Post by reubenshojin on Oct 25, 2011 9:08:58 GMT -5
I was given a blocking concern by Brad last night that I think we should deal with as soon as possible.
Brad indicated that on Sunday night, he had made three proposals that he wanted to be considered at Monday's GA. These were:
1)Moving the location of the GA to be directly adjacent to the protest area.
2)Limiting/Eliminating the use of the People's Mic, and replacing with a megaphone.
3)Eliminating the Point of Information and Point of Process hand signals, reducing the gesture set to the temperature gestures, hand raising for stack, and wrap it up.
He was assured on Sunday evening that he would be first on stack for proposals, and at Monday's GA, other business was presented, and he did not receive a chance to present his proposals. The commitment extended to him on Sunday was not kept on Monday, although in discussion with a member of Monday's facilitation team, it was indicated that Brad did not remind the facilitation team of this existing commitment.
I want to clarify, on the 3rd proposal; Brad's proposal, perhaps unintentionally, includes eliminating the block altogether, allowing blocking concerns to be aired during stack. He also suggested a more open ended stack, and does not accept as valid the reasons presented by facilitators for the limited, progressive stack. His feeling is that consensus would be better served by an open, unlimited stack, to allow debate to be exhausted on a subject.
Brad indicated that on Sunday night, he had made three proposals that he wanted to be considered at Monday's GA. These were:
1)Moving the location of the GA to be directly adjacent to the protest area.
2)Limiting/Eliminating the use of the People's Mic, and replacing with a megaphone.
3)Eliminating the Point of Information and Point of Process hand signals, reducing the gesture set to the temperature gestures, hand raising for stack, and wrap it up.
He was assured on Sunday evening that he would be first on stack for proposals, and at Monday's GA, other business was presented, and he did not receive a chance to present his proposals. The commitment extended to him on Sunday was not kept on Monday, although in discussion with a member of Monday's facilitation team, it was indicated that Brad did not remind the facilitation team of this existing commitment.
I want to clarify, on the 3rd proposal; Brad's proposal, perhaps unintentionally, includes eliminating the block altogether, allowing blocking concerns to be aired during stack. He also suggested a more open ended stack, and does not accept as valid the reasons presented by facilitators for the limited, progressive stack. His feeling is that consensus would be better served by an open, unlimited stack, to allow debate to be exhausted on a subject.