[Consensus] [Facilitation] What To Do About GA?
Gregory Murphy
gsjmurphy at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 15:34:54 EDT 2012
Matt - I do not understand your use of the phrase "sketchy shadow
government" in reference to a Spokescouncil which had OB buy-in and full
participation. That is what I envision and am suggesting.
It is unfortunate that you've "been around organizing where one thing got
decided at a meeting and that decision got changed behind closed doors."
What is the relevance of raising that experience in this dialogue, I am
not advocating for that and am unsure why you use it as an argument against
SC. It seems an inappropriate analogy. Where are the "closed doors" in a
Spokescouncil?
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Matt Carroll <mattbcarroll at yahoo.com>wrote:
> If you can speak for yourself and aren't required to filter that through
> another group to be heard it's a better vehicle for discussing change.
> Having the change made using the tools already established in a space
> already established is above the board and easy to follow, and doesn't look
> like some sort of .
>
> I've 's not good. Moving towards decisions being made by wgs and ags away
> from public meetings is moving towards that.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Gregory Murphy <gsjmurphy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matt - going through GA , which most everyone, including the GA faithful
> feel needs major overhaul, to execute that major overhaul, seems to me a
> faulty reasoning or argument.
>
> I disagree with your analysis, again:
>
> Since so many people have dropped out of GA, the only continuity is the
> fact that GA keeps happening, and that the GA faithful keep attending.
> (Please, this is observation, not a slight against anyone., I still attend
> GA, albeit, occasionally.)
>
> As per transparency - I do not understand your concern about that, at
> all. Every SpokesCouncil meeting can be live-streamed, and minutes can be
> kept - in accordance with the hoped for level of transparency at a GA. GAs
> are not inherently "more" transparent, in fact, I can't remember the last
> time a GA was live-streamed.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Matt Carroll < <mattbcarroll at yahoo.com>
> mattbcarroll at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a flawed process that works well enough to get things done, even if
>> those things often get done in a slow and painful manner. Going through ga
>> to change ga keeps continuity and is more transparent.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Anthony Bucci < <abucci at occupyboston.org>
>> abucci at occupyboston.org> wrote:
>>
>> A spokesouncil is, in essence, just a formalized, concurrent way of
>> organizing the discussions that already happen in working groups and
>> caucuses. There's nothing magical or mysterious about it. There's no added
>> trauma either, only what individuals choose to bring into the room with
>> them. The structure of the conversation does not encourage that any more
>> than the general assembly structure does.
>>
>> Perhaps more to the point, though, if the recognition is that the general
>> assembly is a troubled process at the moment, why would anyone think that
>> flawed process is able to fix itself? Isn't this one of those doing the
>> same thing over and over again expecting different results moments?
>> Hammer/nail?
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Gregory Murphy < <gsjmurphy at gmail.com><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>> 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><cmagid at gmail.com>
>>> 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><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>> 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><mattbcarroll at yahoo.com>
>>>>> 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><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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><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><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> *To:* Jorge Alvarez < <eghm627 at mac.com> <eghm627 at mac.com><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" <<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" <<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><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> <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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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/><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><mattbcarroll at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> mattbcarroll at yahoo.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><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>
>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>> 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><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><gsjmurphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> gsjmurphy at gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><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>
>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>> 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><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><arieloboston at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> arieloboston at gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><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>
>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>> 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><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><eghm627 at mac.com>
>>>>>>> eghm627 at mac.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><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>
>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>> 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><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><richlevyus at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> richlevyus at yahoo.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Facilitation mailing list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Post: <Facilitation at lists.occupyboston.org><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>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>> mattbcarroll at yahoo.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/cmagid%40gmail.com><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/cmagid%40gmail.com>
>>>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/cmagid%40gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> You are subscribed as: <cmagid at gmail.com> <cmagid at gmail.com>
>>>>> cmagid at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Consensus mailing list
>>>
>>> Post: <Consensus at lists.occupyboston.org><Consensus at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>> Consensus at lists.occupyboston.org
>>> List info: <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/consensus><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/consensus>
>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/consensus
>>>
>>> To Unsubscribe
>>> Send email to: <Consensus-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org><Consensus-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org>
>>> Consensus-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
>>> Or visit:
>>> <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/consensus/consensus%40occupyboston.org><https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/consensus/consensus%40occupyboston.org>
>>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/consensus/consensus%40occupyboston.org
>>>
>>> You are subscribed as: <consensus at occupyboston.org><consensus at occupyboston.org>
>>> consensus at occupyboston.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/private/consensus/attachments/20120424/b0b1fff0/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Consensus
mailing list