Consensus Process

[Walkabout]

Discuss how the consensus process is used and what can be done to improve group consensus.

[Walkabout]

This would be more the mechanics of how consensus is reached. Everyone does it differently. So while consensus is generally understood how it is reached is not. An example would be do people break out into groups and discuss, do they bang it out verbally and temperature check along the way? etc,

[varmintreaper]

Consensus is the buzzword everybody likes because you know, the UN, and leaders and the whole bureaucracy, they work very hard to reach consensus. It's a notion meant specifically to mask just how dirty politics is in plain sight.

In my opinion, we should each do our own work and present it when we've reached some small milestones. Then take the material we have and see if we can't put it to use, modify it. We were taught planning skill for a business environment since we were kids. This is too slow, too limited in scope, too dependent on so many steps that no one wants to take the risk of ruining the whole process.

Our goals should be fairly straight forward. We should avoid goals that simply resonate with our favorite topics. I heard that around day 1 - 5 of OWS, people were debating whether to put signs up in trees. Now it's useful to actively take over space as it gives you a more direct message of "Yeah we're here. Deal with it." but arguing about signs in trees 1) says you're not able to make simple decisions on your own (because your teachers made you feel special when participated in discussions) and 2) lolwut? Nothing better to do?

Now I know you all don't have that problem, but in a vacuum it becomes tempting to just talk talk talk. So let's start by bringing simple materials we are able to work on alone and present. Otherwise, we will be an echo for a gimmick for an attempt at creating a voting bloc.

Consensus then is reduced to what are the best actions made possible by the materials we already have. We don't need this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA

[cymadd0x]

Jul 3, 2012 19:29:44 GMT -5 varmintreaper said:

Consensus is the buzzword everybody likes because you know, the UN, and leaders and the whole bureaucracy, they work very hard to reach consensus. It's a notion meant specifically to mask just how dirty politics is in plain sight.

In my opinion, we should each do our own work and present it when we've reached some small milestones. Then take the material we have and see if we can't put it to use, modify it. We were taught planning skill for a business environment since we were kids. This is too slow, too limited in scope, too dependent on so many steps that no one wants to take the risk of ruining the whole process.

Our goals should be fairly straight forward. We should avoid goals that simply resonate with our favorite topics. I heard that around day 1 - 5 of OWS, people were debating whether to put signs up in trees. Now it's useful to actively take over space as it gives you a more direct message of "Yeah we're here. Deal with it." but arguing about signs in trees 1) says you're not able to make simple decisions on your own (because your teachers made you feel special when participated in discussions) and 2) lolwut? Nothing better to do?

Now I know you all don't have that problem, but in a vacuum it becomes tempting to just talk talk talk. So let's start by bringing simple materials we are able to work on alone and present. Otherwise, we will be an echo for a gimmick for an attempt at creating a voting bloc.

Consensus then is reduced to what are the best actions made possible by the materials we already have. We don't need this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA

IAWTC.

Now I didn't come around until day 15, but this dynamic you describe never really went away IMHO. Some of us believe in "do-ocracy" and those people tend to just stop showing up to meetings because A) they're busy, B) empty talk with no action bores the shit out of them.

The flip side is, the talk at the meetings isn't always (or even usually) empty, it's just that there's nothing really discouraging the kind of waste-of-everybody's-time discussion where permission is asked of the group to carry out what can and should be an autonomous action. Sometimes really great ideas and insights have come out of various Occupy meetings, and they take a long time to filter out to the more-action oriented folk because we haven't really done very much about making the meetings themselves productive and action-oriented.

[varmintreaper]

[blink]DO-OCRACY BETA-TEST MODEL[/blink]

Jul 9, 2012 16:25:52 GMT -5 cymadd0x said:

IAWTC.

Now I didn't come around until day 15, but this dynamic you describe never really went away IMHO. Some of us believe in "do-ocracy" and those people tend to just stop showing up to meetings because A) they're busy, B) empty talk with no action bores the shit out of them.

The flip side is, the talk at the meetings isn't always (or even usually) empty, it's just that there's nothing really discouraging the kind of waste-of-everybody's-time discussion where permission is asked of the group to carry out what can and should be an autonomous action. Sometimes really great ideas and insights have come out of various Occupy meetings, and they take a long time to filter out to the more-action oriented folk because we haven't really done very much about making the meetings themselves productive and action-oriented.

This is where the materials gathering / list making part of AntiShock (#OpRadar) comes into play. Do what you're good at. Especially small things you can do repeatedly.

A few things come to mind:
1. Getting that talk talk talk unspent energy out.
OpRadar analysis: The unspent energy generates noise.

There's a simple way to drain that talking energy and that's starting exercise routes at all the Occupies. To get the lead out you can even tell people you're going to do small protest tours. A few of the guys on we're doing this in the early days.

2. Making Occupy a community friendly space that locals can visit and learn/work with.
OpShield analysis: Consensus takes a long time because all the talk is fluff. Even the stuff about debt (mortgage, student).

Consensus takes forever if much of what goes on is discussing theory, ideology, being nice to every single species. Occupies should take an interest in the local area. They should try to apply ideas they've already discussed. I think a couple of us have already said something similar.

3. Occupy consensus should find most useful actions for getting what the city, county, state, and federal level refuse to provide.
OpPulse analysis: The govt of each level (city, county, state, federal) is not listening.

Govts are either unresponsive (corrupt) or dependent (ideologically stuck on the wrong path). We have to start connecting interested locals and start naming names of officials and what they fail to do. Consensus needs to be relevant otherwise it's just chickens with their heads cut off.

4. Occupy should take the successful projects and start cutting the umbilical cord.
OpShadow: Make the change.

Do the things that you feel comfortable with and do them consistently.

[Walkabout]

Jul 12, 2012 15:47:46 GMT -5 varmintreaper said:

[blink]DO-OCRACY BETA-TEST MODEL[/blink]

Jul 9, 2012 16:25:52 GMT -5 cymadd0x said:

IAWTC.

Now I didn't come around until day 15, but this dynamic you describe never really went away IMHO. Some of us believe in "do-ocracy" and those people tend to just stop showing up to meetings because A) they're busy, B) empty talk with no action bores the shit out of them.

The flip side is, the talk at the meetings isn't always (or even usually) empty, it's just that there's nothing really discouraging the kind of waste-of-everybody's-time discussion where permission is asked of the group to carry out what can and should be an autonomous action. Sometimes really great ideas and insights have come out of various Occupy meetings, and they take a long time to filter out to the more-action oriented folk because we haven't really done very much about making the meetings themselves productive and action-oriented.

This is where the materials gathering / list making part of AntiShock (#OpRadar) comes into play. Do what you're good at. Especially small things you can do repeatedly.

A few things come to mind:
1. Getting that talk talk talk unspent energy out.
OpRadar analysis: The unspent energy generates noise.

There's a simple way to drain that talking energy and that's starting exercise routes at all the Occupies. To get the lead out you can even tell people you're going to do small protest tours. A few of the guys on we're doing this in the early days.

2. Making Occupy a community friendly space that locals can visit and learn/work with.
OpShield analysis: Consensus takes a long time because all the talk is fluff. Even the stuff about debt (mortgage, student).

Consensus takes forever if much of what goes on is discussing theory, ideology, being nice to every single species. Occupies should take an interest in the local area. They should try to apply ideas they've already discussed. I think a couple of us have already said something similar.

3. Occupy consensus should find most useful actions for getting what the city, county, state, and federal level refuse to provide.
OpPulse analysis: The govt of each level (city, county, state, federal) is not listening.

Govts are either unresponsive (corrupt) or dependent (ideologically stuck on the wrong path). We have to start connecting interested locals and start naming names of officials and what they fail to do. Consensus needs to be relevant otherwise it's just chickens with their heads cut off.

4. Occupy should take the successful projects and start cutting the umbilical cord.
OpShadow: Make the change.

Do the things that you feel comfortable with and do them consistently.

I can't give any more karma right now. I would if I could. This is exactly the model that I've been attempting to implement on my own here in Boston. Unfortunately due some in part to my own surly nature, and some in part to lack of exposure to the community, it's been an uphill battle.

The Occupy here uses the GA model along with Strategic Action reportback. There have been splinter groups that have gone off to do their own thing, but largely it appears that organically it will de/evolve into what you are talking about.

With so much exposure for each disparate community at the beginning, folks that have an affinity are starting to drift to ideas and groups that would have tickled their fancy had they heard about them in a regular fashion.