wiki.occupyboston.org - User contributions [en]

WG/Strategies/Minutes/31 Oct 2011

2011-11-01T02:44:21Z

Jobelenus:

10/31 SPP Meeting

Introductions:
(forgive me, and correct me if I've misspelled your name)
*Aria
*Cora
*John
*Randy
*George
*Noah - Member from ideas
*Carl
*Stephanie
*Estair
*Chris
*Dave
*Paul

Going over the meeting agenda.

Discussing our purpose, and working with Ideas and other groups, the Sunday group, OccupyTheHood, People of Color, Women's Caucus, etc.

Options:
*Large SPP meetings
*Bring other groups additions to a core statement

Carl is discussing how to work with minority groups
*he is worried about presenting a formalized message to the groups that such a message will leave them without any exercise of their power

John asks if these groups recognize in their purpose to write a formalized statement

George says yes they are beginning to realize their purpose is to to write such a statement

Randy says the mission should be to build a consensus, and consensus over what/which people?

Dave was present at the first meeting, and he describes it:
*That we would ratify the OWS statement.
*Three people blocked
*SPP was formed to build an equivalent document
**The purpose of SPP was not to craft all of the message but to create a framework for further messages that could be added to
**SPP was to propose issues to GA for eventual inclusion bring options to the GA, not necessarily proposals

Paul feels the world is asking something of us, we rise or fail
*to succeed we must be inclusive, other groups must feel and be told they have power
*there will always be new people entering into the discussion
*lets not get caught up in our little personal issues, let us be a hub to coordinate
*we must be gentle, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. the world is already ready

Aria asks that we form a mission statement for ourselves.

Stephanie was at Ideas meeting, their meeting was around this same question of forming a meeting statement
*we could have everyone write their own statement, and cloud-word it to get a picture of what we're talking about

*...Lots of discussion about the word-cloud...

John says a world-cloud is a technical solution to a people problem that SPP is having

Cora raise concern over digital divide for a word-cloud

Aria wants to get missions statements for SPP, and raises the "Beginnings Issue" Carl has talked about previously

George is curious about the needs of people to be involved, to be wordsmiths, and to raise process with concerns and issues.
*He wonders if these groups of people ought not to be different. The statement should not be supported by a process after-the-fact

Stephanie notes that the more people involved in the beginning of creating words the more they feel represented

Paul mentions the Survey that was sent out about what people want OB to represent

Randy mentions Butler's Book on Consensus Online, consensus involves conflict. Writing a document together will product conflict
*and consensus will come by successfully dealing with that conflict.
*Specificity is a large problem.

Aria submits a proposal for a division of resources:
1.That SPP would mostly dissolve
2.Those who feel that the current message is their baby stay with that
3.A new group making an inclusive process and statement

Carl says the statement has to be as transparent as possible.

Aria asks:
1.Shall SPP be a message-crafting group?
2.Shall SPP be a clearing house?

Noah says Ideas met last night. They are interested in creating a process for focusing discussions, and also a single issue to discuss
*They wonder about their mission
*Ideas will collect and gather people's ideas and host weekly discussions on Fridays @ 7, based on what people want to discuss
*People are coming with their specific Ideas. They are a referral group to connect people together.

Dave's 2c
*he thinks that Idea's process is great.
*he likes splitting into multiple groups
*he wants to see a group make sure that everyone gets a say
*he wants to see a group focused on HOW to say the proposals in a direct coherent way (going back to ideas, iterate)

Cora thinks compiling the ideas is good, but want to go further with other groups, Women's Caucus, People of Color, affinity groups, etc.
*would love to see youth, LGBT participation, oppressed people.

Aria would be FOR merging with Ideas, so long as we decide what to do with the message statement on the table

George asks who passed the statement of purpose at GA, it was Noah
*if OB could agree on the process it would help with people's frustrations

Noah says says putting on the Ideas Agenda for Friday's non-GA meeting for people/WG to come read statements for feedback
*regarding authorship, the document must be put out in public for groups to make changes. You must disown your idea for it to live.
*we need to get the true non-controversial statements out there

Dave clarifies his position on authorship, agreeing with Noah's statement regarding dis-ownership.

Aria recaps Noahs idea.
*The proposal we have on deck would go on Friday to get feedback, but who would represent our proposal

George discusses on how Ideas fosters dialogue, something SPP needs

Noah elaborates Idea's thoughts on their Friday process and their experiences so far with small groups

Chris talks about another table of questions process for Ideas

Cora talks about another process for handling questions without being chaotic

Aria mentions that these sounds like `Ideas` territory
*sounds like we are coming to consensus that:
*author/groups go to Ideas, gets iterative feedback
*all SPP is one of many author or author groups

*...clarifying discussions...

Aria sums up:
*any author can join the Idea's writers group and goes to get feedback on a friday night
*SPP can morph into this rotating author's group
*documents get created and can get compiled with other documents

John is curious about the relation of GA to all of this. What happens with all of these documents
*how do any of these pass GA?

Cora wonders if each group should also be creating their own list of demands

Estair says we need to hurry up and slow down. Doesn't agree with a writing group for everything.

George says he would be cautious of a writing group to not be a vacuum or power center.
*he shows his diagram
[[File:Spp-Georgesdiagram.JPG|thumb|left]]
 

Carl states that what Occupy is IS our process, relating to the diagram. We are here because of the process

Aria asks how to stop the ping-pong of Ideas<->Authors

Noah says the prevention of ping-pong is baby-steps, only pass small things that are obvious

Paul remarks that this burden is a lot lighter this way.

Randy says ping-pong is a process that converges on the single small obvious point
*he asks if you start from the general to the specific, or move sideways through issues

Dave says regarding ping-pong that if the author feels it won't converge, they can go to GA at any time

Noah says a writing group would have to be really out-going to affinity groups

Noahs says that Ideas/Facilitators can ever block because something didn't go through Ideas

George remembers that SPP was to create a statement a sentence at a time

Aria asks about the 2page idea, if SPP is to remain a separate author group among equals.

John asks for clarification on the 2page idea, that an ultimate statement could possibly be limited to 2pages

Dave proposes that the group existing as SPP is dead

George proposes that SPP would become an author group

Aria says we would say that we support the proposal that SPP becomes an author group - one of many. Do you agree?
*we support the Idea's process

John says this proposal is less our directive, but more a reflection of reality

Aria states the proposal once again

We agree to the proposal and that the meeting has ended

WG/Strategies/Minutes/31 Oct 2011

2011-11-01T02:42:28Z

Jobelenus:

10/31 SPP Meeting

Introductions:
(forgive me, and correct me if I've misspelled your name)
*Aria
*Cora
*John
*Randy
*George
*Noah - Member from ideas
*Carl
*Stephanie
*Estair
*Chris
*Dave
*Paul

Going over the meeting agenda.

Discussing our purpose, and working with Ideas and other groups, the Sunday group, OccupyTheHood, People of Color, Women's Caucus, etc.

Options:
*Large SPP meetings
*Bring other groups additions to a core statement

Carl is discussing how to work with minority groups
*he is worried about presenting a formalized message to the groups that such a message will leave them without any exercise of their power

John asks if these groups recognize in their purpose to write a formalized statement

George says yes they are beginning to realize their purpose is to to write such a statement

Randy says the mission should be to build a consensus, and consensus over what/which people?

Dave was present at the first meeting, and he describes it:
*That we would ratify the OWS statement.
*Three people blocked
*SPP was formed to build an equivalent document
**The purpose of SPP was not to craft all of the message but to create a framework for further messages that could be added to
**SPP was to propose issues to GA for eventual inclusion bring options to the GA, not necessarily proposals

Paul feels the world is asking something of us, we rise or fail
*to succeed we must be inclusive, other groups must feel and be told they have power
*there will always be new people entering into the discussion
*lets not get caught up in our little personal issues, let us be a hub to coordinate
*we must be gentle, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. the world is already ready

Aria asks that we form a mission statement for ourselves.

Stephanie was at Ideas meeting, their meeting was around this same question of forming a meeting statement
*we could have everyone write their own statement, and cloud-word it to get a picture of what we're talking about

*...Lots of discussion about the word-cloud...

John says a world-cloud is a technical solution to a people problem that SPP is having

Cora raise concern over digital divide for a word-cloud

Aria wants to get missions statements for SPP, and raises the "Beginnings Issue" Carl has talked about previously

George is curious about the needs of people to be involved, to be wordsmiths, and to raise process with concerns and issues.
*He wonders if these groups of people ought not to be different. The statement should not be supported by a process after-the-fact

Stephanie notes that the more people involved in the beginning of creating words the more they feel represented

Paul mentions the Survey that was sent out about what people want OB to represent

Randy mentions Butler's Book on Consensus Online, consensus involves conflict. Writing a document together will product conflict
*and consensus will come by successfully dealing with that conflict.
*Specificity is a large problem.

Aria submits a proposal for a division of resources:
1.That SPP would mostly dissolve
2.Those who feel that the current message is their baby stay with that
3.A new group making an inclusive process and statement

Carl says the statement has to be as transparent as possible.

Aria asks:
1.Shall SPP be a message-crafting group?
2.Shall SPP be a clearing house?

Noah says Ideas met last night. They are interested in creating a process for focusing discussions, and also a single issue to discuss
*They wonder about their mission
*Ideas will collect and gather people's ideas and host weekly discussions on Fridays @ 7, based on what people want to discuss
*People are coming with their specific Ideas. They are a referral group to connect people together.

Dave's 2c
*he thinks that Idea's process is great.
*he likes splitting into multiple groups
*he wants to see a group make sure that everyone gets a say
*he wants to see a group focused on HOW to say the proposals in a direct coherent way (going back to ideas, iterate)

Cora thinks compiling the ideas is good, but want to go further with other groups, Women's Caucus, People of Color, affinity groups, etc.
*would love to see youth, LGBT participation, oppressed people.

Aria would be FOR merging with Ideas, so long as we decide what to do with the message statement on the table

George asks who passed the statement of purpose at GA, it was Noah
*if OB could agree on the process it would help with people's frustrations

Noah says says putting on the Ideas Agenda for Friday's non-GA meeting for people/WG to come read statements for feedback
*regarding authorship, the document must be put out in public for groups to make changes. You must disown your idea for it to live.
*we need to get the true non-controversial statements out there

Dave clarifies his position on authorship, agreeing with Noah's statement regarding dis-ownership.

Aria recaps Noahs idea.
*The proposal we have on deck would go on Friday to get feedback, but who would represent our proposal

George discusses on how Ideas fosters dialogue, something SPP needs

Noah elaborates Idea's thoughts on their Friday process and their experiences so far with small groups

Chris talks about another table of questions process for Ideas

Cora talks about another process for handling questions without being chaotic

Aria mentions that these sounds like `Ideas` territory
*sounds like we are coming to consensus that:
*author/groups go to Ideas, gets iterative feedback
*all SPP is one of many author or author groups

*...clarifying discussions...

Aria sums up:
*any author can join the Idea's writers group and goes to get feedback on a friday night
*SPP can morph into this rotating author's group
*documents get created and can get compiled with other documents

John is curious about the relation of GA to all of this. What happens with all of these documents
*how do any of these pass GA?

Cora wonders if each group should also be creating their own list of demands

Estair says we need to hurry up and slow down. Doesn't agree with a writing group for everything.

George says he would be cautious of a writing group to not be a vacuum or power center.
*he shows his diagram
*[[File:Spp-Georgesdiagram.JPG]] <-- will shed light!

Carl states that what Occupy is IS our process, relating to the diagram. We are here because of the process

Aria asks how to stop the ping-pong of Ideas<->Authors

Noah says the prevention of ping-pong is baby-steps, only pass small things that are obvious

Paul remarks that this burden is a lot lighter this way.

Randy says ping-pong is a process that converges on the single small obvious point
*he asks if you start from the general to the specific, or move sideways through issues

Dave says regarding ping-pong that if the author feels it won't converge, they can go to GA at any time

Noah says a writing group would have to be really out-going to affinity groups

Noahs says that Ideas/Facilitators can ever block because something didn't go through Ideas

George remembers that SPP was to create a statement a sentence at a time

Aria asks about the 2page idea, if SPP is to remain a separate author group among equals.

John asks for clarification on the 2page idea, that an ultimate statement could possibly be limited to 2pages

Dave proposes that the group existing as SPP is dead

George proposes that SPP would become an author group

Aria says we would say that we support the proposal that SPP becomes an author group - one of many. Do you agree?
*we support the Idea's process

John says this proposal is less our directive, but more a reflection of reality

Aria states the proposal once again

We agree to the proposal and that the meeting has ended

File:Spp-Georgesdiagram.JPG

2011-11-01T02:41:49Z

Jobelenus: George's Diagram about the Ideas process and SPP's role within that process, and how proposed statements move through the process eventually to GA.

George's Diagram about the Ideas process and SPP's role within that process, and how proposed statements move through the process eventually to GA.

WG/Strategies/Minutes/31 Oct 2011

2011-11-01T02:21:18Z

Jobelenus:

10/31 SPP Meeting

Introductions:
(forgive me, and correct me if I've misspelled your name)
*Aria
*Cora
*John
*Randy
*George
*Noah - Member from ideas
*Carl
*Stephanie
*Estair
*Chris
*Dave
*Paul

Going over the meeting agenda.

Discussing our purpose, and working with Ideas and other groups, the Sunday group, OccupyTheHood, People of Color, Women's Caucus, etc.

Options:
*Large SPP meetings
*Bring other groups additions to a core statement

Carl is discussing how to work with minority groups
*he is worried about presenting a formalized message to the groups that such a message will leave them without any exercise of their power

John asks if these groups recognize in their purpose to write a formalized statement

George says yes they are beginning to realize their purpose is to to write such a statement

Randy says the mission should be to build a consensus, and consensus over what/which people?

Dave was present at the first meeting, and he describes it:
*That we would ratify the OWS statement.
*Three people blocked
*SPP was formed to build an equivalent document
**The purpose of SPP was not to craft all of the message but to create a framework for further messages that could be added to
**SPP was to propose issues to GA for eventual inclusion bring options to the GA, not necessarily proposals

Paul feels the world is asking something of us, we rise or fail
*to succeed we must be inclusive, other groups must feel and be told they have power
*there will always be new people entering into the discussion
*lets not get caught up in our little personal issues, let us be a hub to coordinate
*we must be gentle, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. the world is already ready

Aria asks that we form a mission statement for ourselves.

Stephanie was at Ideas meeting, their meeting was around this same question of forming a meeting statement
*we could have everyone write their own statement, and cloud-word it to get a picture of what we're talking about

*...Lots of discussion about the word-cloud...

John says a world-cloud is a technical solution to a people problem that SPP is having

Cora raise concern over digital divide for a word-cloud

Aria wants to get missions statements for SPP, and raises the "Beginnings Issue" Carl has talked about previously

George is curious about the needs of people to be involved, to be wordsmiths, and to raise process with concerns and issues.
*He wonders if these groups of people ought not to be different. The statement should not be supported by a process after-the-fact

Stephanie notes that the more people involved in the beginning of creating words the more they feel represented

Paul mentions the Survey that was sent out about what people want OB to represent

Randy mentions Butler's Book on Consensus Online, consensus involves conflict. Writing a document together will product conflict
*and consensus will come by successfully dealing with that conflict.
*Specificity is a large problem.

Aria submits a proposal for a division of resources:
1.That SPP would mostly dissolve
2.Those who feel that the current message is their baby stay with that
3.A new group making an inclusive process and statement

Carl says the statement has to be as transparent as possible.

Aria asks:
1.Shall SPP be a message-crafting group?
2.Shall SPP be a clearing house?

Noah says Ideas met last night. They are interested in creating a process for focusing discussions, and also a single issue to discuss
*They wonder about their mission
*Ideas will collect and gather people's ideas and host weekly discussions on Fridays @ 7, based on what people want to discuss
*People are coming with their specific Ideas. They are a referral group to connect people together.

Dave's 2c
*he thinks that Idea's process is great.
*he likes splitting into multiple groups
*he wants to see a group make sure that everyone gets a say
*he wants to see a group focused on HOW to say the proposals in a direct coherent way (going back to ideas, iterate)

Cora thinks compiling the ideas is good, but want to go further with other groups, Women's Caucus, People of Color, affinity groups, etc.
*would love to see youth, LGBT participation, oppressed people.

Aria would be FOR merging with Ideas, so long as we decide what to do with the message statement on the table

George asks who passed the statement of purpose at GA, it was Noah
*if OB could agree on the process it would help with people's frustrations

Noah says says putting on the Ideas Agenda for Friday's non-GA meeting for people/WG to come read statements for feedback
*regarding authorship, the document must be put out in public for groups to make changes. You must disown your idea for it to live.
*we need to get the true non-controversial statements out there

Dave clarifies his position on authorship, agreeing with Noah's statement regarding dis-ownership.

Aria recaps Noahs idea.
*The proposal we have on deck would go on Friday to get feedback, but who would represent our proposal

George discusses on how Ideas fosters dialogue, something SPP needs

Noah elaborates Idea's thoughts on their Friday process and their experiences so far with small groups

Chris talks about another table of questions process for Ideas

Cora talks about another process for handling questions without being chaotic

Aria mentions that these sounds like `Ideas` territory
*sounds like we are coming to consensus that:
*author/groups go to Ideas, gets iterative feedback
*all SPP is one of many author or author groups

*...clarifying discussions...

Aria sums up:
*any author can join the Idea's writers group and goes to get feedback on a friday night
*SPP can morph into this rotating author's group
*documents get created and can get compiled with other documents

John is curious about the relation of GA to all of this. What happens with all of these documents
*how do any of these pass GA?

Cora wonders if each group should also be creating their own list of demands

Estair says we need to hurry up and slow down. Doesn't agree with a writing group for everything.

George says he would be cautious of a writing group to not be a vacuum or power center.
*he shows his diagram

Carl states that what Occupy is IS our process, relating to the diagram. We are here because of the process

Aria asks how to stop the ping-pong of Ideas<->Authors

Noah says the prevention of ping-pong is baby-steps, only pass small things that are obvious

Paul remarks that this burden is a lot lighter this way.

Randy says ping-pong is a process that converges on the single small obvious point
*he asks if you start from the general to the specific, or move sideways through issues

Dave says regarding ping-pong that if the author feels it won't converge, they can go to GA at any time

Noah says a writing group would have to be really out-going to affinity groups

Noahs says that Ideas/Facilitators can ever block because something didn't go through Ideas

George remembers that SPP was to create a statement a sentence at a time

Aria asks about the 2page idea, if SPP is to remain a separate author group among equals.

John asks for clarification on the 2page idea, that an ultimate statement could possibly be limited to 2pages

Dave proposes that the group existing as SPP is dead

George proposes that SPP would become an author group

Aria says we would say that we support the proposal that SPP becomes an author group - one of many. Do you agree?
*we support the Idea's process

John says this proposal is less our directive, but more a reflection of reality

Aria states the proposal once again

We agree to the proposal and that the meeting has ended

WG/Strategies/Minutes/31 Oct 2011

2011-11-01T02:20:44Z

Jobelenus:

10/31 SPP Meeting

Introductions:
(forgive me, and correct me if I've misspelled your name)
*Aria
*Cora
*John
*Randy
*George
*Noah - Member from ideas
*Carl
*Stephanie
*Estair
*Chris
*Dave
*Paul

Going over the meeting agenda.

Discussing our purpose, and working with Ideas and other groups, the Sunday group, OccupyTheHood, People of Color, Women's Caucus, etc.

Options:
*Large SPP meetings
*Bring other groups additions to a core statement

Carl is discussing how to work with minority groups
*he is worried about presenting a formalized message to the groups that such a message will leave them without any exercise of their power

John asks if these groups recognize in their purpose to write a formalized statement

George says yes they are beginning to realize their purpose is to to write such a statement

Randy says the mission should be to build a consensus, and consensus over what/which people?

Dave was present at the first meeting, and he describes it:
*That we would ratify the OWS statement.
*Three people blocked
*SPP was formed to build an equivalent document
**The purpose of SPP was not to craft all of the message but to create a framework for further messages that could be added to
**SPP was to propose issues to GA for eventual inclusion bring options to the GA, not necessarily proposals

Paul feels the world is asking something of us, we rise or fail
*to succeed we must be inclusive, other groups must feel and be told they have power
*there will always be new people entering into the discussion
*lets not get caught up in our little personal issues, let us be a hub to coordinate
*we must be gentle, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. the world is already ready

Aria asks that we form a mission statement for ourselves.

Stephanie was at Ideas meeting, their meeting was around this same question of forming a meeting statement
*we could have everyone write their own statement, and cloud-word it to get a picture of what we're talking about

...Lots of discussion about the word-cloud...

John says a world-cloud is a technical solution to a people problem that SPP is having

Cora raise concern over digital divide for a word-cloud

Aria wants to get missions statements for SPP, and raises the "Beginnings Issue" Carl has talked about previously

George is curious about the needs of people to be involved, to be wordsmiths, and to raise process with concerns and issues.
*He wonders if these groups of people ought not to be different. The statement should not be supported by a process after-the-fact

Stephanie notes that the more people involved in the beginning of creating words the more they feel represented

Paul mentions the Survey that was sent out about what people want OB to represent

Randy mentions Butler's Book on Consensus Online, consensus involves conflict. Writing a document together will product conflict
*and consensus will come by successfully dealing with that conflict.
*Specificity is a large problem.

Aria submits a proposal for a division of resources:
1.That SPP would mostly dissolve
2.Those who feel that the current message is their baby stay with that
3.A new group making an inclusive process and statement

Carl says the statement has to be as transparent as possible.

Aria asks:
1.Shall SPP be a message-crafting group?
2.Shall SPP be a clearing house?

Noah says Ideas met last night. They are interested in creating a process for focusing discussions, and also a single issue to discuss
*They wonder about their mission
*Ideas will collect and gather people's ideas and host weekly discussions on Fridays @ 7, based on what people want to discuss
*People are coming with their specific Ideas. They are a referral group to connect people together.

Dave's 2c
*he thinks that Idea's process is great.
*he likes splitting into multiple groups
*he wants to see a group make sure that everyone gets a say
*he wants to see a group focused on HOW to say the proposals in a direct coherent way (going back to ideas, iterate)

Cora thinks compiling the ideas is good, but want to go further with other groups, Women's Caucus, People of Color, affinity groups, etc.
*would love to see youth, LGBT participation, oppressed people.

Aria would be FOR merging with Ideas, so long as we decide what to do with the message statement on the table

George asks who passed the statement of purpose at GA, it was Noah
*if OB could agree on the process it would help with people's frustrations

Noah says says putting on the Ideas Agenda for Friday's non-GA meeting for people/WG to come read statements for feedback
*regarding authorship, the document must be put out in public for groups to make changes. You must disown your idea for it to live.
*we need to get the true non-controversial statements out there

Dave clarifies his position on authorship, agreeing with Noah's statement regarding dis-ownership.

Aria recaps Noahs idea.
*The proposal we have on deck would go on Friday to get feedback, but who would represent our proposal

George discusses on how Ideas fosters dialogue, something SPP needs

Noah elaborates Idea's thoughts on their Friday process and their experiences so far with small groups

Chris talks about another table of questions process for Ideas

Cora talks about another process for handling questions without being chaotic

Aria mentions that these sounds like `Ideas` territory
*sounds like we are coming to consensus that:
*author/groups go to Ideas, gets iterative feedback
*all SPP is one of many author or author groups

...clarifying discussions...

Aria sums up:
*any author can join the Idea's writers group and goes to get feedback on a friday night
*SPP can morph into this rotating author's group
*documents get created and can get compiled with other documents

John is curious about the relation of GA to all of this. What happens with all of these documents
*how do any of these pass GA?

Cora wonders if each group should also be creating their own list of demands

Estair says we need to hurry up and slow down. Doesn't agree with a writing group for everything.

George says he would be cautious of a writing group to not be a vacuum or power center.
*he shows his diagram

Carl states that what Occupy is IS our process, relating to the diagram. We are here because of the process

Aria asks how to stop the ping-pong of Ideas<->Authors

Noah says the prevention of ping-pong is baby-steps, only pass small things that are obvious

Paul remarks that this burden is a lot lighter this way.

Randy says ping-pong is a process that converges on the single small obvious point
*he asks if you start from the general to the specific, or move sideways through issues

Dave says regarding ping-pong that if the author feels it won't converge, they can go to GA at any time

Noah says a writing group would have to be really out-going to affinity groups

Noahs says that Ideas/Facilitators can ever block because something didn't go through Ideas

George remembers that SPP was to create a statement a sentence at a time

Aria asks about the 2page idea, if SPP is to remain a separate author group among equals.

John asks for clarification on the 2page idea, that an ultimate statement could possibly be limited to 2pages

Dave proposes that the group existing as SPP is dead

George proposes that SPP would become an author group

Aria says we would say that we support the proposal that SPP becomes an author group - one of many. Do you agree?
*we support the Idea's process

John says this proposal is less our directive, but more a reflection of reality

Aria states the proposal once again

We agree to the proposal and that the meeting has ended

WG/Strategies/Minutes/31 Oct 2011

2011-11-01T02:19:09Z

Jobelenus: Created page with "10/31 SPP Meeting Introductions: (forgive me, and correct me if I've misspelled your name) *Aria *Cora *John *Randy *George *Noah - Member from ideas *Carl *Stephanie *Estair *..."

10/31 SPP Meeting

Introductions:
(forgive me, and correct me if I've misspelled your name)
*Aria
*Cora
*John
*Randy
*George
*Noah - Member from ideas
*Carl
*Stephanie
*Estair
*Chris
*Dave
*Paul

Going over the meeting agenda.

Discussing our purpose, and working with Ideas and other groups, the Sunday group, OccupyTheHood, People of Color, Women's Caucus, etc.

Options:
*Large SPP meetings
*Bring other groups additions to a core statement

Carl is discussing how to work with minority groups
*he is worried about presenting a formalized message to the groups that such a message will leave them without any exercise of their power

John asks if these groups recognize in their purpose to write a formalized statement

George says yes they are beginning to realize their purpose is to to write such a statement

Randy says the mission should be to build a consensus, and consensus over what/which people?

Dave was present at the first meeting, and he describes it:
*That we would ratify the OWS statement.
*Three people blocked
*SPP was formed to build an equivalent document
**The purpose of SPP was not to craft all of the message but to create a framework for further messages that could be added to
**SPP was to propose issues to GA for eventual inclusion bring options to the GA, not necessarily proposals

Paul feels the world is asking something of us, we rise or fail
*to succeed we must be inclusive, other groups must feel and be told they have power
*there will always be new people entering into the discussion
*lets not get caught up in our little personal issues, let us be a hub to coordinate
*we must be gentle, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. the world is already ready

Aria asks that we form a mission statement for ourselves.

Stephanie was at Ideas meeting, their meeting was around this same question of forming a meeting statement
*we could have everyone write their own statement, and cloud-word it to get a picture of what we're talking about

...Lots of discussion about the word-cloud...

John says a world-cloud is a technical solution to a people problem that SPP is having

Cora raise concern over digital divide for a word-cloud

Aria wants to get missions statements for SPP, and raises the "Beginnings Issue" Carl has talked about previously

George is curious about the needs of people to be involved, to be wordsmiths, and to raise process with concerns and issues.
*He wonders if these groups of people ought not to be different. The statement should not be supported by a process after-the-fact

Stephanie notes that the more people involved in the beginning of creating words the more they feel represented

Paul mentions the Survey that was sent out about what people want OB to represent

Randy mentions Butler's Book on Consensus Online, consensus involves conflict. Writing a document together will product conflict
*and consensus will come by successfully dealing with that conflict.
*Specificity is a large problem.

Aria submits a proposal for a division of resources:
1.That SPP would mostly dissolve
2.Those who feel that the current message is their baby stay with that
3.A new group making an inclusive process and statement

Carl says the statement has to be as transparent as possible.

Aria asks:
1.Shall SPP be a message-crafting group?
2.Shall SPP be a clearing house?

Noah says Ideas met last night. They are interested in creating a process for focusing discussions, and also a single issue to discuss
*They wonder about their mission
*Ideas will collect and gather people's ideas and host weekly discussions on Fridays @ 7, based on what people want to discuss
*People are coming with their specific Ideas. They are a referral group to connect people together.

Dave's 2c
*he thinks that Idea's process is great.
*he likes splitting into multiple groups
*he wants to see a group make sure that everyone gets a say
*he wants to see a group focused on HOW to say the proposals in a direct coherent way (going back to ideas, iterate)

Cora thinks compiling the ideas is good, but want to go further with other groups, Women's Caucus, People of Color, affinity groups, etc.
*would love to see youth, LGBT participation, oppressed people.

Aria would be FOR merging with Ideas, so long as we decide what to do with the message statement on the table

George asks who passed the statement of purpose at GA, it was Noah
*if OB could agree on the process it would help with people's frustrations

Noah says says putting on the Ideas Agenda for Friday's non-GA meeting for people/WG to come read statements for feedback
*regarding authorship, the document must be put out in public for groups to make changes. You must disown your idea for it to live.
*we need to get the true non-controversial statements out there

Dave clarifies his position on authorship, agreeing with Noah's statement regarding dis-ownership.

Aria recaps Noahs idea.
*The proposal we have on deck would go on Friday to get feedback, but who would represent our proposal

George discusses on how Ideas fosters dialogue, something SPP needs

Noah elaborates Idea's thoughts on their Friday process and their experiences so far with small groups

Chris talks about another table of questions process for Ideas

Cora talks about another process for handling questions without being chaotic

Aria mentions that these sounds like `Ideas` territory
*sounds like we are coming to consensus that:
*author/groups go to Ideas, gets iterative feedback
*all SPP is one of many author or author groups

...clarifying discussions...

Aria sums up:
*any author can join the Idea's writers group and goes to get feedback on a friday night
*SPP can morph into this rotating author's group
*documents get created and can get compiled with other documents

John is curious about the relation of GA to all of this. What happens with all of these documents
*how do any of these pass GA?

Cora wonders if each group should also be creating their own list of demands

Estair says we need to hurry up and slow down. Doesn't agree with a writing group for everything.

George says he would be cautious of a writing group to not be a vacuum or power center.
*he shows his diagram

Carl states that what Occupy is IS our process, relating to the diagram. We are here because of the process

Aria asks how to stop the ping-pong of Ideas<->Authors

Noah says the prevention of ping-pong is baby-steps, only pass small things that are obvious

Paul remarks that this burden is a lot lighter this way.

Randy says ping-pong is a process that converges on the single small obvious point
*he asks if you start from the general to the specific, or move sideways through issues

Dave says regarding ping-pong that if the author feels it won't converge, they can go to GA at any time

Noah says a writing group would have to be really out-going to affinity groups

Noahs says that Ideas/Facilitators can ever block because something didn't go through Ideas

George remembers that SPP was to create a statement a sentence at a time

Aria asks about the 2page idea, if SPP is to remain a separate author group among equals.

John asks for clarification on the 2page idea, that an ultimate statement could possibly be limited to 2pages

Dave proposes that the group existing as SPP is dead

George proposes that SPP would become an author group

Aria says we would say that we support the proposal that SPP becomes an author group - one of many. Do you agree?
*we support the Idea's process

John says this proposal is less our directive, but more a reflection of reality

Aria states the proposal once again

We agree to the proposal and that the meeting has ended

Strategies, Proposals, Positions

2011-11-01T02:09:29Z

Jobelenus:

The SPP working group is dedicated to discussing societal issues, determining their root causes, and responding with actionable proposals.

* The GA of 23 October 2011 approved the [[Statement of Purpose]].

* Statement being discussed 10/31/11:[[Road_Map|Message Statement]]
**[[Minutes from 10/31/2011 Meeting]]

Old wiki threads:[[talk:statement of purpose|discussions]]

PLEASE CONSULT WITH SPP BEFORE RE-ORGANIZING THIS PAGE.

***Other Proposed Statements:
1. [[First Declaration]]
2. [[Human Rights]]
3. [[Three Tier]]

==Working Method==
The established method is first to reach consensus within SPP, and then to invite collaboration from other working groups. Presentation and voting at the General Assembly is only attempted after broad collaboration. Note: The Google Group is transitioning onto the OccupyBoston[dot]org server. Please register with the wiki to participate now.

***If you would like to post your Proposed Statement, feel free to add it to the list. If you can't figure out how to, leave it in the Discussion section and some one will create a linked page. Thanks.

==Join the Conversation==

===Next On-Site Meeting===
Monday, 31 October 2011-.
7:00pm: Meet next to Library (between Media and Stage)
7:15pm: Re-locate to a quieter venue (South Station?)
[[Proposed Agenda]]

===Online===
* Read and contribute to this wiki (the "Join" link is in the top right). 
** Choose the Strategies, Proposals and Positions Working Group.
** Note the "tabs" on each page. Left side: Page and Discussion '''about''' the page; Right side: Edit. 
** [[Practice Statement|Practice]] editing a statement here. Also see the [[Sandbox]].
* Take an [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc6MQ#gid=0|"Issues Survey"], aiming to estimate the levels of support for proposals in general topics, created by Joshua Sager. (One submission per person)
** View the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=0AqBxYhlFsdpAdHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc&hl=en_US&gridId=0#chart|Survey Results] (constantly updates)

==Issues==
These documents are in process work pages and other proposed language about a SPECIFIC REFORM IDEA or other REGULATORY/LEGAL/PROCESS changes that someone wants to discuss at a future date. Be aware that any of these docs could be changing and/or picked up by "the email group" for "real-time" discussion and change. So your work may "disapear" quickly, if a large number of people decide to work on it. The email group, in particular, may all of a sudden focus on a particular document and make lots of changes. The email group consists of a large number of active participants that descend on a document and make lots of change. This is part of the collaboration process, and the group appears to believe that it works. Enjoy!

''[the above info paragraph could use some TLC. it is also suggested that the email group find a way to make all of the discussion happen here on the wiki. if we can learn to use built-in wiki tools to track pages, we can be much more efficient. SPP would benefit from the creation of a 'general' discussion page, and perhaps a number of other 'functional' pages to create a sort of discussion/navigation tree. SPP is in a position to be the first to effectively migrate and therefore demonstrate the power of good organization. --[[User:OneKarma|OneKarma]] 05:54, 28 October 2011 (EDT)]''

Please cite sources as often as possible!. If you have specific expertise, please make it known (anecdotal information may be helpful). Use the Discussion tab for general comments or explanations of controversy.

===Constitutional Reform===
* [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|End Corporate Personhood]]

===[[SPP Economic Regulation|Economic Regulation]]===
* [[Resource-based Economy]] 
* [[SPP Finanacial Regulation|Ideas]] and general discussion about financial reform 
* [[CostOfLiving|Lower cost of living]] 
* Financial Industry Reform 
** [[Banking Regulation and Structure Reform|Banking Regulation/Structure Reform]] 
** [[Monetary Policy and Federal Reserve System|Federal Reserve System]] 
** [[Currency Control]]
** [[Trading/Derivatives]] 
* [[Free Trade]] 

===[[SPP Tax Reform|Tax Reform]]===
** [[Flat Tax]] 
** [[Participatory Budgeting|Participatory Budgeting]]
** [[Lift the cap on FICA]]

===Election Reform===
* [[Third Party|Start a Third Party]]
* [[Proportional Representation|Proportional Representation]] (is also linked under "Sovereignty & Law", below)

===Media===
* [[Media Conglomeration]]
* [[Network Neutrality]]

===[[SPP Human Needs|Human Needs/Rights]]===
* [[Healthy Food as a Right|Healthy Food as a Right]] 
* [[Clean Water as a Right|Clean Water as a Right]]
* [[Shelter as a Right|Shelter as a Right]] 
* [[Housing Crisis|Housing Crisis]] 
* [[Health Care|Health Care as a Right]] 
* [[SPP Education|Education]] 
** Student Debt [[Education and Student Debt|Education and Student Debt]] 
* Opportunity 
** Working Rights Labor Issues 
* Access 
** Physical 
** Knowledge 
** [[Network Neutrality|Virtual/Internet and Network Neutrality]]

===[[SPP International Relations|International Relations]]===
* [[Amendment for Peace|The Smedley Butler Amendment For Peace]] 
* War/Peace

===[[SPP Sovereignty and Law|Sovereignty and Law]]===
* [[Proportional Representation|Proportional Representation]] 
* War on Drugs 
* Third World Debt 
* Foreign Aid 
** how it contributes to regional conflict 
** food/medical service distro and contribution to deprivation / violent corruption

===Reducing the Cost of Government===
* Senior Executive Service (has it outlived its usefulness and/or is it contributing to unnecessary expenditure)
* Bring Congressional Benefits and ALL Gov't employees benefits in line with median worker
* Stop spending on "roads to no where"

==Links==
* Discussion often takes cues from community generated media. Explore the [[Press|Press]] and [[Education|Education]] pages, containing many articles of interest.
* [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Other_Message_Statements_%26_Versions_of_Current_Option Original Roadmap Proposal]]
* [[Warren Buffet Ideas]]
* [[Other General Ideas]]
* For more Ideas, go to the Ideas Working Group on the left.

Currently, Ideas and SPP are separate, with Ideas focusing on the facilitation of dialogue, development of ideas, and seeding of working groups/autonomous action. SPP has been focusing more on the statement of purpose and the nuts and bolts of bringing proposals to fruition, though its official role is still to be determined.

-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Strategies,+Proposals,+Positions Strategies, Proposals, Positions at wikispaces]''

Strategies, Proposals, Positions

2011-11-01T02:09:17Z

Jobelenus:

The SPP working group is dedicated to discussing societal issues, determining their root causes, and responding with actionable proposals.

* The GA of 23 October 2011 approved the [[Statement of Purpose]].

* Statement being discussed 10/31/11:[[Road_Map|Message Statement]]
***[[Minutes from 10/31/2011 Meeting]]

Old wiki threads:[[talk:statement of purpose|discussions]]

PLEASE CONSULT WITH SPP BEFORE RE-ORGANIZING THIS PAGE.

***Other Proposed Statements:
1. [[First Declaration]]
2. [[Human Rights]]
3. [[Three Tier]]

==Working Method==
The established method is first to reach consensus within SPP, and then to invite collaboration from other working groups. Presentation and voting at the General Assembly is only attempted after broad collaboration. Note: The Google Group is transitioning onto the OccupyBoston[dot]org server. Please register with the wiki to participate now.

***If you would like to post your Proposed Statement, feel free to add it to the list. If you can't figure out how to, leave it in the Discussion section and some one will create a linked page. Thanks.

==Join the Conversation==

===Next On-Site Meeting===
Monday, 31 October 2011-.
7:00pm: Meet next to Library (between Media and Stage)
7:15pm: Re-locate to a quieter venue (South Station?)
[[Proposed Agenda]]

===Online===
* Read and contribute to this wiki (the "Join" link is in the top right). 
** Choose the Strategies, Proposals and Positions Working Group.
** Note the "tabs" on each page. Left side: Page and Discussion '''about''' the page; Right side: Edit. 
** [[Practice Statement|Practice]] editing a statement here. Also see the [[Sandbox]].
* Take an [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc6MQ#gid=0|"Issues Survey"], aiming to estimate the levels of support for proposals in general topics, created by Joshua Sager. (One submission per person)
** View the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=0AqBxYhlFsdpAdHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc&hl=en_US&gridId=0#chart|Survey Results] (constantly updates)

==Issues==
These documents are in process work pages and other proposed language about a SPECIFIC REFORM IDEA or other REGULATORY/LEGAL/PROCESS changes that someone wants to discuss at a future date. Be aware that any of these docs could be changing and/or picked up by "the email group" for "real-time" discussion and change. So your work may "disapear" quickly, if a large number of people decide to work on it. The email group, in particular, may all of a sudden focus on a particular document and make lots of changes. The email group consists of a large number of active participants that descend on a document and make lots of change. This is part of the collaboration process, and the group appears to believe that it works. Enjoy!

''[the above info paragraph could use some TLC. it is also suggested that the email group find a way to make all of the discussion happen here on the wiki. if we can learn to use built-in wiki tools to track pages, we can be much more efficient. SPP would benefit from the creation of a 'general' discussion page, and perhaps a number of other 'functional' pages to create a sort of discussion/navigation tree. SPP is in a position to be the first to effectively migrate and therefore demonstrate the power of good organization. --[[User:OneKarma|OneKarma]] 05:54, 28 October 2011 (EDT)]''

Please cite sources as often as possible!. If you have specific expertise, please make it known (anecdotal information may be helpful). Use the Discussion tab for general comments or explanations of controversy.

===Constitutional Reform===
* [[SPP End Corporate Personhood|End Corporate Personhood]]

===[[SPP Economic Regulation|Economic Regulation]]===
* [[Resource-based Economy]] 
* [[SPP Finanacial Regulation|Ideas]] and general discussion about financial reform 
* [[CostOfLiving|Lower cost of living]] 
* Financial Industry Reform 
** [[Banking Regulation and Structure Reform|Banking Regulation/Structure Reform]] 
** [[Monetary Policy and Federal Reserve System|Federal Reserve System]] 
** [[Currency Control]]
** [[Trading/Derivatives]] 
* [[Free Trade]] 

===[[SPP Tax Reform|Tax Reform]]===
** [[Flat Tax]] 
** [[Participatory Budgeting|Participatory Budgeting]]
** [[Lift the cap on FICA]]

===Election Reform===
* [[Third Party|Start a Third Party]]
* [[Proportional Representation|Proportional Representation]] (is also linked under "Sovereignty & Law", below)

===Media===
* [[Media Conglomeration]]
* [[Network Neutrality]]

===[[SPP Human Needs|Human Needs/Rights]]===
* [[Healthy Food as a Right|Healthy Food as a Right]] 
* [[Clean Water as a Right|Clean Water as a Right]]
* [[Shelter as a Right|Shelter as a Right]] 
* [[Housing Crisis|Housing Crisis]] 
* [[Health Care|Health Care as a Right]] 
* [[SPP Education|Education]] 
** Student Debt [[Education and Student Debt|Education and Student Debt]] 
* Opportunity 
** Working Rights Labor Issues 
* Access 
** Physical 
** Knowledge 
** [[Network Neutrality|Virtual/Internet and Network Neutrality]]

===[[SPP International Relations|International Relations]]===
* [[Amendment for Peace|The Smedley Butler Amendment For Peace]] 
* War/Peace

===[[SPP Sovereignty and Law|Sovereignty and Law]]===
* [[Proportional Representation|Proportional Representation]] 
* War on Drugs 
* Third World Debt 
* Foreign Aid 
** how it contributes to regional conflict 
** food/medical service distro and contribution to deprivation / violent corruption

===Reducing the Cost of Government===
* Senior Executive Service (has it outlived its usefulness and/or is it contributing to unnecessary expenditure)
* Bring Congressional Benefits and ALL Gov't employees benefits in line with median worker
* Stop spending on "roads to no where"

==Links==
* Discussion often takes cues from community generated media. Explore the [[Press|Press]] and [[Education|Education]] pages, containing many articles of interest.
* [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Other_Message_Statements_%26_Versions_of_Current_Option Original Roadmap Proposal]]
* [[Warren Buffet Ideas]]
* [[Other General Ideas]]
* For more Ideas, go to the Ideas Working Group on the left.

Currently, Ideas and SPP are separate, with Ideas focusing on the facilitation of dialogue, development of ideas, and seeding of working groups/autonomous action. SPP has been focusing more on the statement of purpose and the nuts and bolts of bringing proposals to fruition, though its official role is still to be determined.

-------
''Based on: [http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Strategies,+Proposals,+Positions Strategies, Proposals, Positions at wikispaces]''

WG/Strategies/Road Map

2011-10-28T02:21:55Z

Jobelenus:

<h3>Statement of Purpose, Passed on Oct 23rd</h3> DO NOT EDIT
"We the people who have occupied Dewey Square, under the name Occupy Boston, have done so in order to maintain a place, where all voices are welcome for the open discussion of ideas, grievances, and potential solutions to the problems apparent in our society. We are and will be holding general assemblies where proposals may be brought to the group as a whole, to be consented to. We have and will continue to occupy this space for the purpose of DEMOCRACY."


<h3>PROPOSED: OWS-Boston: Statement of Occupation</h3>
Today the United States is confronted by a toxic mix of financial,
social, and environmental catastrophes that demand a thorough and
immediate clean-up. The common root of these disasters is the domination
of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of the 1%. The actions of the 1% threaten our lives,
the lives of all the Earth’s creatures, our livelihoods, our liberty,
our shared humanity, and our common future.
We, the General Assembly of
Occupy Boston have abandoned electoral politics in an effort of direct democracy.
The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound and collective
response. Occupy Boston is that response.

<ul>
<li>Because, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and
crushing debt, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence
money has on our political and social lives,
</li>
<li>Because, this influence impedes progress toward a more just and
sustainable society, perpetuates crisis at home and war abroad and perverts
democratic action,
</li>
<li>Because, the pursuit of the 1% has an even more devastating
effect on the more vulnerable and less empowered members of our
community as well as on the ecosystems upon which our species depends,
</li>
<li>Because, the 1% also own or control, directly or
indirectly, the media and legal apparatus: We have retaken the commons and resurrected direct democracy.
</li>
</ul>
Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting
in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples'
movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems
of power that function to maintain oppressive and undemocratic
systems. We declare that a better world is possible, and that it is
our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

<hr />
questionable if this last part should be included
<h3>Possible Thoughts for the Future</h3> [[the "give birth" is a bit much, unless we say "more just", but I do like the "tread lightly" part. I can see how it would be harder to pass anything below here, and would be happy to let it go for now; Terra] Let's me creative and definitive-author.

Our mission is to give birth to a just and compassionate body politic that will tread lightly upon the Earth.
Our mission will be accomplished when these goals are met:
1. The US has a sustainable peace time economy.
2. The voices of the 99% are heard and acted upon.
3. All the Earth’s ecosystems are healthy.
4. In allocating resources, the US government priorities the needs of
the environment and the 99% who are not wealthy.
The SPP Working Group asks the GA and all concerned persons to put forth objectives,methods, strategies and tactics which will accomplish goals 1-4.

WG/Strategies/Road Map

2011-10-28T02:17:09Z

Jobelenus:

<h3>Statement of Purpose, Passed on Oct 23rd</h3> DO NOT EDIT
"We the people who have occupied Dewey Square, under the name Occupy Boston, have done so in order to maintain a place, where all voices are welcome for the open discussion of ideas, grievances, and potential solutions to the problems apparent in our society. We are and will be holding general assemblies where proposals may be brought to the group as a whole, to be consented to. We have and will continue to occupy this space for the purpose of DEMOCRACY."


<h3>PROPOSED: OWS-Boston: Statement of Occupation</h3>
Today the United States is confronted by a toxic mix of financial,
social, and environmental catastrophes that demand a thorough and
immediate clean-up. The common root of these disasters is the domination
of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of the 1%. The actions of the 1% threaten our lives,
the lives of all the Earth’s creatures, our livelihoods, our liberty,
our shared humanity, and our common future.
We, the General Assembly of
Occupy Boston have abandoned electoral politics in an effort of direct democracy.
The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound and collective
response. Occupy Boston is that response.

<ul>
<li>Because, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and
crushing debt, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence
money has on our political and social lives,
</li>
<li>Because, this influence impedes progress toward a more just and
sustainable society, perpetuates crisis at home and war abroad and perverts
democratic action,
</li>
<li>Because, the pursuit of the 1% has an even more devastating
effect on the more vulnerable and less empowered members of our
community as well as on the ecosystems upon which our species depends,
</li>
<li>Because, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or
indirectly, the media and legal apparatus:
</li>
<li>We have retaken the commons and resurrected direct democracy.
</li>
</ul>
Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting
in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples'
movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems
of power that function to maintain oppressive and undemocratic
systems. We declare that a better world is possible, and that it is
our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

<hr />
questionable if this last part should be included
<h3>Possible Thoughts for the Future</h3> [[the "give birth" is a bit much, unless we say "more just", but I do like the "tread lightly" part. I can see how it would be harder to pass anything below here, and would be happy to let it go for now; Terra] Let's me creative and definitive-author.

Our mission is to give birth to a just and compassionate body politic that will tread lightly upon the Earth.
Our mission will be accomplished when these goals are met:
1. The US has a sustainable peace time economy.
2. The voices of the 99% are heard and acted upon.
3. All the Earth’s ecosystems are healthy.
4. In allocating resources, the US government priorities the needs of
the environment and the 99% who are not wealthy.
The SPP Working Group asks the GA and all concerned persons to put forth objectives,methods, strategies and tactics which will accomplish goals 1-4.

WG/Strategies/Road Map

2011-10-27T15:25:30Z

Jobelenus:

<h3>Statement of Purpose, Passed on Oct 23rd</h3>
"We the people who have occupied Dewey Square, under the name Occupy Boston, have done so in order to maintain a place, where all voices are welcome for the open discussion of ideas, grievances, and potential solutions to the problems apparent in our society. We are and will be holding general assemblies where proposals may be brought to the group as a whole, to be consented to. We have and will continue to occupy this space for the purpose of DEMOCRACY."


<h3>OWS-Boston: Statement of Occupation</h3>
Today the United States is confronted by a toxic mix of financial,
social, and environmental catastrophes that demand a thorough and
immediate clean-up. The common root of this disaster is the domination
of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of the 1%. Because the actions of the 1% threaten our lives,
the lives of all the Earth’s creatures, our livelihoods, our liberty,
our shared humanity, and our common future.
We, the General Assembly of
Occupy Boston have abandoned the normative channels of democratic action.
The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound and collective
response. Occupy Boston is that a response.

<ul>
<li>Because, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and
crushing debt, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence
money has on our political and social lives,
</li>
<li>Because, this influence impedes progress toward a more just and
sustainable society, perpetuates crisis at home and war abroad and perverts
democratic action,
</li>
<li>Because, the pursuit of this agenda has an even more devastating
effect on the more vulnerable and less empowered members of our
community as well as on the ecosystems upon which our species depends,
</li>
<li>Because, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or
indirectly, the media and legal apparatus:
</li>
<li>We have retaken the commons and resurrected direct democracy.
</li>
</ul>
Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting
in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples'
movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems
of power that function to maintain oppressive and undemocratic
systems. We declare that a better world is possible, and that it is
our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

<hr />
questionable if this last part should be included
<h3>Possible Thoughts for the Future</h3>
Our mission is to give birth to a just and compassionate body politic that will tread lightly upon the Earth.
Our mission will be accomplished when these goals are met:
1. The US has a sustainable peace time economy.
2. The voices of the 99% are heard and acted upon.
3. All the Earth’s ecosystems are healthy.
4. In allocating resources, the US government priorities the needs of
the environment and the 99% who are not wealthy.
The SPP Working Group asks the GA and all concerned persons to put forth objectives,methods, strategies and tactics which will accomplish goals 1-4.

WG/Strategies/Road Map

2011-10-27T15:25:06Z

Jobelenus:

<h3>Statement of Purpose, Passed on Oct 23rd</h3>
"We the people who have occupied Dewey Square, under the name Occupy Boston, have done so in order to maintain a place, where all voices are welcome for the open discussion of ideas, grievances, and potential solutions to the problems apparent in our society. We are and will be holding general assemblies where proposals may be brought to the group as a whole, to be consented to. We have and will continue to occupy this space for the purpose of DEMOCRACY."


<h3>OWS-Boston: Statement of Occupation</h3>
Today the United States is confronted by a toxic mix of financial,
social, and environmental catastrophes that demand a thorough and
immediate clean-up. The common root of this disaster is the domination
of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of the 1%. Because the actions of the 1% threaten our lives,
the lives of all the Earth’s creatures, our livelihoods, our liberty,
our shared humanity, and our common future.
</pWe, the General Assembly of
Occupy Boston have abandoned the normative channels of democratic action.
The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound and collective
response. Occupy Boston is that a response.

<ul>
<li>Because, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and
crushing debt, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence
money has on our political and social lives,
</li>
<li>Because, this influence impedes progress toward a more just and
sustainable society, perpetuates crisis at home and war abroad and perverts
democratic action,
</li>
<li>Because, the pursuit of this agenda has an even more devastating
effect on the more vulnerable and less empowered members of our
community as well as on the ecosystems upon which our species depends,
</li>
<li>Because, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or
indirectly, the media and legal apparatus:
</li>
<li>We have retaken the commons and resurrected direct democracy.
</li>
</ul>
Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting
in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples'
movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems
of power that function to maintain oppressive and undemocratic
systems. We declare that a better world is possible, and that it is
our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

<hr />
questionable if this last part should be included
<h3>Possible Thoughts for the Future</h3>
Our mission is to give birth to a just and compassionate body politic that will tread lightly upon the Earth.
Our mission will be accomplished when these goals are met:
1. The US has a sustainable peace time economy.
2. The voices of the 99% are heard and acted upon.
3. All the Earth’s ecosystems are healthy.
4. In allocating resources, the US government priorities the needs of
the environment and the 99% who are not wealthy.
The SPP Working Group asks the GA and all concerned persons to put forth objectives,methods, strategies and tactics which will accomplish goals 1-4.

WG/Strategies/Road Map

2011-10-27T02:52:44Z

Jobelenus:

<h3>Statement of Purpose
</h3>
"We the people who have occupied Dewey Square, under the name Occupy Boston, have done so in order to maintain a place, where all voices are welcome for the open discussion of ideas, grievances, and potential solutions to the problems apparent in our society. We are and will be holding general assemblies where proposals may be brought to the group as a whole, to be consented to. We have and will continue to occupy this space for the purpose of DEMOCRACY." --this is what passed GA on Sunday. I think we should include it.


<h3>OWS-Boston: Statement of Occupation</h3>
Today the United States is confronted by a toxic mix of financial,
social, and environmental catastrophes that demand a thorough and
immediate clean-up. The common root of this disaster is the domination
of our social, economic, and political lives by the interests of (a financial minority) the
wealthy elite. Because the actions of the elite threaten our lives,
the lives of all the Earth’s creatures, our livelihoods, our liberty,
our human values, and our common future, We, the General Assembly of
Occupy Boston have abandoned the existing (usual, direct democracy has always existed) channels of democratic action.
The corrupt order amidst which we live demands a profound, collective
response. Occupy Boston is such a response. (that response...let's take a stand)

<ul>
<li>Because, the problems of economic inequality, unemployment, and
crushing debt, are all symptomatic of the larger corrupting influence
money has on our political and social lives,
</li>
<li>Because, this influence impedes progress toward a more just and
sustainable society, perpetuates crisis at home and war abroad and perverts
democratic action,
</li>
<li>Because, the pursuit of this agenda has an even more devastating
effect on the more vulnerable and less empowered members of our
community as well as on the ecosystems upon which our species depends,
</li>
<li>Because, those pursuing this agenda also own or control, directly or
indirectly, the media and legal apparatus:
</li>
<li>We have retaken the commons and resurrected democracy.
</li>
</ul>
Be it resolved that we, the General Assembly of Occupy Boston, acting
in solidarity with occupations across America and with peoples'
movements worldwide, do hereby declare our opposition to all systems
of power that function to maintain oppressive and undemocratic
systems. We declare that a better world is possible, and that it is
our right and responsibility to begin creating it.

<hr />
End the document above this line -- reasoning, and more edits forthcoming later (Eli)
Disagree. That's treading water: a version of the above already came before GA; the authors were told to rewrite it, Aria.
Mission
Our mission is to give birth to a just and compassionate body politic that will tread lightly upon the Earth.
Our mission will be accomplished when these goals are met:
1. The US has a sustainable peace time economy.
2. The voices of the 99% are heard and acted upon.
3. All the Earth’s ecosystems are healthy.
4. In allocating resources, the US government priorities the needs of
the environment and the 99% who are not wealthy.
The SPP Working Group asks the GA and all concerned persons to put forth objectives,methods, strategies and tactics which will accomplish goals 1-4.