2/4/12

From wiki.occupyboston.org
Revision as of 20:51, 5 February 2012 by Gsmurphy (talk | contribs) (Created page with "<pre>CWG meeting 4 feb 2012 ~9:15pm bill, glenn, eric, daniel, sparky, B, randy, kendra, terra, allison, greg, jenn (mazer) agenda: * values of consensus, perhaps to be read at ...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
CWG meeting 4 feb 2012 ~9:15pm
bill, glenn, eric, daniel, sparky, B, randy, kendra, terra, allison, greg, jenn (mazer)

agenda:
* values of consensus, perhaps to be read at beginning of CWG meeting.
* the story of Jewish pirates
* when is disagreement healthy, versus disruptive?
* what is the reality of consensus?
* proposal about friendly amendments and how it relates to consensus
* do we ever want to host a community gather?
* where consensus is appropriate, vs. other ways to make decisions.


1. Jewish pirates (Terra)

2. Values of consensus
spent some time talking about what "speaking your truth" means. it's not absolute truth, e.g. more like what one believes.

talked about examples in which a certain kind of expertise might have led to a "better" decision, but was not heeded. how do cases like this related to the value of non-coerciion (should someone's stated expertise coerce the group?).

acknowledging that for the most part occupy boston has not made a serious attempt to employ consensus.

daniel asked about who has blocked proposals that eventually passed anyway. we are talking more generally about how withholding consent yet having a proposal pass creates fissures in our group.

noted that in a full consensus process (one that might have stand asides), there is no need for a block. 100% of non stand aside votes, or proposal does not pass.

3. disruptive behavior
we're talking about exactly what form this discussion should take. do we talk about specific instances, do we talk about it in the abstract? how do various WGs get back to trusting one another after a disruption?

idea to post guidelines about how to communicate online avoiding flamewars (maybe for OBIT?) are there recommendations CWG can make to OBIT, esp. with the forum structure they're working on?

it is an interesting question: to what extent do our online communication issues erode trust and impede our ability to reach consensus?

will we be able to hold ourselves and each other accountable to the set of values we develop?

for instance, could we modify our communication to reaffirm our values before critiquing someone?

question of whether we want to workshop these values and try to pass them through GA.

part of the mission of this group is to bring the values we learn to the broader community. how do we do that? perhaps we can be consensus ambassadors.
`
meeting adjourned. 11:17 pm