|
Post by poppawheelie on Oct 5, 2011 10:41:39 GMT -5
I would like to propose a facilitation working group, as well as compiling on this thread a list of resources that explain to those not experienced in consensus/facilitation the process and goals of the system.
I am not necessarily proposing i be part of the group, i am proposing we need one.
|
|
|
Post by poppawheelie on Oct 5, 2011 10:49:53 GMT -5
Once an agenda for discussion has been set and, optionally, the ground rules for the meeting have been agreed upon, each item of the agenda is addressed in turn. Typically, each decision arising from an agenda item follows through a simple structure: Discussion of the item: The item is discussed with the goal of identifying opinions and information on the topic at hand. The general direction of the group and potential proposals for action are often identified during the discussion. Formation of a proposal: Based on the discussion a formal decision proposal on the issue is presented to the group. Call for consensus: The facilitator of the decision-making body calls for consensus on the proposal. Each member of the group usually must actively state their agreement with the proposal, often by using a hand gesture or raising a colored card, to avoid the group interpreting silence or inaction as agreement. Identification and addressing of concerns: If consensus is not achieved, each dissenter presents his or her concerns on the proposal, potentially starting another round of discussion to address or clarify the concern. Modification of the proposal: The proposal is amended, re-phrased or ridered in an attempt to address the concerns of the decision-makers. The process then returns to the call for consensus and the cycle is repeated until a satisfactory decision is made. ROLES: The consensus decision-making process often has several roles which are designed to make the process run more effectively. Although the name and nature of these roles varies from group to group, the most common are the facilitator, a timekeeper, an empath and a secretary or notes taker. Not all decision-making bodies use all of these roles, although the facilitator position is almost always filled, and some groups use supplementary roles, such as a Devil's advocate or greeter. Some decision-making bodies opt to rotate these roles through the group members in order to build the experience and skills of the participants, and prevent any perceived concentration of power. The common roles in a consensus meeting are: Facilitator: As the name implies, the role of the facilitator is to help make the process of reaching a consensus decision easier. Facilitators accept responsibility for moving through the agenda on time; ensuring the group adheres to the mutually agreed-upon mechanics of the consensus process; and, if necessary, suggesting alternate or additional discussion or decision-making techniques, such as go-arounds, break-out groups or role-playing. Some consensus groups use two co-facilitators. Shared facilitation is often adopted to diffuse the perceived power of the facilitator and create a system whereby a co-facilitator can pass off facilitation duties if he or she becomes more personally engaged in a debate. Timekeeper: The purpose of the timekeeper is to ensure the decision-making body keeps to the schedule set in the agenda. Effective timekeepers use a variety of techniques to ensure the meeting runs on time including: giving frequent time updates, ample warning of short time, and keeping individual speakers from taking an excessive amount of time. Empath or 'Vibe Watch': The empath, or 'vibe watch' as the position is sometimes called, is charged with monitoring the 'emotional climate' of the meeting, taking note of the body language and other non-verbal cues of the participants. Defusing potential emotional conflicts, maintaining a climate free of intimidation and being aware of potentially destructive power dynamics, such as sexism or racism within the decision-making body, are the primary responsibilities of the empath. Note taker: The role of the notes taker or secretary is to document the decisions, discussion and action points of the decision-making body. DISSENTING OPTIONS When a participant does not support a proposal, he does not necessarily need to block it. When a call for consensus on a motion is made, a dissenting delegate has one of three options: Declare reservations: Group members who are willing to let a motion pass but desire to register their concerns with the group may choose "declare reservations." If there are significant reservations about a motion, the decision-making body may choose to modify or re-word the proposal. Stand aside: A "stand aside" may be registered by a group member who has a "serious personal disagreement" with a proposal, but is willing to let the motion pass. Although stand asides do not halt a motion, it is often regarded as a strong "nay vote" and the concerns of group members standing aside are usually addressed by modifications to the proposal. Stand asides may also be registered by users who feel they are incapable of adequately understanding or participating in the proposal. Block: Any group member may "block" a proposal. In most models, a single block is sufficient to stop a proposal, although some measures of consensus may require more than one block (see previous section, "Non-unanimous or modified consensus"). Blocks are generally considered to be an extreme measure, only used when a member feels a proposal "endanger the organization or its participants, or violate the mission of the organization" (i.e., a principled objection). In some consensus models, a group member opposing a proposal must work with its proponents to find a solution that will work for everyone.
|
|
chrisz
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics
Posts: 21
|
Post by chrisz on Oct 5, 2011 12:16:35 GMT -5
Awesome! Great resource!
|
|
erics
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by erics on Oct 5, 2011 14:06:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by austin on Oct 9, 2011 20:34:24 GMT -5
ok, i didn't feel like it made sense to add this to tonight's meeting, but we should discuss whether consensus is the best possible process for Occupy Albany. I'd like to propose we look at switching to a voting scheme where the majority rules, but the minority can stall and delay implementation.
|
|
|
Post by culturalhistory on Oct 9, 2011 21:25:14 GMT -5
I think we should stick with the consensus approach. Voting involves to many egos and a simple majority does not represent the complexities of the group. I also feel that the idea of 90% in agreement when a vote seems impossible to avoid is key too.
|
|
teacherkate
New Member
Divisions are illusions - We are all one
Posts: 2
|
Post by teacherkate on Oct 9, 2011 21:47:11 GMT -5
Leaderless consensus-based decision making is a slow, messy process, but one that should hopefully leave everyone feeling empowered and heard. This is *exactly* what democracy looks like.
A drawback to this method is that it can take a very long time to make even basic decisions, which can suck the energy out of people who have finally reached past political apathy into action. When that many people come to a meeting because they're finally fed up and feeling energized by the notion of people banding together to do something about it, they don't usually envision sitting around all day talking about it.
I love the consensus model, and I'm idealistic enough to want to keep working within it, but I caution us to keep looking for ways to keep people excited, interested, and engaged by the process, not exhausted by it.
|
|
rebecca
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Member Humane Resources
Posts: 79
|
Post by rebecca on Oct 9, 2011 22:08:38 GMT -5
Hi, all. I'm Rebecca - at the meeting tonight I had to leave to put my baby to bed, but my husband Robin stayed and offered for me, in the breakout group on facilitation, that I'm up for leading trainings to increase our base of facilitators and build efficiency in group meetings. I have not been one of the organizers of this group thus far, and have no investment in being in charge of this - if others would like to do it with me or instead of me that is totally fine. But I can do it and I think it would help, so I'm just going to throw it out there. Let me know if I should be doing it differently. The more trained facilitators we have, and the more participants we have who are informed about how consensus works, the stronger and more efficient the group will be. Everyone is welcome to come for training! If you are interested, please respond to this Doodle poll to let me know when you could come: www.doodle.com/4t48e83y53hv5nzfI will post here to announce if/when trainings are scheduled based on the interest expressed in the poll. (Who am I to be doing this, anyway? I was trained in consensus facilitation during my 3 years as a member of the board of directors of the Oberlin Student Co-op Association, which operated 9 dining and housing co-ops for hundreds of college students with a million-dollar budget, entirely student-run and entirely by consensus of those hundreds of students. Then in 2000, I was an organizer and facilitation trainer for NYC Direct Action Network before and during the DC A16 and Philly RNC protests. Then the mundane world of jobs and kids took over my life, so it's been a while... but that's where I've done this before.) Let me know what you think.
|
|
|
Post by culturalhistory on Oct 9, 2011 22:15:08 GMT -5
i think since there are now active working groups people will find their niche and get excited about working towards a common goal. They'll see the bigger picture coming together I was glad to hear people talk about how long it took to get Occupy Wall Street started and the 7 working General Assemblies before it began Sept 17. An example of preparation set-up/start-up, Anonymous started pushing about Wall Street in March and the idea of occupying it around June. Good things take time.
|
|
|
Post by culturalhistory on Oct 9, 2011 22:19:21 GMT -5
I think training is a good idea. Although I have had some experience in facilitating groups I would be interested in what you have to say. I can always learn new things...
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Oct 10, 2011 8:07:04 GMT -5
I think we ought to look into something like this: www.amazon.com/Nady-DKW-DUO-Channel-Hand-Held-Microphone/dp/B001RXPF3Q/ref=pd_cp_MI_pw_1We could keep the "in the round" seating arrangement, which I think is preferable, if we solved the problem of amplification. Using wireless mics would save the time of waiting for people to walk up to a central microphone. Those ones are only $50, but free would be even better- especially if we could get something of higher quality. Does anybody have anything like this?
|
|
|
Post by ryan on Oct 10, 2011 10:01:07 GMT -5
Hello everyone Im going to make some suggestions for how GA meetings should operate. I hope you will read this and consider at least some of the points for inclusion or at least discuss them at the facilitation meeting this week
First, is the issue of seating arrangement. Meetings in the round are supposed to promote a sense of community but ironically it can have the opposite effect. People will inevitably be over looked and feel that they are being disregard (no one has eyes in the back of their head, despite what your 4th grade teacher told you). This seemed to happen a few times at the last general assembly. Placing facilitators in front of the group allows them to see everyone. If the concern with placing them at the front is that they will be seen as leaders, a reminder can and should be offered that facilitators rotate and are not the same every meeting. Another plus of having them at the front would be that any amplification (people's mic or electric mic) can be focused in a direction.
Second point is for taking stack. We should consider taking 10 names (or another similar small #) at a time for stack. Long stack lists are difficult for both facilitators and the crowd. People sign up for stack are placed 38th and by the time its there turn to speak they have forgotten or their concern has been addressed. By taking a limit we allow people to consider whether their point is important enough to take up time. To be clear i'm not saying limit it to 10 a meeting, just 10 at a time.
Third allowing working groups to speak to the GA before the floor is opened to all. It keeps people up to date on the movement, makes them aware that there are working groups addressing specific concerns, and hopefully will cut down on questions for the GA
Finally, address what blocking means and make it very clear to the GA. Blocking means that you have a serious moral, ethical or safety concern with a proposal. If you maintain your block the GA moves to a 9/10ths vote. What happens if they loose the block? are we going to ask them to leave the movement? This is what has been said in other movements and it is a good deterrent to frivolous blocks and lets the seriousness of the move set in.
Thanks. I hope you read and consider what i have written. sorry for its length
|
|
rcdrake
New Member
Arts & Music Member Facilitation & Logistics Member kids stuff
Posts: 33
|
Post by rcdrake on Oct 10, 2011 10:01:15 GMT -5
I'd like to see Rebecca do some training. She's local, right in the city. She could do it now -- we wouldn't have to send to the city for anyone as I heard mentioned at last night's discussion. She has a very flexible schedule, no work or school. She has on-the-ground experience facilitating. I've seen her teach and thought her exceptionally good at it.
But most of all, having seen her facilitate and moderate in tough situations with aggressive people, I know she will stick firmly to process, and make sure we do, because she can and will raise her voice over someone's to say a quick, "not that now," but do it with a look on her face that is sympathetic and doesn't piss anyone off, *and* remember to get back to them/that at the appropriate moment. So when she was training, she'd be setting an example of how to do it as well as explaining to us the skills we need.
|
|
|
Post by Emma on Oct 10, 2011 10:48:52 GMT -5
A couple more facilitation & logistics items to discuss at our upcoming meeting:
Liasons/point people among all the working groups. Such that someone from logistics/facilitation knows who to contact on media or outreach or... and vice versa.
*Progressive* stack (I think it's on the list but I want to make sure)
Making mention at GA of the facilitation process being a living "document" - aka, open to adapting to the group's needs.
__
Ryan suggested that we talk first about the facilitation structure of the next GA, to make sure we get that covered, and then move on to our myriad other issues. I agree with this suggestion. ___
I like the idea of Rebecca offering training, but I think it's important that we are all working from the same structure - there's enough confusion w/o conflicting msgs coming out of the working group. Can we hold off on actually doing a training til after the upcoming working group meeting?
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Oct 10, 2011 11:08:06 GMT -5
I don't remember- is Rebecca going to be participating in Occupy Albany, and perhaps in our working group? If so, she should try to attend our meeting, and we could at least receive her input as we hammer out the details of our proposed process. If we can't also squeeze in intensive training on the specific skills before the next meeting of the GA, we'll just have to wing it, and maybe train on the things we find that we're weak on afterwards?
|
|
rebecca
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Member Humane Resources
Posts: 79
|
Post by rebecca on Oct 10, 2011 11:51:57 GMT -5
Emma, yes, I think it's a good idea for the working group to meet before any training if possible. I want very much to all be on the same page and working within the group process. Matthew, yes, I will be participating in Occupy Albany, I am signed up for the working group, and I plan to attend the meeting! Sorry to be unclear about that.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Oct 10, 2011 12:02:31 GMT -5
Can we discuss the purchase / rental / acquisition of a dual wireless microphone system here and now, since a purchase may involve waiting for shipping, and we'll want to have time to test it our before using it at the GA? If nobody already has one, or has a connection through which they can acquire one for free, then I think we ought to buy / rent one. I included a link to a system available on Amazon for $50 with fair reviews in my earlier post. I can't afford the entire thing and I can't use my credit card right now, but I can afford to kick in some money towards this.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Oct 10, 2011 12:35:13 GMT -5
Can we discuss the purchase / rental / acquisition of a dual wireless microphone system here and now, since a purchase may involve waiting for shipping, and we'll want to have time to test it our before using it at the GA? If nobody already has one, or has a connection through which they can acquire one for free, then I think we ought to buy / rent one. I included a link to a system available on Amazon for $50 with fair reviews in my earlier post. I can't afford the entire thing and I can't use my credit card right now, but I can afford to kick in some money towards this. I think we should wait on purchasing microphones. Although they would be helpful at the Grand Street venue they might not be elsewhere. Once we have decided where the Occupation will take place GA meetings will meet there which means that, most likely, electronic amplification will not be allowed.
|
|
dylan
Forum Coordinator
Outreach Member Media/PR Member
Posts: 374
|
Post by dylan on Oct 10, 2011 15:02:26 GMT -5
I disagree with the combination of the Facilitation and Logistics working groups as I understand them.
My understanding is that facilitation is concerned with General Assemblies: making sure they go smoothly, making sure there is a microphone, there is good facilitation, everyone understands consensus etc.
Logistics I believe was described last night as the group that was going to come up with some ideas about where we were going to occupy based on feedback at the meeting.
First, these two things have nothing to do with each other
Second, and this is an amendment to the first, is the one thing they do have in common is they are both coordinating teams of the entire group. One coordinates us inside, the second coordinates us outside.
One example where I could see this being a problem is if there is a tendency among the facilitators to want to occupy the capitol and these are the same people in logistics that tendency will be carried over into the logistic group, where if they are separate it would be balanced out.
These both have the capacity to be power groups, and since there is no reason for them to be together from a technical standpoint, this negative tendency of stacking the groups leads me to think they need to be separated.
From a positive perspective having two groups would give the members of each to spend more time on their individual task and do a better job, and it 's important for us to get as many people into leadership roles as we can.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Oct 10, 2011 15:43:31 GMT -5
Proposing the details of the occupation, including the logistics of it, is the responsibility of a separate working group. The logistics that this group is responsible for is the logistics of the GA meetings, until they are moved to the site of the occupation. Unless, of course, the GA decides that the meetings of the GA should be held at a location separate from the occupation, in which case this WG will continue to be responsible for planning / proposing the logistics of the GA meetings.
|
|