Post by vincent on Nov 9, 2011 12:55:02 GMT -5
I will re-post here what I posted elsewhere:
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."
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."