thoughts on sunday's meeting

[demodave]

first off... awesome job you guys rock the house tot inspiring yes!!!really wasn't sure it would go that smoothly esp after last sun but we tot pulled it off amazing!!!

figured i'd throw out some thoughts...

it seemed kindof technical and uninspiring at the beginning. wonder if it would be better to kick it off with more rah rah we are the 99% type stuff? some preselected rah-rahers? maybe even some stack for people to share their movement hopes & dreams etc?

point of process was insanely misused! i almost wonder if we should get rid of it? do we really need it? was it ever helpful? maybe rename it "off-topic" and limit it to a silent reminder to facilitators & speakers that the speaker isn't sticking to the agenda topic?

as a general observation votes are quick, discussion is slow. i think one way to speed things up might be to create a more rapid-fire voting process where we routinely sequence through many more nuanced votes --- temporarily accept, permanently accept, make a decision now, etc. a routine voting sequence everyone got used to, maybe a couple different ones for different kinds of things?

it sortof morphs back into my more theoretical concerns from before about consensus vs delay, but it seems like the block is an extremely strong and very specific kind of objection. perhaps we need something less strong than a block --- i.e. i'm willing to hold up the meeting to be heard, maybe even force it back to working groups against the majority's will, i think this is a huge mistake, not that i'd leave the group? such half-blocks would of course be prone to abuse...

most people seem to vastly overestimate how well they can be heard without a microphone & sometimes there's delay & confusion about who's speaking and then getting them to the mic etc. perhaps have the stack-takers motion/lead people to a line by the mic?
explain at the beginning that that's the process and unless someone has a disability etc to please do things that way?

that's all i've got for now . again awesome job everyone i'm tot blown away. can't make the midweek meetings so hopefully u don't mind too much me idk over-posting a bit .

the occupation begins!

[mikerancourt]

Hi, I'm Mike. I missed the last meeting, but I have some notes I took in critique of tonight's facilitation:

1. I think things really slowed down when the facilitators got confused and tried to get consensus on whether or not to take questions in the working group report backs, but you don't need consensus to stick to the agenda. You need consensus to depart from it. It needs to be very clear to people how & when questions will be addressed.
2. Dealing with proposals should be a formal and recognizable process so that the group understands what is happening and understands that this is a big deal:
A. The facilitator should restate proposals clearly because not everyone will have heard the proposal and because the proposal might not have been clear or concise enough to begin with
B. Then, the facilitator asks, "Are there any concerns?"
C. What follows is discussion. When people bring up concerns, there should be a mechanism to address those concerns. A new stack should be dedicated to each one in turn.
D. Then there is the question, "Can we consent?"
E. If there is a block, there is further discussion with a dedicated stack.
3. How do we keep from steamrolling people who bring up points or questions when it's not that time? For example, when it's time for working group reports and somebody wants to offer a proposal, how do we keep from having to embarrass them?
A. Be VERY proactive and clear what each section of time is for and what is to follow, pretty much every time a facilitator speaks ("Next on the agenda is reports from working groups. This is the time to hear reports, not make proposals. That time will come next.")
B. When someone raises a finger or triangle, ask them if it's to do the thing that this time is set aside for or if what they want to say is what their hand signal indicates ("Pat, you have a point of order; are you offering information to correct a misconception, etc..." or "Pat, you have a point of process, is this something that addresses a problem with the way this meeting's process is unfolding?")
4. Save time:
A. Encourage discipline - not repeating what's been said (that's what spirit fingers are for)
B. It will save time to remind people as much as possible what function the given section of the meeting serves and what comes later ("Okay, we're going to go down stack to ask questions of the PR working group. If what you have to say is not about that, please pass and bring up your concern in the next agenda item when we'll be talking about....")
5. I feel that the biggest problem tonight was that straw polls were used to make decisions. That's not what they're designed for, and when they are used in that way, it is the facilitator who is making decisions for the group under the guise of group opinion. If a straw poll indicates a public opinion, then make it a formal proposal with opportunities to address concerns. We crossed a bunch of spaces off the list without formal proposals to do so, and thus people who might have had good reasons to support those places were not given the opportunity to speak their minds. This is at least as bad as a majority rule (which I think is bad, though you might not) because it makes decisions based on facilitators' judgment of public opinion - i.e. a poor measurement of the will of the people, which is itself problematic no matter how you measure it.
6. Be more clear about what a straw poll is and means - it's not binding, and it doesn't hurt anyone to take one. We spent maybe 10-20 minutes bickering about which straw poll to take tonight when we could have done 20-40 of them in that time. If everyone knows that a straw poll is not the way decisions are made, there should be no objection to taking one on a given issue. Any member of the assembly can call for a straw poll at any time.
7. I know facilitation can be very challenging, but tonight when things got hectic, we saw the white male take over while the woman of color sort of drifted to the side. This is the kind of thing we should be wary of if we want to interrogate hierarchy and marginalization.
8. At the end of the meeting, I feel we really suffered from a lack of opportunity to offer criticism (both positive and negative) of the process.

[dylan]

I just wanted to +1 mikerancourt's comments. Thanks.

[demodave]

just to reiterate you were all tot amazing and as far as overall, i mean, i'm so psyched about everything that's happening, that's it!

to u guys that made it happen thank u!!!!

amen to lots of straw polls & everyone knowing what they are.

i thought the white guy was kindof, idk, temporarily assigned lead facilitator? at any rate i thought he made the right call to assert himself, and the right calls generally. if he wasn't lead facilitator maybe we should have one at assemblies from now on for when things do get rocky then there won't be any confusion about who steps forward to steer, which might also better ensure diversity because we can make sure to rotate that role?

again i hope my disproportionate volume of posts and suggestions doesn't bother anyone. all sorts of things cross my mind & idk... i'm pretty frigging galvanized and just have it on my mind & want to try to throw ideas out there if 1/50 might stick and help. i even have some conviction occassionally. but at this point i feel like i'm pretty ignorant compared to most of you, esp obv as far as working the consensus or any other participatory model. but i still like to run my mouth. but you know, it's 3 in the morning and i can't sleep, so whatever . hopefully it doesn't hurt. not like anyone has to read my posts, i mean, i invite all of you not to please.

that said, mikerancourt's post also makes me wonder about the more general question of how far we want to follow the "consensus model" in an effort to utilize an already developed practice vs. how much we try to think outside that box about the best way period. obv that's a question for the whole assembly, but right now moreso for this working group.

even in the short-run, i'm not sure it's always clear that trying to first learn a system and then implement it is better than making our own patchwork of rules along the way? the self-created patchwork approach might be especially advantageous to the assembly as a whole, as we all week by week slog through the rough edges of our collective efforts.

i cede for sure to experience and, as it happens, i think we moreso SHOULD master one established practice first & mix it up later, but i'd expect many exceptions and feel like we're better served throwing our own wrinkles in whenever we can --- as a way to stay open, responsive, creative, truly democratic, and increasingly versed in what i think will prove to be the make-it-or-break-it skill for the movement (constitution-making). indeed, i should think it will be critical along those lines to have as much diversity of procedure and hands-on bottom-up development of it as possible.

again just thoughts. i'm not saying 1 in 50 of my ideas are any good. but if nothing else i probably speak for some significant enough minority of people in the assembly who've never heard of the "consensus model" and aren't totally sold on it either, not that we're complaining, especially after such a beautiful night...

[dylan]

I think a one part of the problem was a negative feedback loop between the facilitators and everyone else in the room. As people get antsy the facilitators got stressed and less effective and the people got antsier, etc.

First I think that with experience both the facilitators and the participants will get more practiced at consensus and this loop will be less intense; I also think that there might be ways that facilitators can interrupt this loop. I thought that is partly what the vibe watcher is there for. Taina stepped up at one point but I think vibes watcher might want to participate early and often. Maybe not to address the ga but to check in the the facilitator at least. If we can fix that it might be less likely the more assertive facilitator will feel the need to take over.

Also with practice there will be less of an apparent difference between the assertiveness levels of the facilitators. The f&l working group might want to provide Sharmin(sp?) with some feedback and give her another shot and rotate Colin out.

But if you could set aside the minor frustrations with the process I thought what we got done last night was pretty incredible.

[mikerancourt]

Sorry for being so negative in my first post.
I think the use of those signs for hand signals was good. I actually thought the process started out well, and of course we did get something accomplished, but my interest is more in process than product. If we spent two hours talking about locations and came up with the same results, it might have been healthier for the group, even if people's patience would have worn thin. I think the strength of the consensus process is that it encourages people to think in terms of group goals rather than "mere" personal preference. Actually, I think that is something that is lost in the way GAs define blocking. In my experience with a couple of standing collectives and a little in the Anti-Globalization movement in the late 1990s-early 2000s, a block was defined as an objection with respect to the goals of the group. It was a way of saying not "I have an ethical objection" but rather that "I think this conflicts with what the group has formed to do." That's tricky in this movement because there is no clear constituting ideology or even a mission statement, but if that is the way decisions are made, then discussion is directed not at personal opinion but at the needs of the group. In even the most direct democracy, I think the logic is that everyone's opinion is important, but the winning side's (majority's, etc...) opinion is better. I think the problem is that there is a psychology of losing. Majoritarian democratic decision processes are really good at marginalizing the crazy people, but here we're all the crazy people because we think we should have an actual voice, not a token one in which we vote for Corporate Representative A or Corporate Representative B. There are other ways to handle this besides consensus, but I think it's a good one and a form that is linked to the content of our group.
So, to the question of should we "think outside the box" and modify our process: well, we should if we're just following this because OWS uses it. If it's not right for our group, then by all means we should make changes, but I do think the reliance on consensus over a voting model is appropriate. As much as I love this process (really, it excites me and it's why I'm here), it does have its own weaknesses, even if you (like me) value process over product (the implication being that one weakness is that it's very slow and often frustrating). For example, consensus is designed to work out compromise, but that often means that the mass of public opinion intimidates the minority objectors into coming to a swift decision without addressing all concerns.
Anyway, horray for process!

[joshred]

Thank you mikerancourt for that incredibly insightful breakdown of last nights meeting. I think we need to set a date for the next facilitation meeting ASAP, especially since we need to identify who's capable of facilitating the next meeting. I suspect we'll have some problems building a team that's experienced, available and ...ahem... not white men. One of the problems with rotating facilatators is that we start each meeting without the benefits of the prior teams experience.

[demodave]

Another observation from the meeting ---

As yet we don't seem to have a way for people to say that they don't know what's being voted on.

People are confused a lot naturally, and during discussion it might not matter so much, but of course when we're taking an actual vote we might want to make sure everyone knows what they're voting on, so maybe give them a way to gesture that they don't know?

Along the same lines, maybe it would help if we had a bunch of helpers working the crowd, to answer any questions, clarify things, pacify, help facilitate, etc. Some way within that for people to gesture to the helpers that they need help, then encourage everyone to channel everything through the helpers first?

Mikerancourt, def wasn't trying to challenge the consensus model as a general protocol for now, just saying we don't have to follow every procedure exactly the same way. For example, maybe we toss "point of process" and come up with a couple of our own gestures.

I suppose there's quite an advantage to the movement as a whole though if everyone does learn & follow the exact same procedures as far as assemblies working together...

[joshred]

demodave, I think most of the confusion is that we're collectively learning the process. Mikerancourt gave some really good advice about what the facilitators can do to mitigate or preempt confusion. Introducing new components might add to confusion rather than reduce it.

[demodave]

well like i say im definitely just throwing stuff out there if its possibly helpful. i really won't feel offended if its tot ignored, believe me.

also, i think i prob agree that we shouldn't be trying to throw 25 new wrinkles in for this friday's assembly. it's amazing enough we were able to pull anything off this past meeting, etc.

i really mean to throw ideas out there as food for thought to be considered over the weeks & months, not even necc. to be discussed at the next facil meeting or ever.

i mean if it were up to me we'd all be posting huge long posts filled with impressions & suggestions bc why not? & again i'm interested in the process for its own sake so all this is a learning thing for me.

so... do it up for sure & def dont worry ab ignoring me please... really!

[joshred]

Haha. No worries. I didn't mean to come off like I was telling you you were wrong.