12.27.2011 Facilitator: Negesti Stack: _ from Detroit, then Alejnadro Minutes: Aaron Time: Aaron Agenda --------- Facilitators for Tuesday, Wednesday Today: Negesti, Nathan from Asheville, Anthony, Aaron Wednesday: _ Friday: Bottom-lined by Anthony Last nights GA Anthony: comhub announcement went out canceling Spokes. No announcement of GA went out via Comhub, one did go out via Twitter Negesti/Aaron: Q: Who @ comhub made the announcement? JustinSD: A group was in 60 Wall, trying to gather for an assembly in the park, when they heard via Comhub and Twitter that there was no Facilitation planned Purple Hat: from Spaces didn't know we didn't have 56 Walker, was asked by someone from Facilitation to say that Spokes was cancelled Negesti sum up: Understanding is that Facilitation / Comhub / Spaces communication needs to improve Restructuring - Days of meetings Atrium closing Weds, Thurs, Sun Q: How is non-daily meetings working for everyone? Anthony: Since we're at lower strength before New Years, we should try to do as much planning ahead as possible JustinSD: We're trying too hard to be all-inclusive, last night there were 300 people here who could have had an assembly. We're here to serve the community of the Occupiers. We need a regular process script, it seems like we're reinventing the wheel Aaron PoP: This comment is off-topic for this agenda item JustinSD wraps up by suggesting that we should have coordinators for each week Sully: PoI: There is a Script, and I've written a new one, would like help from anyone who wants to participate Feels that we've moved away from a more freewheeling meeting to a bureaucracy, suggests a middle ground where this is one person who is signed up to bottom-line the team for each day 3/wk working group meetings should be for major structural decisions, but daily meetings should persist for setting agenda, making team, taking feedback from last night's meeting PoI: We need a new Intro to Direct Democracy person for this week PurpleHat: Concern that we are pushing too hard to have GA or SC every single day. All SC is really doing is providing a forum for revealing internal dissension SC is actually damaging our movement, but both are shitshows, and would prefer that we stop doing it half-assed Once a week workshop on race/class/gender, separate of GA/SC JustinSD: There is still a need for a daily soapbox, feels that SC reflects a more operational rather than organizational role, and the operational role is less necessary Negesti: Failure of SC is overloading GA, we need daily assemblies to get through the agenda Jason(Fawkes): Would like daily assemblies for the same reason; feels Facilitation needs a daily meeting to coordinate Concords for the forum idea suggested by PurpleHat, suggests Friday night Someone from out of town complains that the online information about when/where meetings are is not up to date JustinSD: PoI, nycga.net is an intranet, not external-facing. Tech Ops is working on an external-facing site Nathan from Asheville: we have a once a week Facilitation meeting where everything is decided for the week, is very helpful to Facilitators and rest of community Anthony: Spanish model for GA, Education, Reflection, Decision -- three meetings Tues/Thurs/Sat, would take some pressure off Similar for SpokesCouncil David: General Assembly was a beautiful thing in September and October, but there is something very different now, which happened after the end of the park Today very few people come regularly because they remember what was before, most just come for their proposal, some just come to be political Thinks that every day is perhaps too much No WG meetings during GA time (Jason(Fawkes)'s proposal) Someone from out of town says that infiltrators would be very ineffective if they are naysayers, we should find a way to neutralize naysayers JustinSD: We are missing tourists from our GAs, and that affects how Nick: Jason's proposal was blocked because it was an individual initiative MetsHat: Are we going to make structural decisions _every day?_ If so, we might be excluding people who aren't there Zack: Not a fan of the restructuring. There was a time when this meeting was getting disrupted on a regular basis, which is part of why we restructured, but perhaps it's not the most pressing problem Don't feel we have a quorum to make this decision, but thinks we should go back to meeting every day Daryl: There are many ways to skin a cat, let's just pick a way to do it and stick to it. It's not rocket science. Also, we should have a process for facilitating that everyone signs off on, a script that you read that is this is how we do it Negesti: The problem with selecting Facilitators too far ahead of time is that people don't necessarily show up when they say they will sum-up: We should have Facilitators picked every single day, at least until after the New Year proposal: In park at 3pm (or 4pm or 5pm) every day to select Facilitators for that day, but only make structural decisions at Tues/Thurs/Sat PurpleHat: Solomonic approach: Pick a coordinator for the week, and *also* ask people to show up at daily meeting to make sure that there are backups Daryl: We need a repercussions for people who don't show up Zack: Daily 4pm meeting, we should require the night's facilitators to show up at that meeting Nick: We should stick with coordination team, because that's how it was decided Anthony: Pick daily bottom-lines and have them pick a team at each day's coordination meeting. I'll bottom-line Friday, and will pick the team then. David: The coordinator thing is not working Negesti: And this lead to me facilitating three times in one week, which lead to me being attacked for facilitating too often Sully: A consensus proposal: Daily 4pm coordination meeting. Coordinators select a single person to bottom-line for each day, those daily bottom-liners pick a team when they want to Negesti: Tues/Thurs/Sat remain as structural meetings for the Facilitation WG CONSENSUS ACHIEVED ON THIS!! We need an intro DD coordinator for today and this week Zack: Just pick a DD coordinator for each day at the daily 4pm meeting CONSENSUS ACHIEVED ON THIS!! How do Facilitators deal with personal attacks? Negesti was attacked, needs to talk about how we address this Matt: A few things are useful for good facilitation: 1. A sincere attitude towards power dynamics, any dismissiveness will be amplified. 2. Be firm. The most productive SC's he's seen have been when Facilitators haven't been afraid to be more firm. Anthony: The facilitators at the SC where PoC convened was damaged by a rushed approach to Facilitation We need more clarity about the process around convening PurpleHat: Suggests that we bring the mandate from the GA to every SC meeting The purpose of the convening is not necessarily to stop all business. But what happens isn't spelled out. JustinSD: Let's avoid naming names. There have been many times he has been asked not to Facilitate. You Facilitate when you have consensus. So, when people don't want him not to Facilitate, he has to move to a secondary role. Though one time he used embarrassment to call out that person MetsHat: We need to take temperature at beginning of every meeting regarding facilitators Anthony: We do The idea of "uncaucusing" is very threatening, we shouldn't even really discuss it Zack: Don't think one person should be able to derail consensus on facilitators Doesn't think SC is Facilitatable, we need to address disrupters JustinSD: PoI: Meghan from coordination meetings is working on a disrupter policy Sully: Modified consensus process should work fine on facilitators; importantly, it gives people a platform for airing their grievances and seeing if the crowd agrees We need more facilitators We need to educate people about the demand for Facilitation, and how often people have to Facilitate if there aren't more Facilitators Alejandro: As Facilitators, we need to have some detachment from what's happening in the space: "If you look at the face of everyone in the room, you will crumble." It's alright to call people out by name as examples, but it's dangerous to design policies around particular individuals Daryl: Our time is important, and we need to focus on disruptions as a way of valuing everyone's time. We have to be able to ask for the ability to censure people. Nan: Felt it was ethically wrong what Facilitation posted online, and is waiting for an apology. We have zero respect for you guys, because you are marginalizing us. Is going to bring a proposal to dissolve the Facilitation WG David: Clear boundaries makes it safe for everyone. In addition to being firm, we have great resources within our community for mediation and vibe-checking. What made early GAs special was they had a huge space for listening Spoke to someone from meditation about having a 5-minute meditation at the beginning of every GA/Spokes, to get us into that state where we can really hear one another Negesti: PoI people felt uncomfortable with it last time it was tried, felt that it was religious and infringed on their space Nan: PoI I was one of those people who felt uncomfortable Marco: There are a small number of people who don't follow process, those who do follow process get increasingly frustrated. Those who get frustrated begin to try to facilitate themselves, and start a shouting match. This is the point at which it breaks down. So our task is both to discourage disruption but also to keep ourselves calm when it occurs Separate point: We need to project ourselves as a movement. There are some people who don't act in accordance with the principles of solidarity, and if we need to marginalize some people who don't subscribe to those principles of solidarity, then we should do that. Nick: Ashley had a good point, though perhaps she was not genuine about her expression of it. We need to accept that we are going to be attacked, sometimes, when we step out to Facilitate. We need to understand that if we facilitate too often, we need to step back, and if someone complains we should take that as authentic. Nathan from Asheville: Asking anyone to gather volunteers outside of a time where people are gathered seems silly In a perfect world, non-facilitators from the Facilitation WG should be at all GAs, so that there are backups available Jean: Outside of this circle, it's a mystery what we do. And the larger community finds that alienating. Conferring in whispers when process breaks down only reinforces that alienation So Facilitation's job is to be more decisive We have to assess what is a genuine block Negesti PoI: We do not have a process for validating blocks Yoni PoI: Is working on a proposal for validating blocks Jason(Fawkes): As far as people attacking facilitators, we need to rely on consensus to empower those facilitators, and concords with the desire for backup facilitators Negesti: concern that one person being able to veto a facilitator will just let the disrupters take over and permanently exclude someone, modified consensus is useful here Location for the WG meeting @ Park later in the week Process analysis Jason(Fawkes): We need a written process Sully: There is an existing GA script. It's somewhat out of date. We should have a breakout session to update it. Nick: Thinks Facilitators should be trained on how to open up discussion, and make sure that people are sticking with process JustinSD: Would like to be part of the conversation about people who keep history and follow up after the GA Sully PoI: There is a past proposals link on NYCGA, we need to update that more regularly. Jason(Fawkes): Wants to avoid having a breakout group. Wants as much input as possible right now. Alejandro: Wants to focus on this being a "Template", to avoid people being intransigent about the process, too rigid, which makes them flail when process is violated Sully: Whoever has these breakouts should be constantly bringing the conversation back to the group Any template we develop should be clear about the ways in which it is malleable Jason(Fawkes): Asking for temperature check on whether the Facilitation WG can make adjustments to the Facilitation process. PurpleHat: We can put together proposals, but wary of making decisions Sully: Some things can be decided by WG, but many will need proposals Jason(Fawkes): We should move to a breakout group. Sully, Jason(Fawkes), and PurpleHat volunteer, will announce via listserv Jason(Tall) announcement 56 Walker is gone There is another space, which has constrained dates available, for GA/SC. It is, however, on West 86th St. A church. Wants temperature check. Cost is the same as Walker, minus the cost of security. Temperature check is mixed PurpleHat: Concern is that we need a consistent space, and an indoor space, this church seems the best option right now Jason(Tall): The neighborhood around this church wants to attend SC and GA. Alejandro: Concerned about bringing our family drama to the Church Jason(Tall): The church _welcomes_ our fighting. They think it's healthy. JustinSD: We need to bring a proposal about this, but this proposal needs to be _discussed_ ahead of time Matt: Concern that moving indoors is going to be seen as another attempt to make the meeting secret PurpleHat: A nondecision is a decision in this case. We don't have a space for Weds or Fri. There are some possibilities, e.g. Brooklyn Friends meeting hall, Beaver Street, Brecht forum Would love for there to be clarity here, but needs to hand this off right now Sully: PROPOSAL: We should decide to have SC at the church on Weds/Fri, and then ask how people feel going forward We need a Spaces and scheduling WG, does anyone want to help Marco: A proposal was up about GA about moving indoors, did not pass? Sully PoI no it did not come forward, we need to propose it on Thursday Alejandro: We should be doing outreach about space and location, in general, to make sure that people are engaged about this proposal. Volunteers. Jason(Tall) will help. Jason(Tall): PoI: This church will be inhabited by Occupiers, and is also down the street from SPSA CONSENSUS achieved on Sully's proposal: SC at West Park Presbyterian Church, 65 W. 86th St @ Amsterdam on Weds/Fri. And we have a conversation on Friday at SC about how to continue. Purple Hat: PROPOSAL: We need to figure out how to pay for the spaces we've already used, wants to use Facilitation petty cash Pay high school and Walker Space, $3000 total. Will also ask other WGs Tabled, Brian is coming back to make an actual proposal Not covered: Addressing lack of facilitators (recruitment)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.