Meeting minutes, January 6

Posted by & filed under .

Structure meeting: 1/16/12
Start time: 5:55
Patrick facilitates (asks that someone else facilitate next meeting)

Proposed agenda itmes:
indturoctions
mission statement
twice a week meetings
how to address/review ideas on the Spokes
admin/webpage
disciplining members
blocks/modified consensus
purpose of the lister serve
structural issues

Introductions:
Sean
Dan
Jennifer
Susan
Patrick

Votes: Top issues:
Crafting mission statement for Structure
Blocks (in GA and spokes?)
admin
discipline

Patrick reads his baseline mission statements

Dan suggests that we add values: direct democracy, horizontalism,
consensus based decision making.
NYCGA structure group will work to uphold and implement direct
democracy, horizontalism, consensus for decision making of the OWS
based out of NYC.

Patrick asks: what if we held elections done the line- would this
violate the mission statement?
Discussion about how elections would violate principles of solidarity
and statement of autonomy

Sean- can we take out NYCGA?
Discussion about the improatnce of Liberty Plaza- rather than based in
NYCGA, want to differentiate between other autonomous occupations.

Dan reads edited version: “Structure Working Group works to uphold and
improve the horizontal organization, structure, and directly
democratic, consensus-based practices of the OWS movement born out of
Liberty Plaza.”

Discussion of Blocks:
Sean’s proposal- temp check on whether blocks are valid (reads
proposal, which includes the idea that a person can point of process a
block, and then there can be a temp check of 75% as to whether a block
is valid)
Dan also has proposal (relating to blocks in Spokes, discussed last week)

Lawton, Nathan, Chanel, and Jason also join.

Discussion ensues:
Dan argues that if we have the chance to validate blocks, perhaps we
get rid of 90% modified consensus, since we will have as a community
agreed that a block was legitimate.

Patrick wonders how the 15 minutes discussion rule in the second half
of the proposal (relating to proposals that are not “well formed”)
works.

Sean discusses how the last two paragraphs relate to blocks that are
really more about people who want to continue discussion/amendments of
a proposal.

Jason: expresses concern that this proposal allows for people to
validate people’s opinion.

Dan: expresses concern about the 75% rule (of people who agree or
disagree with a contested block) and the continuation of a 90%
modified consensus.  Moves away from the cooperative focus of the
consensus process.

Lawton- what is the purpose the break out groups in the proposal?

Patrick: expresses that he likes the first half of the proposal

Sean: people will have to justify their blocks.  He explains the
options of the second half of the proposal.

Patrick: suggest that the group endorse the first half and table the
second half.

Around 6:40 asked if we should go continue, go to Spokes, or consider
Dan’s proposal?

Patrick: requests that Dan re-read the mission statement.

Discussion about a second meeting.  We discussed the Doodle, and the
next most popular were Monday evening and Saturday afternoon.

Chanel: Can we split up votes between two meets?

Group decides to reopen up the Doodle, start a discussion on the listserve.

Discussion about the web administrations.  Susan volunteers, which
gets group consensus

Patrick: discusses the responsibilities of the web administrator,
including the requirement of putting up notice prior to the 72 rule
for next meeting proposals.

Dan agrees to put proposed mission statement on listserve.

Brief discussion about how do we address agenda items that we agreed
to but never discussed within the meeting (like discipline today)

Lawton: argues for a Saturday meeting as a continuation of a Friday meeting.

Susan: We can discuss this and the 72 hour rule at the next meeting
(next Friday).

Meeting ends.

 

Comments are closed.