Flowchart.jpg, Flowchart.psd (occupy-austin-facilitators@googlegroups.com)

[Spencer Harmon (Google Docs)]

I've shared some items with you

Message from anti.bellu...@gmail.com:

This is the new flowchart I threw together. Thoughts, opinions, corrections?

Click to open:

• Flowchart.jpg
• Flowchart.psd

Google Docs makes it easy to create, store and share online documents, spreadsheets and presentations.

[Na...@occupyaustin.org]

Good work on this flow chart spencer. I have one question about it, if the proposal doesn't get a 75% consensus why would it go back into the extended discussion phase instead of moving the GA forward on to the next proposal ?

--
Nate -
512-696-4600 cell
occupyaustin.org

[Maryann]

So one suggestion is aesthetic - could we put the table option (again)
just below test for consenus. So that it is explicitly clear that the
outcomes are consensus or tabled?

Second suggestion - Where it says "does the proposal already address
the concern? Shouldn't this be a decision point/ If yes, move on to
next concern - if no move on to friendly amendments? It seems weird
to have a question that only has one possible outcome.

If you can explain, please do so - but I got a little confused
there.

Also, in this process you will be asking twice if there are any
unaddressed concerns - which I think is fine - I think some people
might find it redundant.

finally, I know we talked about it some on Monday, but I would like
to add "any blocks or stand asides". you don't have to explain a
stand aside - it's just a public way of stating that you will not be
participating in carrying out this action - but you don't think it
blocks the core values of the movement. You don't have to explain it
- it's just a public statement.

What does everyone think?




-Maryann

On Jan 12, 5:31 pm, N...@occupyaustin.org wrote:
> Good work on this flow chart spencer. I have one question about it, if the
> proposal doesn't get a 75% consensus why would it go back into the extended
> discussion phase instead of moving the GA forward on to the next proposal ?
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Spencer Harmon (Google Docs) <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> anti.bellum.trouba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  I've shared some items with you

> > Message from anti.bellum.trouba...@gmail.com:

>
> > This is the new flowchart I threw together. Thoughts, opinions, corrections?
>
> > Click to open:
>

> >    - Flowchart.jpg<https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzcdAw3gdFp9NGExYTYxMDQtY2I0OS00OGU2...>
> >    - Flowchart.psd<https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzcdAw3gdFp9M2Y0MTc2OGYtM2YxMS00NTI3...>

>
> > Google Docs makes it easy to create, store and share online documents,
> > spreadsheets and presentations.

> > [image: Logo for Google Docs] <https://docs.google.com>

[Spencer Harmon]

I have 75% consensus' no option going to extend discussion because
that section is effectively a temp check. "You guys want to have a
discussion? No? Try to reach consensus? No? Alright, sounds like we'll
have to table this one." I was a little ambivalent on that; I
initially tabled there (which we could still do, I just think this
leaves the decision with the assembly). Obviously, this is a remote
circumstance. At this point, we would have addressed all of the
concerns, no one blocks, but less than 75% is sparkling for their
consent. But, if we've gone through the whole process, only half the
assembly is on board, and they want to keep talking about it, they can
do that.
Maryann, I'm a little confused about your aesthetic suggestion, When
you say "move the table option below the test for consensus," do you
mean the temp check for if they want to move to consensus, or the test
at 75% consensus? I think, since there are only two terminators (not
including present proposal) for this process, it's pretty clear that
those are the only two possible outcomes. However, it seems like you
may be proposing a change similar to Nate's question. Again, what's
shown here does not automatically table if consensus is not reached;
it goes to a temp check.
So, "Does the proposal already address the next concern?" I have this
as a process instead of a decision point because I wanted to contain a
few steps here, to be explained in prose. First, the intention of this
step is to move to the next concern on the list "Remaining concerns?
Yes. Advance to next concern." Then, the intent is to ask the proposer
if there are already provisions for how to deal with the concerns at
hand, if so, explain it, then, regardless, move on to points of
information from the assembly. "Proposer, does your proposal already
address this concern? Yes? Please explain. Cool. Points of information
from assembly? et c. [or] Proposer, does your proposal already
address this concern? No? Cool. Points of information from assembly?"
I think this decision point (contained in the process on the chart) is
the one you're talking about, but I think it need to go to points of
information from the assembly, anyway. The assembly could have more or
better information to resolve a concern than the proposer, and they
should get a chance to make that info known regardless of if the
proposer thinks it's already addressed in the proposal.
The iterations of unaddressed concerns have been a problem in the
past. I think this will have to come down to facilitator discretion in
assessing if the concern is actually unaddressed. Ideally, to me, even
if someone thinks of a concern late in the process, we would stop
everything to hear it. Hearing and discussing dissent, providing
individual veto power, and requiring a strong majority of support are
really the only things that make this anything like consensus.
However, like much of consensus, the concerns can be abused to
filibuster a proposal. If, when asked for unaddressed concerns, the
assembly consistently provides unresolved concerns (we don't have to
resolve a concern, but we will address it), the process can take
infinitely long just because one concern can't be resolved. So, yes, I
think we should assess if there are any more unaddressed concerns, but
we should also be very diligent when we explain what's being asked of
the assembly.
Anyone What do you guys think of the decision to group portions of the
process by color? Is there a better way to show how different sections
are related? Suggestions for different semantics? Any other thoughts
or opinions?
Spencer

[Nolan Darilek]

So who wants to translate this into English so I can comprehend it?

What's that you say? Me, a sadomasochist? Why ever would you think such
a thing?!?

[Maryann]

I think that once we take the consensus of 75% it should be
automatically tables. We've already decided not to talk about it
further when we decided to come to consensus. So we don't need to ask
again if people want to talk about it. We already decided to come to
consensus. So, I think it should be tables if we don't get enough
sparkles...

As for translating it - I think it looks confusing, but I think we can
improve it. I think some of it might be layout.

Are we meeting tomorrow to talk about this?

-Maryann

Are we meeting on sunday?

[Joe Cooper]

Nolan, I'm working on a prose version of the diagram. It'll need to be ready by the time we have our mock GA. It's necessary for sighted folks as well, since a flowchart requires some technical knowledge, of what the containing shapes mean, that many people don't have.

[Na...@occupyaustin.org]

A little off topic but I feel it's relevant information going forward.
I attached a copy/paste version with links included or just go to the
link below:

http://thefutureofoccupy.org/thematic-issues/20121-the-future-of-assemblies/

--