"Consensus" at GA: genuine?

[vincent]

Here is a sentiment that someone close to me expressed, and I share it; I know we aren't alone, either:

'We don't have to and we shouldn't BLINDLY "respect the process" when the process ISN'T working!!! We should be reflective ALL THE TIME and when we see something isn't working we should respond and change it! No one is being critical of "the process" and "the process" has major problems! Any "process"--if necessary at all--should be intended to work for us, not the other way around. The process is prohibiting authentic conversation from taking place. People are not speaking up because it doesn't fall under one of the hand signals!"

[mikerancourt]

I think you're right. We should be critical of the process, and the facilitation WG has made lots of refinements, some large and some small.
I also think you're right that authentic conversation doesn't really happen in consensus process, even in smaller groups sometimes - that is, if what you mean by "authentic conversation" is the natural, unmediated back-and-forth like we experience in real life. However, in a group larger than a few people, that discussion can be beyond chaos.
Our process still feels stiff and mechanical, but it should get better as we get better at it. I don't know if there is a way to tweak the process to encourage conversation that doesn't lead to the dynamics the process is designed to minimize such as dominance by a few who are used to and typically expected to be speaking out and speaking up.
I would be interested in hearing suggestions about how we could do this.
I think our practice of inviting direct response to comments and concerns to proposals is a good one that could be a model for other kinds of discussions. That is, if X makes a proposal and Y has a question or concern about it, the facilitator then turns to X for a response. We could think about doing that in more kinds of ways: X has a proposal, Y has a concern, Z, and A are on the speaking order. X responds to Y's concern, but Y is till unconvinced. Maybe B could jump stack to add to or address Y's concern. Meanwhile, A is on stack for a different concern but has a response to Y. There would be a stack within a stack. This kind of arrangement works fine for small meetings. We could try it for our GA. It may not be as "Authentic" as Vincent has in mind, but it might be workable and beneficial.

Also, your subject line says something that the body of your text does not. We should not kid ourselves that the consensus we achieve is foolproof. We should always remind ourselves that some people may be going through the motions and consenting even if they are not really comfortable with the proposal because they are don't feel comfortable speaking up, they feel like people will look down on them if they disagree, they're just impatient with the process, or for whatever reason. Our self-critique should address the tiny coercions that come up through things like body language and sighs and gasps and rolls of eyes, but also through the dominance of certain types of voices. This process is necessarily long, and we are not patient enough to make a truly open environment. Also, a lot of us are really comfortable with the old ways, in which judgment and condescension are built into the system.
Thanks for bringing this up.
Mike

[vincent]

Mike brings up many things which I am sympathetic to and agree with (the developmental/evolutionary nature of the rules and their applications during GA--I too think patience is paramount). I also see the need for a rule structure of sorts to set up the way in which we engage with one another, lest it become chaotic.

(Please keep in mind that "rule" can be very loosely construed to mean "sense of" rather than some sort of "strict" understanding--i.e. "rule" need not mean "strict" or "hard-ass" but could just mean "understanding.")

I am concerned with the rule structure as it is now; there seems to be the invocation of "process" at moments where people have neither a "point of information" nor "a clarifying question" (the latter is a bit vague to me; it seems to be somewhat variable from GA to GA, from facilitating team to facilitating team, from facilitator to facilitator), but try to ask a question nonetheless.

The nature of these questions vary, but I will give one kind of example: Monday night (11/7) there was the proposal about speaking to the City at a meeting scheduled by the City for today at 4 pm (right time?). There were concerns about this, many revolving around what would the composition of the Occupation "delegation" look like, i.e. who would be there? This went around as we tried to clarify how this might work; at some point, Mark Mishler made a very logical point but one with which I strongly disagree: the decision should be made whether or not to have the meeting first, then worry about the make-up of the delegation.

I understand Mark's logic, but the problem is the latter concern is inseparable from the first: many of us probably do not want to have a meeting unless it is under certain conditions (e.g. at the GA, or with a certain number of people, or with a certain composition of delegates, etc.). We cannot answer the question of whether or not to have the meeting unless we can agree about under what conditions said meeting is to be held.

When attempts to bring this up occurred, it was met with what I will call "procedural resistance": the question on the table was whether or not to meet, not the composition of the meeting. The "process" as practiced effectively separated out key concerns that had bearing on the proposal.

If I am not remembering perfectly, I apologize. But I have seen this kind of a thing happen at other GA's. This is one of my main concerns, and is an impediment to what I described as "genuine conversation."

[vincent]

This conversation seems to be going on elsewhere as well...

[colin]

Vincent I'm not quite understanding/feeling your concern. With regard to Monday and the question of the meeting and who would attend - it doesn't sound like the process failed necessarily - it sounds like you just disagreed with the decision. Some folks thought we should decide whether to have the meeting before deciding who would attend bc if we didn't want the meeting the question of who attended would be moot. You disagreed and thought they were inseparable. Other folks had a different opinion and we decided to take the first question first and leave attendance open to anyone who wanted to attend.

In order to discuss and reach consensus on proposals, proposals have to have a clear and focused scope. If you disagreed with the narrowness of the scope of the proposal you could clearly have brought it up during the discussion/concerns section, you also could have stood-aside or blocked the proposal if it was super-important to you. The process is actually explicitly designed to empower folks to raise concerns like the one you had and have them addressed.

I understand you weren't thrilled about the outcome but I'm still unclear as to what specifically was wrong with the process here. Do you have affirmative alternative in mind for a different process that would better meet your needs? Please clarify. Thanks!

[vincent]

Good questions all around; I am mulling over the exact nature of the problem(s) myself. I definitely was not thrilled by the outcome afterward--I grant you that (see other post in RC; I acknowledge your concern there as well).

I have a very general sense of the problems and do not, at least at this point, have all of the answers, so I will delve into it a bit more. I really would like some help with this, because in trying to tie general problems to specific examples, I may lose the precision required. Please jump in, and take these as provisional...

1) I think there is a great deal of confusion about how to raise the kind of issues that I had; this is partially attributable to (in)experience with the process, but I feel like there is more to it than that...

2) There is great confusion about the raising of questions in a timely and relevant manner. We often are dealing with one particular aspect of a proposal that requires a discussion, but that may not be permitted by the process at that juncture; nevertheless, that discussion needs to be had before we can move on in an assured way; going on stack seems to often impinge on relevancy as well; by the time you come up to speak, the problem was several minutes prior.

3) Regarding Monday: I think you bring up some good points, but we may end up speaking past one another; I am unsure how/when to ask that a proposal be broken up into its constituent parts. In this case, the question of whether or not to have the meeting depended upon first answering other questions; only then could the question of whether or not to hold the meeting be answered.

Now, what I was/am afraid of is something like this: say we consent to having a meeting in the abstract. Fine, great, but then say we are on the losing end of how to hold the meeting. I might never have consented in the first place had I known what I later knew, and don't want it thrown back at me that I consented to the abstract notion of "holding the meeting."

3) "The Use and Abuse of Hand-Gestures." (thank Nietzsche for the title) More of an annoyance, but someone might feel bullied out of their point if someone else is doing the hand gesturing equivalent of mouth-breathing.

4) I have great empathy for the facilitators. I am not sure if there is a "letter of the law" or "spirit of the law" approach by each of them; at times it feels restrictive, at other times, quite open. I obviously prefer the latter, as that tends toward what I quoted another person as calling "genuine conversation."

Thoughts?

[vincent]

On point #3, I do not know if a new mechanism is the solution but perhaps a reminder about the appropriate situation for the employment of a particular hand gesture.

Please keep in mind that I am not a super-purist, but do believe that purity must trump efficiency, lest we lose our purpose and meaning.

We are not here, strictly speaking, to just "get things done." I see the GA and all other functions here as more than mechanical means toward certain (un)specified ends. I see the GA and the other functions as ends in themselves, training all of us how to think and exist in a new way. I feel so strongly that these things can be a way of remaking us, of purifying us of years of existing in a political-cultural wasteland, that we must pay constant attention to the details, nuances, and precedents we are creating.

[hz]

Nov 10, 2011 13:20:45 GMT -5 vincent said:

.

We are not here, strictly speaking, to just "get things done." I see the GA and all other functions here as more than mechanical means toward certain (un)specified ends. I see the GA and the other functions as ends in themselves, training all of us how to think and exist in a new way. I feel so strongly that these things can be a way of remaking us, of purifying us of years of existing in a political-cultural wasteland, that we must pay constant attention to the details, nuances, and precedents we are creating.

yes.

[joshred]

Re: abusing hand signals. If someone abuses a hand signal, interrupt them with a point of process and don't be shy about it. Facilitation often feels a little meek about stopping people who are abusing the hand signals to have their opinions heard rather than facilitate the conversation. The only hand signal that allows you to voice your opinion is the block. Otherwise you're expected to wait for your turn to speak by asking to be on stack.

This might seem a little stifling sometimes but it keeps the conversation from becoming too chaotic. Also, please come to the facilitation work group meetings. We need to hear feedback.

Also Vincent, I agree with you about separating the meeting from the participants. I don't think we should have done that, but I felt pressured to concede in the moment. I was the facilitator, by the way.

[vincent]

Josh,
Please be clear, any issue(s) raised are absolutely NOT about you (or anyone else) as a facilitator (in case it may have sounded that way). These are general issues, and I imagine that it must be rather challenging trying to manage that situation as it unfolds in real time. I will take the point of process tip and employ it if necessary to expose hand-signal trolls wherever they may lurk! It is a silent form of incivility.
Best,
Vincent

[joshred]

I'm open to criticism towards my facilitation as long as it's pointed and constructive. I don't feel defensive about any of the points you've raised. I think they're all valid.