Structure WG minutes November 8

Posted by & filed under .

Structure Working Group November 8 minutes.

 

 

Stefan facilitating, Daniel taking stack.

Ambrose: Questions about last night and structure for tomorrow night.

 

Sully: yesterday was just getting everybody together and getting what everybody agrees on. We could figure out OG and caucuses that everybody agreed on.

Some groups are going to be shorter conversations than others 4 or less questions.

The length of the stack and giving the proposed group a chance

Being hard about limiting these conversations to 5mins

If we can’t  decide in 5 minutes, then revisit later.

Tomorrow is not going to be a proposal

The idea is that this is a group for stakeholders in a particular kind of questions

Ambrose: we have 42 groups = 3.5 hours.

Kelly: Visually represent this

Libor: how many groups

Sully:15

Steve: confirm that decisions won’t be made until all groups are confirmed or not.

Sully: trying to avoid consensus paradox.  Not all on same page.

What we’re going to try to do is a hybrid version. Where everybody has a spoke and participates in conversation, but only consensed on spokes can vote.

Breanna:good idea:

 

Stefan: we’re not quite ready to field proposals yet but

Breanna: we have so much money that needs to go out can’t suspend for a week.

Sully: there is nothing else on the agenda tomorrow. This is a transition period. Until then the proposals need to go you

Breanna: Facilitation needs to keep use of the mike short.

Angela: 2 points: fewer signs does not mean less conversation. Is it just questions or conversations?

Daniel: there is already concern that there is a set of people that can’t

Brooke: we shouldn’t limit the groups ability to decision. Don’t need to do a go through and then another. Ppl will kill themselves. We either block or say yes. Does not need to be a long conversations. More conversation doesn’t mean more democracy. Maybe give them a chance to edit their registration.

Stefan: test for consensus on proposal to just deal with groups on Wednesday.

Libor: there is a bit of an issue with the layout. Can we use tape and write names on each to hustle things along. Start with claps.

Adash: Only feasible if we start it later. Yesterday in earlier, but not clear if it

Hired 2 security but had 12.

Libor: 2 oclock or 3 oclock can we get in

Adash: no way. It’s a school.

Fateh: Yesterday it was unclear which and what are groups. Lot of people want to rewrite registration so that they can proposed.

Daniel: can we return to the proposal about no proposal?

Stefan: we consensed on that.

Daniel: did we consense on everyone getting decision making power?

Ambrose: I wouldn’t want to say you were the first 15 and so

Fateh: Note who is not approved and make a note of their blocks.

B: if we do it that way. Timing issues because a group could block before they are not

Steve: Do the 15 groups have any extra decision making power already?

Sully: I think so. But you’re hearing disagreement. We’re all going have a conversation about all the groups. But do these 15 groups

Steve: I disagree. But I want to know the relationship between facilitation and structure.

<..>

Libor: How does consolidation happen? How are new groups getting added?

Ambrose:what do you think?

Libor: Can organizations vote on themselves?

Stefan: if there is consensus we can avoid voting.

Libor: She might jump the gun.

Brooke: we’re getting really procedural.  We’re trying to build culture not procedure. It makes sense. As groups get not in that pot. If somebody is trying to block, then we can go to the group. Err on the side of openness.

Angela:I’m not sure I agree we voting on what people presented. I would rather have more conversations. E.g. Security.

Stefan: I just wanted to say we’re not discussing if we like these groups. Its just if these groups are operational groups.

Angela: I hear what your saying. We can’t say in the abstract say this group is an operations group. There are groups that are having factions within them. Who are we empowering.

Fateh: more education. Be inclusionary rather than exclusionary.

Striped shirt: blocked but being obstructionist

Breanna: We need to post the definitions of OG and caucuses. Use the screen. The facilitation should not be in the center. Every group sets forward a charter. We could do a GA format for recognizing the groups.

Sully: I’m withdrawing my argument about only the 15 making the decisions.

Navy shirt(Kelly): Different kinds of approval. E.g. approval with reservations.

Shayant: We have only one thing. That everything should be open. Immigration group is honored to be partner with you.

Ambrose: I just wanted to say. If there is consensus here that’s really important. If no consensus there we’ll work on that.Conversation about multiple women’s caucuses.

If a caucus felt one of the working groups was an oppressive group. We have principles of solidarity.

Blue shirt: 2 suggestions. Rotating facilitators. Mortified by the group response to the press. The facilitators should exercise leadership. Do we have press or are we in favor of openness.

Libor: Consolidation of similar groups. Structure group should help consolidate groups.

Daniel:I think there is still some confusion of operations groups vs movement groups.

What you are voting on is can you imagine this group bringing an operational type question to the.

Brooke: We are not trying to avoid blocks. It is difficult to block (need to get all group to agree). If they are assholes we can deal.

 

Divorce ourselves from weed-weed. Lets just get through this process. If we end up with 68 groups its not a problem.

Kelly: clarifying terms and graphics.some visual to reaffirm the big picture. Needs to get said again and again.

Steve: How you were thinking about dealing with the order of groups?

Brooke; go down by number of concerns.

Steve: perhaps we can have a joint facilitation –structure working group.

 

Fateh: consider given given to groups that do not have a voting right but can request money?

Stefan: if those groups don’t get in.  they can still go to the GA. Or those groups can go to another spoke in the spokescouncil.

Fateh: if they don’t fit in anywhere?

Stefan: go to the GA

Plaid shirt: Its in everyones self0inter to cluster.

Temperature check on whether the only groups getting a voting say are the original 15 or all the operational groups?

Some downtwinkles.

It looked like there was consensus

If they are not included how many ppl believe blocked groups should still have a say

11 pro

Steve: but I cant vote. This process is a real problem.

Brooke: what we decided to do was straw poll on

Fateh: do you need full consensus

Brooke: 9/10

Kelly: this is like a GA

 

Blue shirt: can somebody clarify what’s operational vs not?

Libor: can we consolidate these groups? Statistically?

Striped hoody: As part of a group that might not be part of the spokescouncil. Would still like to have a say.

Twinkles.

Steve: I’m not worried about inclusivity or not. I’m worried about the process that we’re deciding here.

Brooke: I was swayed. I think the idea that we’re the GA, and completely open.

Steve: can that just be announced?

Angela: openness I know there was a lot of confusion about where the spokescouncil

Stefan:  we didn’t have a space

Angela: there was still confusion.

Sully: information flow is a problem. If they haven’t given contact info.

Angela: openness openness. Its nearly

Striped shirt: the question we’re asking is who makes the rules spokescouncil.

Sully: its who is setting the process to form the spokescouncil.

Striped shirt. You just said the same thing as me.

Breanna: can I ask a temperature check that all all groups groups that show up with registration forms are allow to form. We’re a GA a groups.

Temperature ok..

Concludes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments are closed.