Hard Blocks, Consensus, and utter praise!

[El Gringo]

So I'm so very happy to have seen an amazing GA last night with 2
people who have become GREAT Moderators and have helped the groups
structure and organization grow, this has allowed us to stay on track
and MOST importantly allows everyones voices to be heard.

I made the statement awhile ago that i wasn't bringing anyone to GA
until i felt we were organized, matured, and impressing people.
Kaitlyn and Adam well done, i am inviting everyone now because of the
work yall have done.

Hard Blocks!

So this has been an ongoing conversation and this team needs to figure
out and draft a proposal for next week to sort this out.

Let's read up a lil and see, the Green Party has great info in this
also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Consensus_blocking_and_other_forms_of_dissent



Maybe,

"A hard block is an ethical stance against the proposal, a safety
concern, or what voices or groups does it marginalize or alienate?"

The hard blocker must articulate why the proposal violates these.
There is also the language of "violating the "Principles of
Solidarity"". Do we even have those?

I think we should get away from "If this passes i will leave the group
or the movement" It's not about what you don't like and someone
should find the group that's right for them, not just leave.


Bob wants to include language that would say the proposal would do
"irreparable" damage to the movement. I think this opens the door to
what's irreparable and we can't tell what's in the future. i want to
work with him on this language and offered to flesh it out. He may
still bring it to a the GA on Thurs.


Give me feedback and Lisa should be able to chime in manana.

Thanx yall. We are the lightening rods that are gonna take alot of
heat but we are the guardians of democracy and the ones who make sure
the voices of the few get heard. Very noble if you ask me.

[El Gringo]

The current definition of a hard block, is that an individual feels it
threatens the solidarity of the movement and / or is prepared to walk
away. The ‘walking away from the movement’ definition has proved
unsatisfactory and detrimental to an individual with strong concerns
who does not necessarily want to walk away.

A hard block must be explained in terms of HOW the individual thinks
it threatens the solidarity of the movement. What voices or groups may
it marginalize or alienate? What principle of solidarity might it
directly violate? How does it threaten the safety of the individual or
group?What serious moral or ethical concern does it raise? A hard
block must be explained in terms of the proposal’s perceived
relationship to, or impacting of, the founding principles of the
movement, and cannot simply be made because an individual does not
‘like’ something

On Jan 11, 5:16 pm, El Gringo <revolutionarygri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I'm so very happy to have seen an amazing GA last night with 2
> people who have become GREAT Moderators and have helped the groups
> structure and organization grow, this has allowed us to stay on track
> and MOST importantly allows everyones voices to be heard.
>
> I made the statement awhile ago that i wasn't bringing anyone to GA
> until i felt we were organized, matured, and impressing people.
> Kaitlyn and Adam well done, i am inviting everyone now because of the
> work yall have done.
>
> Hard Blocks!
>
> So this has been an ongoing conversation and this team needs to figure
> out and draft a proposal for next week to sort this out.
>
> Let's read up a lil and see, the Green Party has great info in this
> also.
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Consensus_bloc...