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

Gregory Murphy gsjmurphy at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 15:28:34 EDT 2012


I don't think it has to be that way, Pattie - we could slow down and step
back, which may "allow" others to step up . . . AND . . . we can actively
ask others for help and to step up.

GM



On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Patricia Remer <percyflan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Before making a call for people to step back make sure there are others
> willing to step forward.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Gregory Murphy <gsjmurphy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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/20120424/6c99cd2f/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Consensus mailing list