Deactivate NatGat Loomio Planning Group

I will wait to vote until we get an answer about the material remaining accessible; that will determine my decision.

I don't believe in de-activating an active space. A name change might be in order - unless this is a new group to plan the next gathering. I'll wait to vote too.

i'd just say the timing of this proposal was really not good, at least in the view of my email box and the other postings made to Loomio with respect to the NatGat, especially after experiencing what I have witnessed and been a part of these past 7 months. sigh, makes me listen twice to that voice for transparency, etc.

We had previously agreed to disband so there would be no "insider" group, that people can form a new group, with new people and veterans of past years to plan another gathering if desired.

I feel this is degenerating into a witch hunt, unfounded accusations - looking at someone's other groups and speculating about them, conspiracy theories, saying there are mysterious happenings when the process has been completely transparent.

That's not cool. That's not Solidarity.

I'd like to see a new working group that would develop some guidelines to help us avoid the kind of dissension that occurred this year.

I'd like to be finished with the weekly calls, but I'd like to stay connected (email lists?) so we can find ways to sell our leftover T-shirts. Can Elane set up a T-shirt online "shop" for us?

Here's the response from Loomio:

Hi Tricia,

At this stage when you deactivate a group the content is preserved but hidden. So maybe what you'd prefer to do is to remove the group members so there is no further activity, but keep the group as it is (active) so that the content is still accessible as a reference.

I'm sorry there's no perfect solution, we are working on ways to improve these systems :)

Please let me know if I can answer any further questions.

Kind regards,

Hannah

I don't think ppl will like to be removed from the group ~ We could change the name and continue on as an "affinity" group with a clean slate. People who want out can remove themselves.

In light of this response from Loomio, and the fact that they are in Beta mode, why not ask their help by seeing if they could use what happened here as guinea pigs and find out where things went right and how it went wrong.
Then we can all "condense" on creating or sharing guidelines of communication to use as reference in the future.

A suggestion was to change the name to include "Retired"

this thread is indicative of the issues that remain. but, seems like people don't care about that for others who still have issues that remain. it will naturally end when it does, let things naturally happen. or not. when it is your issue, you would want the same respect.

my 2 cents:
Retaining and maintaining already active Occupy or NatGat urls is important.

The work should remain natgat focused if the name is retained. The twelve coordinators seems to insure it will not devolve into something not natgat organizing.

The natgat 2014 planning group as an entity closed on the last call.
What continues is a community of whoever remains. The members will be fluid. The group will evolve into a new iteration or not.

It could become a stable natgat space like the facebook page - a step towards not starting from scratch each year.

There are 55 members in this group that might become engaged if visions, discussions and organizing that appeals to them goes on. A big part of Occupy is establishing and maintaining trusted networks, and documenting our processes. This group could recess into the background archives as new natgat organizing occurs on top of it. The old discussions would get pushed to the bottom.

I like Tricia's idea of including Loomio - I don't know anything about storage or how long, how much data they are prepared to hold if the group last years.

I'm with Niki - it will naturally happen or not. Out of respect for the group, I'm hanging on until after the Sept. 10 call and then will probably be an infrequent poster.

Niki, are your issues Transparency and Accountability, the subjects of the 9/10 call, as I understand it, Or are there other issues that you're concerned about?

my issue, why I blocked, yeah, probably starts with the transparency issue and ends with exclusionary actions (whether intentional or not), which, to me, just looks and feels soooooo wrong and only serves to empower the impression, if not actuality, of non transparency. not willing to add fuel to fire.

Since we can't take the site down and we have a block, the decision is moot.

I am probably going to remove myself. The lack of love and trust feels soooooo wrong.

indeed it does Trisha. since everyone to me was a complete stranger in this nationa l gathering, except those who I know from occupy la and occupy fights foreclosures, holding space for the process of another stranger and their process is what I would do for anyone in an inclusive movement. the fact I see what I do is neither a lack of trust nor a lack of love. /Niki

I found this and thought it might be helpful to this conversation

"To our understanding, Collective Thinking is diametrically opposed to the kind of thinking propounded by the present system. This makes it difficult to assimilate and apply. Time is needed, as it involves a long process. When faced with a decision, the normal response of two people with differing opinions tends to be confrontational. They each defend their opinions with the aim of convincing their opponent, until their opinion has won or, at most, a compromise has been reached.

The aim of Collective Thinking, on the other hand, is to construct. That is to say, two people with differing ideas work together to build something new. The onus is therefore not on my idea or yours; rather it is the notion that two ideas together will produce something new, something that neither of us had envisaged beforehand. This focus requires of us that we actively listen, rather than merely be preoccupied with preparing our response.

Collective Thinking is born when we understand that all opinions, be these opinions our own or others’, need to be considered when generating consensus and that an idea, once it has been constructed indirectly, can transform us.

Do not be discouraged: we are learning; we’ll get there: all that’s needed is time." http://occupytogether.wikispot.org/General_Assembly

+1
My absolutely favorite description of consensus and collective thinking. The very first consensus article I ever read - the result of the experiences of the Group Dynamics Commission for the Assemblies of the Puerta del Sol Protest Camp from the 2011 15M movement.

http://takethesquare.net/2011/07/31/quick-guide-on-group-dynamics-in-peoples-assemblies/

hmmmmm, posts seem to be disappearing. I asked given the above, how this proposal contributes top the notions presented above given the reality of the residual work, imho, that remains. then in email, Trisha had a comment about this committee was an ad hoc committee and just curious who determined that. what was the"formal" genesis of this ... not speaking of Loomio use as this is a tool for the group that came together? I don't know, there seems to be two different conversations happening here.

There is no "formal" anything. Each of the three groups that planned the three National Gatherings disbanded after the event was over. I think if this national group wants to continue working together, then it needs a reason for being and guidelines, maybe even "formalizing" it so there's less confusion going forward.

One one hand, each year's planning group dissolves after the debrief call. That leaves the next year's group to be re-formed.

On the other hand, having an ongoing planning group that helps potential host Occupys get to be a/the location seems useful. It provides some continuity, in the form of 2 or 3 or 4 people continuing from one year to the next, but largely each year's group consists mainly of different people, as it has each year.

IMO, decentralizing is a general tendency is fine, but any extreme (including eliminating every ounce of decentralization) makes for re-inventing the wheel each year and can make coordinating difficult to nearly impossible. To me, can there be a balance between a group that acts as "glue" to hold things together and the host city that has the passion, vision, drive, and organizing muscle to pull off even a regional gathering, let alone a national one.

I would say if there is a general occupy national group forming, they should start another loomio group.

Leave this one idle and open for things concerning natgat - like when various Occupys decide they want to call for natgat - they can then have this space to temp check interest, recruit a team, etc. and then carry on for the next natgat planning.

second Tricia on there was never a formal anything.
here's how it has seemed to me:
1. Occupy X decides it wants to call for a natgat; creates a basic vision
2. Occupy X reaches out among national networks for planning help.
3. NGWG forms - sets up basic structure. NGWG reaches out nationally for more help.
event happens
group disbands

Agreed. Having trouble right now organizing V2V campaign. Ipetitions problems, no list-serve responses, being signed out of accounts unpredictably. what FUN!!! THANKS FOR EVERYTHING. Why isn't the V2V declaration still on the InterOccupy Newswire???

Niki, not sure what posts are disappearing, or how that would happen. I am not sure about the “formal” start of the group; for me, I saw some posts on Facebook that indicated that Sacramento had agreed to host a gathering and that calls were happening for NatGat2014, and registered for not only the main call, but a bunch of the e-mail lists. Loomio came along later.

it may have just been the mobile connection and glitches from that, I can email in responses better than going to site. nothing important lost, just the present moment phrasing you never quite get again that second time you have to scribe it. :-) all good in general. yeah, I saw it on fB, after I met Donna at the rose parade on new years day who mentioned it ... I didn't think about it again until I saw a posting. I knew about Philly and Michigan and so wanted to go but as a fellow occupier from OLA was really pushing me to go ... i was on restrictive probation the first year and timing/schedule the second. wasn't going to miss one this close to home!

"Sally G (Loomio)" wrote:

Niki, not sure what posts are disappearing, or how that would happen. I am not sure about the “formal” start of the group; for me, I saw some posts on Facebook that indicated that Sacramento had agreed to host a gathering and that calls were happening for NatGat2014, and registered for not only the main call, but a bunch of the e-mail lists. Loomio came along later.

--
Reply to this email directly or view it on Loomio:
http://www.loomio.org/d/lf7mFoeI/deactivate-natgat-loomio-planning-group?utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment#comment-216173

Change your email preferences:
http://www.loomio.org/email_preferences?unsubscribe_token=aazV7opYDyZX5ay8eo5m&utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment

I think the work of the NG2014 Planning Group is not finished. We were talking about things that went well and did not go well, and one of the major "not's was not discussed or worked on. Guideline for Participation #7 was not observed, we did not take on accountability for it, and it was a major problem and obstacle to the effective functioning of the group. We could not be accountable for #7, "Be excellent to each other," because we never determined what behaviors are aligned with the Guideline and which are not. Once we have decided what the specific behaviors should be, the next step would be to decide what should be done when the Guideline is violated and what each of us needs to do to be accountable for maintaining the Guideline. IMO, until this essential work is done, the job of the Planning Group is not finished.

I agree completely Carolyn.

I'm pretty sure the phrase "Be excellent to each other" is supposed to be self explanatory, as the definition should come from your heart.
John

Carolyn, The Guideline #7 that you are referring to was part of a group of guidelines that was never consensed, and further, is a quote from the movie, "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure." Early on in the planning, we suggested adopting the OWS Community Guidelines, but as everything else in this group, someone delayed the approval of that and instead we were presented with the Guidelines from which you are quoting, which were not voted on ... ever.

It should be fairly obvious to you by this time that there will be no accountability forthcoming from those who have continually avoided answering the simplest questions. OCCUPY is TRANSPARENT, so when non-activists are controlling our national actions and events, this is to be expected. We are moving away from this petty, controlled environment. It has been toxic since the beginning, before i was chosen as a target to distract everyone.

However, as many have realized, this journey through unchecked patriarchy, hierarchy, and misogyny has revealed much for our future success. We refuse to be burdened with archaic systems that impede our freedoms and create targets of the honest & truthful.

We were being excellent to each other.
Then the hierarchy showed up, sabotaged the plans for Nat Gat, which were ready to go, and then had the AUDACITY to state on yesterday's call that this process was not transparent!!! NEWSFLASH: ANYONE CAN CALL FOR A NAT GAT.

So we spent the next 5 months on the conference call deciding on a replacement date that was a) the hottest week of the summer, b) when reps were NOT in session at the Capital, and when it would be impossible fir Backbone Campaign to attend.

IN OTHER WORDS: SABOTAGE AND UNACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE START.

THIS WHOLE PROCESS SERVED TO MAKE THE NAT GAT AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE AND AS FRUSTRATING AS POSSIBLE, AND NO ONE SEEMS TO BE AWARE THAT THE SAME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN STEADILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INCREASED CONTROL OF NAT GAT AND ITS DECLINING POPULARITY & ATTENDANCE.

The Zapatistas informed us that when our "leaders" refuse to step back, we should "make them" step back, This is where i am at ... so how do we do this? Just ignore them? i for one am DONE being used by the patriarch as a distraction and a "personal issue" when this false narrative has nothing to do with the original questions of accountability & transparency that arose and which i was then "punished" for asking ... STILL. All attacks against me and any "poisoning" against me that was done by the hierarchy was intentionally done to affect my contributions and work towards the Nat Gat. On Day One, i arrived knowing that i would have to counter the sabotaging "smallness" that was characteristic of this gathering. So i set up Little Zuccotti Park West, and arranged for "OCCUPY" flags to be on hand to make us more visible and to increase our outreach possibilities. But by then, the damage was done.

As we moved to a different place everyday, and were tucked in a corner away from any public notice or interaction, it was increasingly disheartening for me to witness that NO ONE seemed to know or care how much micro-managing, non-activist "leaders" had co-opted yet another OCCUPY event.

NEXT YEAR, A WHOLE NEW GROUP OF PEOPLE STEP UP, AND THERE BETTER NOT BE A HIERARCHY JUMPING UP IN THEIR WAY AND FUCKING EVERYTHING UP. WE WILL BE WATCHING.

d*p

Party on, dudes! http://youtu.be/N_yJFLvmjJY

While my heart is with you, John @jemcgloin. I can see why Carolyn might want it more clearly defined. People's upbringings condition them to see expressions of love differently (sometimes playing out through their coping strategies) - a mother being really tough on their kid to help them grow might be seen as way too harsh by another, who had a gentle mother. Or, someone who had a father who spent his time intellectualizing (and spend no time in heart space) might be emulated as "excellent" by someone who believes he/she is being excellent by pontificating. Others may think that being nice all the time is being excellent, but then withhold their truth. Still others might think that being forceful is the only way to speak their truth. And some who have abuse or trust issues may think that controlling the thing that they don't trust is the coping strategy. There are so many ways that people might believe they are acting in line with that phrase.

I myself prefer kindness and curiosity, particularly when bothered by something someone else does. But I also believe in holding clear boundaries.

This comes into play in the way we do (and don't) give and receive feedback. (More on this later, maybe.)

I agree with Donna Piranha. There’s the non-sequential chit chat, and there are those who actually take action to get things done; even if by themselves, a vanguard it may be, but if it is for a good cause, others will hopefully join in.

The main goal is to get things accomplished! As I had previously said, it’s time to move on,…

http://occupynewhampshire.org/blog/category/public-events/

Denny ☮

so, the email response doesn't seem to be working.

guidelines? What guidelines? I've never heard of these guidelines and I've been here since what Feb our march?

guidelines are tools if heirarchy to define and control, exclude and punish mostly. as soon as a group our any individual is handing out guidelines they are seeking to control others.

we have our principles of solidarity already, don't need no guidelines, just need humans, with tolerance and willingness to hold each other accountable for how our own personal interactions manifest. I put that under "empowering" one another.

@Donna, @ElaineX The Guidelines for Participation for use during conference calls, from which I quoted #7, "Be Excellent to Each Other," were consensed upon by the early InterOccupy Working Group which was the Movement Building Working Group in Zuccotti Park. See interoccupy.net/about/participation-guidelines

i absolutely refuse to "be excellent" to someone purposely abusing me. Most on the call see what's really happening, and to those who are supporting abuse .., WAKE UP.

If these guidelines are part of InterOccupy then why did we allow a facillitator who constantly went against these principles and was so "unexcellent to each other" that many people left the call in the first months? Why then was "the worst facillitator exchange" allowed to occur between Nikki and Cal, which is the moment i stepped in to object, and was forever afterwards chosen as Cal's nemesis? And why, in spite of continued complaints, did the situation never change? Why did THIS GROUP allow such an "unexcellent" situation of hierarchical & patriarchal abuse to continue for 8 months?

These guidelines were not observed by Cal and his continued use of mind-fuckery is now the subject of many academic papers. If any supported abuse or the abusers .., shame on you. If you supported hierarchy, patriarchy and misogyny in Occupy, shame on you.

If Maestro calls on InterOccupy have to be hosted by a hierarchical, patriarchal misogynist who IS NOT AN ACTIVIST, and if EIGHT FUCKING MONTHS GO BY WITHOUT ANYONE STANDING UP TO THE NON-EXCELLENCE OF THIS DYSFUNCTIONAL GROUP .., we had best look for other ways to have meetings..

OCCUPY should not support abusers who use manipulative techniques, distraction, delay, and LIES to harm ACTUAL ACTIVISTS.

...and there lies the rub -- you refuse to be excellent; you have taken your personal assessment and put the screws to the planning group at every opportunity. Does it ever occur to you there are more people than Cal in the group? and that you have some responsibility for its dysfunction and the eventual poor attendance at the event.

accountability? take some.

and please, please keep us posted on the various analyses - anxiously awaiting them.

Donna, by carrying on this odd vendetta against Cal, you are doing more to dishearten the group and drive people away than Cal could possibly do. I see no sign of patriarchy, of misogyny (note that many of Cal's staunchest defenders are women), or of "mind control". Cal is a stand-up guy with the highest integrity. Please quit harassing him!

oh boy, time out.

seriously.

first, Nat Gat was not an inter occupy event, or was it?

if it was, as integrated into the planning process as i was, experiencing it as the newbie as Niki is, and as experienced as i am, such was NEVER disclosed. in fact, such was denied, our stated to be not the case, repeatedly.

the guidelines are a hierarchical tool, as is evidenced by the discord they have created here. no one in these responses are being excellent to themselves let alone one another.

anyone who has to be defended by others and is engaged in the conversation can do it for themselves . and the compulsion of people to defend by naming any names, while that person is involved in the conversation, IMO, is not honoring the principle of solidarity of autonomy, let alone empowering the conversation between two people to have an autonomous conversation without taking sides and empowering a heirarchy of one position over the other in the group.

again, IMO, not occupy.

Interoccupy is looking for volunteers, so if you want to know more about Interoccupy and what roles it plays in Occupy, you can join and see for yourself.

As for Cal, let's just give it a rest. The NatGat 2014 calls are over and people who don't want to be around each other don't have to be.

Hi Elaine,

At the first NatGat, InterOccupy volunteers came to the gathering and helped facilitate a bunch of topic-themed breakout sessions in the mornings (I forget what they were actually called), but IO was not in the center of the organizing/planning and had no "official" role, other than to provide services as we do for any Occupy or group or action that wants to use these services.

The second NatGat was a project of InterOccupy, so there was more heavy involvement. (Jackie can say more about that, since I wasn't that involved with the second NatGat planning, other than to facilitate some calls, and to help people who wanted to facilitate prepare to do that as soon as possible.)

This third NatGat was more like the first one, in that IO provided services to the NatGat planning group and its working groups, same as we do for any Occupy or group or action that wants to use these services.

So you're correct: This gathering wasn't an InterOccupy event. (And actually IO doesn't generally put on events; we're not really set up for that.)

Elaine,
The difficulty here is that this set of communications has been rather one-sided, and so very many allegations and contortions of the truth have been made, that the sheer length of the posts required to separate the facts from inference, conclusion, projection, etc. would, IMO, be overwhelming to most people here - not to mention the amount of time to put this together (especially not time that I need to deal with the urgent situations in my life), though I suppose I'll have to find the time, and in so doing, jeopardize some aspect of my life. And, from the responses, it would appear that most people don't want to go through all of this, and some are clearly crying out for this dynamic to end as quickly as possible.

Given her hostility towards me, Donna would not appear to be interested/willing to have a real dialogue with me (as she said she would after the gathering). It's possible that I could be mistaken, and so, Donna, if that's not the case and you are interested, let me know. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be a way to reconcile this, or even to address the feelings and pain.

Cal, thanks for the clarification. Easy answer, I/O and their guidelines have no relevance here except for those who choose to use them for their own personal reasons. I use the 4 agreements, personally, and see no other reasons for Guidelines and will never hold anyone else to the "rules" or "guidelines" i choose to operate in my reality.

To superimpose "guidelines" (or support the superimposition of I/O 'guidelines' as valid at this point for this group is disingenuous and misleading, at best), that must be followed in an event that is not an "I/O Produced Event" or similar can be seen as a NON-TRANSPARENT heirarchial structure we claim NOT to have in OCCUPY -- which is defined ONLY by the Principles of Solidarity as used by those who are in attendance (even if attendance is not necessarily in the physical, if they are contributing to the group trying to reach and operating together in consensus, i consider that "attendance" -- for instance, Kerry, Chas and Jackie who were on the calls but not in physical, I still are an equal voice to mine in this whole thing, absent the first hand experience on the ground), and in consensus as being collectively identified as "Occupy", "National Gathering" or otherwise.

As for how I see your interactions with Donna -- they are equal in contribution to the issue at hand. Just like the Democrats and the Republicans -- two different modus operendi, same result: finger pointing and blame game, and a system that is not working for the benefit of the whole. Yeah, I tend to like the Dems and their soft touch better too. But sometimes, I like the Repubs and their balls supporting the Constitution.

It takes two to bring together the energy of conflict, the "oppressed" has the same level of responsibility as the "oppressor" in reconciling the conflict. Why do you think we need to "rise" in the "Together We Rise" ???

Just because she yells louder and her emotions are quite evident for everyone to see and witness, whereas your's are not and are extremely subtle and well-developed, does NOT mean that the energy force is not equal. I believe you know that as well as I do, so the way you voiced that comment above surprised me, quite honestly.

If you did as I suggested sometime back in this process, probably around May or June, to listen back to how you engage your hostility towards others, and you still do not understand or see it, I am happy to do that here. Yet, NO, the energy is EQUAL towards one another -- how it is manifested is irrelevant (within the realms of non-violence).

Thoughts expressed either through words spoken or words unspoken have the same impact in relationships to create and perpetuate a non-resolution of the conflict -- especially in a group like this full of VERY sensitive people.

In my experience, all conflicts among those who are really on the same side, stems from the unconscious realm and manifesting in you two for whatever cosmic reasons.

In my eyes and experience, I am witnessing both of you using it to create drama and organize allies and garner support of one person over the other in order to create a hierarchical, competitive rather than consensus-based group. Since that is our societal programming, of course we have it here in this group and its what we are trying to find a way through to bring together consensus and a movement that is better than the drama our reality is creating. IMHO.

"Together we Rise" ... if we are not willing to deal with the possibility and the reality that "I am" both the problem and the solution, we will never be able to include the other on equal standing, and we will never be able to gather support for a movement of more of the same.

and, Carolyn, if this is inter-occupy, why would anyone want to volunteer for this? =) just askin'?

This argument started when Niki-Cal interacted on the call, and the issue of her name was put by Cal, and Donna defended Niki, and so now Cal has twisted it that its Donna's fault.

That is just not so, Sea. The C-D "argument" pre-dates that by several months. I do not have the time to pour through the emails and phone calls at present - at some point, I will and will write up a detailed point by point. (but this has been done over and over - if folks would care to read all that has been written by way of responses).

Yes, often when a dynamic comes up, both parties have some level of contribution, but in this case the magnitude of the respective contributions are extremely lopsided.
How can the following two sets of actions be compared as "equal in contribution"?

Set A (these happened in the early spring):
- Speaking louder than Niki for 2-3 seconds to get her attention.
- Making a sound lasting a fraction of a second (either (a) clearing my throat or a (b) making a sound while considering where to go next, facilitation-wise).
- Ringing the bell on a call in error (hitting the wrong button), at the beginning of one of Donna's shares.
- Not repeating something that Donna said precisely as she said it.
- Making a comment to Sea when talking with him that, IMO, the speakers working group calls would likely be more difficult if Donna joins them.

Set B (occurring after all the things in Set A happened):
- Saying that I single-handedly brought down Occupy Oakland, and making inferences that my men's group stands for something that it doesn't.
- Twisting the wonderful work of people I know to create collaborative tools and processes, as well as my contributions to the Apple world (from 17 years ago), into somehow being bad or destructive.
- Acting in ways that resulted in the speakers working group productivity to come to a grinding halt, including taking more time that the other participants combined, sometimes to soapbox or rant. (May and June)
- Sending a stream of emails for two days to the speakers working group (which most people here haven't ever seen), much of it yelling (in upper case), while three of us were desperately trying to get a schedule done enough that public announcements could be made. (In the span of just 48 hours in mid-June, her emails morphed from (a ) having some difficulty with me doing the things in Set A, to (b ) claiming that I have some intentional timed orchestrated set of torture and mind control tactics, to (c ) proclaiming that "CAL IS THE ENEMY HIDING WITHIN" (uppercase emphasis hers). And then last week, she referred to me as "such an obvious abuser". (Saying that someone has abused them is an extremely serious accusation; nothing I have said to her or about her has been truly damning like that.)
- Acting with such hatred towards me that Jackie, Lisa, and (in part) Brother Carter left the planning effort.
- Warding people away from one of the most solid contributors to this effort, by claiming that I sabotaged her efforts and those of Wm Underbaggage (with whom I had no interaction whatsoever until Thursday evening of the gathering, mainly to learn whether he was going to lead an assembly the first night and to help him find a place to stay), when I and others have tried to support her from time to time.

How can those two sets of things possibly be anywhere near close to equal in magnitude or in impact?

What I write is never to malign people's characters, nor would I say that people are good or bad people. And -- I will comment on specific behaviors and actions that people (including me) do, and the impact that those things have.

I truly haven't been trying to create sides. When, on a call a few weeks ago, Sea said that he was siding with Donna, hearing him say that bothered me, and I was really sad, because I don't see this as being about sides, but rather about getting to the truth of what various people have actually done, and what people are feeling. Those are what matter, not creating escalating factions.
(And Jackie, Sally, and others I know have no difficulty giving me feedback about when I do well and when I do poorly. I wonder whether Donna's cohorts similarly let her know when she's off the mark.)

Even just above when I am clarifying that the the actions and impact are much more severe on the part of one of us, I'm not trying to get anyone to take sides, nor am I making any insinuation about Donna as a person. My intention is to get to clarity of truth. My belief is that being awash in the light of truth is best for all and will ultimately lead to the healing of all. And somewhere along the way is an accountability conversation, though as I said in the last half hour of the last call, I imagine that Donna, and perhaps many other Occupyers, might possibly not like real accountability very much. (I acknowledge and own that that as a conclusion I've made based what I've seen, and am open to learning what's actually true for her.)

As you said on the last call, Elaine, we have to be able to deal with mudslinging -- but, as someone else said, not coming from our own people!

Lastly, I do agree that, until there's an actual dialogue between us, we're probably not going to make much progress. For me and others to feel safe, there must be some basic agreements, which we can discuss at another time.

simple answer: they can’t

SECURITY NOTICE: NO SPYING! THIS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IS PRIVATE AND SUBJECT TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WHICH STATES:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Goodbye. I'll be in the SandBox I created when I came to Loomio, because I support the energy it is able to hold. Yet, this dialog is for someone else who know these people better to deal with, I've already done my time in a conflict laden reality. =)