Decentralize

Items that need hard decisions can be proposed here on Loomio.
- because loomio works so well that hardly any Sac people weigh in here.
-because loomio works so well that decisions that generate real work, and the people to work them are about zilch - oh the banner decision, that one worked (may work)

Let's spend the next two months arguing over whether to decentralize like we did from Feb-April. This will really produce a lot of work and outcome. not.

Have Fun!

I never understood the desperate need for phone calls.
Sounds fluid. Sounds functional.

Oh BTW, the material for the banners is secured and able to ship out upon request.

Anyone is welcome to a banner.
Just add poles and design.

I am sure that if football people can figure out how to support banners anyone else can too.

Strange...
I just noticed a large section of my homeless went silent. I am not sure when. About the size of a squad disengaged, then disappeared over the course of a year.
I have noticed chatter of people saying homeless are disappearing from what I would call fringe or more vigilant
folks.
I think the corps are using homeless as an portal to penetrate and gain intelligence.

Not sure about this, not ready to abstain. I believe that the working groups should be doing more, and report backs should be of tentative decisions to be confirmed by the Wednesday call, as others on the call may have information that might affect those tentative decisions.

The report backs don't even have to be from "working groups" - they can be from other groups and individuals, too. 2 or three minutes each with questions or clarifications at the end if there's time

Yeah, working groups was partly shorthand for any group working on a particular piece of the pie, but it does help the structure of the call to have a standard set of groups checking in.

To clarity, there have been between 15 and 20 decisions made on the calls. In comparison, out of perhaps as many decision on Loomio, very few of them carry. And many of the people on the calls and in the working groups aren't participating in Loomio.

Nope. Pull the decisions on the calls and list them here if that's true. The calls are not working for most and centralize decisions.
Loomio is transparent.
Let go of control and good things will happen, I promise.

The conversations on Loomio are spotty, less complete and non-definitive, and the view of those people discussing here seems more limited than those who are participating on calls and in the subgroups where more of what's happening is coming out. There are people who are showing up week after week to the main calls and the subgroup meetings, whereas there are people who have yet to show up here. One might expect to see when the group converges here (compared with the calls) but it's actually easier to see how and when the group converges on the calls. I don't see much converging here (with conflicting proposals) If anything, this seems more centralized (having the opposite effect that you seem to intend). Many of them are the product of one person's musings (someone who doesn't appear particularly connected to what's going on even in his ow town). The decisions were posted on a decisions pad -- dunno if it's been kept up to date. This tool has good potential but IMO we're not "there" yet, in terms of its effectiveness. There have been less than 10 people voting (often closer to 5) on most decisions here whereas there are usually 12 to 15 people on the calls and almost everyone on the calls participates in every decision and temp check. Also people can be nasty to others here (just like any internet forum/blog), whereas they don't tend to be that way on the calls.

I can see how, for some things, perhaps logistics matters, that this could be a good place to get that together, but I don't "feel" the group here on Loomio. It's a good experiment but needs a fair amount of work to make it work well and to foster real participatory democracy (which seems a done deal on our calls).

And there's no control here, on the calls, or in emails; it's an illusion. If anything, one person has a lot of control (at least of info_ in Sac. (This is what happened last year when one person kept much of the info in his head.)

What is missing is much collaboration between the various groups working on things, and Loomio isn't designed to help with that. (If anything, it seems to fragment the conversations ad infinitum. This might be improved with guidelines.)

Voting goes against the idea of consensus decision making and the idea that all voices are heard. "It's true that majority voting enables even controversial decisions to be taken in a minimum amount of time, but that doesn't mean to say that this decision will be a wise one, or even morally acceptable" http://seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

This tool is superior to the conf calls in many ways, its transparent and leaves a clear record. It allows us to speak freely, work across 5 time zones and affords plenty of time for questions and clarifications. It's inclusive b/c you can invite anyone into a conversation by emailing them.

I am not an experienced admin and let the conversations meander, and lots of people are here, but not participating, haven't quit.

It's us who have to do a fair amount of work to do to let go of old ways and our short institutional knowledge about group dynamics and learn to use this new tool developed by Occupy Sydney effectively. Or at least let's clearly state how we'd improve it.

I concur with your last paragraph. I've been in dialogue with the Loomio folks, discussing improvements, which are in the works, but which we won't see within our needed timeframe.

The calls have been a major step towards bring us into a new way. The fact that we can do temp checks and make decisions on calls and run stacks, etc., is something we've never been able to do like that ever before. (It's one of the reasons why InterOccupy emerged, and why it emerged around calls. Thus far, calls are still better for collaboration, IMO.) While Loomio may make it so some people who otherwise might not be able to participate on calls, it doesn't really help keep those people connected with the heartbeat of what's happening, the way email and calls can, and so it can still leave those folks on the periphery (as evidenced by one frequent poster/proposer here who seems off somewhere in his own world).

And while for us (Occupy), our institutional knowledge about group dynamics is short, there's a lot of prior knowledge in that area. (As a Jungian and as a member of a group (not Occupy) that has been pioneering collaboration in places where hierarchy has been the historical way, group psyche/dynamics/relationship/process is one my particular areas of focus.)
And just to be clear, I'm not a fan of majority voting.

I think the tools work well TOGETHER; now that we have all 3 (e-mail, call, loomio), I would not go back to being without any one. There IS a record of the calls, not only notes and our decision pad, but also the audio recordings. Recently a few of us were discussing whether there is enough of a demand for, and what the logistics would be of, posting those recordings somewhere—inconclusive at this point, but the fact is that they can be requested even now. Whenever I am on a conference call from another organization, I miss Maestro! Keep wanting to press 2, press 1 to say something, ask for a temp check; they really make the calls efficient.
The only improvement I can see for the calls would be a way to include opinions from those who cannot be there at the specific time; adding time for prevotes means that those folks do not have full information, especially of any adjustments made on the call, and the problem with postvotes is that (a) the decision must wait for the postvotes and (b) issues raised after the call are unheard by call participants. Thoughts for addressing these concerns are welcome.

Sally, to your last point: In one of the councils I'm on (only men, at least so far), we have a provision for people who can't make a meeting (and can't have a "second" there in their stead. They can review any decisions and weigh on them. (And some decisions aren't final until we hear from absent members.) This was a controversial part of the process because some men wanted to say that if someone missed the meeting, they simply couldn't vote. I protested because each of represented a whole community and so an entire community could be left out of a decision, which I found unacceptable. (This started me looking at online voting as an adjunct to the meetings, some of which are on calls and some of which are face-to-face.)

Of course, this is easier when the group has actual membership, so we can know who all of participants are. In Occupy, there's the challenge of not having members, although many working groups, while not excluding anyone from joining, nonetheless do have a stable membership. And I see people dropping in just for one vote as problematic. To me, if someone don't want to participate, at least with some minimal regularity, how can they even know what our community is about? While I want to include them, I'd want to make sure that have the context for what their entering before they participate in decision making. I see this as one of the weaknesses in Occupy, indeed one of the most disrupting internal things: the deck would get stacked by people being brought in to vote on one matter and then were never seen again. (The Occ Oaklnd Facilitation Committee had new people not being able to vote in decision making until they had attended at least one meeting (and one working group was leaning towards making it three meetings.)

It was a very productive call tonight. Thanks @chasschaeffer

I extended the closing for a week to give us time to find clearness.

We can have unity within diversity, order without structure, even solidarity without agreement. The gathering will happen and be beautiful even if everyone here "withdraws from the planning" and becomes a "lowly participant".
It's because of ALL the autonomous and coordinated WORK everyone has done together since the beginning of this movement three years ago.
A fresh approach would re-enage the disaffected and put some wind in the sails.
It's healthy to acknowledge the creative tension between established order and liberty to dissent. I've been on both sides.

I see wisdom in all the perspectives presented here. If it doesn't get personal, it can be productive. We are still learning.

Occupy was powerful not where consensus worked but in instances where groups and individuals showed a commitment to a collective idea even when they disagreed.

http://roarmag.org/2014/06/counter-power-as-common-power/

Tricia, for me the most important thing you said here is “if it doesn’t get personal”. The individual hurts, lashouts, etc., are bringing me down—it is hard for me to think of how those directly involved must feel. I so want this to succeed—I am seeing that it is taking on a life of its own, and I am staying committed to moving forward. Please, everyone, remember that we are all vulnerable human beings, and all came into this movement to create a better world. TOGETHER We Rise!

@jeremyentwistle What if before each call someone (possibly a different person each week) volunteered or was appointed to make that week’s report-back? Would that be acceptable? Getting communication across platforms is important, I think.

@jeremyentwistle anyone can report back or help. Good God, I wish they would.
Organizing is not a bad thing.
Please pick a word that works for you...
http://thesaurus.com/browse/assign

As you can see empower is a synonym for assign. :)

In my experience, assigning people to things doesn't mean they'll be there. And it opens the possibility for somebody to intentionally take responsibility, then not be there.

I entirely agree that there should be a "main meeting" where all the groups update everybody with their progress. However, limiting people from updating at this meeting doesn't seem to do anything. Those who are facilitating these meetings should just keep us on topic by talking strictly about updates.

Usually, this is done by saying "does anybody from the outreach group have any updates?" Those in the group can decide to update everybody based on their own process, not a process imposed on them.

I Agree with Jeremy's points. Assignments and representative democracy don't fit.

I don’t think anyone is talking about limiting reportbacks to any one individual, just ensuring that someone gets the ball rolling. Heaven knows we can keep going once we get on a roll! Also, rereading the proposal, I am not sure about the validity of the implicit concern—that the call as main decision-making body, as it was in 2013 and I believe 2012 would be a bottleneck for individual projects. I see no intention to limit anything, just to ensure coördination among individual efforts, that we have the resources for what is being planned, that we know what equipment is needed where when, etc. Anyone can make a decision that does not affect the overall event, or does not involve exclusive use of NatGat resources (e.g., if someone requests sound equipment, we had best be sure that nobody else requested it at the same time).

Yes, Jeremy, what you described is what we do on the calls: "Who has a reportback for outreach?", then "Anyone have anything to add to that reportback?"

even if we don't formally reach consensus on the final calls, it allows for the discussion to be out there and the discussion is enlarged. everyone can then take their own personal queues and act in solidarity with the general principles of solidarity most occupiers value, those who are in consensus will continue to work together most likely ... that's what I've always found to be true, anyway. =)

I will be proposing that Sacramento’s facilitator, Faygo, be our main GA facilitator at the Gathering.
If he thinks we are genuine enough! ;-)
He has the the best head for it. And will work well with other facilitators

I would not like to see one main facilitator for all GAs. We have a number of volunteers who have indicated interest, and last year we tried to have a male/female team for most (someone who was there help me remember?). (That would naturally be a female/male team for Fem GA, although there is no reason to assume that either would take the lead.) I have been wanting to get an e-mail group/list together for those interested in facilitating; I probably should start that ASAP.

Sally, last year there were four GA facilitators, two men (who each facilitated alone) and two women (who co-facilitated the Fem GA). No woman/man combination happened.

That's awesome. Last week we used all LGBTQ Community members at an assembly. always great to have team reflect the community it is facilitating with!

Sorry; was it Philadelphia? Or . . .
I don’t know; I am sure I remember it from some Occupy! And in Kalamazoo last year we had Chris (male, local) and Iwanka (female, Philadelphia, exp. with NatGat2012) as co police liaisons; they did very well.

Gender parity was a big issue the first year. We chose to have a male and female and all the important roles. Dustin Slaughter and Julia Alford-Fowler did media in '12 and Preacher Larry and Lauren Beller facilitated the Vision for a Democratic Future Assembly