[Consensus] [Facilitation] What To Do About GA?
Gregory Murphy
gsjmurphy at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 12:33:38 EDT 2012
I think I'd like to congratulate all of us, in this thread, for we are up
to almost 50 posts and it has remained *civil* . . . civil and interesting
and safe enough that both Mariama and Morrigan have weighed in with
thoughtful considerations and advice. They are two of our most learned
facilitators and carry much wisdom between them, and I am so *heartened* to
hear their voices.
Their stepping forward, makes me wonder several things:
*thing 1)* - maybe it would be wise for those of us deeply invested in GA
process, myself certainly included, to take a *BIG step back*, and let
other voices come to the fore, to guide OB through a reconfiguring of
General Assembly and our decision making process . . .
*thing 2)* - though I will continue to champion a Spokescouncil model for
some decision making, and, as I and others have noted, as much community
dialogue needs to occur, as possible, about this topic, I wonder if a good
Springtime step would be for OB to have a *General Assembly Summit* . . .
(As some of us know, a GA Summit idea was bandied about (what's the
derivation of that phrase?) several months ago, but the idea fizzled (I
think) due to rising internal tensions and the lack of appetite for
addressing such a BIG topic, given the divisiveness - can someone confirm
or clarify? - that said, maybe it's not that important.)
thing 3) - if we produce a GA Summit, I envision that the first few
sections (of the day? of the weekend? of two days, separated by a week?)
would begin with deep trust building exercises, followed by (once and for
all) forging agreement on Values, followed by an airing and processing of
grievances to (hopefully) put much of our divisiveness to bed . . . then
followed by GA exploration discussions
thing 4) - we would need the skills of our most highly skilled
facilitators who are grounded in trust building, in conflict resolution, in
guiding the dismantling of dominant structures, in collaboration, in
visioning . . . and so much more
thing 5) - harking back to my analogy of humans recreating our blood, in 7
days, I believe that such a Summit, if structured and facilitated with deep
wisdom, and approached with *open hearts* by all its attendees, with Ways
of Being adhered to, has the potential to help us *transform* into a
cohesive, activist movement *and* a radical community, as Mariama mentions
- which would be truly revolutionary.
thing 6) - I am jazzed at the thought of such a Summit and would volunteer
my energy to help make it happen.
Greg M.
PS - can someone(s) forward my email to SAA, Consensus, Spokes and
Logistics? I am getting bounces from those group lists.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Morrigan Phillips <
morrigan.phillips at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh thanks Mariama for bringing up the Zapatista's spokescouncil. Its a
> wonderful example of how much love, intention and hard work go into
> building a revolutionary community.
>
> Speaking of hard work...group process is that and sometimes more.
> Spokescouncils are one of many tools for engaging in group process
> among many. Finding the right process for a group to do work,
> especially social change work, is a process in and of itself.
>
> I attached a few handouts I use when doing trainings. We used when a
> group of us were doing NVDA and affinity group trainings for OB folks.
> I thought they might be helpful for some folks in this discussion. One
> in particular speaks to some of what Mariama wrote in her email in
> that it explains how a group could go about mapping a current process
> including accountability, whose speaking, what's being said, decision
> making and power dynamics. The others speak more to the idea that
> groups can structure things in a lot of different ways. There is also
> a long and rich history of groups in struggle for social change using
> various structures so history is also worth looking at to find some
> answers too. The Zapatistas are a great starting point!
>
> If anyone is interested in more resources I have some larger files and
> some links I could pass along.
>
> Morrigan
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Mariama White-Hammond
> <mariamawh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am torn about writing this email because I do not think that email is
> the
> > best place for this conversation, but I also don't come to GA anymore
> and I
> > thought that sharing my personal experience might add something to this
> > conversation.
> >
> > I am a born and bred Bostonian who grew up in Roxbury and has been doing
> > social justice work since I was in high school. I run a non-profit, and
> > while I know that organizations can give a lot to support movements, they
> > can also undermine them. So for the past few years I have been looking
> for
> > something more that is not ruled by the 501c3 code.
> >
> > I joined Occupy because I hoped that I would find that deeper thing. I
> > noticed quickly that Occupy was predominently white, and middle class
> and I
> > was a little concerned but I thought that I could help to change that. I
> > threw myself in whole heartedly, like many people and after a few months
> of
> > running on very little sleep I needed to take some time to reflect and
> so I
> > took a step back. What I realized based on conversations was that beyond
> > just the apparent race and class struggles, there was another thing that
> was
> > causing a deeper level of tension for me. I will do my best to express
> it.
> >
> > Our country was built on the notion that the individual should have the
> > right to express themselves, work hard and earn their way. So we often
> spend
> > time working to make sure that the rights of the individual are
> protected.
> > But I often end up feeling that by working so hard to create a system
> where
> > people CAN succeed, we don't actually create a system where people DO
> > succeed. We measure success by whether people have the opportunity to get
> > somewhere vs. looking at whether we actually do get there.
> >
> > In our country that means that some people are more interested in making
> > sure that there can be another Bill Gates than that millions of families
> can
> > feed themselves everyday. Because holding ourselves more accountable for
> > getting results means that I would have to be in much deeper community
> with
> > you to create a system that works for both of us. I would have to figure
> out
> > how to let go of some of my possibilities to meet your necessities. We
> would
> > have to figure out how to hold each other accountable both when we are
> being
> > greedy and when we are being lazy. Essentially we would have to have
> radical
> > community.
> >
> > I left Occupy not only because I was exhausted, but also because I felt
> like
> > the culture was to value the right of individuals to express themselves
> over
> > the need of everyone to be heard. It felt like the loudest always won. I
> > want to be clear that I am the kind of person who knows how to get
> herself
> > heard and I use that skill when I have to speak truth to power. But when
> I
> > come back to my community I don't want to have to yell over other people
> and
> > I don't want to be yelled at (which I was after a GA one day.)
> >
> > I am not advocating for a particular structure, because I don't feel
> like I
> > have the right to do so as a person who is disconnected from the OB
> > community. But I will say that I did meet with one of the spokescouncils
> of
> > the Zapatistas, and that was a powerful experience. What they had was a
> kind
> > of radical community where people sat in positions of leadership because
> of
> > their deep love for their people and because of their willingness to
> carry
> > the message of their small group members.
> >
> > Even though I have left the larger OB community I have remained
> connected to
> > some of the friends that I made there and I consider them part of my
> > community. I am not talking about one-time small group discussions. I am
> > saying that if decision-making came out of a structure that facilitated
> deep
> > relational connection and dialogue, then I think that would be much more
> > powerful. I also think that people could really get to know and love each
> > other. I think that some of the people who are really good at talking
> could
> > build their capacity for listening. That kind of radical community might
> not
> > only pull people like me back in, but it could make space for the young
> > people I work with in Roxbury who I think could be much more deeply
> engaged
> > in a small group than they could in a longer sometimes confusing meeting
> of
> > lots of people they don't know.
> >
> > That's just my one perspective.
> >
> > Mariama
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Gregory Murphy <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>
> 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>
> >>> 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
> >
> >>>> 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>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>> does not equal approval or friendship
> >>>>> assume the best motivations/intentions; then inquire
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> c) respect
> >>>>>
> >>>>> for emotional as well as logical concerns
> >>>>> criticize acts not persons
> >>>>> objections/criticisms of acts are not attacks, they are concerns
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> d) cooperation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> bring an attitude of helpfulness & support
> >>>>> not competitive, not about winning but building a solution together
> >>>>> adversarial attitudes focus attention on weaknesses rather than
> >>>>> strength
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> e) non-coercion
> >>>>>
> >>>>> disagreement is healthy and necessary to motivate change
> >>>>> conflict is desirable when it can be resolved cooperatively with
> >>>>> respect, nonviolence, and creativity.
> >>>>> it is coercive to use power to dominate or control the process
> >>>>> maximum power to persuade should be the revealing of your present
> truth
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> f) self-empowerment
> >>>>>
> >>>>> delegation of decision-making authority is failure to accept
> >>>>> responsibility
> >>>>> anyone can express concerns, seek creative solutions
> >>>>> everyone is responsible for every decision
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> g) conflict resolution
> >>>>>
> >>>>> conflict = disagreement, not battle
> >>>>> strengths & weaknesses of attitudes, assumptions, plans are
> highlighted
> >>>>> by disagreement
> >>>>> use conflict to push self & group to self-assess, do not focus on
> other
> >>>>> individuals
> >>>>> there is no ‘right’, only best for now for this group
> >>>>> avoid blaming - that attacks dignity, elicits guilt, defensiveness,
> >>>>> alienation
> >>>>> people will hide truth to avoid blame & group loses ability to
> resolve
> >>>>> conflicts
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> h) commitment to the group
> >>>>>
> >>>>> upon joining one accepts personal responsibility for respect, good
> >>>>> will, honesty
> >>>>> recognize group’s needs have priority over individual desires
> >>>>> share responsibility for finding solutions to everyone’s concerns
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> i) active participation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> create atmosphere in which every contribution is considered valuable
> >>>>> and where disagreement can be expressed in a supportive environment
> >>>>> avoid belittling, eye-rolling, sighing, aggressive hand signals, and
> >>>>> other means of diminishing
> >>>>> do not be attached to personal opinions or ideas
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> j) equal access to power
> >>>>>
> >>>>> consciously attempt to creatively share power, skills, information
> >>>>> avoid hierarchy
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>> consensus cannot be rushed
> >>>>> difficult situations must be allowed time
> >>>>> 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>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the ad hoc group full proposal coming before GA tonight is now on GA
> >>>>>> blog, here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This email was composed on a mobile device. Please excuse any
> errors.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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/mh%40occupyboston.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are subscribed as: mh at occupyboston.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are subscribed as: 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are subscribed as: 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/cmagid%40gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>> You are subscribed as: cmagid at gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/private/consensus/attachments/20120424/59fee707/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Consensus
mailing list