WG/Strategies/Minutes/31 Oct 2011

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