Forum

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Jeremys Proposal
Zeke
User
Posts: 14
Permalink
Post Jeremys Proposal
on: February 25, 2012, 05:23
Quote

What Jeremy has essentially proposed (and we passed) is a type of steering committee or steering group/spokescoucil hybrid with normal GA function...as we grow, these things will separate into different groups...but divorcing the internals from the GA will help us grow and increase efficiency.....so it is a sort of meta WG..one for 'internal issues' and a sort of pre-GA...

Ronna initially had the objection that we were almost done with the internal issues...but that is not so...as we grow there will be more issues.

A steering/spokescouncil group in OB is composed of exactly the same members as the GA...those that show up...so no objections due to exclusion should apply....though a rep from every WG should be in attendence if possible, to summerize their minutes or current projects, etc for a prediscussion so that even external issues have their internal components and dissents hammered out a bit...or think of it as an opportunity to supplement the WGs with input from folks who can't attend the WG meetings (we are small recall?)

Part of what this will do, and something to consider, is that is will streamline the agenda for the regular GA, even if the steering group holds off on votes untill the regular GA...we would have already reconciled most dissent...so when they come up it is a swifter vote.

And it goes without saying that whatever conflict resolution plan we choose it happens during the internal GA (steering group)...never the regular GA.

What constitutes an internal issue? WGS do....finance and facilitation are the most obvious...legal too...but really all WGs should send a rep. with a report for open discussion on internal issues...this will allow more participation in wgs and clear up any internal issues with anything in progress so regular GA time can be devoted to external discussion of the issues.

In occupy, because we use the consensus model, a steering commitee is simply a modified GA. Purely internal issues are voted on...and external issues have their internal components resolved without having to bring it up at the GA. Left over time is spent hashing out proposals to be brought to the GA...a meta WG...if worked out separatly it won't take as much time to decide in the GA.

What does this open Friday GA up for?

*discusion of actions.
*speakers.
*community.
*outreach.
*Brainstorming
*solidarity actions

Now to keep each GA...that is the steering GA and the regular GA... from being too locked in...flexibility is important...you would have a standard agenda set for each that reflected its MAIN purpose...so the agenda for Friday would always have all external stuff first...if time is left over internal can be added at the end....the reverse is true in the steering ga. Emergencies are the exemption (disruption is not an emergency).

One caveat I would propose...that of a quarum...I do not know what attendance is like on Tuesday...but if there is an issue of low attendance a simple quarum rule could be applied based on 2/3rd the last fridays ga...or based on having a rep. from every active wg present.

This can act as insurance that certain decisions are not being made by just the people who are free on tuesdays.

Yes...this sounds like a big step...it is in many ways...but we are so small that the primary effect is simply opening up the Friday GA

Please look at these links:

One need only look at the NYCGA spokes council proposal to see the same logic at work as was expressed at last night's GA

http://www.nycga.net/spokes-council/

and here you can see the similarity to a steering group (they use a variety of consensus here you might reconize)

http://www.ucimc.org/content/uc-imc-structure-legal-docs

we don't need to do anything too complex like they did...or even more complex than this simple split...but this is a step in the right direction....one other occupies have also taken for many of the same reasons.

I thought I would let you all know why I suggested that it was a steering committee...because that is what it is...by simply splitting the main function of two separate meetings you have created an infant spokescoucil/steering comitee just the right size for our occupy, and one that can grow as we do as to our needs.

awesome.

These are just my thoughts, and why I voted yes ...or voted at all..I've been to 5 GAs now...first time I voted.

I have been trying to encourage everyone to read this....please, if you haven't already, it is worth your time 🙂

http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
Ronna
Administrator
Posts: 51
Permalink
Post Re: Jeremys Proposal
on: February 25, 2012, 11:57
Quote

Wow thanks so much for your thoughtful and timely response. I appreciate it. I was a bit "riled up" last night, feeling the work I and a few others have been slogging through was being dismissed and demeaned somewhat. I'm better today. I've copied all the inclusions and they look like intersting reading. I've read some of the other GA stuff. POrtland has a developed Spokescouncil proposal we might use down the road.

I live in Everson and making it two days a week for GA is a lot of time and gas. I'll probably stay for Tuesday's GA since I will be at a WG prior and am interested in the "business" or structure end of things. I'll leave the "singing to the choir" for those interested in that and be ready for all the actions.

Adding this complication will entail some more working out in the Facilitation WG to make lines of communication clear and transparent. Is it your thinking that another WG is needed? There is talk of a Spokescouncil though we had a coordinating group with a similar function but no attendance. renaming it might get more attendance though I don't see that as it would still be about "business" or internal details such as coordination and structure. It would be worth a try since #OB definitely needs a coordinating body - whatever it's called. Some GAs refer to it as Structure WG.

Just a couple more thoughts. We had 2 very simple proposals last night. They both got held up to the "wordsmithing" folks. On the finance one the intent was clear. They both could have been ammended by the person opposed to the "four words', voted on and been done with in just a few minutes. The quibbling about a word or two is a drain on everybody's energy and I can't blame anyone for wanting that BS to go away.

We also have a process that is clear though not followed. The intent of the guideline is to get the concerns out of the way FIRST so the proposal can be amended quickly instead of waiting till the end when we are all TIRED of the quibbling which then leaves the proposal dead in the water.

More practice and we just might get there!!! It will take caring and respectful occupiers who have a lot of patience.
Guest
User
Posts: 17
Permalink
Post Re: Jeremys Proposal
on: February 25, 2012, 12:46
Quote

I'm not sure we need to rename anything or create another working group. Internal issues will be voted on every Tuesday at 5:30pm. It can be called a GA or it can be called a Steering Committee or a Spokes Council or whatever, but I think we all understand the basic purpose and content of the meeting. Hopefully! lol.
Zeke
User
Posts: 14
Permalink
Post Re: Jeremys Proposal
on: February 25, 2012, 20:04
Quote

yes, renaming it or making it overly complex isn't really needed...though I think renaming it _____ GA will help everyone focus on it's main purpose. We are too small to get overly complex about it...and if we are lucky we will have to get more complex soon as that is a sign of outreach success.

as long as Erin is proven right that "we all understand the basic purpose and content of the meeting." there is no point in another WG or anything else....but I suspect some guidelines might need to be hammered out based on past experience 🙂 Wait and see what happens, evaluate, then adjust. And the consensus/facilitation WG would be the right place to do that.

As to the word smithing problem. this is apparently a common problem in Occupy...it is a "minor" form of disruption. I will point out that the last time this was proposed two other objections to it were made from the same side of the room...one about being too complex and one about it not guarding agianst fraud...that is people submitting budgets where the money goes to them....both didn't seem like real problems...but they did manage to stop the vote....that to me is the real problem, folks finding false problems in every proposal and offering no realistic solution...

I agree that there was nothing wrong with the wording of the proposal other than the possibility that someone might maybe somehow misinterprete it...but you are right...a simple amendment would have 'fixed' it....the argueing happened because, technically, the proposal didn't imply in any way that folks needed GA approval to do an action....so it was hard to see where they were coming from. Now if what they were really trying to say is that they want access to moneys for non-GA approved action...or they want no structure because of an ideology...that's not OK by any stretch of the imagination as that would put Debbie in the same position she was in before..finacial chaos...so yeah...the point was lost on me.

This is a great example of why I'm not a big fan of 'pure' direct democracy/consensus. I'll just leave it at that so I don't start ranting.

This just goes to show why we need to have more participation in WGs...but sense it is clear that that is not likely to happen, this split might help focus these minor dissents into a more productive WG style discussions rather than these last minute 'hurry up and pass so we can talk about other things' proposal arguements.

But if this silly bickering continues ad nauseum...then our problem has nothing to do with process and everything to do with mistrust or something worse. This is why I support modified blocks and majority rule...because minority rule is just another kind of group-think and causes the most inaction of all the varieties of group-think.
Ronna
Administrator
Posts: 51
Permalink
Post Re: Jeremys Proposal
on: February 26, 2012, 20:48
Quote

My comments about renaming has to do with the fact that we have/had a WG called coordinating. It got a bad name and then when Jon S. asked me to moderate/schedule it no one came. People in some of the WG do not want to coordinate with anything. It seems they want to run on their own and when they have an idea bring it to GA to fire up the troops. It seems quite relevant to the smooth functioning of #OB. More eyes can see a proposal, we can get proposals prioritized so the meetings can get to the "external" agenda, etc. This does seem like an uneeded layer of complexity. We'll just have to see how it works out.

I'm amused by the pushback and resistance to the term "process". Life is a process - what else?

I'm liking the efforts of a few folks here. I wish #OB members would spend more time in these discussions.
Pages: [1]
Mingle Forum by cartpauj
Version: 1.0.34 ; Page loaded in: 0.066 seconds.