>
>>>> abucci at occupyboston.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A spokesouncil is, in essence, just a formalized, concurrent way of
>>>> organizing the discussions that already happen in working groups and
>>>> caucuses. There's nothing magical or mysterious about it. There's no added
>>>> trauma either, only what individuals choose to bring into the room with
>>>> them. The structure of the conversation does not encourage that any more
>>>> than the general assembly structure does.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps more to the point, though, if the recognition is that the
>>>> general assembly is a troubled process at the moment, why would anyone
>>>> think that flawed process is able to fix itself? Isn't this one of those
>>>> doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results
>>>> moments? Hammer/nail?
>>>>
>>>> Anthony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Gregory Murphy < <gsjmurphy at gmail.com><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>> gsjmurphy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Carolyn,
>>>>>
>>>>> I hear ya 'bout email conversation difficulty, so I will be brief.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think many of us have an misconception about spokescouncils, and I
>>>>> don't think our experience with the M17 test helped clarify anything, in
>>>>> fact, I think it added to misinformation about SCs..
>>>>>
>>>>> I posit that a SC, if run properly, will elicit the *greatest
>>>>> possible # of direct voices* and perspectives. Now, not everyone will
>>>>> hear each voice stating its direct viewpoint, but each voice can and will
>>>>> be heard at a WG and AG level. Would we not want 100s of voices to be
>>>>> heard, in this way, when making a decision. then only 30 to 50 voices at a
>>>>> GA?
>>>>>
>>>>> Again - I am all for public discussion in as many venues as possible.
>>>>> I am advocating SC's as a decision making approach, to be started as the
>>>>> next step, after lots of public sharing of ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Carolyn Magid < <cmagid at gmail.com><cmagid at gmail.com>
>>>>> cmagid at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all. I find it difficult to have this conversation on email, but
>>>>>> feel strongly enough about the issues to weigh in briefly. If proposals I
>>>>>> disagree with go forward, I'll have more to say then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - I agree with Rich (and Greg?) that we should be deciding what
>>>>>> to do about GAs as part of a more general discussion about directions for
>>>>>> OB. I think it would be a serious mistake to cut back GAs without first
>>>>>> having that discussion.
>>>>>> - Based on experience in many organizations, I don't think that
>>>>>> it isn't easy to regain meeting times that are lost.
>>>>>> - I agree with Matt C and Jorge on the need to come to major
>>>>>> decisions for OB in a way that directly (not representatively) involves as
>>>>>> many members as possible. So I am against Greg's idea about creating a
>>>>>> spokescouncil to make these decisions. A special assembly sounds fine to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In solidarity,
>>>>>> Carolyn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Gregory Murphy <<gsjmurphy at gmail.com><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>> gsjmurphy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matt - I certainly do not mean to exclude a dialog or conversation
>>>>>>> amongst any group of OB individuals. In fact, I encourage it. I encourage
>>>>>>> GA process be talked about and examined in as many settings, as possible.
>>>>>>> I'd even like to see another community GA brainstorming session.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am recommending that SC be used as the *decision making model*for actually co-creating a new GA structure. Let as many discussions happen
>>>>>>> at every level, but I do not think bringing a proposal to GA serves the
>>>>>>> greater good, because not enough people will be present to sufficiently
>>>>>>> represent OB.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I firmly believe that we need as much representation as possible for
>>>>>>> this undertaking. I firmly believe, that if the SC is structured well,
>>>>>>> with community buy-in and adherence to principles and values and ways of
>>>>>>> being, with enough time in the process for dialogue and consensus at both
>>>>>>> WG and AG levels, OB stands the best possible chance of success, when it
>>>>>>> comes to creating a new GA structure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Matt Carroll <<mattbcarroll at yahoo.com><mattbcarroll at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> mattbcarroll at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How is spokes possibly a better vehicle for discussion than a
>>>>>>>> setting where people interact as individuals. A spokes council is clunky
>>>>>>>> and is totally the wrong tool for the job.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Gregory Murphy < <gsjmurphy at gmail.com><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> gsjmurphy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with Rich's concern, and insight . . . and am going to
>>>>>>>> push the envelope, here. (PS - I have also read the other emails, sent
>>>>>>>> after Rich sent his.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> May I suggest - and please no throwing tomatoes, nor stones - that
>>>>>>>> we call for a Spokescouncil specifically to address GA restructuring. I am
>>>>>>>> excited to realize that FWG (and others) has/have a lot of energy to
>>>>>>>> address some of the ongoing difficulties of GA, both to "free" us from some
>>>>>>>> difficult and challenging procedures, and to make it more "user friendly,"
>>>>>>>> inviting and inclusive. That said, a SC focused on General Assembly would
>>>>>>>> provide a much broader opportunity for participation and (hopefully) buy-in
>>>>>>>> from the greater OB community. And I think that broader participation is
>>>>>>>> essential to the health of our community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was really good energy at that GA Community GA discussion,
>>>>>>>> and it attracted attendance from more than just the ongoing GA core group.
>>>>>>>> The GAPaP was one attempt to harness the energy and good ideas which arose
>>>>>>>> in the meeting. When I asked what happened to that WG, I was told that it
>>>>>>>> mostly consisted of FWG members (that was true at the meeting I attended),
>>>>>>>> and failed to attract a broader constituency, and then fell apart - I am
>>>>>>>> unsure of whether this was a conscious choice, or not. Why was it that
>>>>>>>> GAPaP did not take hold?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it great that FWG is collectively, and FWG members are
>>>>>>>> individually, dedicated and inspired to make GA improvements. We all
>>>>>>>> recognize that these are overdue and long time coming. That said, I think
>>>>>>>> FWG is "stuck between a rock and a hard place," so to speak . . . in a
>>>>>>>> sense, "damned if you do and damned if you don't." Rightly or wrongly,
>>>>>>>> there is a perception that FWG "controls" the process too much. And, I know
>>>>>>>> that we are aware of that perception and have searched our collective
>>>>>>>> souls, about how best to proceed . . . and at times, have felt paralyzed.
>>>>>>>> It seems that paralysis stage is over - bravo! But why perpetuate that
>>>>>>>> impression and possibly set the stage for the possible changes not being
>>>>>>>> received well? Why not open the process so more voices can help craft the
>>>>>>>> coming changes, and not just the few who faithfully attend GA? Why keep
>>>>>>>> perpetuating the status quo of the GA centric? *I do not think an
>>>>>>>> FWG Proposal, nor an Individual Proposal is the best approach, at this time
>>>>>>>> * . . . it is not in the best interest of OB - and I say that with
>>>>>>>> the utmost respect for the intelligence, intention and dedication of my
>>>>>>>> fellow FWG members.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I ask that we stop strategizing how best to bring the proposals to
>>>>>>>> GA, and slow down, reach out to the broader community to create a General
>>>>>>>> Assembly Spokescouncil (which could meet, once per week), and bring our
>>>>>>>> creative ideas there, to be shared, reviewed, challenged, chewed over,
>>>>>>>> added to . . . and reached consensus on, by the Community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The M17 test SC developed the below values**, If the OB community
>>>>>>>> can collectively agree to abide by them, and live them, meeting by
>>>>>>>> Spokescouncil meeting, I think we can, together, as a community, create a
>>>>>>>> stronger, more dynamic GA. I also hold out hope that such a process can
>>>>>>>> begin to address and possibly help us move on from some of the divisions
>>>>>>>> existing in our community. We all saw the backlash that erupted when the
>>>>>>>> folks behind the SC ( a coalition of GA and non GA adherents) brought
>>>>>>>> forward the idea to test one - people's motivations were questioned and
>>>>>>>> trust levels were non existent. We need to move on from those daze and
>>>>>>>> agree to try out another technology, with the best interest of OB at the
>>>>>>>> center of why we do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do I think the task for a GA specific SpokesCouncil is easy - no.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do I think consensus is possible - absolutely!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let us adhere these values, and also live by the guidelines offered
>>>>>>>> by the Safer Spaces group in their AntiOppression proposal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ***All attending will commit to the following principles:
>>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>> A full consensus process will be used. *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) unity of purpose
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> b) trust
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. does not equal approval or friendship
>>>>>>>> 2. assume the best motivations/intentions; then inquire
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> c) respect
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. for emotional as well as logical concerns
>>>>>>>> 2. criticize acts not persons
>>>>>>>> 3. objections/criticisms of acts are not attacks, they are
>>>>>>>> concerns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> d) cooperation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. bring an attitude of helpfulness & support
>>>>>>>> 2. not competitive, not about winning but building a solution
>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>> 3. adversarial attitudes focus attention on weaknesses rather
>>>>>>>> than strength
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> e) non-coercion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. disagreement is healthy and necessary to motivate change
>>>>>>>> 2. conflict is desirable when it can be resolved cooperatively
>>>>>>>> with respect, nonviolence, and creativity.
>>>>>>>> 3. it is coercive to use power to dominate or control the
>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>> 4. maximum power to persuade should be the revealing of your
>>>>>>>> present truth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> f) self-empowerment
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. delegation of decision-making authority is failure to accept
>>>>>>>> responsibility
>>>>>>>> 2. anyone can express concerns, seek creative solutions
>>>>>>>> 3. everyone is responsible for every decision
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> g) conflict resolution
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. conflict = disagreement, not battle
>>>>>>>> 2. strengths & weaknesses of attitudes, assumptions, plans are
>>>>>>>> highlighted by disagreement
>>>>>>>> 3. use conflict to push self & group to self-assess, do not
>>>>>>>> focus on other individuals
>>>>>>>> 4. there is no ‘right’, only best for now for this group
>>>>>>>> 5. avoid blaming - that attacks dignity, elicits guilt,
>>>>>>>> defensiveness, alienation
>>>>>>>> 6. people will hide truth to avoid blame & group loses ability
>>>>>>>> to resolve conflicts
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> h) commitment to the group
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. upon joining one accepts personal responsibility for
>>>>>>>> respect, good will, honesty
>>>>>>>> 2. recognize group’s needs have priority over individual desires
>>>>>>>> 3. share responsibility for finding solutions to everyone’s
>>>>>>>> concerns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i) active participation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. create atmosphere in which every contribution is considered
>>>>>>>> valuable and where disagreement can be expressed in a supportive environment
>>>>>>>> 2. avoid belittling, eye-rolling, sighing, aggressive hand
>>>>>>>> signals, and other means of diminishing
>>>>>>>> 3. do not be attached to personal opinions or ideas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> j) equal access to power
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. consciously attempt to creatively share power, skills,
>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>> 2. avoid hierarchy
>>>>>>>> 3. if at any point during the process any individual feels
>>>>>>>> oppressed or offended by the language used by another individual, they may
>>>>>>>> opt to say "ouch." At this point, the process will stop, and the individual
>>>>>>>> will explain what it was that was hurtful and why. Another small pause will
>>>>>>>> be observed, and the process will continue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> k) patience
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. consensus cannot be rushed
>>>>>>>> 2. difficult situations must be allowed time
>>>>>>>> 3. patience is more advantageous than urgency
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> REMEMBER - the SpokeCouncil model employed should build in time and
>>>>>>>> respect for the flow of information: up from affinity and working groups to
>>>>>>>> the SC, and then back down from the SC to AGs and WGs, continually, over
>>>>>>>> and over, until consensus is reached. It is not just the people present at
>>>>>>>> the SC who reach agreement on decisions, it is everyone participating in an
>>>>>>>> OB WG and or AG, who has a say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In solidarity,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PS - I have included a bunch of OB groups, in this email
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Richard Levy <<richlevyus at yahoo.com><richlevyus at yahoo.com><richlevyus at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> richlevyus at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I finally got a chance to look at this thread and have a few
>>>>>>>>> ideas/reactions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I too am apprehensive about cutting down to 1 GA because 1. I do
>>>>>>>>> not necessarily believe that it would be likely/possible to get others back
>>>>>>>>> in the future (though not impossible) and 2. I don't believe that the other
>>>>>>>>> 'replacements/surrogates' for GA, that is SAA's and Community meetings,
>>>>>>>>> haven't been all that successful either. This leads back to two wider
>>>>>>>>> issues: 1 that we will increase membership and participation (in a range of
>>>>>>>>> forms I believe) through more and larger actions on key issues and 2.
>>>>>>>>> within that the key to improving the GA is what we use it for (and this is
>>>>>>>>> linked to all the other restructuring proposals which I believe should be
>>>>>>>>> discussed as a whole before we make this type of decision and that
>>>>>>>>> discussion might start (but not conclude nor be restricted to) facilitation
>>>>>>>>> if there were a big meeting (or at least part of one - which is what I
>>>>>>>>> though we had agreed on last Wednesday ( but I could be wrong))
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The idea of having GAs in Roxbury and other communities is a good
>>>>>>>>> one and it is very positive that POC is doing the planning for that, but
>>>>>>>>> since only the GA can call GAs, it would be necessary to bring such ideas
>>>>>>>>> before GA at a minimum
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it would seem that if we were having one 'regular non-neighborhood
>>>>>>>>> based' GA Sunday night might be a good night (better than Saturday I would
>>>>>>>>> expect)
>>>>>>>>> rich
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> *From:* Gregory Murphy < <gsjmurphy at gmail.com><gsjmurphy at gmail.com><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> *To:* Jorge Alvarez < <eghm627 at mac.com> <eghm627 at mac.com><eghm627 at mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> eghm627 at mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* "<Occupy-Boston-people-of-color-working-group at googlegroups.com><Occupy-Boston-people-of-color-working-group at googlegroups.com><Occupy-Boston-people-of-color-working-group at googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>>>> Occupy-Boston-people-of-color-working-group at googlegroups.com" <<occupy-boston-people-of-color-working-group at googlegroups.com><occupy-boston-people-of-color-working-group at googlegroups.com><occupy-boston-people-of-color-working-group at googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>>>> occupy-boston-people-of-color-working-group at googlegroups.com>; "<facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org" <<facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 11:38 AM
>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Facilitation] Wed meeting and proposals on table
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am pretty sure POC is looking to establish a weekly GA - but
>>>>>>>>> let's confirm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Jorge Alvarez <<eghm627 at mac.com><eghm627 at mac.com><eghm627 at mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> eghm627 at mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My amendments:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Hold 2 GAs not one.
>>>>>>>>> 2. Rotate the second GA through a number of communities, not just
>>>>>>>>> Roxbury, eg., East Boston has many people of color that are
>>>>>>>>> underrepresented and there are others, and we shouldn't forget the wider
>>>>>>>>> 99% in all surrounding neighborhoods. Yes, including in more affluent
>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods -- they desperately need the EDUCATION and ENLIGHTENMENT.
>>>>>>>>> 3. Rotate SAA weekly between Tuesdays an Thursdays.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I prefer compromise where everyone cedes some ground and alienates
>>>>>>>>> the least. Otherwise, we're bound for more downward spiral and continuing
>>>>>>>>> to alienate some constituency that will eventually leave.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm at the gym and it's not conducive to considered thought or
>>>>>>>>> feedback. I will provide more feedback later.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My impression of Roxbury GAs was that they were to be occasional,
>>>>>>>>> not necessarily serially on the same night.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This needs far wider discussion and consideration by ALL or as
>>>>>>>>> many as are willing to humanly participate, from every corner, TOGETHER.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With peace,
>>>>>>>>> Jorge
>>>>>>>>> <eghm627 at mac.com> <eghm627 at mac.com> <eghm627 at mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> eghm627 at mac.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This email was composed on my IPhone. Please excuse any errors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Matthew Hacker <<mh at occupyboston.org><mh at occupyboston.org><mh at occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> mh at occupyboston.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm aware that POC is planning to hold GAs in Roxbury, but as I've
>>>>>>>>> understood, through the grapevine, those GAs are a little ways off from
>>>>>>>>> being realized. It doesn't make sense to me to hold GAs in the meantime
>>>>>>>>> only to keep anyone from being conditioned to expect that night off. I keep
>>>>>>>>> thinking a little breathing room now would do everyone some good. I expect
>>>>>>>>> the organizers of the Roxbury GA will also want to use their own process,
>>>>>>>>> guidelines, etc. Yoking that project to the current schedule of GAs in OB
>>>>>>>>> members' minds seems like setting up for failure POC and the other groups
>>>>>>>>> working on a different model. Who knows, maybe cutting down on GAs now will
>>>>>>>>> refresh some of the enthusiasm for horizontal community decision-making
>>>>>>>>> that I don't really see except among the usual crowd in our current format.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, I need to say that it isn't a FWG proposal, and that's
>>>>>>>>> somewhat intentional. Among those of us who have dedicated a lot of time to
>>>>>>>>> the way GAs are run, I think there's bound to be a perspective on the GA
>>>>>>>>> that is rosier and more optimistic--at least regarding its potential to
>>>>>>>>> host a multiplicity of community interactions and conversations--than there
>>>>>>>>> is outside FWG. I'm wary of appearing to disregard the concerns and input
>>>>>>>>> of a group integrally tied to the success of GA, but I also believe this
>>>>>>>>> proposal shouldn't be filtered too heavily by that perspective before it
>>>>>>>>> reaches the broader discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That said, I will continue to listen to concerns and will
>>>>>>>>> collaborate with anyone interested in amending the proposal. Particularly,
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to know what on what night POC is planning to hold GA in Roxbury,
>>>>>>>>> since my proposal moves Strategic Action Assembly to Tuesdays.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to present the GA with the most radical option, and
>>>>>>>>> the one most necessary in my mind, before the decision is made that cutting
>>>>>>>>> to one GA is in excess of what serves the community.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Gregory Murphy <<gsjmurphy at gmail.com><gsjmurphy at gmail.com><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> gsjmurphy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would hope your thinking is correct, Ariel, but I am unsure and
>>>>>>>>> advise caution, cooperation and outreach . . . hopefully, we will see a
>>>>>>>>> joint FWG/POC proposal emerge.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Ariel Nicole <<arieloboston at gmail.com><arieloboston at gmail.com><arieloboston at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> arieloboston at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just because we decrease OB GA's now doesn't mean we couldn't end
>>>>>>>>> up adding back a GA in Roxbury if thats what happens.......
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also think its not true that we cant add things back, that we
>>>>>>>>> will "never get them back" seems misguided to me...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ariel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Gregory Murphy <<gsjmurphy at gmail.com><gsjmurphy at gmail.com><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> gsjmurphy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have a concern about the idea of cutting GAs to one per week .
>>>>>>>>> . . how does this thinking mesh with POC and the Allies intention to
>>>>>>>>> produce an OB sanctioned GA in Roxbury? POC's thinking is to propose to
>>>>>>>>> move one of the existing GAs to Roxbury, e.g., Thursday night . . . I
>>>>>>>>> think Matt C raises a legitimate concern, *"if we cut those days
>>>>>>>>> that we can all be in the same place at the same time, we're never going to
>>>>>>>>> get them back" *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the one GA per week is in Roxbury, then I do not have a
>>>>>>>>> concern, but please know that POC is in the process of laying the
>>>>>>>>> groundwork for a Roxbury GA and is a few months away from being ready to
>>>>>>>>> start producing one. I am in favor of 2 GAs per week: one downtown and one
>>>>>>>>> in Roxbury.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have heard good support for a Roxbury GA from both GA attending
>>>>>>>>> folks and from those who do not currently attend GA. I advise caution in
>>>>>>>>> proceeding too far down this track. I urge that those in Facilitation who
>>>>>>>>> are pushing to decrease GAs to one per week to reach out to POC and talk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I cc POC google group in this email.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Matthew Hacker <<mh at occupyboston.org><mh at occupyboston.org><mh at occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> mh at occupyboston.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matt,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know there are concerns that dropping a GA means we can never
>>>>>>>>> get it back. My sense is that if we don't drop GAs now, we may never get
>>>>>>>>> back the people who feel that GA is intent on having GAs without actually
>>>>>>>>> representing the community in its decision-making. I think multiple GAs
>>>>>>>>> served a purpose when we were searching for shared space after Dewey in
>>>>>>>>> December, January and February. I think multiple GAs a week now presents an
>>>>>>>>> excuse to make decisions about things that aren't that important in the
>>>>>>>>> long run and to put off discussions and work around the role of the
>>>>>>>>> movement/organization in social justice work happening outside OB.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GAs take a lot of energy both to administrate and to attend. I
>>>>>>>>> think good decision-making process has a place in the
>>>>>>>>> movement/organization. I also think we do ourselves a disservice by trying
>>>>>>>>> to maintain that process and a standard of horizontal democracy in which we
>>>>>>>>> can all take a lot of pride while running along from GA to GA every other
>>>>>>>>> day or so. We can try to make the GA friendlier, and perhaps the discussion
>>>>>>>>> proposal that just passed will do so, but I'm skeptical that productive,
>>>>>>>>> creative discussions are coming to a space that I often attend out of
>>>>>>>>> obligation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My hope is that someone finds productive community time for
>>>>>>>>> Thursday or Sunday that doesn't involve points of process. Potlucks,
>>>>>>>>> discussions, reading groups, trainings all seem like better uses of our
>>>>>>>>> time at the moment than plowing through solidarity proposals. But those
>>>>>>>>> other meetings that will fill up where the GA used to be seem pretty useful
>>>>>>>>> at this point too. I also have a hope, if not a conviction, that the
>>>>>>>>> quality of the items that end up on the GA's agenda will improve as the
>>>>>>>>> community comes to value GAs as more precious and representative events.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So that's why I think it's important and necessary to bring this
>>>>>>>>> proposal. I expect a lot of concerns, and since I don't know what it would
>>>>>>>>> look like in the wake of a change like this, I'm pretty sure I won't be
>>>>>>>>> able to resolve them all. But I like to try things, and though I'm reticent
>>>>>>>>> about a lot of things because I don't think I have the experience or the
>>>>>>>>> knowledge to offer up a better way forward, I do feel like maneuvering
>>>>>>>>> around GA is a change the movement will make on its own, with or without
>>>>>>>>> formal consent in GA, and if we don't respond by doubling down on our
>>>>>>>>> efforts to serve that inclination by making the time we do set aside for
>>>>>>>>> community decisions more rare and meaningful, there won't be movement
>>>>>>>>> decisions to facilitate in any case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Look forward to getting feedback.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Matt Carroll <<mattbcarroll at yahoo.com><mattbcarroll at yahoo.com><mattbcarroll at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> mattbcarroll at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So - are we having a long meeting Wednesday or what? I really want
>>>>>>>>> to have a discussion about all the current ga ideas on the table before we
>>>>>>>>> start changing ga more, because I think trying to make the best process out
>>>>>>>>> of these options and just making a total rewrite is a better way to
>>>>>>>>> approach it than bolting new parts on to the weird rube Goldberg device we
>>>>>>>>> already have. I think we all know how this works well enough to make
>>>>>>>>> something that works better from the ground up. Make it simple, make it
>>>>>>>>> responsive, make it flexible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also really don't think we should gut our ga schedule before we
>>>>>>>>> try this. Ga can be something much better, and if we cut those days that we
>>>>>>>>> can all be in the same place at the same time, we're never going to get
>>>>>>>>> them back. It'll fill up with other meetings in under 48 hours and people
>>>>>>>>> will pitch a fit about what's being donkey konged no matter what day you
>>>>>>>>> suggest or what time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, sorry if I'm coming off as frustrated but I've been trying
>>>>>>>>> to get this to happen for over a fortnight and we keep rolling our stack
>>>>>>>>> over and it never happens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 21, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Matthew Hacker <<mh at occupyboston.org><mh at occupyboston.org><mh at occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> mh at occupyboston.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> don't know if I'll be on time to the meeting, but if we talk
>>>>>>>>> about the GA page, maybe we can discuss how we would like the page
>>>>>>>>> hierarchy to look. as in, I think we can make a separate "Agenda" page
>>>>>>>>> under the General Assembly link pretty easily, and when new proposals are
>>>>>>>>> posted to the Agenda page we can also post it to Facebook. I imagine it
>>>>>>>>> would come up on the Facebook page as 'Agenda' each time something new was
>>>>>>>>> posted (and we can choose to check or uncheck posting to Facebook as
>>>>>>>>> necessary), which would work kind of like the text alerts Greg was
>>>>>>>>> suggesting in his proposal, but on more of a rolling basis.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> oh wait, did I just suggest an agenda item for a meeting I don't
>>>>>>>>> know I'll be attending? maybe that's bad form. if I can't be there, I'll
>>>>>>>>> bring it up another time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> see you all at GA!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Jorge Alvarez <<eghm627 at mac.com><eghm627 at mac.com><eghm627 at mac.com><eghm627 at mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> eghm627 at mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the ad hoc group full proposal coming before GA tonight is now on
>>>>>>>>> GA blog, here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.occupyboston.org/general-assembly/><http://www.occupyboston.org/general-assembly/><http://www.occupyboston.org/general-assembly/><http://www.occupyboston.org/general-assembly/>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.occupyboston.org/general-assembly/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i will propose we talk about what our GA blog page should look
>>>>>>>>> like and do as part of our FWG agenda today.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With peace,
>>>>>>>>> Jorge Alvarez
>>>>>>>>> <eghm627 at mac.com> <eghm627 at mac.com> <eghm627 at mac.com><eghm627 at mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> eghm627 at mac.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This email was composed on a mobile device. Please excuse any
>>>>>>>>> errors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> List info:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To Unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> Send email to: <Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> Or visit:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mh%40occupyboston.org><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mh%40occupyboston.org><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mh%40occupyboston.org><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mh%40occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mh%40occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are subscribed as: <mh at occupyboston.org> <mh at occupyboston.org><mh at occupyboston.org><mh at occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> mh at occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> List info:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To Unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> Send email to: <Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> Or visit:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are subscribed as: <mattbcarroll at yahoo.com><mattbcarroll at yahoo.com><mattbcarroll at yahoo.com><mattbcarroll at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> mattbcarroll at yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> List info:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To Unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> Send email to: <Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> Or visit:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/gsjmurphy%40gmail.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/gsjmurphy%40gmail.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/gsjmurphy%40gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/gsjmurphy%40gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are subscribed as: <gsjmurphy at gmail.com> <gsjmurphy at gmail.com><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> gsjmurphy at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> List info:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To Unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> Send email to: <Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> Or visit:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/arieloboston%40gmail.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/arieloboston%40gmail.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/arieloboston%40gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/arieloboston%40gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are subscribed as: <arieloboston at gmail.com><arieloboston at gmail.com><arieloboston at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> arieloboston at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> List info:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To Unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> Send email to: <Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> Or visit:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/eghm627%40mac.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/eghm627%40mac.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/eghm627%40mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/eghm627%40mac.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are subscribed as: <eghm627 at mac.com> <eghm627 at mac.com><eghm627 at mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> eghm627 at mac.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> List info:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To Unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> Send email to:
>>>>>>>>> <Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>>> Or visit:
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/richlevyus%40yahoo.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/richlevyus%40yahoo.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/richlevyus%40yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/richlevyus%40yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are subscribed as: <richlevyus at yahoo.com><richlevyus at yahoo.com><richlevyus at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> richlevyus at yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>> Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>> List info:
>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation>
>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To Unsubscribe
>>>>>>>> Send email to: <Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>> Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>>> Or visit:
>>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are subscribed as: <mattbcarroll at yahoo.com><mattbcarroll at yahoo.com><mattbcarroll at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> mattbcarroll at yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>> Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>> List info:
>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation>
>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To Unsubscribe
>>>>>>> Send email to: <Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>> Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>>>> Or visit:
>>>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/cmagid%40gmail.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/cmagid%40gmail.com>
>>>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/cmagid%40gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are subscribed as: <cmagid at gmail.com> <cmagid at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> cmagid at gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Consensus mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>> Post: <Consensus at lists.occupyboston.org><Consensus at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>> Consensus at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>> List info: <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/consensus><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/consensus>
>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/consensus
>>>>>
>>>>> To Unsubscribe
>>>>> Send email to: <Consensus-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Consensus-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>> Consensus-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
>>>>> Or visit:
>>>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/consensus/consensus%40occupyboston.org><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/consensus/consensus%40occupyboston.org>
>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/consensus/consensus%40occupyboston.org
>>>>>
>>>>> You are subscribed as: <consensus at occupyboston.org><consensus at occupyboston.org>
>>>>> consensus at occupyboston.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/private/consensus/attachments/20120424/caf44f47/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Consensus
mailing list