Loomio
Tue 4 Nov 2014 8:29PM

VOTE: Queer WG

CH Cat Hudson Public Seen by 42

Hello Everyone,

I would like to start a YOUNGO Queer WG for members of the Youth Constituency who identify as LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans+). My proposal would be for the WG be open for those who self-identify with the LGBTQ+ community and therefore creating a safe space for those who may not be open for social, political or other reasons in their home country or lives.

As the LGBTQ+ working group will be open for those who self-identify, I propose that YOUNGO will not ‘police’ or check meetings to make sure this is being respected, but trust and respect members who participate with this WG.

I propose two weeks for comments and feedback and then one week for a vote.

Thank you,
Cat Hudson
UK Youth Climate Coalition

Working Group Motion: Queer Caucus

YOUNGO notes:
• Often discriminated and marginalised groups should be liberated and respected
• Members of YOUNGO are able to be themselves and link with other marginalised groups to eradicate oppression
• Nobody is free, until we are all free of our oppressions

YOUNGO believes:

• LGBTQ+ groups globally face discrimination for their sexual and gender identity
• LGBTQ+ members of YOUNGO should be respected and liberated
• LGBTQ+ self-identified people should be protected within YOUNGO

YOUNGO resolves:

• A YOUNGO Queer WG should be created for members of YOUNGO who self-identify as being LGBTQ+, to freely be themselves in a safe identify and to discuss LGBTQ+ issues within the UNFCCC and YOUNGO, in order to make YOUNGO a more safe and inclusive space
• A YOUNGO Queer google group will be created where members of YOUNGO who self-identify with being LGBTQ+ can start the liberation campaign for a positive and enjoyable environment for all

Thanks,
Cat

DT

David Tong Mon 10 Nov 2014 7:08PM

Hi all

I fully back Cat's proposal, and think we probably don't need to vote formally on establishing a WG. But because of the point Luke identified, I'd like to give people a chance to block us establishing a new WG without a vote.

So, I'll make a proposal that YOUNGO members can create new WGs without a vote and give people 72 hours to respond to that. Unless anyone blocks, I suggest we take that as enough for the WG to go ahead. I'm trying to think of a way to confirm a vote isn't necessary without us pushing over any dissenting views.

DT

Poll Created Mon 10 Nov 2014 7:10PM

That we shouldn't need votes to establish YOUNGO WGs Closed Fri 14 Nov 2014 7:05PM

Outcome
by David Tong Tue 25 Apr 2017 5:25AM

Passed! Cat can now go ahead and create the proposed queer WG. I suggest we discuss Chris and Nhattan's suggestions more on the discussion of YOUNGO's decision making processes.

In the past, YOUNGO members have just been able to create WGs without putting it to a vote of the whole constituency. So, I suggest that we confirm that.

If this vote passes, Cat (and others) will be able to create new WGs without having to go through the whole 3 week YOUNGO decision process.

Thanks!

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 100.0% 14 DT NT NN LK KM CR CG CW RD RK P LK LC T
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 41 NJ LD DG FB DE JT CH SC JR SM MR JM A IM NS PP JP SIV HT MA

14 of 55 people have participated (25%)

CW

Chris Wright
Agree
Mon 10 Nov 2014 8:29PM

I agree. If a group works it works. However, reservation that there is some standard process for a new group, like a whole of youngo announcement with a why and a mission of the group n 2 members in support. just makes things accountable.

LK

Luke Kemp
Agree
Mon 10 Nov 2014 11:24PM

I'd second what Chris said. The qualification of an announcement with a justification and minimum membership is a really good idea.

NN

Nhattan Nguyen
Agree
Tue 11 Nov 2014 2:46AM

Supporting Chris's suggestions as well.

NT

Nathan Thanki
Agree
Tue 11 Nov 2014 2:59AM

I do think that for any group to legitimately call itself a YOUNGO WG we should think about enshrining some (very minimal) standards. But overall, I think that we can't and shouldn't try to police how people organise themselves.

P

Pawa
Agree
Tue 11 Nov 2014 5:33AM

I agree with Chris on a "standard process for a new group" and with Nhattan on "Redflags/valid concerns ".

RD

Rachel Dobric
Agree
Thu 13 Nov 2014 8:07AM

++, and I agree with Chris and others - maybe a minimum number of members? A clear statement of purpose that can be made available on the YOUNGO site to all our constituents? (Because really, there's little point in a WG that noone knows about!)

CG

Catherine Gauthier
Agree
Thu 13 Nov 2014 8:46PM

I agree with the general proposal and also second Chris's suggestion.

CR

Collin Rees Mon 10 Nov 2014 8:08PM

Just want to add in my own +++ for Cat bringing forward what I think is a fantastic proposal. Creating an inclusive, safer space should be a priority in all the work that we do and support. And very grateful to see thoughtful, respectful discussion about it as well :)

NN

Nhattan Nguyen Tue 11 Nov 2014 2:46AM

Also @David. Maybe rephrasing... rather than using the concept of "block", it may be better to emphasize whether or not people have red flags? The purpose then is someone may have a very valid concern on the current proposal, but it's up to them to bring forward a credible compromise.

RBT

Rudolf Bastian Tampubolon Tue 18 Nov 2014 8:42AM

Hi all,
I hope the continuation of WG that identifies the LGBTIQ constituency can be accommodate within this group. For further information and decision, kindly let me know.

DT

David Tong Wed 19 Nov 2014 8:50PM

Rudolf: The WG is good to go.

Cat: Can the BLT help you at all with establishing this WG?

CH

Cat Hudson Fri 21 Nov 2014 10:21AM

Hi David et al,

I don't think so! The only help I need is to set up a google group which is linked with YOUNGO some way? And I am going to set up an anon doodle for a chat on Skype within the next week! So let me know if there is a policy relating to this.

Cat