Attendees: Sam, Shoshanna, Peter, Paul, Mary, Rich, Stefano, Leah, Timothy, Natasha, Patrick, Jack, Sumumba, Polly, Ying, Ven, Richard, Michael, And Keith, who graciously took the minutes for the meeting.
Michael – Goal is to get this statement out.
Natasha – agenda- go through feedback on first page.
Patrick – Meeting at red structure at 4:00PM…announced to group.
Michael – When do we propose to the GA? (stack is taken)
Patrick – POI, we are behind in Ga schedule appearances.
Rich – 1st criteria is our time commitment, 2nd criteria (for presenting for consensus) is the structure of the document. Two more GA’s?
Patrick – we need to push consensus back, 3 Sunday GA’s in a row, Sunday is a good day to end on. End time not something solid, document should be worked until it’s done.
Natasha – we need more feedback. Work towards consensus for next Sunday, preamble not needed.
Michael – Two months already, Wednesday should be the deadline for feedback. Feedback tonight and Tuesday should be enough.
Shoshanna – agrees with Michael.
Richard – This may raise concerns to close stack on feedback. Report back/give out copies before it goes to the GA for consensus. Preamble should be a part of it.
Sumumba – Spokes meeting you should all come. Spokes set up on modified consensus, hard for spokes to go foward because of people going off.
Jack – How about the holidays?
Patrick – Concurs with Michael. We should do outreach for feedback. We should not be trying to push this document, we work for the GA.
Natasha – Email out and present link to online feedback questionnaire.
Michael – 4 GA chances for feedback. Don’t we always ask for consensus.
Sumemba – we need to get tight and get this done. Let’s tighten ranks and make the contacts to get this done.
Natasha – Should the preamble be included.
(stack is closed)
Ideas: more feedback, appear at GA’s for breakout groups and editing on the document.
Richard – We should not forget GA friendly amendments.
Patrick – Continue with GA’s, next Sunday ask for consensus, Wednesday midnight deadline. Thursday meeting should see conclusion of document. Then go to GA.
Natasha – How is the preamble? We don’t need consensus on it or to bring it to the GA for consensus.
Richard – Preamble may be closer than you think.
(stack re-opened for 5 minutes)
Mary – Preamble adds a lot to the document.
Sumumba – We can discuss today, but let’s hurry it up.
Natasha – Preamble has never been to GA.
Timothy – Preamble must be a part of it or not, cannot be a separate item for consensus.
Sam – Table it if we don’t have a group consensus.
Michael – Preamble should jump stack and be discussed now.
(table added as the group gets bigger)
Richard – Preamble would only replace the Mic check. opening the document.
Natasha – bring to GA next Thursday with Preamble.
Richard – Preamble is feedback itself responding to concerns with the opening.
(stack is closed)
Sumumba – Mic check opening for the GA and the preamble can open the online document.
Patrick – goes over plan for moving towards GA consensus. GA’s, spokes meeting, working group outreach, through the 18th.
Natasha – revises schedule. Sunday the 18th Final Draft.
(New Agenda item: Work on preamble for 20 minutes.)
Richard – We have an edited of intro/conclusion.
Michael – we took radical clause a notch down.
Richard – Who wrote what preamble, both come from the subcommittees. (Reads handwritten preamble.)
(Temp check on preambles vs. mic check intro. Open stack to discuss preamble.)
Jack – Goal is for some eloquence, which the typed version missed.
Shoshanna – We need to stick to the core – inequality and inequity.
Mary – Makes the document more powerful.
Stefano – Absolutely include the preamble, it has the historical gravitas that the document may be lacking.
Timothy – Group document vs. personal edits.
Leah – Poetics is important, preamble good for that.
Natasha – Likes preamble. Let’s try to consense on it.
(close stack – CONSENSUS ON PREAMBLE!)
Now talk about schedule: GA visits through 22nd, publish intent to publish on Sunday the 18th, (circle reconstructed) V&G continue GA through 18th, ask GA on 22nd if they are ready for consensus. Or Tuesday the 20th?
Leah – Why wait so long? We need a document.
Patrick – We’re behind schedule in the GAs.
Sumumba – Take the days for the document and preamble so the OWS movement has a “what we’re for” statement.
Natasha – GA visits till 17th (Saturday) publish intention on Sunday 18th, final consensus on the 22nd.
(Group temp check taken – CONSENSUS!)
Michael – work on preamble or go through feedback? (30 minutes open stack on preamble)
Patrick – Combined preamble – short and eloquent. Let’s shorten the typed one.
Peter – let’s decide on which preamble to work on.
Stefano – start from handwritten document which is more familiar to the group.
Richard – Typed version draws heavily from handwritten. Establish need for change, right to make change, vision for change. Need, right, vision.
Sumumba – Declaration of Independence marginalizes huge segments of the population.
Kevin – Brevity is the essence of wit. Let’s condense the preamble even more.
Leah – Would like to see language that claims the world.
Peter – Agrees with Kevin, language is way too educated.
Chris – Came in to share views on his visions and goals.
Michael – Everyone has a voice. There is consent in the public.
Leah – Manufactured consent is not consent.
Zo – Does independence, philosophically includes all people, the UN document is a step forward.
Stefano – This, our, document can be stated as a step forward from these past documents.
(Voting on which document to start from.)
Shoshanna – Is there a 3rd option?
Leah – Put it to the sub-committee.
(Voting close 9 to 7…open stack)
Kevin – Reads his own edited version of the shorter.
Zo – We need a method and should focus on essence
Patrick – Brevity is the key. You guys screwed up, we’re taking it back.
(Confusion on what the stack is for.)
Patrick – Standing up for Sam who was cut off.
Leah – Clarifying stack.
Sam – Read his shortened version.
(close stack on preamble discussion; next agenda item: moving to go through the document, environmental stewardship section)
Leah – economy in harmony with nature
Michael – Reads original section.
Leah – Reads changes on the ‘Environmental Stewardship’ section.
Shoshanna – Preservation important, economy should not be based on using natural resources.
Stefano – Maximize our returns to nature.
John – Post clearly on the forum. Wealth of economy based on the health of nature.
Michael – Let’s organize a preamble committee.
Leah – Can the subcommittee have the power to finish the preamble?
John – Reads his edited version of the environmental passage.
Zo – Raises concerns about humane treatment towards animals.
Shoshanna – concerns about goals being cut down at GA.
Richard – We are against corporate abuse, including corporate abuse of animals.
Kevin – Demands may be disempowering.
(Consensus to end meeting.)