What To Do About GA?

[Gregory Murphy]

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 <richl...@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 <gsjm...@gmail.com>
To: Jorge Alvarez <egh...@mac.com>
Cc: "Occupy-Boston-people-...@googlegroups.com" <occupy-boston-people-...@googlegroups.com>; "facili...@lists.occupyboston.org" <facili...@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 <egh...@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

egh...@mac.com

This email was composed on my IPhone. Please excuse any errors. 

On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Matthew Hacker <m...@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 <gsjm...@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 <arielo...@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 <gsjm...@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 <m...@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 <mattbc...@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 <m...@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 <egh...@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
egh...@mac.com

This email was composed on a mobile device.  Please excuse any errors.




_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post: Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:  Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org
       Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mh%40occupyboston.org

You are subscribed as: m...@occupyboston.org

_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post: Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:  Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org
       Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/mattbcarroll%40yahoo.com

You are subscribed as: mattbc...@yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post: Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:  Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org

       Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/gsjmurphy%40gmail.com

You are subscribed as: gsjm...@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post: Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:  Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org

       Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/arieloboston%40gmail.com

You are subscribed as: arielo...@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post: Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:  Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org

       Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/eghm627%40mac.com

You are subscribed as: egh...@mac.com

_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post: Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation

To Unsubscribe
        Send email to:  Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org

        Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/richlevyus%40yahoo.com

You are subscribed as: richl...@yahoo.com

[Gregory Murphy]

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 <mattbc...@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

[Gregory Murphy]

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 <cma...@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

 

       Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/cmagid%40gmail.com

You are subscribed as: cma...@gmail.com

[Gregory Murphy]

Matt - if we were not such a divided group, maybe I could accept your "anyone is welcome to show up at a ga," rationale, which of course, is certainly true . . . but that position remains closed to what I think is OB's obvious reality and does nothing to try to bridge divides - maybe that's not important to you, I am unsure, but is important to me.

as per your comment, "having one person speak for several or many is not a healthy way to have an inclusive dialog," I disagree. You diminish the importance of dialogue at the WG and AG level, and its importance to a good spokescouncilI, and I am unsure why.

your neighbor analogy  also does not work for me, becasue I am suggesting a methodology for hundreds of people to participate in, not two people living on the same block - yes, please go ahead and talk with your neighborhood friend about GA, but then also reach consensus in your WG or AG, and then have your spoke and others from your WG or AG who choose to attend Spokescounci, bring that "consented to" position to the SC

Greg

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Matt Carroll <mattbc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

If you're talking about what makes for a good decision making process, having one person speak for several or many is not a healthy way to have an inclusive dialog. Spokes councils are good for planning actions or meetings of regional networks, but they exist to expediate a situation in which not everyone can be in the same room, and they're not an ideal first choice. Eg if we both lived on the same block and I thought you were home and I wanted to talk to you, there's a pretty good chance that i'd go knock on your door instead of picking up a phone, because a phone's better for when you're out of earshot but not if you're in the same place.

That, and outside of work or caretaker responsibilities, anyone is welcome to show up at a ga. Unless they tried to scam us and are currently trying to sue. Or unless they're Johnny law.

Matt

[Mariama White-Hammond]

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

[Morrigan Phillips]

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

[Jennifer Mazer]

      Hello!

        Thank you Mariana!  I would love to try out anything the Zapatistas did.  They are a large influence

       on why I became an activist indirectly because they they were a huge influence on making

          the anti-corporate issue an issue (anti-NAFTA). 

               I agree we cannot reduce the number of GAs when we need to try out this new process.

                We need more people for OB in general!  For GA, working groups, community

                gatherings.  Granted, it's spring; people have exams and need to take care of their gardens.

             People also have family obligations.  We need to recruit and sign up people more.

            We have to be willing to flyer more.  We need to keep on top of events.  

               We need a two day retreat to talk about this...no GA, just discussions and games...

                 Jen Mazer

                   Would love some of your phone numbers.  Talking on the phone better than email.

                   Mine is 617 629 2936

[Gregory Murphy]

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 <mari...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Gregory Murphy]

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...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Gregory Murphy]

Matt - huh?

I think your analysis is unsound, i.e., just because WGs and AGs formed for those reasons, does not mean that members, thereof, do not have ideas about process. In fact, quite the opposite is probably true: since members of these groups gain so much experience with meetings, and getting better at managing themselves, WGs and AGs are the perfect training grounds for fostering ideas about what makes a good process.

Greg

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Matt Carroll <mattbc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

My other problem with using spokes for this is that working groups form because of a need or desire to do a task, and affinity groups form out of trust and shared ideas and comfort zones about tactics.  Neither forms around ideas about what a good meeting process should look like, and that's why using spokes for this discussion would be monsterously inefficient and frustrating.

Matt

On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Carolyn Magid <cma...@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

 

       Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/facilitation/cmagid%40gmail.com

[Gregory Murphy]

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 <mattbc...@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 <abu...@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

_______________________________________________
Consensus mailing list

Post: Cons...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/consensus

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:  Consensus-...@lists.occupyboston.org
       Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/consensus/consensus%40occupyboston.org

You are subscribed as: cons...@occupyboston.org

[Gregory Murphy]

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 <perc...@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

[Gregory Murphy]

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 <mattbc...@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

[Mariama White-Hammond]

I just want to name that it feels like the tone of the discussion is starting to head into the direction of the very things that make the GA difficult. I want to suggest that it is possible to use the time and place of a GA to start a conversation about how to transform the decision-making process of OB. A team could work on the facilitation method for that conversation, because I don't think that the traditional method works well for deeper strategic conversations.  

My suggestion is that the first conversation be with those who have been faithful. The people who are currently holding that space have to decide if they only want to talk to those who are there now or if they want to open up and hear from those who have left because the space didn't work for them. If that is the desire, then those who have left should be invited back with the understanding that we are going to talk about how to make the space work for more people. 

I understand the concern that WGs might not be the best structure for a Spokescouncil. But I don't think that building our movement based on the depth of our relationships is a bad thing. I know that I will fight for the things I believe in but I will readily die for the people I love. The one thing that kept me from completely walking away from OB during some tough experiences was the people that I came into relationship with there. I held onto my hope that we can be a group of people with shared ideas who work from a place of love because I knew that would make us unstoppable.

So I think that the framing of the conversation is not GA or Spokescouncil but the question is - How do we create a movement where people come to love each other and have common beliefs in such a way that we will have the power to go up against a system that has no intention of changing.

So I don't have any authority to do so, but I want to suggest that this conversation move from email into a space where people can look at each other and talk this out. Folks may not take this invitation, but I am putting it out there. I don't know what the GA schedule is, but it seems to me that folks could take some time to just ask - is this working for us, and if not who do we want to bring together to talk about changing it. Maybe it is a summit, maybe a series of GAs, there are a number of structures that could work. I think it would be good to have some experienced facilitators like Morrigan, help to design that process, but let's work from a place of clarifying our concerns, then moving to solutions rather than arguing back and forth. 

Just my thoughts,

Mariama

[Gregory Murphy]

+++1

[Allison Nevitt]

Thank you, Mariama, for all of your input. I have great appreciation.

 - Allison

Una at DailyKos

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Mariama White-Hammond <mari...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Morrigan Phillips]

Hi again,
I thought it would be useful, given that they keep coming up, to also
forward resources on Affinity Groups - History, uses and so on.
Affinity Groups are really quite useful and exciting elements of
action organizing. But like Mariama said in her most recent email -
structures and processes are one piece of a larger body of work to
find the heart of the community work together.

Here ya go!

History of Affinity Groups:
http://www.rantcollective.net/article.php?id=33

Organizational structures for cooperative groups:
Small groups can take lots of forms and while affinity group is often a
term people think of when people talk about direct action, any small
group can essentially be an affinity group by another name.
http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/process/OrgStruct.pdf

Forming and working in an affinity group:
This is the little zine we printed out at the training with tips,
process and examples
http://organizingforpower.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/together-ag-booklet.pdf

Direct action roles within an affinity group
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd323hvj_1257hgm7dhg5

Outline of roles and functions of an AG
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd323hvj_1188kwpx4cgd

Decision making structures:
A really great outline of how decisions can be made. Its good to note
that in any of this consensus can be used...its just a question of by whom
http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/process/DecStruct.pdf

Techniques for consensus decision making in large groups: the
spokespersons council method:
The zine we printed out
http://wri-irg.org/node/11059

Affinity group zine:
Groups for Action (good resource on AG's and working in different sized
groups)
http://wri-irg.org/node/5139

Security for activists zine:
>From the Ruckus Society - good overview of security considerations when
organizing open/closed mobilizations/actions
http://ruckus.org/downloads/RuckusSecurityCultureForActivists.pdf

Sample agenda for a 1st affinity group meeting
http://www.rantcollective.net/article.php?id=34

Group Process Techniques
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd323hvj_1215cqcqzrff

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:55 PM, pamela julian <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree with exception:   we can't shut out the silent but supportive
> 99%        Those silent supporters are the 99% majority cheering on this
> movement hoping the movement evolves into an effective governing force to do
> what we all agree on...improve the quality of life for average citizens.
> Because they are so strapped financially or can't risk losing their
> job...for political reasons or  they don't have the time to take time off
> from their 1, 2 or three jobs....
>
> Let's put aside grandiose political philosophical debates and  aspirations
> to fulfill personal political including thinking we will grow this movement
> by starting a new world by stalling what we really need to do address the
> everyday problems of joblessness, unfair wages, corporate
> welfare...countless problems.
> Address the here and now short and long term.
>
> Come together to work inside and outside the political system discover short
> and long term goals.   The 99% can't wait for a different form of
> government, a take over.
> The revolution is to occupy the democracy we don't have.
>
> If we can agree to at a minimum employ a mediator not associated with the
> movement...to help facilitate  a summit to solve the growing divide and
> growing factions that may work.    While this debate continues the 1% cheer
> on theses divisions that continue to escalate.  Now this divisiveness is the
> new obstacle.
>
> With hope and optimism to end the endless debates.
>    Schedule a summit.
> Employ mediation.
>
> Peace and action.
>
> Pamela

>> _______________________________________________
>> Ideas mailing list
>>
>> Post: Id...@lists.occupyboston.org
>> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas
>>
>> To Unsubscribe
>>        Send email to:  Ideas-un...@lists.occupyboston.org
>>        Or visit:
>> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ideas/pamelasjulian%40gmail.com
>>
>> You are subscribed as: pamela...@gmail.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyMBTA mailing list
>
> Post: Occup...@lists.occupyboston.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/occupymbta
>
> To Unsubscribe
>        Send email to:  OccupyMBTA-...@lists.occupyboston.org
>        Or visit:
> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/occupymbta/morrigan.phillips%40gmail.com
>
> You are subscribed as: morrigan...@gmail.com
>

[Allison Nevitt]

Rita, I think there is something to be said for those who have continued to attend GA to come to a consensus that they are ready to hear from others and to make changes. Most people who walked away have done so because it didn't feel like that readiness was there.

I would want to know that they had done this. If reaching that decision together gives them resolve to go through the process, I'd be appreciative.

I don't see that as being fractious. We are already fractioned. I don't want anyone to feel afraid of hearing each other out. If we can accept our current reality and recognize it as the place we have landed in preparation to move somewhere new, we don't have to see it as "bad". Sometimes things have to fall apart before we are ready to rebuild. Tensions between ideas and values are natural. Differing concerns will cause clashes. Pushing each other toward something new will bring strife. Pain. 

We simply have to commit to going through it. To recognizing that every person is doing the best they can at this given time and we'll all work to find better ways. And that it will take time and, likely, many cycles.

So, if those who have been attending GA need to come together and make a conscious decision and then let others know they are ready, that feels appropriate to me. I wouldn't call that meeting a "summit" maybe. Perhaps that's too loaded. 

In solidarity,

 - Allison

Una at DailyKos

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:20 PM, rita sebastian <ri...@brandeis.edu> wrote:

+1 to moving this conversation into a summit.  I disagree, however, with the elevation of one class over another (loyal GA goers and not),  i.e.  people who are active in OB working groups but left GA because of dysfunction and/ or dissatisfaction.  In horizontal democracy all voices are equal!

Thanks,

Rita

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:55 PM, pamela julian <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote:

Agree with exception:   we can't shut out the silent but supportive 99%        Those silent supporters are the 99% majority cheering on this movement hoping the movement evolves into an effective governing force to do what we all agree on...improve the quality of life for average citizens.  Because they are so strapped financially or can't risk losing their job...for political reasons or  they don't have the time to take time off from their 1, 2 or three jobs....

Let's put aside grandiose political philosophical debates and  aspirations to fulfill personal political including thinking we will grow this movement by starting a new world by stalling what we really need to do address the everyday problems of joblessness, unfair wages, corporate welfare...countless problems. 
Address the here and now short and long term. 

Come together to work inside and outside the political system discover short and long term goals.   The 99% can't wait for a different form of government, a take over. 
The revolution is to occupy the democracy we don't have.

If we can agree to at a minimum employ a mediator not associated with the movement...to help facilitate  a summit to solve the growing divide and growing factions that may work.    While this debate continues the 1% cheer on theses divisions that continue to escalate.  Now this divisiveness is the new obstacle.

With hope and optimism to end the endless debates.
   Schedule a summit. 
Employ mediation.

Peace and action. 

Pamela

_______________________________________________
Ideas mailing list

Post: Id...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas

To Unsubscribe

       Send email to:  Ideas-un...@lists.occupyboston.org
       Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ideas/pamelasjulian%40gmail.com

You are subscribed as: pamela...@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
Occupybostonoutreach mailing list

Post: Occupybost...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/occupybostonoutreach

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:  Occupybostonoutr...@lists.occupyboston.org
       Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/occupybostonoutreach/rita%40brandeis.edu

You are subscribed as: ri...@brandeis.edu

--

Rita Monestersky- Sebastian
Brandeis, MA SID' 2009

“You must be the change you want to see in the world.”  Gandhi

[Allison Nevitt]

I guess I should clarify here that I am not suggesting that those who have attended GA have any control over the process or that others get left out. I'm suggesting that we may all benefit from them reaching a solid conclusion that they are open to input before we all gather and work on redeveloping our processes together.

I would add that anyone who wants to engage a process of looking at how we move forward together needs to bring their ideas while also being open to other perspectives.

 - Allison

Una at DailyKos

[Gregory Murphy]

Matt - I don't understand how a SC could possibly be related to being "assimilated by the borg," and I disagree with the screwdriver analogy you are using, but will reserve future remarks for in person meetings.

I am thinking everyone else on this thread may not be appreciating our back and forth.

GM

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Matt Carroll <mattbc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Because making it impossible to have an individual voice is the first step in that process. I came to occupy because I'm an anarchist, not because I wanted to be assimilated by the borg. This is a step in a bad direction, and also a misuse of what a spokes council is actually good for. It's like insisting on hammering in a screw when you have a perfectly good screwdriver, because someone once had their feelings hurt by a screwdriver being used poorly.

[madh...@riseup.net]

Hey, y'all

Just observing this conversation from the outside I have a few concerns.
First of all, a spokescouncil in which working groups substitute for
affinity groups isn't going to help in cases where entire WGs have given
up on the GA. Yes, there are some, and they're not going to come back just
because you turn it into a spokescouncil.

Second, newcomers and/or people who aren't currently part of a WG will be
excluded. And it's no use expecting people to join a working group before
they can participate in OB-wide decision making, because working group
meetings and events are even harder to find now than when the camp was up.

Worst of all, as Matt pointed out, working groups aren't affinity groups,
which means they will have a harder time reaching consensus on issues
unrelated to their mission. For example, the food WG can presumably figure
out how to settle disputes about how much curry powder to put in the onion
soup, but will quite possibly have divergent irreconcilable opinions
concerning whether to buy a new video camera for Media. How then can they
be represented by a single spokesperson? Or maybe they wouldn't care
enough to weigh in or even send a spoke to the council, which would be
another blow to participation.

I don't have much in the way of alternatives, but if y'all really want to
find out why people aren't coming to GA any more you could try asking
them. Do a survey or something. For myself, I don't think the biggest
problem with Occupy Boston is the GA process, I think it's that we aren't
doing anything worth getting excited about. The best decision-making
process in the world isn't going to attract anybody if the issues to be
decided are so trivial they put people to sleep.

Peter

>>> <mattbc...@yahoo.com><mattbc...@yahoo.com>

>>> mattbc...@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 <

>>>> <abu...@occupyboston.org><abu...@occupyboston.org>

>>>> abu...@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 <

>>>> <gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com>

>>>> gsjm...@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 <

>>>>> <cma...@gmail.com><cma...@gmail.com><cma...@gmail.com>

>>>>> cma...@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

>>>>>> <<gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com>

>>>>>> gsjm...@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

>>>>>>> <<mattbc...@yahoo.com><mattbc...@yahoo.com><mattbc...@yahoo.com>

>>>>>>> mattbc...@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 <

>>>>>>>> <gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com>

>>>>>>>> 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

>>>>>>>> ***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

>>>>>>>> <<richl...@yahoo.com><richl...@yahoo.com><richl...@yahoo.com><richl...@yahoo.com>

>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> *From:* Gregory Murphy <
>>>>>>>>> <gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> gsjm...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> *To:* Jorge Alvarez < <egh...@mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> <egh...@mac.com><egh...@mac.com><egh...@mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> egh...@mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> *Cc:*
>>>>>>>>> "<Occupy-Boston-people-...@googlegroups.com><Occupy-Boston-people-...@googlegroups.com><Occupy-Boston-people-...@googlegroups.com><Occupy-Boston-people-...@googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>>>> Occupy-Boston-people-...@googlegroups.com"
>>>>>>>>> <<occupy-boston-people-...@googlegroups.com><occupy-boston-people-...@googlegroups.com><occupy-boston-people-...@googlegroups.com><occupy-boston-people-...@googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>>>> occupy-boston-people-...@googlegroups.com>;
>>>>>>>>> "<facili...@lists.occupyboston.org><facili...@lists.occupyboston.org><facili...@lists.occupyboston.org><facili...@lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> facili...@lists.occupyboston.org"
>>>>>>>>> <<facili...@lists.occupyboston.org><facili...@lists.occupyboston.org><facili...@lists.occupyboston.org><facili...@lists.occupyboston.org>
>>>>>>>>> facili...@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 <

>>>>>>>>> <egh...@mac.com><egh...@mac.com><egh...@mac.com><egh...@mac.com>

>>>>>>>>> <egh...@mac.com> <egh...@mac.com>
>>>>>>>>> <egh...@mac.com><egh...@mac.com>

>>>>>>>>> egh...@mac.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This email was composed on my IPhone. Please excuse any errors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Matthew Hacker

>>>>>>>>> <<m...@occupyboston.org><m...@occupyboston.org><m...@occupyboston.org><m...@occupyboston.org>

>>>>>>>>> <<gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com>

>>>>>>>>> gsjm...@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

>>>>>>>>> <<arielo...@gmail.com><arielo...@gmail.com><arielo...@gmail.com><arielo...@gmail.com>

>>>>>>>>> arielo...@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

>>>>>>>>> <<gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com><gsjm...@gmail.com>

>>>>>>>>> gsjm...@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

>>>>>>>>> <<m...@occupyboston.org><m...@occupyboston.org><m...@occupyboston.org><m...@occupyboston.org>

>>>>>>>>> <<mattbc...@yahoo.com><mattbc...@yahoo.com><mattbc...@yahoo.com><mattbc...@yahoo.com>

>>>>>>>>> <<m...@occupyboston.org><m...@occupyboston.org><m...@occupyboston.org>

[Marilyn Frankenstein]

I am just reading this now—I have attended very few meetings (except for the zinn memorial series education group—although we have not met during the summer)--one of the reasons is just general overwhelm with all kinds of work tasks—not just paid work at umass but also groups I belong to like phenom (public higher ed network of massachusetts)

I think your analysis mariama gets at another big concern I have had (more from afar as I have not been at most meetings)--what you say about the individualism of our country and so on is so important to take into account in thinking about structure (or lack of structure)—

I also think another issue that I felt (again from afar) was that occupy seemed as fragmented as the left in general—there were (are?) too many groups—it felt almost impossible to know which to choose and then what were the connections among those working groups and existing social change groups—we have too few people to have too many groups...that also speaks to the need for organization from an additional perspective to the very important perspective mariama presented

I seem to not be getting the tons of emails I was getting this fall (I’m NOT complaining about too few emails from occupy! But if there are meetings along the lines mariama suggested I would be interested in getting involved)

In solidarity
marilyn

---

From: Gregory Murphy < <mailto:gsjm...@gmail.com> gsjm...@gmail.com>
To: Jorge Alvarez < <mailto:egh...@mac.com> egh...@mac.com>
Cc: " <mailto:Occupy-Boston-people-...@googlegroups.com> Occupy-Boston-people-...@googlegroups.com" < <mailto:occupy-boston-people-...@googlegroups.com> occupy-boston-people-...@googlegroups.com>; " <mailto:facili...@lists.occupyboston.org> facili...@lists.occupyboston.org" < <mailto:facili...@lists.occupyboston.org> facili...@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 < <mailto:egh...@mac.com> egh...@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

 <mailto:egh...@mac.com> egh...@mac.com

This email was composed on my IPhone. Please excuse any errors. 

On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Matthew Hacker < <mailto:m...@occupyboston.org> m...@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 < <mailto:gsjm...@gmail.com> gsjm...@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 < <mailto:arielo...@gmail.com> arielo...@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 < <mailto:gsjm...@gmail.com> gsjm...@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 < <mailto:m...@occupyboston.org> m...@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 < <mailto:mattbc...@yahoo.com> mattbc...@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 < <mailto:m...@occupyboston.org> m...@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 < <mailto:egh...@mac.com>  <mailto:egh...@mac.com> egh...@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

 <mailto:egh...@mac.com>  <mailto:egh...@mac.com> egh...@mac.com

This email was composed on a mobile device.  Please excuse any errors.




_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post:  <mailto:Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org>  <mailto:Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facili...@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:   <mailto:Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org>  <mailto:Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facilitation...@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:  <mailto:m...@occupyboston.org>  <mailto:m...@occupyboston.org> m...@occupyboston.org

_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post:  <mailto:Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org>  <mailto:Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facili...@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:   <mailto:Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org>  <mailto:Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facilitation...@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:  <mailto:mattbc...@yahoo.com>  <mailto:mattbc...@yahoo.com> mattbc...@yahoo.com


_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post:  <mailto:Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info:  <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:   <mailto:Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facilitation...@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:  <mailto:gsjm...@gmail.com> gsjm...@gmail.com



_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post:  <mailto:Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info:  <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:   <mailto:Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facilitation...@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:  <mailto:arielo...@gmail.com> arielo...@gmail.com




_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post:  <mailto:Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info:  <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:   <mailto:Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facilitation...@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:  <mailto:egh...@mac.com> egh...@mac.com

_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post:  <mailto:Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info:  <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation

To Unsubscribe
        Send email to:   <mailto:Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facilitation...@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:  <mailto:richl...@yahoo.com> richl...@yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Facilitation mailing list

Post:  <mailto:Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facili...@lists.occupyboston.org
List info:  <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation

To Unsubscribe
       Send email to:   <mailto:Facilitation...@lists.occupyboston.org> Facilitation...@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:  <mailto:mattbc...@yahoo.com> mattbc...@yahoo.com