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

Gregory Murphy gsjmurphy at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 11:29:25 EDT 2012


thank you so much, Mariama for both your willingness to share and your
insights - and yes, email is a tricky water to navigate.

Your comment,* "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,"  *resonates deeply with me, as I recognize my
heart's yearning for such a bond, in OB.

(To date, in my life, I have found such deep level of connection in a
spiritual community I belong to - in that community, there are shared
values, beliefs and practices which lay the groundwork for us to express
our heart's energies.)

In OB, I think many of us have started to develop those bonds with, maybe,
a few other people. I sense it at play in the few affinity groups which
have sprung up, in which there is a level of trust (and love?) based on
shared values and specific commitments to action. I also sense it in
certain groups of friends.  We can see it is possible.

As an entity, OB is far from creating such a beloved community - yet, I
remain hopeful. I agree that both our operational structure and our ability
to be accountable and hold each other accountable are the keys to providing
a foundation for love to emerge . . . that said, at this point, I think
most of us would be willing to settle for respect and compassion, for each
other - which are two prerequisites for love.

Way back when, many of us had hoped the OB Summit could help us heal
emerging divisions and forge a stronger community, but that day took a
different tact. Divisions are stronger now - people are entrenched.  We
don't have a magic wand to allow us to start over, but I know we can learn
from what we have done.

A common vision, agreement on shared values and ways of being, dedication
to community, and willingness to do the work to dismantle the dominant
culture we have replicated in OB, is called for.  Let us create, anew.  In
the human body, new blood is continually being created. I read, once, that
every 7 days our blood is completely new - if true, what a great example of
what is possible.

Thanks again,

Greg






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
>>>>>
>>>>>    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/20120424/57ca12dc/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Consensus mailing list