[Consensus] [Facilitation] What To Do About GA?

Gregory Murphy gsjmurphy at gmail.com
Mon Apr 23 21:17:53 EDT 2012


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
>>>
>>>    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> 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>
>>>> *To:* Jorge Alvarez < <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>; "<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> 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
>>>>
>>>>  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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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/
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> 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/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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> 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/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/20120423/8b777478/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Consensus mailing list