Agreed. Anyone who can, and is willing to do so, should start holding
discussion meetings asap. The visualization of our text, and soon to
be tagging, analysis thus far will help to form groups to discuss
similar topics, however this can be done right now, maybe with less
participation, as the information is not so easily presented to a
large assembly. But the more discussion the better. I cannot emphasize
enough how important regular discussions of issues will be to the
process of solidifying the whole community behind a single statement.
The distillation of concepts that make up the statement to be proposed
must also take place in the minds of the individuals who will vote on
wether or not to ratify a statement. To use the example of the three
tiered tagging system, We will hold a discussion of those interested
in Glass-Steagle (just an example, this is a pretty specific
discussion), and then that same group of people will discuss Wall St.
at the next discussion, and then the outlay of a just financial system
at the next. In this way the groups of people who are interested in
specific things can get together and come to a "general consensus"(the
term here is used with the broad meaning, not actually going through a
consensus process). Then we talk to those willing and capable of
articulating the language which, in theory, would be agreed upon by
everyone who has participated in the discussion. Then repeat the
process for all of the ideas/groups of ideas that have been extracted
from our research and analysis. Hopefully in this manner we will be
able to craft a statement what will be accepted, and blocked by
nobody, because the language regarding each topic will have been
drafted, by means of inquiry and discussion, by anyone who wished to
participate. The group who is to actually craft the statement is
merely the hand for the collective mind.