johnjaye
subForum Coordinator
Political/Electoral Reform
Posts: 26
|
Post by johnjaye on Oct 22, 2011 10:58:44 GMT -5
Great work on the GA yesterday - it was an inspirational experience and a great success.
Don't mind me if I am preaching to the choir, but I just had some feedback and suggestions in case they haven't been brought up yet...
GA for Newcomers:
It is great to do an overview of the hand signals and basics of consensus so that people new to the process can orient, but if it happens at the beginning of every GA it might get a little energy sapping as time goes on.
Just throwing out a few ideas on that:
There might be a small GA training for new comers at say 5:15, just before the GA... this could be announced online as well as at the park at like 5:10... the training would probably go a lot quicker in a small group where people can ask clarifying questions easily.
Between that, circulating the GA handouts, and people being able to ask clarifying questions of neighbors, it seems like it would work to not have the training at the beginning of each GA, and hopefully allow more energy for the non-procedural content.
Again, awesome work guys - it was beautiful.
|
|
johnjaye
subForum Coordinator
Political/Electoral Reform
Posts: 26
|
Post by johnjaye on Oct 22, 2011 11:01:52 GMT -5
One other quick thing...
It seemed like many people in the crowd weren't being active in the people's mic and may not have quite understood that the peoples mic works by EVERYONE taking part... and I know there were issues with people in the background not being able to hear well.
Just throwing it out there that it might be good to make a quick announcement at the beginning really clarifying for everyone that they need to be active in that process or it doesn't work.
|
|
Emma
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Arts & Music Member Kids Stuff
Posts: 215
|
Post by Emma on Oct 22, 2011 20:51:33 GMT -5
thanks for the feedback!! I'll note it to bring to the F&L wg tmw. If you'd like to come yourself, it's at 4:30 at the statue where yesterday's GA was held (at the Hawk St end of the park).
|
|
Albanius
subForum Coordinator
WGs: Outreach/Teachins, Political Strategy, Direct Action
Posts: 151
|
Post by Albanius on Oct 24, 2011 14:33:11 GMT -5
There was considerable attrition of the Sat and Sunday GAs as time went on past 2 hours.
I suggest that the facils try to keep the weekday GAs to between 1 hour and 90 minutes.
Weekend GAs can be longer, since they start earlier, should be lighter and less cold (depending on the weather)
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Oct 24, 2011 14:55:01 GMT -5
Time limits and consensus-building are at odds with one another.
There's a reason why some meetings at OWS have gone for hours.
|
|
reubenshojin
New Member
Legal Member Medical Support/Health & Wellness Facilitation & Logistics Humane Resources
Part time Occupier, Open Source fan
Posts: 32
|
Post by reubenshojin on Oct 24, 2011 15:00:15 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, I don't know that I disagree with Ben's point, regarding time limits on the GA itself. Setting a time limit for the GA which would then require consensus to extend strikes me as being a from the top, Facilitation imposed solution, and that seems to me to counter to the ideals of facilitation.
|
|
Emma
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Arts & Music Member Kids Stuff
Posts: 215
|
Post by Emma on Oct 24, 2011 16:07:06 GMT -5
Facilitation has been working on trying to clarify agendas before meetings in teh hopes of spreading things out a bit and getting the meetings to flow better. The 2 hour+ thing is an issue, partly because massive attrition is raising the question of what a quorum is at a GA, and for other reasons as well. I don't think facilitators feel empowered to make a top-down decision about it, as Reuben implied, but maybe the GA wants to be self-limiting. Limit the number of proposals per day? Table non-urgent issues at a certain point? Nothing is perfect. The quorum issue could solve the length issue - if we set a quorum (I personally liked the suggestion made on Saturday that made teh quorum requirement relative to the initial size of the group - if more than half leaves, it's not a quorum) then people vote with their bodies as to when the GA should end and it turns into a non-decision-making discussion meeting once we lose too many people. What do you all think about all that?
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Oct 24, 2011 19:14:21 GMT -5
You did a great job tonight! All of your changes in technique and clarification of processes seemed to keep the group attentive and engaged and moving along. Well, speaking for myself at least.
I feel like everyone had a voice and a way to express their objections without bogging down the process.
kudos! (and thanks)
|
|
Emma
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Arts & Music Member Kids Stuff
Posts: 215
|
Post by Emma on Oct 24, 2011 21:24:31 GMT -5
ooh, I really wish it had been streamed!
|
|
|
Post by mikerancourt on Oct 24, 2011 21:52:30 GMT -5
Thanks, Hezzie. We definitely benefited from a smaller group today and a different sort of proposals. I look forward to seeing how these modifications work with a larger crowd and more complex tasks.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Oct 25, 2011 12:53:53 GMT -5
Please read the 5th post down here: occupyalbany.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=poc&action=display&thread=258My suggestion: GLBT caucus and POC caucus should facilitate one GA meeting each, each week. On two of the GA meetings they don't facilitate, each of them should go first on the agenda on a different day. I haven't thought this through a whole lot, but wanted to come to the facilitators with more than a concern, and perhaps something constructive. This is no where near perfect, has many problems, and doesn't resolve anything in and of itself. However, it may be a step toward a resolution, so that more people are empowered and more people exposed to a variety of concerns. Obviously there are at least two issues here: the problem, and (a) resolution(s). Thoughts?
|
|
markm
New Member
Outreach Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by markm on Oct 25, 2011 13:19:59 GMT -5
The time limit would not need to be the same for each meeting, it could be determined when the group was preparing the agenda. The time limit could be extended with consensus of the group if needed. If the time limit expired and the assembly was in the middle of a debate time could be called after the issue was finished. Some pro and cons:
Pros: 1. People get frustrated sitting in long meetings. It would keep interest up. 2. It would necessitate that procedure be better followed. If the facilitator was time conscious he or she would be more inclined to keep the keep everyone on topic, make sure procedure was adhered to and keep the meeting moving along. 3. People value their time and appreciate when others do to. It helps with their planning. Setting a time limit shows that the Facilitator values everyones time. 4. When participants know that their time is valued they will participate better and will be less likely to abuse process. 5. It would make the proposed rule that no decisions be decided if 50% of the original numbers of attendees had left the meeting unnecessary.
Cons: 1. It may limit debate. This is very important and should not be taken lightly. 2. It may mean that the agenda does not get completed. 3. It may lead to a tendency to rush through things just to get them done.
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Oct 26, 2011 18:33:48 GMT -5
This is just a random idea, but I am wondering if it is possible to have some sort of feedback instrument -on site- for facilitation working group after the GA.
...a comment board?
This may be unnecessarily unwieldy, and quite possibly is probably already happening in person, but when i passed around the notebook for people willing to talk to press there was also a couple of notes of feedback suggestions on the facilitation process.
so just thought I'd let you know.
Feedback was request for diagram of hand signals (which we usually have) & making sure POC speak.
I guess I say this because not everyone has internet, and the group that is most affected by the GA (the troops on the ground regularly) are least likely to have forum access.
|
|
Emma
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Arts & Music Member Kids Stuff
Posts: 215
|
Post by Emma on Oct 26, 2011 19:07:47 GMT -5
direct reply @ Ben: As I posted in the discussion you linked, there are a couple of queer white women involved in the facilitation & logistics working group and we've been facilitators in two of the meetings so far. There have been poc involved in the facilitation team most nights, but there aren't any poc who regularly attend f&l wg meetings.
It's a scramble to just have any facilitating team each night, and I'm not sure what to do with this. There's the "hang back and someone less well represented might come fill the spot" and maybe we just shouldn't have GAs if we don't have a diverse team for that night, and see how that goes...
Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent, I just wanted to let you know that white lgbt facilitation representation is imo not an issue.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Oct 26, 2011 22:29:59 GMT -5
Thanks, Emma. I just wanted to make sure F&L saw the post, since I know you all have your hands full. I also don't like to post something empty like: "hey look, people have problems!" This can look overly negative, so I attempted something constructive, even though I knew is has lots of issues and isn't a very good solution in and of itself. I just didn't want the problem going unnoticed. I only saw it because it was on a thread I started as a question on a different matter.
In my experience, caucuses that unite underrepresented groups go a long way toward resolving these issues. Making sure they have reports on the agenda may be a huge help. I've seen POC, women's, queer and pro-choice caucuses advance important issues in two different organizations I've worked in.
|
|
dylan
Forum Coordinator
Outreach Member Media/PR Member
Posts: 374
|
Post by dylan on Oct 26, 2011 22:45:18 GMT -5
I agree with Ben. I have been pretty much unable to speak at any ga I've been at due to what I call the "Price is Right" syndrome where the people who raise their hands the fastest (or who keep them up the entire meeting) get to talk the most.
I was able to talk when representing outreach and media and it was nice. Having a report back and proposals coming from caucuses would hopefully offer underrepresented groups this space to talk and participate.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Oct 26, 2011 23:22:18 GMT -5
Would it be out of line to add the caucuses to the report-back agenda for every GA meeting, assuming they'll have something to report and give them an opportunity to come up? Even if they showed up without a report, it might be a way to carve out space in the meeting for them to take the floor anyway. If anything, they could invite new people to join the caucus, and they may even want to invite people to take the floor and introduce themselves and any concerns they have. I would be cool with that, but I'd want to make sure those caucuses don't feel under undue pressure to speak either.
|
|
Emma
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Arts & Music Member Kids Stuff
Posts: 215
|
Post by Emma on Oct 27, 2011 9:24:46 GMT -5
Dylan - Sounds like a problem with stack takers. I've not been to a GA all week because I'm on kid-duty in the evenings during the week, so I haven't seen if this problem has gotten better or not. The facilitation WG is constantly scrambling for folks to fill in all the roles at teh GA. Stack takers have mostly not been people who've been part of the working group conversations. Sounds like we need to run through a brief reminder of how to take *progressive* stack with each volunteer each evening. We could really use more volunteers! Minutes, time keeper, stack, vibes watch, as well as facilitators.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Oct 27, 2011 10:09:21 GMT -5
Question about progressive stack: how to handle identifying GLBT persons to move them upon the list?
|
|
Emma
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Arts & Music Member Kids Stuff
Posts: 215
|
Post by Emma on Oct 27, 2011 10:20:14 GMT -5
Ben - can't really. But I think Dylan's point is helped more by putting people on stack who have not spoken yet, rather than the same people who spoke 4 times already in that very meeting. That's one part of progressive stack.
(And honestly I think the lgbt question distracts from the more important point of women & poc needing to have the floor more. We also can't visually identify Jews, athiests, neighborhood residents, union members, or any number of other minorities or groups of people. But yet there is no question in anyone's mind that white males - and often the same few - are dominating the "mike" and that *can* and *must* be addressed.)
|
|