Minutes for Vision & Goals
November 11th, 2011
Atrium, 60 Wall Street
PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS
#1. Proposed systematic approach (Jim)
#2. History of Vision & Goals (Abe)
#3. Proposal for “A Vision for an Emancipated Future” (Ross)
#4. Another brief proposed vision (Darrell)
#5. Breakout group on feedback from GA (Abe)
FIRST AGENDA ITEM: HISTORY (#2)
Abe presents the history of the group
Original group created Blueprint
200 people “somehow” contributed to the document
Abe reads the “Hello world!” statement
Collective input, etc.
Where can we find this info? The website http://nycga.net.
SECOND AGENDA ITEM: PROPOSED SYSTEMATIC VISION (#1)
Jim goes over his 9-point systematic approach
Invites new people to group
Cyclic, iterative process
Voices frustration — 16 meetings, 24 hours
Entropy rules the universe (and certainly Vision & Goals)
We need structure
Reads over each point:
1. Consensus on language
2. Consensus on structure
3. Consensus on list of goals
4. Go through each point and decide whether to split or combine or trash or leave as is
5. Consensus on how to incorporate ideas
6. Write vision paragraph
7. Write each goal one at a time
8. Submit to GA
9. Back to Step 1
What document are we starting with? The Blueprint
History of document and feedback
When it says “Submit to GA” it means discuss it in breakout groups
People come and go
Why does this need to be formally consensed upon and adopted? Again, Jim is concerned with efficiency. He wants some more structure.
Is the idea of the structure of a document not fatally flawed, since there is no document?
I think we just need facilitation here. If we have good facilitation. The proposal is too structured.
I’m concerned with some of the aggression toward a singular document. (??) [I think she means the Blueprint]
Facilitator: Ten more minutes on this topic? Consensus.
I’m concerned with how this document is useful or not useful.
Spencer has a small concern and possibly a friendly amendment. He would like to keep a tab on who has contributed to this document. Who are the stakeholders of the document?
How is the actual content generated?
I am concerned that we have a bunch of content, but we need a process by which the content is handled.
Add a point where we look at the variety of documents that have been submitted. What should we extract? Allow other documents to be considered as a starting point? Accepted.
I like step one about language. In terms of 2-5, I don’t like them. Too procedural. I want an open dialogue. Like the vision paragraph. Summarize our meetings. Rejected.
Facilitator: 5 more minutes? Consensus.
A discussion AND consensus for points 2-5. Accepted.
Adding something to keep track of who we have received feedback. Accepted.
Put room in for a mission statement. Rejected.
Statement that consensus is based on the GA’s model. Accepted.
Clarify in step 8 that the submission to GA is just for discussion not for ratification. Accepted. [Note: Jim left unclear whether he eventually wanted a document ratified].
1. Abe blocks for ethical reasons. Explanation: This group is about an open dialogue. This structure imposes too many rules on this more spontaneous process. We need dialogue.
2. Someone else (young woman) blocks. Ethical reason. Not inclusive enough.
10 yea, 2 nay.
10/12. Only 83% consent.
Consensus not met.
THIRD AGENDA ITEM: PROPOSAL — “A VISION FOR AN EMANCIPATED FUTURE” (#3)
Ross explains that he wants to read the document aloud to illustrate the importance of its attention to tone, rhythm, pacing, etc.
Ross reads his proposed document, “A Vision for an Emancipated Future”