hard block language

[mike chamness]

The exact wording of what was passed last evening re: hard block is below for reference...

Seems Bob's language still needs to be inserted into this text as well. 

Proposal: Hard Block -- “A serious stance against a proposal. It can stem from an ethical concern, an individual safety issue, or the concern that a proposal violates the principles of solidarity of the movement and/or a concern that the proposal may marginalize a specific group.” New additional language added by Chris: “The blocker will be required to explain their block & the Facil WG present at the GA will determine the validity of the hard block.” 

Concerns: 1) Facilitators must be accountable to GA, 2) GA could simply vote to move along so hard blocks aren’t needed, 3) Hard blocks should not be overridden by GA or facilitator. 

Friendly amendment: Bob - To set guidelines of use & pull “and/or a concern that the proposal may marginalize a specific group.” and to incorp his language re: the process of reconciling a hard block. 

[Bruno B.]

In the last time it was read, this part had been taken out:
"and/or a concern that the proposal may marginalize a specific group."

Bob and I both had expressed that this is redundant to the phrase just before it, regarding violating solidarity.


There should also be a phrase that says the moderator (or all those on the facilitation team who abstained from taking a position during the discussion on the proposal) will make the final decision regarding the validity of the block.


 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "occupyveniceFacilitation" group.
To post to this group, send email to occupyvenice...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to occupyveniceFacili...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/occupyveniceFacilitation?hl=en.

[El Gringo]

Bruno, Gracias and your right.

I did take that part out due to the request and being redundant.

The Fac team should choose a few people from it's consistent members
who would determine the validity of the hard block as stated in the
criteria. I only say this because i would not want it to be the
chance moderator of the evening who may be in training or up to speed
with our process or a large group of 4-6 mods who have to have a
timely breakout group meeting to talk about it.

So, tonight i will ask the Fac group to designate 2-4 qualified people
to be able to validate hard blocks.
(we would of course hear from that person(s) later if they had
disagreements and wanted to include more voices.)


*Proposal: *Hard Block -- “A serious stance against a proposal. It can

stem from an ethical concern, an individual safety issue, or the
concern
that a proposal violates the principles of solidarity of the

movement.

New additional language added by Chris:

“The blocker will be required to explain their block within the
criteria stated
& selected facilitators from the Facil WG present at the GA will

determine the
validity of the hard block.

How's that?

On Jan 19, 8:41 am, "Bruno B." <bbv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the last time it was read, this part had been taken out:
> "and/or a concern that the proposal may marginalize a specific group."
>
> Bob and I both had expressed that this is redundant to the phrase just
> before it, regarding violating solidarity.
>
> There should also be a phrase that says the moderator (or all those on the
> facilitation team who abstained from taking a position during the
> discussion on the proposal) will make the final decision regarding the
> validity of the block.
>

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:41 PM, mike chamness <m_chamn...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The exact wording of what was passed last evening re: hard block is below
> > for reference...
>
> > Seems Bob's language still needs to be inserted into this text as well.
>

> > *Proposal: *Hard Block -- “A serious stance against a proposal. It can

> > stem from an ethical concern, an individual safety issue, or the concern

> > that a proposal violates the principles of solidarity of the movement *and/or
> > a concern that the proposal may marginalize a specific group.*” New

> > additional language added by Chris: “The blocker will be required to
> > explain their block & the Facil WG present at the GA will determine the
> > validity of the hard block.”
>

> > *Concerns:* 1) Facilitators must be accountable to GA, 2) GA could simply

> > vote to move along so hard blocks aren’t needed, 3) Hard blocks should not
> > be overridden by GA or facilitator.

> > *
> > *
> > *Friendly amendment:* Bob - To set guidelines of use & pull “and/or a

> > concern that the proposal may marginalize a specific group.” and to incorp
> > his language re: the process of reconciling a hard block.
>
> >  --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "occupyveniceFacilitation" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > occupyvenice...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > occupyveniceFacili...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/occupyveniceFacilitation?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Bruno B.]

I think we may add that said facilitators must abstain from discussion and be neutral on the proposal in question. There must be clear impartiality on the facilitators who make this decision.

[William Jackson]

I do agree but does seem dificult with our small group.  This is why i have spent alot of energy on training to diversify us. 

 

Our current Fac team is also includes the same people that seem to be writing and contributing to the proposals.

 

hmmm... maybe a selected 4 person team could give a quick temperature check if there was a question of it's validity?

[Bruno B.]

Small right now, but will grow. This will build a foundation for that growth. I personally do not think Venice GA will run into validating/not validating a hard block until we see a large growth in attendance anyway.

[El Gringo]

I agree.

We did run into a few proposals by Bob asking what was consensus and
how were hardblocks defined.
We didn't have an answer but are working on it now. It was stated
that a proposal would be given to define hardblock but as an
individual proposal without input from the group before being
presented.

I wanted the Fac group to work on that and we have, but a few
personalities in the group and 1 or 2 coming back soon will be
questioning the validity of ..well.. everything. I don't want to have
alot of procedure proposals but Hardblock, what follows to reconcile
them, and what consensus means needs to be defined and/or at least
understood throughout the Fac team for whomever is Fac-ing.

So i'll say we have had instances and these things, to me, are basics
in facilitation training.

I'll be working with everyone on this as much as possible.

[mike chamness]

I agree with Bruno and most others re: this process. Up to this point we've had one hard block in 2 months (over allowing booze at a GA, which motivated a Code of Conduct provision) and don't see too much controversy re: our usual spate of proposals (which are mostly in line with or are used by/borrowed from other occupies). We had a few at the Windward Circle occupy back in the beginning, but nothing substantial as I recall. But always good to plan ahead. 

---

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:30:16 -0800
Subject: Re: [ovFacilitation] Re: hard block language
From: bbv...@gmail.com
To: occupyvenice...@googlegroups.com

[mike chamness]

Curious - What does this mean? 

"but a few personalities in the group and 1 or 2 coming back soon will be questioning the validity of ..well.. everything."

> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:52:34 -0800
> Subject: [ovFacilitation] Re: hard block language
> From: revolutio...@gmail.com
> To: occupyvenice...@googlegroups.com