|
Post by notme on Jun 28, 2012 23:11:12 GMT -5
iawtc; the tumult soon subsides, time makes more converts than reason; This is mostly why I'm suggesting working around them and sort of showing what to do instead of trying to convince everyone its the right idea.
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 23:17:20 GMT -5
iawtc; the tumult soon subsides, time makes more converts than reason; This is mostly why I'm suggesting working around them and sort of showing what to do instead of trying to convince everyone its the right idea. I don't have an issue talking individual occupies, I just think that we should stick to the principle of the board and get to knocking down walls and measuring for a new mantle.
|
|
|
Post by kaymee on Jun 28, 2012 23:20:17 GMT -5
Maybe we are both saying the same thing. Local GA's should set their own goals and decide which issues to pursue. My point is that the structure we are creating identifies - and limits - the GA to these statements of direction only. How the desire of the GA to achieve these goals actually happens is left to the Strategy team, and how the strategy is carried out is left to the Tactical teams. I believe in the GA - IMHFO making these core decisions about what is important and what solutions to provide is the goal of this movement. All the people, coming together to make these decisions. And if Strategy or Tactical screw it up, there's always a redo. Sorry for being confrontational...it's a bad habit I've picked up. Many thanks for your patience in listening and responding.
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 23:24:25 GMT -5
Maybe we are both saying the same thing. Local GA's should set their own goals and decide which issues to pursue. My point is that the structure we are creating identifies - and limits - the GA to these statements of direction only. How the desire of the GA to achieve these goals actually happens is left to the Strategy team, and how the strategy is carried out is left to the Tactical teams. I believe in the GA - IMHFO making these core decisions about what is important and what solutions to provide is the goal of this movement. All the people, coming together to make these decisions. And if Strategy or Tactical screw it up, there's always a redo. Sorry for being confrontational...it's a bad habit I've picked up. Many thanks for your patience in listening and responding. Hey no worries. (edit) Thanks for sticking with it and helping to get on the same page. (/edit) We're all running on different semantics, different experiences. Some of us are "gun shy" of certain issues or confrontational for different reasons. I'm not hating, I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page before we start putting on our dictatorial pants about what others should/ shouldn't do.
|
|
|
Post by notme on Jun 28, 2012 23:35:17 GMT -5
How the desire of the GA to achieve these goals actually happens is left to the Strategy team, and how the strategy is carried out is left to the Tactical teams. Agreed, although how the GA does XYZ is left to the GA, IMHFO, we're just extracting information from them by and large; trying to really integrate the two concepts will probably just kill the idea overall and turn it into another spokes council. /favorite
|
|
|
Post by puppetrynate on Jun 29, 2012 18:44:54 GMT -5
you mention not wanting to kill the GA and turn it into a spokescouncil, which gets to something that i don't think we ever really solved:
why discuss something at a GA?
why discuss something at a Spokescouncil?
I think by and large using Spokes as a model for M1GS worked really well. Obviously THE Spokes didn't work well at all. So perhaps using Spokes as a discussion tactic for a specific task / discussion item. i.e. We are here to discuss X / accomplish X. Let us use spokes!
What GA did well (when it did it well) was bringing community together to exchange ideas and giving people who maybe aren't used to having their ideas be heard the opportunity to be heard. What it was patently terrible at was anything involving $. Personally I think straight up getting rid of financial decisions from GA would solve a lot of issues, and perhaps having special budgeting Spokes meetings? Because when you have a meeting that anyone can show up to even if they have no "skin in the game" deciding on finances you can either end up with funding for insane projects by a group of people gaming the system, or funding for great projects shot down by someone with a vendetta. What I'm suggesting is a process like this:
1. X introduces project Y at a GA. 2. Immediately upon introduction project Y becomes property of the GA. X no longer has ANY specific ownership over the idea. 3. Break-out groups to discuss project Y if needed. Friendly amendments, etc. 4. GA either consents to idea, consents to revisit at future GA after more thought / discussion, or drops it forever. Perhaps there is a restriction on how long before X can introduce a similar project with modified language if it's dropped to avoid those guys who would show up with the same damn proposal every time, take up half the GA debating and still never get it passed. 5. Once the project is approved, interested parties call a specific Spokes council to work out logistics and budget.
|
|
|
Post by notme on Jun 29, 2012 20:49:25 GMT -5
you mention not wanting to kill the GA and turn it into a spokescouncil, which gets to something that i don't think we ever really solved: why discuss something at a GA? why discuss something at a Spokescouncil? I think by and large using Spokes as a model for M1GS worked really well. Obviously THE Spokes didn't work well at all. So perhaps using Spokes as a discussion tactic for a specific task / discussion item. i.e. We are here to discuss X / accomplish X. Let us use spokes! What GA did well (when it did it well) was bringing community together to exchange ideas and giving people who maybe aren't used to having their ideas be heard the opportunity to be heard. What it was patently terrible at was anything involving $. Personally I think straight up getting rid of financial decisions from GA would solve a lot of issues, and perhaps having special budgeting Spokes meetings? Because when you have a meeting that anyone can show up to even if they have no "skin in the game" deciding on finances you can either end up with funding for insane projects by a group of people gaming the system, or funding for great projects shot down by someone with a vendetta. What I'm suggesting is a process like this: 1. X introduces project Y at a GA. 2. Immediately upon introduction project Y becomes property of the GA. X no longer has ANY specific ownership over the idea. 3. Break-out groups to discuss project Y if needed. Friendly amendments, etc. 4. GA either consents to idea, consents to revisit at future GA after more thought / discussion, or drops it forever. Perhaps there is a restriction on how long before X can introduce a similar project with modified language if it's dropped to avoid those guys who would show up with the same damn proposal every time, take up half the GA debating and still never get it passed. 5. Once the project is approved, interested parties call a specific Spokes council to work out logistics and budget. for me, fundamentally, the GA can do whatever they want to, what and how they do it is irrelevant to me, I'd prefer to just watch and listen to what they mean and less on their semantics, then develop an action plan on how to accomplish that, more or less independently of them and then implement it. IMHFO, this essentially sidesteps the "theyre great with feelings and horrible with logistics" aspects. Also, hi, welcome to the board.
|
|
|
Post by varmintreaper on Jul 1, 2012 20:34:12 GMT -5
Removed "bankers are rapists" rant.
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jul 1, 2012 21:45:38 GMT -5
you mention not wanting to kill the GA and turn it into a spokescouncil, which gets to something that i don't think we ever really solved: why discuss something at a GA? why discuss something at a Spokescouncil? I think by and large using Spokes as a model for M1GS worked really well. Obviously THE Spokes didn't work well at all. So perhaps using Spokes as a discussion tactic for a specific task / discussion item. i.e. We are here to discuss X / accomplish X. Let us use spokes! What GA did well (when it did it well) was bringing community together to exchange ideas and giving people who maybe aren't used to having their ideas be heard the opportunity to be heard. What it was patently terrible at was anything involving $. Personally I think straight up getting rid of financial decisions from GA would solve a lot of issues, and perhaps having special budgeting Spokes meetings? Because when you have a meeting that anyone can show up to even if they have no "skin in the game" deciding on finances you can either end up with funding for insane projects by a group of people gaming the system, or funding for great projects shot down by someone with a vendetta. What I'm suggesting is a process like this: 1. X introduces project Y at a GA. 2. Immediately upon introduction project Y becomes property of the GA. X no longer has ANY specific ownership over the idea. 3. Break-out groups to discuss project Y if needed. Friendly amendments, etc. 4. GA either consents to idea, consents to revisit at future GA after more thought / discussion, or drops it forever. Perhaps there is a restriction on how long before X can introduce a similar project with modified language if it's dropped to avoid those guys who would show up with the same damn proposal every time, take up half the GA debating and still never get it passed. 5. Once the project is approved, interested parties call a specific Spokes council to work out logistics and budget. for me, fundamentally, the GA can do whatever they want to, what and how they do it is irrelevant to me, I'd prefer to just watch and listen to what they mean and less on their semantics, then develop an action plan on how to accomplish that, more or less independently of them and then implement it. IMHFO, this essentially sidesteps the "theyre great with feelings and horrible with logistics" aspects. Also, hi, welcome to the board. IAWTC
|
|