[Consensus] What To Do About GA?
Gregory Murphy
gsjmurphy at gmail.com
Mon Apr 23 15:28:59 EDT 2012
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> 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>
> *To:* Jorge Alvarez <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>; "
> 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> 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
>
> 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> 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>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>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>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>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>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> 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> 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/
>
> 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
>
> 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
> List info: <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
> Or visit:
> <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Facilitation mailing list
>
> Post: <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
>
> To Unsubscribe
> Send email to: <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
>
> You are subscribed as: <mattbcarroll at yahoo.com>mattbcarroll at yahoo.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Facilitation mailing list
>
> Post: Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>
> To Unsubscribe
> Send email to: Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
> Or visit:
> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/gsjmurphy%40gmail.com
>
> You are subscribed as: gsjmurphy at gmail.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Facilitation mailing list
>
> Post: Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>
> To Unsubscribe
> Send email to: Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
> Or visit:
> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/arieloboston%40gmail.com
>
> You are subscribed as: arieloboston at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Facilitation mailing list
>
> Post: Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>
> To Unsubscribe
> Send email to: Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
> Or visit:
> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/eghm627%40mac.com
>
> You are subscribed as: eghm627 at mac.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Facilitation mailing list
>
> Post: Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation
>
> To Unsubscribe
> Send email to: Facilitation-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
> Or visit:
> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/richlevyus%40yahoo.com
>
> You are subscribed as: richlevyus at yahoo.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/private/consensus/attachments/20120423/39a0cc01/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Consensus
mailing list