A good conversation from OLA

[El Gringo]

Some good points in here about Hard blocks. We need to start talking
about it as it hasn't really come up or been complicated so far.
Feedback here and discussion next Fac meeting, Gracias.

What: The Reconciliation Proposal

Why: Again, consensus requires collective decision making. The current
definition of a hardblock, is that an individual feels it threatens
the
solidarity of the movement. A hard block must be explained in terms of
HOW
the individual thinks it threatens the solidarity of the movement:
what
voices or groups does it marginalize or alienate? What principle of
solidarity does it directly go against? A hardblock must be explained
in
terms of the proposal’s relationship to, or impacting of, the
movement, and
cannot simply be made because an individual does not ‘like’ something.

How: If the hardblock meets the criteria of threatening a principle of
solidarity or marginalizing a group of people within the movement, but
still consensus cannot be reached and a proposal is tabled, the
proposer is
encouraged to contact the hardblockers and arrange a time and place,
either
in person or virtually, to address, in more detail, the issues and
concerns
raised by the hardblock. If the hardblocker is satisfied, they can
then
alert Facilitation and the GA that their block has been removed, and
the
proposal, as amended, can be read back to the assembly once more for
confirmation, and hopefully consensus. We call this ‘the
reconciliation
proposal’.

If a hardblocker does not want to work on reconciliation within 3
days, the
hardblock is automatically removed and modified consensus is reached
by
default.


Afirmation, Dec 27 04:39PM -0800

ROCKING!



Concerns, Dec 27 06:03PM -0800

I don't understand the last sentence of the proposal. You're now also
changing whether statements need 100% consensus in a reconciliation
proposal? How can you claim "modified consensus is reached by default"
if a
proposal is tabled? If it's tabled, it has to come before the GA again
and
reach consensus with whoever is at the GA that night - it can't simply
be
given a back door into the consented upon proposals of OLA.

Also, the definition of hard block has been given verbally as
"threatens
the security of individuals or the solidarity of the movement" and the
explanation doesn't include acknowledging the first definition of a
hard
block that has been given.

I really liked Jared's explanation that to say you would walk away
from the
movement if the proposal passes, you have to explain how the proposal
threatens our solidarity or safety. Your explanation cannot end at
"I'll
walk away." He made this comment during the FAC meeting on Friday and
then
when the moderator explained a hard block at that night's GA, the
definition he used was "it threatens people's security, it threatens
the
solidarity of the movement, OR I'd walk away from the movement if it
passes." I called a point of process and butchered a clarification on
the
definition of a hard block, but I do think we need to be honest -
particularly in a proposal from FAC - that this proposal both
heightens
clarity of a hard block and works to reconcile them.

I think it is presumptuous to claim that the definition of hard block
used
by some members of FAC is shared by the GA in general, since we're not
unified in our presentation of its definition.

I was also really shocked last Friday at how impassioned a woman was
in
defending someone's right to hard block a proposal even when his
explanation had nothing to do with the proposal "because he isn't as
eloquent as some members of the assembly." It made me take a step back
and
recognize that the highly articulate among us can't simply dictate the
pathway to consensus that the assembly takes and that as FAC we should
consider having a conversation with GA about consensus before
submitting a
proposal for changing the process.

I think FACers have a lot of good intentions with creating meaningful
process, but if we don't include the entire assembly in the
conversation
before presenting some of these proposals, then we do look like the
group
that ran off with the keys to OLA decision-making.

Just some food for thought.



Proposer, Dec 27 06:11PM -0800

It's not given a back door. If the hardblockers don't work on the
proposal
with the proposer, the hardblock is invalidated. This would, if you
take
the S of NV, invalidate Michael. If they do work on it and
modifications
are made, it's brought back for consensus. If they work on it, and
modifications aren't made, it's still brought back for consensus, and
they
can hard block again.

No one likes the 'I will walk away from the movement' line because it
has
been misused, and as Leone says, its been used as a form of blackmail.
People who care that much about the movement will have time to form
their
opposition in terms of how it threatens a principle, rather than just
having a walk away clause. It's not useful, because, to be quite
frank, the
kind of people who walk away, are usually those who aren't very
involved or
using it for good. People who really care, would rather stay and
figure
shit out. Even having that potential is threatening to people, because
you
can hardblock something on a point of principle and it be valid and
not
want to walk away. It's not a useful or productive definition to
anyone,
whether it's 'and' or 'or'. People don't walk away from movements they
care
about. They stay and fight it out and are given the right to do so
through
a process, not told they have to leave.



Concerns, Dec 27 06:21PM -0800

If someone doesn't work on changing the proposal, then the proposer
gets to
say "x person didn't work to change it, so since no one else hard
blocked,
we've reached consensus." Is that what the sentence is saying?

I have no personal disagreement with what you say in your second
paragraph.
The difference between OR and AND in the definition is a critical one
to me
because it has never been clarified to the assembly, and it seems to
me
that there are members of the assembly who think "I'll walk away if
this
passes" is a completely legitimate statement. What I'm saying is that
I
think we need to work toward deeper consensus on the definition of a
hard
block before codifying our definition and also creating new rules on
how to
reconcile hard blocks.

I guess this goes back to my concern that we should have a session on
the
GA process before bringing up more and more proposals to clarify the
process. I'm just not convinced proposals alone are the best way to
build
better consensus in the movement. I know that sounds silly, but I
think we
need to make more space in the assembly for voices outside of FAC and
I'm
wary of putting up two proposals really quickly from the committee
that
change the rule of proposal writing (3 people) and decision-making
(this
one).