wiki.occupyboston.org - User contributions [en]

GA Process and Purpose

2012-04-11T19:11:05Z

Cfdfc:

'''This working group is on hold until we can develop the momentum to take it on. In the mean time, please consider looking to the Facilitation Working Group or others to discuss GA process and purpose.'''

This working group has the specific intention of taking a critical look at the processes and purposes of the General Assembly, and generating proposals for how to improve the process in anticipation of growth in the spring.

== Mailing List ==

Sign up for the mailing list here: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/gapap

== Meeting Time ==

Meetings alternate Monday and Friday at 5pm. Next meeting:
* Friday, March 16, 5pm. City Place / Transportation Building

Current action items:
* Start developing a survey
* Get feedback from mailing list folks as to whether they want to come to meetings, or just to listen to progress.

Past meeting minutes:
* [[GAPaP/2012Mar12]]
* [[GAPaP/2012Mar2]]

== Background info ==

* [[GA Minutes Tue Feb 21 2012]]: Minutes for GA about GA's, Tue Feb 21. Includes report-backs from groups discussion:
** Accessibility and Logistics
** Macro-GA discussion
** Proposals
** Anti-oppression / Community guidelines
** Blocks
** Consensus

2012-03-02T16:01:59Z

Cfdfc: /* Week 23 - Tues Feb 28 */

=== [[GA Minutes Tues Feb 28 2012|Week 23 - Tues Feb 28]] ===

=== [[GA Minutes Sat Feb 25 2012|Week 22 - Sat Feb 25]] ===

=== [[Media:GA_Minutes_Thur_Feb_23_2012.txt|Week 21 - Thur Feb 23]] ===

=== [[GA_Minutes_Tue_Feb_21_2012| Week 21 - Tues Feb 21]] ===

=== Week 21 - Sat Feb 18 ===

=== Week 20 - Thur Feb 16 ===

=== [[Media:GA_Minutes_Feb_14_2012.txt|Week 20 - Tues Feb 14]] ===

=== Week 20 - Sat Feb 11 ===

=== Week 19 - Thur Feb 9 ===

=== Week 19 - Tues Feb 7 ===

=== Week 19 - Sat Feb 4 ===

=== [[GA Minutes Week 18 - Thur Feb 2|Week 18 - Thur Feb 2]] ===

GA Minutes Feb 28 2012

2012-03-02T16:01:27Z

Cfdfc: Blanked the page

GA Minutes Feb 28 2012

2012-03-02T16:01:14Z

Cfdfc: moved GA Minutes Feb 28 2012 to GA Minutes Tues Feb 28 2012

#REDIRECT [[GA Minutes Tues Feb 28 2012]]

GA Minutes Tues Feb 28 2012

2012-03-02T16:01:14Z

Cfdfc: moved GA Minutes Feb 28 2012 to GA Minutes Tues Feb 28 2012

= Minutes for 28 September 2012 =
== Details ==

Location Arlington Church

Time: 7pm to 10:30pm

Note taker: Charlie

== Summary ==

* Announcements
* Introduction to Participatory Budgeting by the [[WG/Financial Accountability|Financial Accountability Working Group]]
* Discussion of "Denouncing American style democracy" proposal. Proposal blocked.

== Announcements ==

=== Non-violence working group ===

March 17, 100th birthday of ____. Community gathering Monday night, 6-8:30, C__ church in Boston. Exploring power and challenges of non-violence. Next WG meeting Thursday March 1 at 3pm, 7 Pleasant Place in Cambridge.

=== Food ===

Food WG is regrouping again. Meeting Tuesday, Arlington Church, 5:30pm

=== Media / livestream ===

Livestream training Saturday 3:00pm, E5.

Q: Any other opportunity for this?
A: No other training set; but contact livestream team and we can teach you.
Q: Is the training going to be livestreamed?
A: We hadn't thought to, but sure.

=== Logistics ===

We're working hard still. Would love to see you there. We need a big truck, a food tent, and a sink. logistics@occupyboston.org

=== Tactical ===

Meeting tomorrow at Remmington's at 9pm.

=== Financial Accounting Working Group ===

Please continue to contribute to the space rental found; $320/week.

We haven't had a meeting in a month or so. Meeting tomorrow, 7pm, at City Place / Transportation building. Please join us: it's just a bunch of old white folks managing your money, which isn't good.

Proposal passed a while ago for a spending freeze on working group dispersements. We promised to make a recommendation on March 6. There was a $2000 set-aside for actions; we've spent ~$800.

=== Screen Print ===

We made T-shirts today. Yay!!! See me if you want help with screen printing -- or [[ Screen Print Guild ]], facebook page, etc.

=== Spaces ===
We've had a conversation about visions around space, etc. We decided an affinity group outside OB would be a preferred venue for this.

Meeting Friday 6pm at E5. Spaces needs to interface better with the movement.

=== Facilitation ===

Friday 5pm, City Place, sub-group of facilitation for [[GA process and purpose]]. Follow-up from last Tuesday.

== Individual Announcements ==
* __ left this morning for Georgia to hike the Appalachian Trail. Will be in Western Mass probably in June or so.
* My passion outside of OB is Justice for Palestine. Tufts, BU, Brandeis etc. have speakers running. I have papers comparing South African apartheid to Palestine. This week, an outstanding group of speakers at Harvard. "One State Solution". This weekend, Occupy American Israeli Political Action Committee. This year the focus is on Iran.
* St. Patrick's day parade pamphlets! March 18. There's been a time change: flyer says 2pm, but it'll be 3pm. This is a permitted march. Expect 1500 to 2000 people. Most will depend on y'all getting out there and talking to people.
* There is a proposal Occupy Boston Radio Group to OBGA, will be brought up on Thursday. Monday 6pm-7pm, Veteran's for peace radio. Not strictly veteran/military -- you can contribute. Listen!!
* Parade planning meeting, 2161 Mass Ave, American Friends Service Committee offices. 6:30pm Thursday.
* Occupy Lynn GA this Saturday, 3pm, city hall in Lynn.
* Flyers for the community open house. They have fronts, and backs. Hot pink. April 2, and the first Monday of each month. If you want to get involved with Open House, Strategic Action Assembly on Sunday.
* Occupy U Mass Boston! Thursday March 1, National/International student day of action. 1pm Dewey Square, to State House for rally. March 15-18, outside events at U-Mass Boston.
* A cool thing in New York: Occupy Town Square at Thompson Square Park for 6 hours every Sunday. Think about this, and whether we could do something like it too.
* The new face of warfare (and surveillance in the US) is drones. Tomorrow night at 7pm at Cambridge Friends' meeting house, 5 Longfellow Drive in Cambridge.

----
30 second pause for reflection
----

== Participatory Budgeting and Justice ==

''(Presentation from PB&J committee)''

This is not just FAWG: We seek full participation from everyone. PB&J is a working group to develop a budgeting process.

Why PB&J?
* Budget determines allocation.
* Translates policy goals to action.
* To prevent control of the budget by elites.
* Future of OB should not be controlled by the loudest or most popular, or by those best able to manipulate the system.

Current monthly deficit -- projected/estimated based on current practice:
{| border="1"
! General funds
|-
| Beginning general funds
| $66000
|-
|Less tactical reserve
| -$14000
|-
! Net working cash
! $52000
|-
! Income
|-
| GA donations
| $750 per month
|-
| Other unrestricted donations
| $1000 per month
|-
! Total general revenues
! $1750 per month
|-
! Expenses
|-
| Rent
| $2710
|-
| Internet service
| $470
|-
| Mutual aid
| $1300
|-
! Total
! $4480 per month
|-
! Deficit
|-
| deficit before WG expenses
| -$2730 per month
|-
| round-up deficit
| -$3000 per month
|}

Given this deficit, here are three scenarios for 6-month cash flow projection:
* If expenses don't change, with no WG expenses: After 6 months: $34000 cash remaining.
* If we have $2,500 per month WG expenses: After 6 months: $19000 cash remaining.
* If we have $5,000 per month WG expenses: After 6 months: $4000 cash remaining.
* Any expenses beyond this would have to be offset by Working Group fundraising.

'''How does PB work?'''

Instead of "Announce and defend" (where you present options and pick), engage the community to define things themselves.: Participatory Budgeting employs a set of tools to help make effective decisions.

''' History of PB: '''

* 1989 -- city of Porto Allegre in Brazil used PB to allow more direct control
* 2009 -- Chicago's 49th ward launched 1st US experience.
* Used in Latin America, Europe, Africa and Asia
* New York: discretionary funds, $6million using this process.
* Participatory Budgeting: "A fundamental law for revolutionary democracy."

''' How to implement in OB? '''

Each working group will report budgetary needs and what it will do with the funds. Together, the WGs look past individual goals to see whole movement opportunities.

Q: Does the budget process establish goals, or do goals inform the budget process?
A: Working Groups already decide what the actions are that they do.
Q: Who gets to decide the goals/vision of movement? Shouldn't we do that first?
A: The process you're asking for -- collective discussion of Occupy's goals --
is what this workshop is. It's a strategic planning process. By coming
together and sharing knowledge between working groups, there's better
creativity and synergy.
A: We could spend hte next 3 months trying to figure out our goals. If
working groups weren't working in our interests, we'd be up in arms about
that. Through this process, we get more accountability than we already have.

'''Issues discussed in PB&J meetings'''

* Avoid becoming an NGO!
** Don't just sustain the institution rather than change the world.
* How to handle fundraising?
** Do we even do it?
** Should each WG raise its own funds or continue to have a single OB fund?
* Who else should be participating in these sessions?
* SWOT -- What are our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats?

'''What's planned so far?'''
* First workshop:
** March 25th noon-5pm at New Hope Church in JP
** Introduction to PB by Maria Green, Northeastern School of Law
** Workshop moderated by Bianpaolo Baiocchi, expert in PB at Brown U, PB project, NYd
** Workshop Output: trial budget
*** Do budget for 3 months and see how it works out
* What's accomplished so far?
** Prepared forms for WGs to outline mission, opportunities, needs
** Increaesd WG communication
** WGs need to help each other out.
* Needed:
** submit forms describing WG and its needs -- important if you want funding
** Participate in the process regardless of need
*** Help guide the direction of OB
*** Take ownership

=== Discussion ===

Comment: As a member of FAWG, I realize that there's some tension here. I played a role here, but FAWG jumped forward and has been building support for this. Another way to do it would be to put up a proposal to do a PB process in front of GA. FAWG chose to do it one way, which may have given rise to unrest.

Comment: I'm going to treat this as a gift to the community to understand the process, and then have clarifying questions.

Comment: I like the idea of participatory budgets and including everyone. I feel really uncomfortable with how this process came about. I'm uncomfortable that we're moving a collective discussion of goals and strategies to something that came out of a working group. Are we going to be an occupation? Are we going outdoors or in? These things need to be decided as a group. The projections of money lock in a certain vision of us that I'm not ready to lock in. We could be something totally different in 2-3 months. We need to decide that as a group and not lock in.

Comment: This seems like a great process for cities. I don't know how it's relevant to us. We have no idea what we're going to be dealing with in 2 months. We could be occupying, with big donations, or no longer here at all. One reason lots of WG's aren't taking part, is that we never decided this is what we're going to do. There's no decision that the plan will make a difference, or that we're using the process. This should have come not as a presentation, but a proposal.

Comment: I think this is a great idea -- it can help be a catalyst for the bigger discussion we need to have as a movement. It needs to go a little more slowly. First, figure out who we are and where we're going, then go to the budgeting. We can still bring this to GA, and address it there. Then, the WG's will be more on board. Could these meetings/workshops that happen not all happen Monday-Friday 9-5? There's a lot of folks that can't make it those times.

Comment: This is about planning how to spend money. We're either going to plan, or we'll spend without planning. Are we going to have a plan, or first come first serve and then 3 months there's nothing left? The spending freeze arose out of the fact that we're losing cash so rapidly. This isn't an issue that can just sit around; 2 months from now that cash balance could be too low if people approve things without a budget. We have limited resources that are rapidly depleting.

Comment: The status quo is to do what we've been doing (first come, first serve). That's not equitable -- it's who's in front of the line that gets the money. This is a more equitable way of making sure that everyone's voice is heard. Second: Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Baltimore have been doing this -- though OWS haven't implemented it yet. We don't want to just teach them; we want to actually do it.

Comment: A number of points have been raised that participatory budget serves participatory goals.

Comment: It's not a 1-year budget. We could do it as a 3-month.

Facilitator: The part I heard -- not necessarily up to the PB&J folks -- there needs to be a process determining the goals, which a budgeting process can work with.

Question: Do you believe it's within your authority as a group to decide our budget for the next 3 months? I don't.

Answer: Think of it as a GA about money.

Q: But it's not a GA.

A: Why not? I get that we didn't consent to do this process. But what I've heard my colleagues say is that the process they hope to give and get people involved in is absolutely not FAWG deciding how to make money. It's FAWG setting up a process for participation.

Q: At the end of 3 months, if htis process exists, will there be a budget OB is committed to?

A: Yes -- but it'd have to come back to GA.

Facilitator: Timeout.

Facilitator: There's conflict, misunderstanding, and there needs to be flexibility to achieve clarity. I'm recognizing that this is a moment when we need clarity. I'm asking if we can just take a few minutes to clear up a misunderstanding.

A: Two things: first, our plan (which I didn't have an opportunity to say) is to do monitoring and evaluation, see if it's working, go to GA, and if folks are happy, to adopt it as the process at that point. That's how it works -- it's not just planning, it's monitoring and evaluation too. One more point: When we made the participatory budgeting presentation back in 2011, there was a 100% temperature check that people liked it.

B: The financial analysis at the time were done produently and well; frankly, given the fact that he wasn't paid to do it, above and beyond what was expected. However, it came from a negative view to the extent that it assumed we wouldn't find any additional fundraising, such as permanant communities, reoccupation, concerts, etc. Things that would bring money in. What I'm saying is when business forecast, they forecast speculatively, in a positive light. If we do this -- let's get to doing this!

C: I agree with that -- what's presented so far is just what we've got now, and the past couple of months. That does not say that as spring unfolds we won't do better. This process isn't trying to limit anything; if that's how it comes across, we aren't communicating well. I'm applauding that FAWG is grabbing this and trying to get more what people are asking for -- a global, community decision about what to do. I haven't seen other folks doing that; it doesn't happen at GA. What it's about is this visionary stuff -- what we want to do.

D: The majority of the questions are misinterpreting because we put numbers on a screen. What we are presenting a tool that we can use, regardless of the numbers. We need methods and tools we can use. Participatory Budgeting is such a tool.

E: Before Christmas I visited Occupy Providence. They have no budgeting, but they manage to travel to national conventions. They have no funds at all. A good process of us budgeting would be categorizing money into groups on what we as a community together decide, instead of a process of trying to be conservative. Even if the budget becomes zero, we could take a lesson from Providence.

F: Observations: : We currently don't have a budget. In the interests of creating a democratic process, we have a working group. There are people in the GA who believe that process should be ratified by the GA.

Facilitator: Deep gratitude for a process that just revealed what is already happening. It's clearly been an important catalyst for people to say "hmm", what is this not taking into account? I'm greatful for that being raised. It's an invitation for people to be involved in defining goals.

== Proposals ==

Summaries:

* Denouncing American Style Democracy: American democracy today is a scam. To express our dissatisfaction, Occupy Boston endorses writing "none of the above" in the coming election.
* Stop GA other than announcements until we shut down banks. (ROLLED FORWARD)
* U-Mass Boston wants to borrow a food tank for 4 or 5 days. (ROLLED FORWARD)

== Denouncing American style democracy ==

1. Denouncing American Style Democracy

Initial proposal text:

American Democracy today is a scam. All major politicians sleep in
the same bed, lined with crisp new bills from the Federal Reserve
Bank. The People are told they have no choice but to vote for one
of two candidates. The truth is that either way we vote, we are
still voting to continue the corporate-government complex that
funnels money from the People into illegal, meaningless wars, spends
trillions on bailing out ineffective multinational banks, and
literally is making our planet unlivable for human and other
organisms.

But there is another choice. We can decide to protest the two party
system through a write-in campaign. By doing so, we can send a
strong message that we refuse to participate in this broken
electoral system. To express our dissatisfaction Occupy Boston
endorses writing in on the ballot for President of the USA,
"none-of-the-above" in this coming election. We believe the office
of President of the United States of America has been purchased by
multinational corporations and banks. Ergo we refuse to acknowledge
the validity of any of the major candidates.

Furthermore, we encourage all Occupies and other interested parties
around the country to endorse the above mentioned write-in campaign.
With enough protest votes we can show the political elite and
plutocrats that we refuse to accept their veiled aristocracy and
demand that a new political system based on the principles of a true
Democracy be established.

Q: Do we mean to denounce green and other party candidates?

A: We don't mean to reject any options. This is just one option.

Q: What kind of numbers are we looking for here? How many?

A: 50 million. :) What I'd like to see is everyone that doesn't vote writes in none of the above -- but that's not going to happen. Maybe 2 or 3 percent of the vote.

Q: Is it your intention to say that Occupy Boston will write in "None of the above", or we encourage people to do it, or what?

A: No... nothing in here states that if you don't write "None of the above" you're no longer in Occupy Boston. I'd encourage people to do that if they're not satisfied.

Q: I wonder if you're thinking of this as one step in a greater action. How do we expand this? Is this the beginning or end of discussion?

A: The last paragraph deos say that we encourage others to endorse this as well. Were this to pass, there would certainly be outreach at least to the other occupies.

Q: What do you mean to "refuse to participate" and "don't recognize the validity"?

A: The general point is that the major candidates are bought by corporations. Any major candidate, it's intentionally broad. President only.

Q: Half of qualified electorate are unregistered. Do you suggest people should register in order to write in none-of-the-above?

A: There's no such suggestion in this proposal.

Information: In some states there are no write ins.

Information: You can request one in any state.
----------------------------------------
Small group break-outs
----------------------------------------

support: I like this proposal. I feel like we have an opportunity right now to get a significant percentage of the vote. We should pick something and go for it.

support: I feel like our group as a whole has already denounced American democracy. I think this proposal should just pass; we've already been doing it.

support: I support this. One of the biggest challenges is that it's hard to consent to things related to electoral politics. It's something we can consent to, because it's kind of a fuck you. It's not committing to anything other than acknowledging that the system exists and that it's broken.

concern: I think most people of the room may feel that this is a good decision, I think we should think back to the hayday of Occupy Boston with large numbers of people involved, and take into consideration that a lot of those folks are concerned with who becomes president. I don't think it's a good idea to pass something that might cut us off from a larger group that should be involved.

concern: I could see putting 'none of the above' on the ballot as a regular choice. I think encouraging people to register to vote violates underlying principles of democracy and direct action.

concern: I said this a couple GA's ago. This proposal has no solutions, and we need proposals with solutions. The whole world is watching, and asking "what are your solutions"? Without solutions, support dwindles, and then Occupy no longer exists.

concern: I really like the first paragraph. It starts out funny and gets serious. I don't like what the actual proposal asks for -- we aren't organized enough to make this relevant, so we're just making ourselves irrelevant through this. Occupy the Movement can't do anything unless it's a mass movement. Maybe think this might be astart to building this narrative... I'd support a fleshing-out of the first paragraph that was a little more nuanced, and acknowledged the gray area. The candidates are bought by the same people, but there are differences, and some of those differences affect lives. I can't see myself supporting a "none of the above" proposal. I don't think passing and calling for other occupies to support it is relevant.

concern: I'm gonna take a wild guess that you've never lived under a dictatorship, or you wouldn't have written the first paragraph. My concern is the same as these concerns -- as a movement we need to make ourselves relevant to the entire 99%. This does just the opposite. Ask people to get involved and do good work.

concern: This will ostracize the general public who've bought into the mainstream perception of the voting process.

concern: It's vague.

info: Voting "None of the above" isn't apathetic -- it's active. To the people that are buying the candidates, the difference isn't appreciable.

concern: The other day we had a whole SAA group conversation around voting. One conclusion we reached is that Occupy Boston is an unsafe space for those who still like to vote. Anyone someone says "vote" there's this air of "how dare you". I'm concerned that it gets even harder with a statement like this that there is a safe space. We decided we needed a working group to ensure that we can make it a safe space. We want to use things like the blue book with who donates to what candidates, and being against those companies.

concern: In most electoral processes, there are more than 2 parties, but only 2 get publicity. My main concern is that we don't shine light on the other parties.

concern: Regarding what Alex said: it's frustrating to be someone who's not a fan of electoral politics to be nice about it. It's not an indictment of anyone's voting; it's just been frustrating.

conern: I think it's a waste of time. People who join after this proposal can do whatever they want to. I understand people's concerns.

concern: I support 75-80% of what's been said. I spent a lot of time trying to convince people of just this. I just don't think this is the right place or way for us to be doing it. It's a statement no one will pay attention to, it isn't linked to any solution. We have a horizontal democracy which is a proactive model we put out as an alternative. If we say we're trying to represent or be part of the 99%, this is a good thing to be the end of a discussion. When you say to people "it's a farce" as your opening line, they won't listen to your second sentence.

concern: I can't support this because I see it as marginalizing Occupy Boston, making it harder to recruit and involve most people that I interact with. It doesn't accomplish anything positive.

concern: It doesn't say loudly enough that we have an alternative democratic model that is more legitimate.

concern: We could do better by having a series of critiques of the electoral system. We do need an approach to the 2012 election. This will only hurt the democratic party though -- this is a concern of mine. We like to think we're speaking to the whole country, but in reality it's just one party.

concern: There might be an opportunity with a statement like this to present something visionary, to communicate with others. But the language of this proposal doesn't do that.

concern: There's something passive and laking in content with this. I sympathize with it, but refusing to endorse a candidate, we will already be making a statement. Promoting GA democracy as an alternative would be better.

concern: I'm concerned that Occupy Boston is more focused and concerned about the things that divide us, rather than the things that unite us. Regardless of the current system, norms, and things people already accept as being true.

amendment: Write in our own names in all of the offices, and vote for ourselves, and urge everyone else in the public to do the same.

amendment: Encourage people to search for third parties and gain knowledge of everyone.

amendment: Just endorse Vermin Supreme.

amendment: Instead of endorsing "None of the Above", we suggest that occupies around the country hold general assemblies and rallies as close to voting places as possible to engage in discussion about horizontal democracy.

information: A bunch of local anarchists ran "none of the above" last election cycle. That's why I kind of like this.

amendment: Where it says "occupy boston endorses", I feel this would be better worded as "suggests" rather than endorses.

amendment: I like "encourage" rather than suggest.... and also, "none of the above" or any candidate of your choice.

-----
Proposers step back to rework proposal.
-----
Proposers: We reviewed the amendments. Thanks for the discussion. We think GA's and rallies close to polling places is excellent, but doesn't belong in this proposal. We changed the language from 'endorse' to 'suggest', and the second 'endorsed' to 'support'. We decided also to add "or any alternative candidates".

question: Are you implying that Rick Santorum would sleep in the same bed with another male candidate?

question: You claim that we have only a 2-party system. Do you know of the other parties such as the green party, independents, and other parties?

answer: yes... I am aware.... they would not be considered major parties. I think most people would agree there are only 2 major parties.

information: These other parties are not invited to debate or meaningful participate.

information: A two party isn't one with just two parties... it's one where only two have a realistic chance of winning.

information: New Zealand has a 6 party system. The party that supports the rich got voted in.

Facilitator: We have the option to go back into small groups. Is there energy for that? (temp check says no).

support: I like the idea of this. I don't support it wholeheartedly, but support the option to give people an option. I think most people's concerns are that we shouldn't be doing this at all. I support it though -- it's how I feel right now.

support: I could make quibbles about wording, but I support it. We should keep repeating this as long as possible. The more you repeat something, the more that meaning strengthens.

concern: There are still a lot of people in this movement who will vote. I'm one of those. In that, I feel like people already feel ashamed to be a voter. Remember, we're probably coming off one of the most active generations for voting. A lot of them are still not deterred. Just knowing you'll come into a space where people are publicly anti-voting makes for a harder life. I want to keep that in mind.

concern: In your proposal, you have not mentioned anything in the constitution or the representative democracy system. A lot of people will be turned away from occupy if we say we denounce US voting. They'll think we're unconstitutional, a bunch of liars. Add more of our horizontal democracy, and our beliefs about the constitution, that we we don't turn away america, we support it -- in a different system.

concern: Suggesting people could vote for alternative cnadidates goes against Occupy's norm of not suggesting or endorsing candidates. Referring to the electoral system as broken -- in my view, Occupy Boston wouldn't support even an unbroken electoral system.

concern: My fundamental concern is the same. I'm doubly concerned now, because I didn't hear our concerns referenced at all. I'd like to hear the proposers address those.

concern: I wasn't here the first round. I prefer us as a movement instead of condemning, building new things and alternatives. Don't just attack.

Facilitator: It's 10 past 10. We need time for evaluations and cleanup. The question: are there amendments?

amendment: My amendments are very simple: mention how we believe in the constitution, and that it's not being represented. "We believe in the constitution; but the constitution has been violated."

amendment: In the spirit of compromise: encourage people to look for models outside.
----
Proposers step back to rework proposal.
----
Proposers: We looked at these concerns again... We've decided to take out the word 'candidate' (it now just says 'and any alternative'). Regarding the concerns that this will ostracize people, we believe this is true, but we believe more people will wake up to this, so we don't believe that it needs to be changed from that.

Proposers: I didn't particularly want to insert any language specifically supporting the constitution, because I think that drastically changes the proposal to something we weren't intending.

Facilitator: Any blocks?

Block: I have concerns that we shouldn't make any statement regarding electoral politics. And further, this is divisive when we need togetherness.

Facilitator: Does this fit the definition of a block? (Unanimous approval).

Facilitator: Who joins ___ in the block? (5 raise hands)

Facilitator: The proposal has been blocked.

Facilitator: A successful block doesn't mean that the proposal is dead -- it can come forward after revision.

[[Category:GA Minutes]]

Sep 28 2012

2012-03-02T16:00:48Z

Cfdfc: Blanked the page

Sep 28 2012

2012-03-02T16:00:06Z

Cfdfc: moved Sep 28 2012 to GA Minutes Feb 28 2012

#REDIRECT [[GA Minutes Feb 28 2012]]

GA Minutes Tues Feb 28 2012

2012-03-02T16:00:06Z

Cfdfc: moved Sep 28 2012 to GA Minutes Feb 28 2012

GA/Minutes/Feb2012

2012-03-02T15:58:33Z

Cfdfc:

=== [[GA Minutes Tues Feb 27 2012|Week 23 - Tues Feb 28]] ===

=== [[GA Minutes Sat Feb 25 2012|Week 22 - Sat Feb 25]] ===

=== [[Media:GA_Minutes_Thur_Feb_23_2012.txt|Week 21 - Thur Feb 23]] ===

=== [[GA_Minutes_Tue_Feb_21_2012| Week 21 - Tues Feb 21]] ===

=== Week 21 - Sat Feb 18 ===

=== Week 20 - Thur Feb 16 ===

=== [[Media:GA_Minutes_Feb_14_2012.txt|Week 20 - Tues Feb 14]] ===

=== Week 20 - Sat Feb 11 ===

=== Week 19 - Thur Feb 9 ===

=== Week 19 - Tues Feb 7 ===

=== Week 19 - Sat Feb 4 ===

=== [[GA Minutes Week 18 - Thur Feb 2|Week 18 - Thur Feb 2]] ===

Mar 1 2012

2012-03-02T15:57:50Z

Cfdfc: moved Mar 1 2012 to GA Minutes Thurs Mar 1 2012

#REDIRECT [[GA Minutes Thurs Mar 1 2012]]

GA Minutes Thurs Mar 1 2012

2012-03-02T15:57:50Z

Cfdfc: moved Mar 1 2012 to GA Minutes Thurs Mar 1 2012

= Minutes for 1 March 2012 =
== Details ==
Location: Emmanuel Church, 15 Newbury St
Time: 7:30pm; failed quorum at 9:30pm
Note taker: Charlie

== Summary ==

* Announcements
* Proposal to lend the food tent to Occupy U-Mass Boston: PASSED
* Proposal freeze proposal: TABLED
* Temp check for future GA time to discuss "fee and dividend" carbon taxation: approved.
* Proposal for future GA time to discuss budgeting: ROLLED FORWARD.

== Announcements ==

March 8 is International Women's day. We'd like to do a different meeting structure then.

This sunday March 4, 1:30-3:30pm. At the Democracy Center in Cambridge, in Harvard Square. Is a forum on the occupy movement, with Chris Forone of the Boston Phoenix, Katy Budowsky, and Betsy ... from Occupy Newton and Occupy the Burbs. http://obr.fm -- free skool university every Wednesday night, various topics of interest to the 99%. [https://www.google.com/calendar/event?eid=YTIyMzBtbGVoZHBuZmdqYWdhMWl0NzBxNWcgOW85MG90NnBsOGJqbWdqcGUzN2J2NWh0NDRAZw&ctz=America/New_York details]

Women's Poverty discussion: this Wednesday, March 7.

Free Skool working group meeting at the Harvard School co-op.

=== Financial Accounting Working Group ===

Passing the jar -- we need a collection to pay for rent for tonight. Give what you can.

Conversation about Participatory Budgeting started at the last GA, and there was a sense that the conversation needs to continue. We'll bring a proposal on behalf of FAWG called PB&J -- participatory budgeting and justice. To continue this conversation, we're asking for 1 hour to be set aside next Tuesday.

Q: Is this the same as the working group spending freeze?

A: It's related. FAWG feels a responsibility to have something to guide us for the end of the freeze budget-wise; this could be the solution to that.

=== Food ===

A reminder that food is in the works of reforming yet again. Will be meeting Tuesday at 5:30pm at Arlington St Church (inside or out, TBA).

=== Livestream ===

Training on Saturday at 2:30pm at E5. We need volunteers to run livestreams, and people at home to produce. If you're at home in front of a computer, you can help.

All you need is a smartphone to broadcast -- but you don't need one to learn and participate; we have phones to lend out.

=== Queer Direct Action ===

QDAWG -- meeting tomorrow at 5:30 at City Place. We have an action coming up that it would be great for you to participate in. Come and join to find out more.

=== Occupy the MBTA ===

Meeting tomorrow at SEIU at 6pm. The new chief financial officer of Mass DOT is a privatization expert. It's not looking good. Help us out!

=== Interoccupy ===

There's an awesome conference call and campaign tomorrow. How many of you want to see B of A fall apart? Tomorrow, 1pm eastern, http://interoccupy.org/bofacall . Bank of America is a criminal, but is also weak. We're starting a broad-based campaign to break up Bank of America.

=== Climate Action, Sustainability ===

Next Monday, a protest outside Scott Brown's fundraiser at 5:30pm, in Copley Square, meet at the Boston Public Library steps. The theme is to dress up like a lobbyist or contributor to Scott Brown. While they party inside, we'll party outside. Calling attention to the money he's been taking from fossil fuel industries.

We're also planning another campaign outside the Office of America, protesting it's influence on Obama.

We're putting together an event as a teach-in about taxing carbon (fee and dividend). Hosted by Gary Razinski, part of citizen's climate lobby. Educational event.

=== GA Process and Purpose ===

First meeting tomorrow at 5pm at City Place. We hope to define what the group is.

=== Individual announcements ===

* Tuesday, H1371, an act to regulate and tax the Cannabis industry is being heard at the statehouse. I'll be meeting up with some people at Dewey at 12:00 noon.

=== Thankful Thursday ===

* Today a student group had a march. We blocked the streets, the cops got mad, and they started using a loud siren we'd never heard before (maybe a small vehicle-mounted LRAD?). It made me feel really good to get out in the streets again.
* I got a new job, and have a new corporate overlord. I'm thankful because I get payed a little more, which provides the illusion of progress the capitalist system needs for me to continue participating. I'm joing the ranks of the new proletariate, the data enterers of the world.
* Looks like I'm gonna survive the bureaucracy I've been in for the past 3 months. I'm gonna be OK.
* I was in court today (bankruptcy) when I heard Occupy Boston outside the window, marching past. Everyone looked at me. This is the second week in a row that I've heard that. I love it. I think y'all should do stuff every Thursday during business hours so I personally can hear it.
* I'm thankful for Gorge's blog, hiking the AT.
* I'm thankful for a nice Occupy the MBTA video on the website.

== Proposals ==

Two rollover proposals:
* Lending food tent to Occupy U-Mass Boston
* Proposal freeze proposal

Summaries of the two new proposals:
* A request to set aside 15 minutes at some future GA to do a short presentation and question/answer about fee and dividend carbon taxes.
* A request to set aside 1 hour of GA time next Tuesday, March 6, to answer the question: should OB create a budget, and if so, what process to use?

=== Occupy U-Mass Boston Spring Break ===

Occupy U-Mass Boston is holding March 15th-185h an "Occupy Spring Break" from March 15th to 18th. We want to borrow the food tent. We have permission from the administration, and a guarantee that there will not be a raid, and they will not take our tent.

Q: Where will it be set up?

A: Either in front of the campus center, or in front of the quinn building.

Q: What are the dates you wan thte tent for?

A: The 14th to the 18th of March.

Q: Would y'all coordinate transportation of it?

A: I think that's going to be part of the proposal -- the only person with a vehicle in our group doesn't have a truck. We could reimburse someone, even if we have to pay out of pocket for it.

Q: So you'll add to the proposal that you'll reimburse transit costs?

A: Yes, we'd like OB to help with a truck if we can't find other transportation.

Q: Are there going to be other tents? Could this be bigger?

A: We're inviting people to come and set things up. We just want the food tent as the centerpiece. There'll be music, teach-ins, etc.

Q: Is anyone here from logistics, or have y'all talked to logistics? I don't know anything about where the tent is, etc.

A: The last time we spoke to logistics, they were holding the tent, and waiting to move the tent until this proposal is resolved.

Facilitator: since there are so few people here, do you want small group discussions? (no...) OK, moving on to statements of support.

support: This is a fantastic idea. I support it also because of your radio tent t-shirt.

support: I support it because we have it, and should use it.

support: I support it because it makes OB visible again, even via U-Mass.

Facilitator: Any statements of concern? (none) Amendments? (none) Questions, information, concern or support? (none) Any blocks? (no) PROPOSAL PASSES.

=== Proposal freeze ===

Proposal: That the Boston GA put a freeze on all proposals, statements of solidarity, etc., and other action besides announcements, until we shut down at least 2 banks.

Q: Why do you want this?

A: To bring to light that there should be more action proposals brought to GA. OB hasn't done as much direct action as it could be.

Q: When you say bank, do you mean bank branch, and for a temporary amount of time?

A: That could work.

Q: Do you care how the bank is closed?

A: No. I'm not trying to get people arrested, or encouraging others to get arrested. If someone wants to, that's their perogative; but I'm not encouraging it. Personal autonomy is important. Diversity of tactics.

Q: What would constitute shutting down a bank, even if just for 5 minutes?

A: One example would be preventing people from coming and going.

Q: I heard your reason for doing this is your belief that we don't have enough action. Have you been on individual stacks to talk about this before coming with the proposal?

A: No. But part of it is that I feel that there's a lot of bureaucracy going on, and this could pave the way for more action-oriented proposals.

Q: Do you think that doing other kinds of organizing are preventing people from having time for autonomous action?

A: No... but I think the people who go to GA's are at most GA's. This speaks to getting direct action out of GA instead of SAA or other venues.

Information: Banks are closed during the time of GA's.

Q: Do you feel that the bureaucracy you were talking about is only at General Assemblies?

A: No.

Q: Then why only ask about GA's? Why eliminate GA's specifically?

A: Because it would be counter-intuitive to stop the Strategic Action Assembly. I don't think it would be fair to shut down working group meetings. All decisions are ultimately made at the GA.

Q: Have you thought about just planning actions and organizing people around them?

A: Yes. And I know people would come... but I think it's a good discussion to have in GA about the process of the GA. I think it's worth the time to have a discussion about action-oriented proposals that wouldn't happen in a working group meeting or SAA.

Q: What is the aim for shutting down the bank?

A: Because it stops the bank from making money. We came together because of banks, and I wanted to redirect attention to that.

Information: Banks make money whether they're open or not.

Q: I need some clarification for why you chose to do it this way, instead of bringing it to working groups, instead of the small population that comes to GA. Even if you were to say that it's 100 people who hear it, why would you move to halt the GA instead of organizing actions?

A: I don't know how many people follow the GA, or how to keep account of that, via notes, past proposals, etc. More pay attention than those physically present. It's not specifically my cause; I'm bringing it to the community for discussion, and the GA is a good place for that.

Q: There are a bunch of working groups who've brought proposals to repurpose GA time. Why instead of halting GA, don't we repurpose GA time for action planning?

A: To set aside time to plan for an action at GA would be counter-intuitive; that's what SAA is for. But my point in bringing the proposal is to spur this discussion.

Q: How specifically would banks be shut down, and once we've done it, what's the longer-term aim?

A: There's no way to shut down a bank completely, it's impossible. But: there is a way to shut down transactions at a branch for a short time. This is infinitely small in the scheme of things, but could spur more action in general, and change the tone and expectations of GA.

Q: My experience as an organizer is that taking to the streets is great, but without other structure to support it, can be counter-productive. Do you think it's productive?

A: Yes, I think it's productive.

Q: Is this two actions, even if unsuccessful?

A: Yes. The proposal is just that OB take direct action, not that the action succeeds.

Q: Are you saying that GA would endorse, or cold endorse, actions as GA rather than autonomous actions out of SAA or other working groups? Is this distinguish movement-wide actions from working grou pactions?

A: Yes. GA has endorsed actions before. We did that Saturday. There was a nationwide action against ALEC yesterday. We also endorsed a Worcester action.

Q: Would you consider amendments to not shut down the whole of GA?

A: Possibly. I worded it very basically, knowing it could be modified.

Q: The proposal isn't to expose corrupt lending or something, but to close it specifically?

A: Well, you could do the direct action in any way which results in closure.

Q: Who judges if an action is an intention to close the bank? Are there some qualifications that would have to be met?

A: Well, it could be announced in GA, but security culture would say don't do that. I think we as a whole would be a judge of whether or not an action counts.

Q: What would be happening during a GA?

A: Annoncements only.

Q: Do you already have plans to share?

A: Yes.

Q: If you have these plans, why shut down GA?

A: The proposal is here to spur this conversation.

Q: If this proposal passes, do we just get up and walk out, because GA is suspended?

A: Yes. The meeting would adjourn immediately.

Q: Do you think it'd be more productive to issue action-oriented proposals rather than shutting all proposals down?

A: Maybe.

Point of process: It seems that these questions really have an undertone of concern. Maybe we can move on to concerns?

Point of process: One reason for questions is to give a chance to articulate responses; where concerns don't get direct responses.

Point of process: The process serves two purposes: to inform voters, and to make sure concerns are addressed as much as possible. Asking questions can alleviate your concern.

Q: Since every action is on livestream, and you just announced something tomorrow, doesn't this defeat security culture?

A: It's just an example, not an actual plan for action.

Q: What happens if we decide to have GA anyway? Is there a punishment?

A: We'll all feel like jerks. I'll call a point of process.

Q: Could we just announce 'the decision making body' meets, and call it that?

A: You could do that, but I'd be unhappy.

Q: Do you really want this to pass, or just for us to talk about it?

A: I really want it to pass (but the talking is important).

Q: Don't you think that shutting down GA delegitimizes other people's concerns, and making yours the only valuable one?

A: Yes. Someone has brought me this concern already. I don't think this delegitemizes other people's opinions. Honestly; if it passes, I don't think we'll miss the GA.

Information: Since it would have to be passed by a super majority, and could be blocked by 10%, the maximum percentage of people whose opinions could be delegitemized by this is 9%.

Q: What about emergency proposals, like bail money?

A: I think that would be ok.

Q: Would this be focused on retail bank outlets, as opposed to Deutsche bank or something? The former is the easiest to shut down. Is tha the focus?

A: That would be my focus, because it's easier. But if others chose to take a different action, that's their choice and I'd support it.

Q: If you amended the proposal to have a GA in a bank, would the question of having action-oriented proposals still stand?

A: Well.. I wouldn't encourage that, because it would probably result in arrests.

Q: Do you think there's a subtext of anti-intellectualism in this proposal?

Point of process: That was clearly a concern, not a question.

Q: Would you consider legal actions if they were as effective?

A: Yes. Legal actions are fine. Occupy Oakland bought ice cream, showed up to a bank, and it closed.

Q: Is the ice cream vegan?

A: Knowing Oakland, probably.

Information: There've been a lot of questions that seem framed to express concern. But as a point of information, I like this proposal, and I don't think this is anti-intellectual.

----
Breakout into small groups
----

support: I support this proposal, with the expectation of amendments. I appreciate the spirit under which it is brought. It would be terrific for GA to do some direct action out in the world together.

support: I think the proposal is awesome!!!

support: I also support the spirit of the proposal, with several amendments. I support the concept of the GA or the community as a whole doing coordinated action. I think there was a lot of fruitful discussion that we had here, such as Occupy Boston becoming splintered groups. This proposal could provide an opportunity to do it the right way.

support: I support this because I think it's awesome!!

support: I support it but in a more nuanced way.

support: I support the idea of having time in a GA for groups to discuss potential actions together.

support: I really like the proposal and the discussion that's come from it. I like how it illustrates what we've been lacking since we got kicked out of Dewey. I'm not sure that this decision making process is the best way to go about doing it, but I'm glad for the conversation.

support: I support this because it would be beneficial to be more focused on actions. I believe actions are what piques people's interest. The beginning of occupy had so much energy and positivity.

support: I like that this recreates a different place from SAA, and creates the idea of Occupy Boston being action per se, rather than in mini group actions.

support: I want to add on to that: I support the idea of moving back towards more action. Occupy Boston itself at Dewey square was one direct action, a massive statement.

support: I support it not because it prioritizes action over discussion and thoughtfulness, but for its ability to make the actions more thoughtful by bringing more people together.

support: I support this because it prioritizes this activity -- whipping up outrage at the naked greed that is behind the economic disparities impacting the 99%. We're trying to model a just, equitable, and fair set of social relations. Implied in the proposal is an indictment of the introspection in the GA -- but I prefer a focus on the former, rather than the latter.

support: I support this because shutting down 2 banks makes way more sense than coming to GA on Saturday.

support: This proposal seems really awesome.

concern: I like hte idea of having GA's be able to focus more on a range of things, including large scale collectively-determined actions or activities. I'm very concerned that the penalty of cancelling GA's except for announcements is really, really, really, really, really, really bad precedent.

concern: We've built potential, and we don't want to squander it. We need to do something to reignite our passion again. It's not nearly as powerful an action as it ought to be, however -- which could constrict our ambitions. Only announcements at GA isn't as good as providing time at GA to discuss actions.

concern: I don't think our problem is not enough action. There's been all sorts of action around occupy MBTA, education, student activity, etc. Clearly not as much as when we were together 24x7 in a sustained group for months. Eviction definitely presented a large challenge that we haven't fully overcome yet. It was never the case that we planned actions at GA; they were planned outside of it. I understand where this is coming from, and I share concerns about the direction OB is headed in. I don't think this proposal solves it. We need to think big picture and holistically about our strategy and goals. We're not a train, we can stop this thing and turn it around. But we need to have a bigger conversation. I'd like to see more of that, rather than the focus on a couple bank closures as compensating for our issues right now.

concern: My main values as an organizer is anti-capitalism and non-hierarchical democracy. Instead of voting, people get together and organize themselves. Getting together and making decisions is incredibly important -- movements that are just in the streets arent as powerful. This feels undemocratic and coercive. I think it's more functional and practical to bring up proposals for action. It's like saying "my organizing is important", and yours isn't, which feels wrong. Spokes, SAA, and others are good venues for planning actions. I'm excited in direct democracy. How can we make a decision making process we can use, to build a better world? I think I'm too annoyed to be as articulate as I'd like to be.

concern: I'm concerned that this self referential and pedantic concern isn't self referential and pedantic enough.

concern: I have a number of concerns... one is that I don't think this plan is that well conceived or articulated. In particular, shutting down a branch for 5-10 minutes hurts customers more than it hurts the bank, unless it causes some kind of public relations benefit. My biggest concern is that I do not think it is appropriate for one General Assembly to tell future GA's what they may or may not discuss. If we want more action-oriented discussion, there are several ways to do it -- one is to bring action-oriented proposals to GA, and argue them articulately. If we can't argue these proposals on their merits, who are we to tell people that they can't discuss anything else? We could procedurally amplify action proposals.

concern: You can have an action that hinders your cause. This proposal asks for an action so ill-planned that it hinders the cause. If you ask for a bad action, you threaten the loss of something.

concern: I think it's kind of wack how it's in the form of an ultimatum -- no this until that.

concern: My largest concern is that there are necessary things that happen during GA. It's the head of the movement right now, and where people can bring concerns. I feel like that's fundamental to the survival of this group right now, in a critical transitional period.

concern: Whether it's the intention of this or not, it'll feel disrespectful to say that bcause we need to be action-oriented, we should stop solidarity. It feels horrible to me. I also dislike the ultimatum format. To come into a conversation and not be straight forward (like "I want to talk about this thing...") feels extremely disrespectful. To bring it as a proposal feels dishonest. As someone who values integrity a lot, I'm very concerned that this has happened not just because it's happened, but because others might think it's an OK way to go.

concern: Diversity is important; It's poor not to be able to express international solidarity. If you're going to do things, plan carefully. As someone who does legal support, it sucks -- just plan well and you won't need to.

concern: I'm concerned that we don't have enough people here to be well-received by the wider community.

concern: I'm concerned about the ultimatum nature as well. It gets to something that irks me from "the coming insurrection", anarcho-hipsterism, get rid of organizational structure and just do actions. I dislike that trend because we live in a society with a lot of hipsters.

proposer: Calling quorum.

Q: If we decide we don't have quorum, discussion ends now?

A: It means we can't conclude this proposal; but we could continue to talk.

Q: Will we continue to talk?

A: It's up to y'all.

proposer: Can I table this and let the other proposals come forward?

A: You can always do that. Are you no longer calling quorum?

proposer: I called quorum based on the concern. There might be a different judgment of quorum for the other proposers. I withdraw my request for quorum, and table the proposal instead.

concern: I'm concerned with how this conversation is going. What's been proposed is very different from what's been brought to GA before. There's been personal criticism of the proposer; and I hope this won't chill other proposers from bringing proposals to ask the GA to take unified action. We limit what can be said here by having an agenda and structure, and we've lost people over that. This is a novel approach to how we could come toether as a community, and hope we can continue to have positive reception to it in the future.

concern: Even though he withdrew his call for quorum, I'm concerned with the small number of people here.

facilitator: Are you calling quorum?

concern: no, I'm leaving, I don't really care.

=== Fee and Dividend discussion proposal ===

Are people interested in setting aside 15 minutes of a future GA to talk about fee and dividend carbon taxation? The reason to bring it to a GA is to get a sense of people's thoughts and concerns before we bring the presentation and question/answer session for it. There are different methods for implementing carbon tax, and along with localized efforts, is one of the national strategies for rapidly reducing emissions in this country. There's reason to believe that if the US did this, other countries would follow our lead. There's a time limit -- if groups and people aren't motivated and educated to take action on this in the next few years, we're locked into a major climate change by 2020 if not before, which is a threshold point for catastrophes we may not be able to adapt to as a species. Just 15 minutes to discuss it at a future GA.

Q: Which GA?

A: That's up in the air. I just want to get an idea; and then I'm scheduling an expert to come and talk to us.

Q: What's that term?

A: Fee and dividend. You tax carbon when it enters the atmosphere, and distribute the dividend, according to whatever way specified by the legislation.

process: I have to leave, I'd like to call quorum.

facilitator: Are you asking for a specific time at a specific GA, or in general?

proposer: If people are interested in a guy not with occupy boston coming, that could be next week. But if it folks want a representative from the environmental committee, it might be next week.

faiclitator: temp check for next week: general approval.

facilitator: temp check for the following week: general approval.

facilitator: call for quorum: Quorum is if you believe that a fair representation of Occupy Boston is present. At this time, raise your time if you believe that you do have quorum?

facilitator: I see 3 hands. We don't have quorum to continue to hear proposals. We have space for another hour; we can keep talking, but no proposals can be decided.

(NOTE TAKER HAD TO LEAVE HERE)

[[Category:GA Minutes]]

GA Minutes Thurs Mar 1 2012

2012-03-02T15:53:03Z

Cfdfc: Created page with "= Minutes for 1 March 2012 = == Details == Location: Emmanuel Church, 15 Newbury St Time: 7:30pm; failed quorum at 9:30pm Note taker: Charlie == Summary == * Announcements * Pr..."

GA Process and Purpose

2012-03-01T15:26:48Z

Cfdfc: /* Meeting Time */

This working group has the specific intention of taking a critical look at the processes and purposes of the General Assembly, and generating proposals for how to improve the process in anticipation of growth in the spring.

== Mailing List ==

Sign up for the mailing list here: https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/ga-process-and-purpose

== Meeting Time ==

First meeting: Friday March 2, 5pm, at [http://goo.gl/FXxz2 City Place / Transportation building].

== Background info ==

* [[GA Minutes Tue Feb 21 2012]]: Minutes for GA about GA's, Tue Feb 21. Includes report-backs from groups discussion:
** Accessibility and Logistics
** Macro-GA discussion
** Proposals
** Anti-oppression / Community guidelines
** Blocks
** Consensus

[[Category:Working groups]]

GA Process and Purpose

2012-03-01T15:25:46Z

Cfdfc: /* Meeting Time */

This working group has the specific intention of taking a critical look at the processes and purposes of the General Assembly, and generating proposals for how to improve the process in anticipation of growth in the spring.

== Mailing List ==

Sign up for the mailing list here: https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/ga-process-and-purpose

== Meeting Time ==

First meeting: Friday March 2, 5pm, at [[http://goo.gl/FXxz2|City Place / Transportation building]].

== Background info ==

* [[GA Minutes Tue Feb 21 2012]]: Minutes for GA about GA's, Tue Feb 21. Includes report-backs from groups discussion:
** Accessibility and Logistics
** Macro-GA discussion
** Proposals
** Anti-oppression / Community guidelines
** Blocks
** Consensus

[[Category:Working groups]]

GA Process and Purpose

2012-03-01T15:24:21Z

Cfdfc: /* Mailing List */

This working group has the specific intention of taking a critical look at the processes and purposes of the General Assembly, and generating proposals for how to improve the process in anticipation of growth in the spring.

== Mailing List ==

Sign up for the mailing list here: https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/ga-process-and-purpose

== Meeting Time ==

TBA -- poll for scheduling: http://schedule.occupy.net/OB_GA_Process_and_Purpose/

== Background info ==

* [[GA Minutes Tue Feb 21 2012]]: Minutes for GA about GA's, Tue Feb 21. Includes report-backs from groups discussion:
** Accessibility and Logistics
** Macro-GA discussion
** Proposals
** Anti-oppression / Community guidelines
** Blocks
** Consensus

[[Category:Working groups]]

General Assembly

2012-02-29T15:23:08Z

Cfdfc: /* General Assembly History and Documentation */ removing spam

The General Assembly is a Occupy Boston wide meeting, held several evenings per week. General Assembly has three main sections: 1) Announcements - working groups and individuals have the opportunity to make announcements to the larger community, 2)  Proposals - working groups and individual members can make proposals for the community to decide upon, 3) Individual Stack - an opportunity for members to share thoughts, opinions and  feelings, relevant to Occupy Boston.

General Assemblies are open to all

Occuy  Boston believes that every voice is equal, and the community has agreed upon a procedure to try to ensure that possibility. At this time, Occupy Boston uses (what some call) a modified consensus process. Calling it consensus is a bit of a misnomer, because votes are held at General Assemblies, and if a community is asked to vote, the community is not practicing consensus. Many members of Occupy Boston realize this and are discussing the best way to move forward.  For a detailed description of the current General Assembly process, please view the [[WG/Facilitation|Facilitators']] draft of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yuWv7VZ3nS650mOdTF5kKteLrmmp8z3FiddWt6JJQVo/edit?hl=en_US Occupy Boston's Consensus Process].

:Explore the archive of [[GA/Minutes]]. 

== Meeting Times ==

*The General Assembly meets from 7:00 to 10:30 PM, on Tuesday and Thursday, and from 5:00 to 8:30 PM on Saturday.
*Action Assemblies, to plan for Occupy Boston actions, meet on Sunday, 5:00 to 8:30 PM
*Community Gatherings are held on Mondays from 6:00 to 8:30. - These events are set aside for Working Groups to host evenings of learning, dialogue and examination of issues and topics relevant to the greater Occupy Boston community.  
*See the Occupy Boston calendar for Assembly  and Gathering locations:    [[Calendar]]
*Additional special purpose discussions may occur on other days, and will normally be announced at a prior GA. Check the [[Calendar]] for all events.

== Important Aspects ==

There are no 'governing' authorities at the General Assembly, but there is an established process that is directed by a number of trained facilitators. Facilitators are trained to guide the assembly without imposing their personal views. Anyone interested in volunteering in this role should attend a Facilitation WG meeting

See also more info about GA process at the [http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/WG/Facilitation Faciliation Work Group] page.

=== People's Mic ===

The People's Mic serves as amplification when there is no bullhorn or microphone. It is typically initiated by repeatedly yelling "Mic check!" until the crowd repeats in unison. The speaker then dictates a few words at a time, pausing for the crowd to recite each phrase. For larger crowds, there may be a second echo of each phrase by those farther out in the group. This method was designed and employed on Wall Street because electronically aided amplification was not allowed. In addition to being more fun than just listening, the People's Mic has been invaluable to the movement because repetition promotes understanding.

=== Temperature Checks ===

To informally assess the crowd's support for an idea, the Facilitator may request a Temperature Check. Assembly participants can show either 1. '''agreement''', by wiggling their fingers upward ("twinkling" or "jazz hands"), 2. '''disagreement''', by wiggling their fingers downward ("squid fingers"), or 3. '''neutrality''', by wiggling fingers horizontally.

== General Assembly History and Documentation ==
[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/GA/Minutes Minutes]

[http://www.occupyboston.org/general-assembly/passed-resolutions/ Partial List of Passed Resolutions] NOTE: More are coming

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At_g9YCAyoI9dGZ2WlRaRlNmZG9qaDVCR1htbVBiV0E#gid=0 Working List of Dates and Titles of Passed Resolutions]

2012-02-26T20:01:20Z

Cfdfc:

This working group has the specific intention of taking at the processes and purposes of the General Assembly, and generating proposals for how to improve the process in anticipation of growth in the spring.

== Mailing List ==

TBA -- in the mean time, contact abeeeeba@gmail.com to get in the loop.

== Meeting Time ==

TBA -- poll for scheduling: http://schedule.occupy.net/OB_GA_Process_and_Purpose/

== Background info ==

* [[GA_Minutes_Tue_Feb_21_2012]]: Minutes for GA about GA's, Tue Feb 21.
* http://notes.occupy.net/p/goatFuviSP : Report-backs from breakout groups for the following 7 topics:
** Accessibility and Logistics
** Macro-GA discussion
** Proposals
** Anti-oppression / Community guidelines
** Blocks
** Consensus

GA Process and Purpose

2012-02-26T19:56:00Z

Cfdfc: Created page with "test"

test