WG/Facilitation/Minutes/30 Oct 2011

Decision discussed to confirm GA is happening tonight

at least 2, winterization and facilitation

Eli is facilitating

greg proposes what goes first, proposals or announcements?

discuss problems coming up in GAs, process complaints, etc.

daniel: pop hand & loosen structure

go back to Noah's proposal from yesterday

morning ga + prop hand + move along sign

proposals or announcements first?

greg proposes going back to proposals first, then stop and check in after 90 mins

greg: we used to do proposals firsts, it worked

bill: we agreed back then and it's worked since then

confirms that we did manage trying to stop after 90 min

anastasia: WGs were unhappy with not getting a chance to make announcements

problem with losing quorum for announcements

problem with losing morning GAs; camp has no info, no internet etc.

so we should definitely stay w/ announcements first

daniel: town crier?

anastasia we should add Morning GA to our agenda

david: announcements used to be posted in the Info section, that fell apart

greg: we will continue to lose ppl as weather gets worse

note that rarely that all WGs are there, it's usually only like 7 or 8

daniel: have we kept to 2 mins?

greg: no but it's encouraged; should we make it official?

eli: time for indiv ann? (yes 1 min)

daniel: use actual mic not people's mic

eli sums up; disc probs and solutions

danie: propose that we officially encourage these solutions? (time to 3 mins and real mic)

greg: timekeeper should be more proactive

daniel: we should keep the move along to once and not constant

(clarify where we are)

bill: maybe we should be encouraging but not enforcing

daniel: amend to include our ideas ^^

eli: propose to strong enc WG announcement to stay 2 mins, not use ppl's mic (stack says)

also to describe role of timekeeper; he/she should be visible and encouraging ppl to move along

vote:

affirm that WG and indiv should be b4 prop and that WG should be within 2 mins; that would be the role of Stack Ai to track, also not use ppl's mic

noah: concern, WG announcements should be more strictly policed, there should be circumstances that officially allow it to be longer

anastasia: to be realistic, if they want to go over they should

eli: so the SM will be using their discretion

greg: SM should warn TK

noah: SM should remind WG when to make announcements and when to host public discussions

anastasia: it's Important that we restrict announcement times. ppl should find the appropriate venue to announce things. also it should be 3 mins.

noah: we have a TON of WGs, I'd like to hear from a lot of them. it'd be a problem if EVERYone took 3 mins.

bill: what can you do? some ppl go too long

greg: most actually are pretty short. q: what kind of LONG announcements would Winter do at the GA?

noah: for example, quick safety lesson for the Group about cold weather survival

greg: shouldn't you reschedule if you have big long announcements? like have your own mtg

anastasia: I like bill's approach, we should be flexible.

eli: let's vote on making it 2!

role of SM to encourage WG to stay within 2 mins, but we'll be flexible.

(noah concerned about our mtg process; anastasia clarifies)

eli: part 2, role of TK. we should clarify exactly what the TK does.

danieL okay, what is it?

anastasia: description of Time limits as well as role of facilitator re added to the GA introduction

TK signals are encouraged to be repeated by GA

facilitator should be aware of the rules as written…

okay, we're good.

next point: what to do about ppl feeling frustrated and shut down by process?

we need to create a release valve somehow.

1.specifically, what about allowing direct responses? let's talk. is this a need?

2.POP can feel like you're being shut up…even if it is "supposed" to make sure everyone can be heard

daniel: help, I'm being oppressed!

greg: I want to defend the process. what if ppl are being hurt by the process? can't we address why this is happening instead of interrupting?

ana: this is two questions. one, how do ppl feel when being POP'ed? this is a process dispute, ppl react negatively.

the other is about oppression in general. so we need a "oppressive sign" for when ppl are being oppressive in general, not via process.

so this sign shouldn't address both of these types of oppression (actual vs. procedural)

noah: I think process monitor is an unnecessary role, anyone can call POP.

greg: when ppl are upset by being POP'ed, it's been a women doing POP and a white guy being offended.

david: we do a pretty good job that this isn't personal…maybe ppl being shut up should come to facilitator's meetings?

john: I think it's a problem that the person calling POP is facing the facilitators and not the person who's speaking

could we encourage this?

noah: we should considering abolishing the hand symbol, instead have the group calling for POP

ana:   1. robin breaks process a lot. she doesn't believe in it and say what they want to say. that's not possible!

2. alison approached robin to ask for input and suggested she should come. robin didn't feel comfortable coming…

robin also wasn't interested in sending her opinions to the group. this is an emotional thing, not a process thing!!

3. about the process monitor: I used to talk directly to ppl and explain what my concern is. the audience isn't always good at that, they interrupt randomly.

4. we need these pamphlets to pass about!

greg: where are they?

noah: we can print them! give them to me (anna?)

ana: I think it is a personal thing, for example, no one dares attack me!!!

we should recommend that ppl uncomfortable with process not jump in.

bill: we should relax rules a bit so the same ppl don't aggressively wield process

greg: we need to remember the importance of why would try and stick a process, announce at start

also eye contact is important; encourage ppl to turn to the person they're speaking to

it is interesting that we're developing skills, and every GA is a chance for all of us to learn; emphasize that?

george: greg allison ana are all strong at process point, and that works. it's good to have knowledge ppl keep us on track

daniel: what if we loosen the process to allow for all points at once?

noah: ppl might game that system

ana: too dark to see; we should stick to the order, it keeps a safe space. no to white man convention.

noah: our and ana's concerns are valid…maybe we could try this once?

eli: let's go back to how to direct/voice the POP?

noah: it seems unnecessary for the process monitor to be the only one to call out process

i.e., have the group signal process problem to both the person speaker and the facilitator

greg: we need to keep the learning process

eli: can't we keep ProcM be the one to explain?

ana: it is diff for (new) facil to have to manage process

also, we've never had a group of ppl interrupt process. ppl will use process to shut someone up.

we need to clarify this!

greg: this is a great conversation. we have CT butler around, he's coming to mtg on Tues!

noah: maybe we should have an optional process monitor depending on the facilitator.

remember how we crowdsourced our floor monitoring?

(ana: step forward step back all)

bill: i think we should let this go, it's not a big problem.

eli: I think this still needs to be resolved. shouldn't someone be there to comfort angry ppl?

david: vibe monitor!

ana: also floor aides.

daniel: ppl should be there to take notes on problems that arise.

greg: floor aides should def do this.

noah: I'll step back…but this meeting is a time to discuss the process. we shouldn't let this problem go.

eli: the floor aides used to step in to discuss ppl who have POP?

ana: yeah…ppl hated that. so we cut it.

noah: not necessarily.

ana: we need to accommodate ppl who want structure and who doesn't.

(noah: amend the idea; let's take the good things about decentralized but also keep the benefits of floor monitors)

we should increase floor aides, they should listen in on discussion and help out

(bill: it looks like it works well that ppl talk to one another and feel involved, tho they disc the proposal and not the process.)

noah: yes, floor aides should be there to help structure what the discussions lead to (Qs, info, etc.)

(noah: also are we as facilitators going to encourage ppl to combine their obj/amends, not both)

ana: okay so we are short on ppl to be floor aides.

I amend that we increase the number of floor aides and be explicit on why they are there.

i.e., the FA should be there to direct their ideas into the category

greg: we have this in our document, but we really don't discuss this enough at the beginning.

esp if we have new / unskilled facilitators

(ana: clarify if you have ideas versus proposals)

ana: do you need to strengthen the message? hand out pamphlets, repeat the message, etc.

eli: yeah we should definitely repeat these things a lot.

greg: also we don't always have the same number of facilitators

noah: agreed. don't even formalize FA role. the facilitators should all do that.

also maybe we should openly say we need more volunteers on how to manage process?

so ppl should show up at 630 and be trained on how to floor aide! (or at 645)

john: does that mean going to a separate space?

(yes)

ana: in OWS they used to do that. 20 min before every GA the facilitators would round up and train ppl

daniel: support, we should have 15 min before at the stage to get more floor aides

eli: sum up, the process is already good, we just need to bring more ppl in on it. (temp check says yeah!!)

so! should we have the quick training before each mtg? should it be here, or at the stage?

the guy: will we choose someone at the meeting?

noah: I think we should break 15 min before the meeting and choose someone at that time. it can be informal.

eli: so at the stage? (temp check says yeah!!)

ana: ppl who will be early will be outsiders and ppl already involved. these ppl shouldn't be floor aides but maybe be trained.

so yes, we should still have separate floor aide training.

noah: anyone who wants training before becoming a floor aide / be involved, so yes we should have facilitators ahead of time

greg: we're touching upon the idea of doing "introduction to GA" seminars, so doing it ahead of time?

noah: let's have a 3 step process! first we explain to ppl, then we train floor aides

we should invite floor aides to become facilitators

ana: to summarize;

1. 15 min before GA, we offer an introduction about the process to new people

2. 15 min before GA we train volunteer floor aides

3. the facilitation workshops where we train new facilitators

this guy on my right: so are we repeating ourselves beforehand

ana: ppl will be angry…even ppl who've been here for a while, remind them that we have new ppl we need to explain this to.

temp check; we have CONSENTED to have 15 min training beforehand

eli summarize remaining agenda items:

morning GAs

direct responses

move along sign

starting on time

roles for tonight

(greg has an announcement. reimbursements are available, finance committee wants the FWG to choose two ppl)

(we choose Bill and David)

main facilitators:

greg and daniel

process aide:

david (noah: should we have one?)

noah: suggest that we not have an official process monitor tonight

(disc about if this is possible)

stack aide:

matt

site monitor:

david (?)

vibe monitor:

eli (?)             (david: should the floor aides do this? greg: we should invite ppl to check w/ FAs)

notetaker:

sam

okay, back to the agenda:

re: starting on time

ana: starting at 7:00. facilitators be there at 6:55, have a microphone, be sitting folks down, and start right at 7:00

ana: those announcements, "hey we're having GA," where if there are

hand signals!

ana: it seems FORCEful, and ppl abuse it all the time. I like the idea of making it NOT consistent, but to convey a message.

(meeting briefly degenerates into ppl making faces & signs at one another)

(discussion of whether or not to change the sign)

noah: ppl need to see the symbol, keep it going

daniel: we should limit to conveying a message

noah: we should encourage ppl to limit themselves

anna: no, it's not a problem. let FA deal with it.

ana: well it should be nuanced, make sure that ppl aren't being aggressive about it

greg: but what if ppl won't STFU?

ana: we should process them.

ana: also, it is dangerous. we killed off a relationship w/ a local group, they were totally alienated by it at a GA.

this is a big effing deal.

noah: thank you. also we should agree that the SM and TK should communicate and be nuanced.

noah: I'm putting my proposal online, pls look at it.

ana: can you send us the link?

noah: grr, fine.

greg: I've been positing things on the wiki page.

anna: I can show you how, you need to make a new page

(agreement on that)

morning GA