Meeting to wait until 8:20 to begin
Woods and Cecily to co-facilitate
Leah to take stack
Cecily proposed solidarity socializing after the event.
Cecily discussed proposed agenda topics.
- feedback from break out groups, and amending JFA demand
- Process within demands group, on moving forward with future demands and to have a clear process to become an organization group under spokes council. Walter has created a proposal. He is open to amendments.
(Walter specifies that there was over a week in which people could meet amendments)
- Endorsement/consensus upon a JFA subcommittee to push forth the demand with the support of the group. Does not bar other demands from coming up.
- Solidarity socialization
Rick: Strategy- what should be proposed first?
Cecily: Walter’s process appeals to that.
Susan: moving spaces
Vivian: can we discuss new demands?
Woods discusses hand gestures: point of process (can go to the facilitators). Direct response. Point of information, like, not sure, don’t like. Not raising hands – counts towards consensus. Block- serious moral/ethical problem. Clarifying question.
Cecily: work on a 3/4 consensus model, voted in previously. To move forwards after concerns and blocks, then we count.
Xxx- Clarifying question- GA doesn’t allow to move beyond hard blocks, but here we address concerns and seek to modify proposal, but it can be passed over blocks 90%, here it’s 75%.
Walter: We don’t use hard block.
Cecily: We hope to model the GA process concerning GA process, it can be overturned with 90%, but here we use 75%.
Woods: Block is block
Cynthia: wouldn’t that problematic if someone just blocks and blocks. What if an infiltrator came in and just blocked.
Woods: Take proposals on agenda items. Walter’s proposal, JFA report all
Rick: trying to get this group to talk about strategy. What is our strategy on what we propose, when we propose, and how we propose.
Derrick: already mentioned, but we need to have review of what happened Sunday with Breakout groups. Also, talk about outreach as a strategy
Cecily: blocks in GA can be overturned that 9/10, and here it’s 3/4.
Gabriel : a time for new proposals in this meeting.
Susan: different space?
Walter: Current status at the Spokes council
Eric: We need to have a discussion bout the yahoo list and the website.
Cecily: a possible subgroup.
Woods: web group and spaces at the first.
Derrick: Sunday report back to go first.
Eric: we should talk about the structure proposal first, before we talk about the amendments of demands. And we should spend 10 minutes a list that brings together the other demands.
Rick: after Charter we should talk about the strategy that will after how we look at the feedback we got back. Question about the feedback. Has that been compiled and posted on the web.
Woods: yes it has.
Andy: can we set times?
Jay: I would put the agenda of the amending the proposal before strategy,
Jay: I proposed that we do report backs from Sunday, then Walter’s charter, then amending the JFA, then strategy. Temp check: positive
Woods; report back- 10 minutes, charter 25 minutes, JFA amendments- 20 minutes, strategy 15, new demands: 20 minutes,
Chash: agrees to time.
Eric: on the topic, on our website, most positive that at this GA, very little support for no demands; considerable support for JFA, but a lot of debate about the form. Simpler and clearer, and stripped down. More specific.
Jay: many were in favor of the demands and the specific. There was general support. Recommendations to make explicit that education and healthcare are rights not privileges. A member of the 99ers, long term unemployed, wanted it to address.
Rick: was not pleased with identification of people’s ethnicity.
Jay: Our proposal speaks to those with special needs within the 99%, including immigrants.
Peter: I was at Housing Works, they talked about demands, and told them about the GA, what happened in the first and second GA.
Cecily: my break out group suggested that we turn it into a question, thought it was too broad, wanted environmentally sustainable jobs, who are we making the demand to, discussion about union wages, questioned the 25 million jobs, said that good things- appeals to middle class, wanted more about democratically controlled.
Susan: needed to be more succinct, and less about war, more about infrastructure.
Cynthia: lots of consensus about green jobs.
Rick: We talked strategizing.
Steven: my group was broadly supportive, wanted to remove Glass Steagall, wars, just taxes on rich. 2 members wanted language about worker cooperatives added, would be a good addition, and would make it more acceptable to people in the GA.
Derrick: Fly in the oatmeal- we had a facilitator there who bullying folks, was coercive. We were not supposed to convince anyone about demands, then he said the GA was tired of us wasting their time. But would not explain why people were against demands.
Peter: Everyone in our group was in support of the demand. There was some question about the military or Glass Steagall. Housing Works, there was a local college professor, that without demands, students are not going to OWS
Marty: This was may be a point of process. Can we discuss from other working groups.
Cynthia: One thing brought up about how to pay for these jobs. Most importantly, there was an MSNBC reporter, I’m from LA, I’ve gotten calls, they ask what the demands are, and the biggest criticism from OWS is that we don’t have demands. I was interviewed about that.
Michael: there were three ladies in my group who didn’t know what Glass Steagall and wanted to know what it was.
Debbie: I’m hoping that the demands work group can talk about wages and that they could be increased, maybe even with a number, who should get increased wages, I wish there was more discussion on wages.
Cecily: we’re done, and we’re moving on to the next agenda item: Walter
Any: How did the structure come about, we had a contentious meeting, about how to have a better structure. Other groups that we’d been a part of including this one. We noticed that with larger groups, proposals tend to get flattened out. There are a lot of voices that don’t get heard. Another thing we talked about was which demand goes first, which order, what strategy. This went into the proposal. This allows us to break into subgroups. We can all work in subgroups to work on proposals, then go to the group, so we don’t flatten it out. If we can get consensus on these proposals, this will help us work on policy and proposal, instead of just focusing on one demand that can get hammered.
Walter: the biggest thing- it allows us to put a mandate on demands. Not just one group in OWS to push through demands, but allows systematic way to let different demands- it going through a process that is transparent, broad based, that represent the men and women in the city. The first thing is to respond to the issue that “does this movement want to make demands” the subgroup reconciles this by letting an outsider can enlist themselves and their community into the struggle. Secondly, this is to be in any modified form to be presented to the Spokes council. I hope that this will help them reconcile any unfamiliarity with the makeup of the group.
Preamble discusses. We can make changes to phrasing. Diagram shows how decisions get made. 40-70 WG and caucuses. We are not a movement group, but an operation group (we hope). To that end, we would divide this group- collection- produce what’s come out of the movement so fair, create liaison with other WG, groups outside the movement that have been producing demands for decades. 2) articulation- JFA- the idea is that 3-5 people articulate it as a bullet phrase. Have it backed up by Collective subgroup. Implementation subgroup, the idea is that implementation group will shop out within the movement (not just OWS) who has been working on this demand for years. Before we try to be a policy implementation body, phrased in a simple way, backed by outside actors, execution- takes to GA. One: we can do it operationally, we can divide everyone into a group. But we could also do it, if you’re passionate about a particular goal, your working unit follows these different actions (implementation, execution, articulate), lets multiple demands be processed through the question. Walter. We don’t mind if this is all changed, but we can’t move on until this is approved.
Echo: I like this, I am anti-demands, although I hope I’m here for new demands, the idea of it being a platform, not a political party, something… going about it. It’s a helpful way to look at it. I said I am here to answer the cry of humanity. The word demand sounds like hostages. There’ something lastingly strong about addressing needs. The idea of it being a platform of action.
Cecily: This section is meant to be about clarifying questions- you have clarifying questions about the charter.
Gabriel: after execution steps, you are saying after it’s passed by the GA- it gets expanded, does it go through the GA again?
Woods: If it went to the GA, then it would be a demand articulated by OWG.
Walter: this has been a subject of debate- GA just ratifies a line or two of the demand. The working unit has already done their homework. After the NYCGA approves the demand, then the group shops out the proposal, then again the NYCGA approves that.
Woods: the reason we’re proposing this is that we need a charter to be approved by the GA.
Michael: I’m inspired. One suggestion, as a consensus building, can we push a broad idea, maybe post on FB, consensus building online.
Cecily: that would be a good point to bring up on concern.
Cecily: can we move to concerns.
Woods: Step up step back- a lot of the same people are talking.
Cecily: this is a great idea, very strategic, can we combine articulation, collection and execution, because we are only meeting twice a week, but a subgroup can meet together, for execution, they’d have to be nominated to be supported by the group.
Walter: 100%, and in the original, a bunch of people have said that it’s better to go through this process, I’m supporting is the idea that individual demands go through these functionalities.
Cecily: we can restructure the framework to say that this is what individual subgroups do.
Walter: steps, exactly.
Eric L: Two brief things: I want to alert people that we are not necessarily going to be considered an operational charter, we are not a logistical group. It is hard to stretch logistical to what we do. We can continue to go to the general assembly. I’d like to propose that I’m generally in favor, I’d like to propose that Article 7 which deals with yahoo list to the end of the agenda of this meeting.
Woods: One response to the subgroup. Regardless as to whether we get accepted, this makes us an open sourced group.
Rick: I agree with Echo. I’ll make an amendment and change the words demands to platform.
Jay: we probably won’t get on the spokes council. This seems to bureaucratize our group.
Cecily; this meant to be more of a process for a subgroup. He’s agreed to make it not a bunch of subgroups.
Jay: Is each one different?
Walter: Say JFA doesn’t have 3-5 but 10-15 who are militant about getting it passed,. This could be broken up into different groups.
Jay: The strength of public works is that incorporates all these issues. The structure, makes people focus on particular concerns, undermines
Andy: I believe we’re open to discussion we are open to whether you want to keep it in one demand or many.
Cecily: would it have to necessarily have to be 3-5 people for each section. Let’s say JFA had 3-5 people actively show that they worked through this process.
Walter: TO clarify, not everyone here thinks that the JFA represents the best move forward. But this framework will make you shop it around.
Gabriel: the principle of solidarity demands. This group works for demand. I like that research is an important part of this group. Tag cloud works on online to pull together information. This doesn’t have to bureaucratize demands.
Chash: I want to address the demands and terminology, linguistically it’s disempowering, we should use goals.
Eric: demands v. Not demands are a separate conversation. The functionalities don’t have to be groups. Many people have been already been receiving through this. I think individuals take initiatives on this. In order for people to take opportunity when they get information, it should be under that rubric, but should be flexible.
Derrick: I want to congratulate you on this idea. A couple things when you talk about other working groups. I’ve been to three different working groups, can we bring other WG here, have them present- we have a group of visions, maybe have a mega meeting. Another thing to ask- have you thought about- the NYC situation, local and national, and international situation.
Debbie: I am concerned about participation. How can we part of this group, and the functionality process, when one’s in Florida.
Walter: quite a lot of this to make meeting, to push the bickering online. In terms of collection, if you’re working on the group, you can easily find out what groups will endorse a demand. If you are on the NYCGA.net, you can join the Demands group. The Yahoo list ideally will be how you can touch base with different subgroups.
Jesse: from Occupy Atlanta. I went to NYCGA.net, I want to go along with the process, but I notice that the principle of solidarities does talk about demands. We should not debate whether or not to have demands here.
Woods: I know that you accepted the friendly amendment of not making them subgroups. How will that group? I would like to be on articulation, I’m writing. This gentleman was talking about cloud groups and open sourcing. If it’s just a process, seems like it would be more chaotic.
Walter: s I’m interpreting the feedback, you like to write, I like to talk to others, throughout that process, the functionality of phrasing is on you, and functionality for running around is on me. Instead of clear delineation of labor, the subgroup takes a topic and moves through these.
Cecily: Our time is up. Would we like to move to add 10 minutes, for friendly amendments, and move to consensus.
Cecily: two: it might be better to eliminate the orientation subgroup, and allow for each possible area to do that on their own, so that new people can feel directly involved in the process. 2) Make this rather than subgroups, a process that each subgroup based on a certain demand would have to go through before being taken to our group. Noting that one person could be in multiple subgroups.
Walter: subgroups form around individual topics and take people through a series of steps. They can meet them simultaneously in groups. Final aspect is that to make these steps more implemented before. Working units formed in each subgroup. Implementation happens after execution, but you can do research, adding working unit would be strategy- outreach, shopping around, work shopping, general getting support for the demand. We can then form a second group, then we run through steps, and bring them through this body.
Cecily: it would be, there would be no collection. What is collection?
Andy: we as a group when we come together, what collection is- stuff we heard from other groups, around the park- we heard about this thing needs to get done.
Walter: let me add on- you are collecting endorsements and prewritten demands. Collection, shopping around. Strategy step
Mike: those of you who have a problem with wording it comes to French work “to ask.” I like what Eric says about getting information from subgroup. The momentum will move out.
Woods: This is friendly amendments
Walter: I feel like I’ve said what my subgroup is willing to accept as friendly amendments. Not to create bureaucracy, but process. If you don’t like how it’s phrased. This gives us more credibility.
Michael: I like what I’m hearing here. I think there’s a lot of people who can’t make it to eh meeting. There needs to be a way for everyone’s voices could be heard. Seems like you can create a power structure. There are so many issues and great ideas. We need a focus where we can get consensus.
Walter: A lot of us want to be very tight with internet and open source, that once we have a framework, we can collect on the widest possible level. We are trying to find the best way to move forward.
Chash: I have an idea- about the different groups as laid out. Why can’t you have both- some signal issue groups, and other subgroups that can work within the process. I’m new, people don’t arguing demands and goals. Could you combine.
Woods: I feel that the friendly amendment would change the nature of the charter and not shift or fix the problems that demands group has had. If we’re just subgroup, then demands group stays internally producing demands, as opposed to demands being a processing point.
Walter: I agree with that, the problems, in my person al question to have a framework, I’m willing to accept almost anything, I want a framework, and I want something closer to the individual. You can be subgroup moving forward on a demand. I think it does behoove us to do the subgroup. If we don’t have way in our group, we don’t have any way to… these are steps we take to go forward, but we have rotating delegate to sit in … compromised amendment. 6 steps that you go through. But to check that we move through these groups, there are people who help the demand go through. I can be personally working on education and I can also be on the collection committee. To create some sense of functionality.
Cecily: but we have limited group members. How would that be implemented? Could we not make sure that before we let a demand go through, there are written documents.
Carolina: if you have subgroups, you have the same person doing all of the things, you could shift, but it seems… that other people won’t be participating.
Walter: ideally your subgroup will nominate people to be point person for each step of the process.
Vivian: when Walter introduced this, he said that collections subgroup was involved with goals and visions, and I would like to change- working groups … do collection and articulation of goals and visions. Then goals and visions are also included, not only demands.
Cecily: She didn’t know there is a different visions and goals working group.
Walter: I’d like us to try to pass tonight subject to trial and modification- we accept this preamble to give to spokes council, we accept the scope of what we’re here to do in its totality. Article two, rather than subgroups with individual functionality, subgroups on individual demands, and the go through steps, articulation, collection, strategy, and execution, implementation, we drop orientation and do it as a group. As far as individuals, moving forward, to accept that friendly amendment, I ask those who are those who support Jobs for All resubmit this process, through using the framework.
Eric: formalizing the work we’ve already done the next couple weeks and then coming back here to the GA.
Temperature check. Mostly positive.
Eric L: We accept article 7, 2, dropped?
Cecily: any blocks.
Woods; It completely renegotiates the intention. The DG was meant to work together to put demands through a process. Now it’s breaking us up into factions, breaking us up. It’ snot a friendly amendments.
Cecily: can we open up stack 2 minutes.
Eric: I understand this framework, we do come back to the group as whole, moving forward, and on the subject, of processing demands. We are all processing demands, there is bit of formalization.
Michael: I may say- the most important thing is to have structure that facilitates the process of inclusiveness to get the information going. We need to put the butter in there to make it smoother.
Woods: I helped write this. The original. I think the friendly amendment is not friendly because there aren’t subgroups working together on different demands.
Cynthia: does she want everyone work on all the demands all the time.
Cecily: I wanted it to be a process, like a machine.
Cynthia: Thanks for the clarification, I like the original. The original, I want, I am to be on the Jobs subcommittee, if there are other demands I don’t like, and then I don’t want to be on it.
Derrick: is it possible for individuals to work on their demands. My interest is housing. That’s why I am on the demands group. I don’t see how you separate them from each other. It is going to melt into other demands. I think that you work on the subgroup, but devote time on the other group.
Cecily: my concern is with this, the last six weeks we spent arguing on one singular demand. I do agree there needs to be a process bye which we work responsibly. I think we could do report backs to make sure we are working on each of these steps, and entrust the process initially used. We didn’t let it go anywhere quickly. As I see it, any demands would need consensus with the group before it went to the GA anyway. You can be on more than one subcommittee.
Vivian: I think Woods’ concerns is that instead of being subgroups, it would be one demand. Is there a friendly amendment that would address.
Woods: with the collection subgroups, we could see what demands reach more consensus OWS. That’s not the idea of OWS or the OWS movement.
Cecily: now that we’ve been through stack, way over time, can we do once again, a temperature check on the amended proposal. Many groups working on one demand each. Temperature check- your feelings about it. 3 concerns and a block.
Walter: shall we move to a vote.
It’s a system of moving forward.
Cecily: we’re moving forward to with the vote.
Chash: I have a clarification question, we stick with the framework, we’ll do more processing, less demands here, and I think we are supposed to get the demands from outside.
Chris: we can still get demands and go through the process. You could still have people work on collection.
Walter: each subgroup making a demand has to identify people who are doing this functionality, it would be nice if they were not aligned with any demands. Subgroups can work to make the benchmarks.
Cecily: can we move towards modified consensus. If you are favor of the amended proposal, noting that if you do not vote, your vote will be tacked on consensus. 19 in favor. 6 not in favor. Out of 35. about 82%, has reached modified consensus. Will be open to further consensus.
Woods: Next agenda items: Amendments to Jobs for All: 20 minutes
Cecily: proposed break out groups.
Woods; If you have amendments, get on stack with Leah.
Who is point person to accept or not accept friendly amendments.
Susan: proposed the JFA subgroup work on the amendments proposals, and bring them back to the subgroup.
Eric: There has already been a discussion, that we like a subgroup. This could be a report back and we could see if we could reduce discussion to 10 minutes.
Eric L: the basic problem is that people wanted this to be succinct and not look like a multiple demands but wanted more specificity. What I am proposing a proposal to make this demands more succinct and poignant, and boil it down to critical political points. We can deal with our new process to people who want more specificity, and we can more efficiently move forward with other demands, that people have clearly stated their support for like glass steagal, corporate personhood, and education. What I am suggesting that if we can go forward with this more succinct version, we’d be in a position to do outreach with other groups.
Chris: can we discuss funding. That’s expecting that rich can be taxed, and the economy would be growing. I would like to propose to change how money is created. Denis Kucinich called national employment defense act. It’s in committee right now.
Chash: addressing your concern, if the gov’t is directly employing people that’s how they put money into the economy. Maybe take off the war and the immigration. If you stick the just jobs, let others fight other issues.
Xxx on items of jobs and rights, where we say all people on immigration and jobs, we haven’t said anything about race, origin, and all nine yards. I think that would include.
Eric: that’s already a part of any federal jobs program.
Jay: I would say in relation to immigration status and criminal record. We’re trying to unify the entire working class and dress their special needs. I’d oppose eliminating them. This synthesizes feedback from break out groups. The important and difficult part is forming a political movement behind it.
Rick: I think this is contrary to charter we just passed. Also, we are not looking at being strategic about this, should we push it now while there are other issues. We need to be strategic.
Walter: clarifying question- would JFA and people supporting it tell us by next week how these steps have been met?
Derrick: I move that we accept it, but not “needs of 99%” to
Eric: I think in the GA, there are different ideas about ending the wars. “ending U.S. Wars”
xxx Clarifying question: as far as immigration status, I’m just concerned that more people will be coming to this country,
Cecily: some people who worked on this demand are undocumented
Chash: maybe cut out some of the language on ending US wars, and doesn’t belong on the JFA.
Cecily: Temp check?
Eric: The shortened demand says how we want to create jobs, second sentences is what those jogs are for. Third says, how we have resources. Four is who gets these jobs. The reason I include end all US wars is because of the material resources, are now being gobbled up by defense. We need to shift resources from war fare to reconstruction.
Michael: combined defense of the US is higher than the rest of the world combined.
Eric: I reject.
Michael: what about Libya.
Steven: two things, when we strike “democratically controlled” but if it means something else, they’re confused. Is there space for gov’t funded worker run cooperatives.
Eric: recognize that concern, I reject both amendments.
Xxx points of information- stack is closed. I’d like to say “living wage” instead of good union wages.
Eric: this was a conversation we had before, so I don’t accept.
Cynthia: Are we talking about voting on this as a demand.
Cecily: this is a response to the break out group.
Cynthia: what’s going here? We’re talking about JFA demands. But there was so much feedback, and in 10 minutes there is no way to discuss all that.
Cecily: this will now be autonomously dealing with these issues.
Cynthia: this will go to the subgroup for more discussion.
Cecily: we are in the friendly amendment section, we are all way over time. We are now moving to consensus test. If you are in favor of the amendments.
Eric: we are not incorporating all the concerns from the GA here. What we are doing now modifying the demand that will be discussed in outreach with other groups. There are many changes that are yet to be considered. This is not the final set of changes.
Cynthia: First, the union wages, and program will be funded on taxes on the rich. But rather that we end tax cut of 2001.
Eric L: we want to increase taxes a great deal.
Cecily: your voice can be heard in the Demands subgroup.
Woods: This is one demand from our group that will be amended in this way, and it will represent the demands group?
Walter: concerned about too many subgroups.
Cecily: vote on the amended demand. 4 concerns. But if you don’t vote for this demand, we go to the past one.
Susan: move to Sunday, because there are fewer people here.
Rick: let’s talk about strategy: what’s the order of proposals that we should support. Do we have a comprehensive plan. Are we missing things from other groups. What if JFA causes a lot of splinters. How do we get support like that. I propose that we strategize. The restore democracy first plan. It’s proactive, it’s doable. It proposes three steps, constitutional amendment, then go to progressive politicians, and then allow for electoral changes. Then we have progressives in power. We’ll take over the political system. This window may not last for long. Why not support something that has broad support- republicans and democrats, even tea party.
Woods: start stack with clarifying questions. Now it’s one minute rule.
Jim: I’m not sure who this group is trying to persuade. The GA or the American public at large. They are very different strategies depending on who your audience is.
Rick: We have broad based support, we can get radical over time.
Chash: You use the word strategy, but you’re really about priority. The earlier discussion has already solved this problem.
Rick: This isn’t my priority, it’s about strategy something that is broadly supported. A constitutional amendment.
Cecily: can’t you start “Restore Democracy First” in addition to other demands?
Rick: I think we should think strategy.
Woods; Only if you don’t understand.
Michael: I would like to proffer that this is a very complex issue. Is it not a good idea to look at this in a subgroup, with you as leader, taking questions from us.
Andy: how committed are you to the constitutional amendment?
Rich: The more complex it gets, the more difficult to get support from the American public?
Michael: I hear what you’re both saying. If we want support of the 99%, I think it’s the wrong way. A top down approach, a specific demand as a constitutional amendment. Realistically, it needs 66%. Maybe a better way is to post a topic, and then let American public post demands.
Jay: it’s advertised as a strategy but the strategy implied, the philosophy replicates the strategy that the working class has failed over the years. He’s proposed a plan for what is possible not what we want. Democracy reform is not putting people in jobs, houses. JFA deals with the most pressing issues. For example, the South Bronx had 200 activists who support this.
Rick: direct response: we can propose pie in the sky and I believe we should have JFA but we’re not going to get that if the politicians are bought in the system. The constitutional amendment- there have been 8 amendments passed in a year. The 18 year olds the right to vote in 4 month. Prohibition took 8 months.
Cecily: Point of Information- but this is demand that was brought up at our second meeting, everyone was in support of it. We have a process by which both demands can go independently and present to the GA. We can present yours to the GA, independently of the JFA.
Rick: PoI- this is not a demand. This is something we can do proactively.
Eric: this is a demand. We can have a discussion about strategy. But this is not strategy. Your essential point is to push your demand at the exclusion of other. If you want to have this demand because you see it the priority.
Derrick: I like this demand a lot. But I have to tell you sincerely that JFA is pie in the sky, a constitutional amendment is more pie in the sky. Constitutional amendments are just not feasible at this time. We are opening up to all demands.
Rick: it’s totally feasible. They started out as right wing Baptists who hated alcohol, and left wing people joined in. They went to everyone who was up for election, and they had a huge swing vote. Plus even though there are Republicans in the senate, we have a huge percentage of democrats, republicans who support this. I didn’t respond to push my proposal. I’m not pushing it because it is my priority, but because it can get done.
Andy: All demands will take a long time.
Cecily: moving on to next agenda items.
Cecily: new demands- basis of subgroups. Are people OK with, we have a great list serve, we need to organize people, and working on the list-serve, and presenting subgroups next time.
Jay: Some people need help on how to get on the list-serve. Yahoogroups.com. Demandsows.
Cecily: it would be great if people could work on the yahoogroups and on nycga.org – demands working group.
Then we bring back demands to our meeting on Sunday, at 6PM. We can start all the processes that we solidified tonight, and come with your subgroup and show the process you’ve made.
Cecily: Any proposal is available to bring to the group. You can get started with all the processes right now. Seems like Rick has already done a lot of the processes. You’ve already done a lot of the work tonight.
Walter: for Sunday, can we spend most of Sunday on new demands and subgroups, JFA’s new benchmarks, and then possible new locations and internet use.