Post by demodave on Oct 10, 2011 21:58:57 GMT -5
I realize I'm flying in the face of the established way of things, but still I'd at least like to throw it out there, hopefully for the assembly's ears, and I suppose I'll try to propose it regardless...
But I feel like maybe in the short run, until we can sort out a more refined system, we might be better served limiting somewhat this whole open source approach. I'm not saying get rid of it, just maybe make it more structured.
I mean elect or pick by lot from volunteers a few people to sift through everything & set structured agendas for the assemblies, schedule different people to research, articulate, defend? What the issues, proposals are & how we're going to attack them. My thought is we might actually end up doing a lot more & a lot better democracy that way, instead of spending all night trying to get our hands around the amoeba.
I'd think we could plan the occupation more effectively at least, whereas we can listen to what everyone has to say about & decide higher principles later, during the occupation?
I actually think this sort of compromise is inherent to the project, and completely principled & safe, as long as we always hold firm to the vote absolutely (the voice & consent aspects only as much as we can while still getting things done?)
So I propose we consider proposing
something like this to the assembly, some sort of democratically selected few (by lot among volunteers sounds great to me) to keep things organized, focused, & moving. More so than I'm understanding any of these open source proposals to involve. I'm talking about running the assembly for a night period --- this is what we're going to discuss, this topic for this long, then that one, then this vote, then that one, etc. And for the time being just let them execute, until if nothing else we get better at this stuff, but also hopefully arrive at more refined procedures. The amoeba thing is great lets use that, but lets make it more structured, more directed, so we can get the most out of it. I'd say a good short run solution is to go ahead and put some people in charge.
After all if we don't like how the organizers are doing we can always vote them out!
In the meantime hopefully we can see a streamlined democracy at work. I mean, all of us voting & deciding, getting things done. That's pretty radical & amazing I'd say, doesn't need to be completely pure 100% of the time I don't think. Not sure that would ever be a productive goal, least of all now when we don't have the experience & need to make some preliminary decisions about occupation.
But I feel like maybe in the short run, until we can sort out a more refined system, we might be better served limiting somewhat this whole open source approach. I'm not saying get rid of it, just maybe make it more structured.
I mean elect or pick by lot from volunteers a few people to sift through everything & set structured agendas for the assemblies, schedule different people to research, articulate, defend? What the issues, proposals are & how we're going to attack them. My thought is we might actually end up doing a lot more & a lot better democracy that way, instead of spending all night trying to get our hands around the amoeba.
I'd think we could plan the occupation more effectively at least, whereas we can listen to what everyone has to say about & decide higher principles later, during the occupation?
I actually think this sort of compromise is inherent to the project, and completely principled & safe, as long as we always hold firm to the vote absolutely (the voice & consent aspects only as much as we can while still getting things done?)
So I propose we consider proposing
something like this to the assembly, some sort of democratically selected few (by lot among volunteers sounds great to me) to keep things organized, focused, & moving. More so than I'm understanding any of these open source proposals to involve. I'm talking about running the assembly for a night period --- this is what we're going to discuss, this topic for this long, then that one, then this vote, then that one, etc. And for the time being just let them execute, until if nothing else we get better at this stuff, but also hopefully arrive at more refined procedures. The amoeba thing is great lets use that, but lets make it more structured, more directed, so we can get the most out of it. I'd say a good short run solution is to go ahead and put some people in charge. After all if we don't like how the organizers are doing we can always vote them out!
In the meantime hopefully we can see a streamlined democracy at work. I mean, all of us voting & deciding, getting things done. That's pretty radical & amazing I'd say, doesn't need to be completely pure 100% of the time I don't think. Not sure that would ever be a productive goal, least of all now when we don't have the experience & need to make some preliminary decisions about occupation.
