Public Discussion - Friday, 18 November 2011

Friday, 18 November 2011

• Went through the new process for GA meetings put forth by the facilitators group. The mock topic was a proposal to add a values statement to the Statement of Purpose.
• Here is the feedback from the procedure:
  • Facilitators need to be the ones writing on the whiteboard
  • Process needs to keep going and sometimes be changed in order to figure out how to move forward.
  • It may be that the best model for GA is not for people to propose a document that should be ratified, rather to propose the discussion of a document.
  • Some people were lost during the discussion due to the new nature of the process.
  • There is confusion in the new process of what happens after amendments had been made. This seems like a delicate point in the process.
  • We still do not have a way for the GA to create a proposal.
  • It may be beneficial for the facilitator, in the fly, to guide the synthesis of what GA is saying, and change the process as it needs to happen. This is tricky because the facilitators cannot help being biased. Another way is to have a very polished process that can handle many scenarios, but how to find that process?
  • The new method does activate people's minds more - it tapped into the "creative capitol" of the GA better.
  • we found that at one point the process did not fit the need of what we needed to do anymore at one point.
  • There was a desire from many to keep the procedure fluid and adaptable somehow. Hopefully that fluidity can be written into the process (catch-22?)
  • the facilitators need to have and be trusted with an extensive toolbox of process that will allow the fluidity of the discussion.
  • It was noted that you are always giving your freedom up to the process, or a facilitator, or the loudest voice in GA. We are picking.