| 1 | [[PageOutline()]] |
| 2 | = mfpl leadership committee meeting notes 2012-08-28 = |
| 3 | |
| 4 | membership meeting Oct 28 10:00→17:00 at the brecht forum. |
| 5 | |
| 6 | staff has planned, wants LC input. |
| 7 | |
| 8 | https://support.mayfirst.org/wiki/projects/membership-meeting/2012 |
| 9 | |
| 10 | * similar to last year's meeting |
| 11 | == Timeline to Membership Meeting == |
| 12 | |
| 13 | https://support.mayfirst.org/wiki/projects/membership-meeting/2012/timeline |
| 14 | |
| 15 | {{{ |
| 16 | August 28: Discuss Membership meeting process and meeting with LC |
| 17 | August 30: Data entry: begin collecting and enter addresses and phone numbers of members |
| 18 | August 30: Initial email to members about the meeting |
| 19 | |
| 20 | September: send out survey to members, ask for responses to last |
| 21 | year's priorities and suggest new priorities for MFPL. Priorities are |
| 22 | general directions that the membership wants the organization to go |
| 23 | into. |
| 24 | |
| 25 | September 6: Finalize Postcard announcing meeting |
| 26 | September 13: Mail postcards |
| 27 | September 15: Announce request for Leadership Committee nominations (Lowdown) |
| 28 | |
| 29 | MFPL will request one-paragraph bio and one-paragraph vision statement from each nominee |
| 30 | |
| 31 | September 20: Begin phone calls and emails |
| 32 | over September: staff writes reports: membership, finances, infrastructure, overview |
| 33 | |
| 34 | reports published 1-2 weeks before the membership meeting; |
| 35 | additionally will publish all nominees for LC for membership |
| 36 | review |
| 37 | |
| 38 | October 1: Candidates and proposals announced and publish via the Lowdown |
| 39 | October 21: Target 200 phone calls and individual emails made/sent |
| 40 | October 21: Online voting for LC members begins. Announcement sent to LC |
| 41 | |
| 42 | This is a new proposal, a departure from past years |
| 43 | |
| 44 | 7 day online voting period, the week before the membership |
| 45 | meeting. Members can also vote online during the membership |
| 46 | meeting itself |
| 47 | |
| 48 | purpose: encourage more participation |
| 49 | |
| 50 | October 22: Reminder about meeting is sent |
| 51 | October 26: Last reminder about meeting |
| 52 | October 28 Meeting happens |
| 53 | meeting schedule |
| 54 | |
| 55 | no need to read the full reports at the membrship meeting; instead |
| 56 | recruit a small (3-4 person) panel that might have something to |
| 57 | say and ask them to give a 10-15 minute reflection on the reports |
| 58 | |
| 59 | membership meeting happens in NYC and Mexico city simultaneously. |
| 60 | Panelists are in both locations. |
| 61 | |
| 62 | simultaneous or consecutive translation |
| 63 | |
| 64 | joint (bi-directional) audio link so that the meeting is held concurrently. |
| 65 | |
| 66 | collaborative democracy workshop is already multi-site-capable. |
| 67 | }}} |
| 68 | |
| 69 | == Questions/Comments/Reactions: == |
| 70 | |
| 71 | dkg: I like the vision; I have technical concerns about feasibility of |
| 72 | some details. |
| 73 | |
| 74 | Having an online voting arrangement introduces the need... removes the |
| 75 | secret balloting process, particularly if people can also vote in |
| 76 | person during the meeting. Need to keep track of who has voted and who |
| 77 | hasn't. Will that change the character of the LC voting process? I |
| 78 | agree with the goal of increased participation, but online voting is |
| 79 | fraught with many problems that can't be resolved. On the otherhand we |
| 80 | might decide we don't care about people's ballots (?) |
| 81 | |
| 82 | Audio between NYC and Mexico City: wiring both rooms while avoiding |
| 83 | feedback problems seems like a major challenge, no idea how that will |
| 84 | work. Would like to have a fallback plan to think about; if it doesn't |
| 85 | work and we try to conduct the meeting with it, it will be absolutely |
| 86 | miserable. |
| 87 | |
| 88 | Also curious about how we'll select panelist; I really like the idea. |
| 89 | |
| 90 | Jamie, in response: everyone should start thinking now about who would |
| 91 | be good panelists |
| 92 | |
| 93 | audio feedback loop: Agreed; maybe we can discuss that at next |
| 94 | face-to-face support meeting, figure out a fallback that will |
| 95 | definitely work |
| 96 | |
| 97 | anonymous voting: last year we had both online and in-person voting, |
| 98 | and that was even more complicated. Would like to simplify it by not |
| 99 | having in-person voting, only online. Last year this was designed |
| 100 | technically to preserve an anonymous ballot; system kept track of |
| 101 | which orgs voted but didn't link that record to the vote they cast. |
| 102 | |
| 103 | That said, any time you log in and vote, there will probably be a way |
| 104 | to guess who voted for whom. |
| 105 | |
| 106 | This is an important political decision for LC; Jamie proposes that |
| 107 | this is a comrpomise to make wider participation possible. dkg agrees |
| 108 | that this is an ok tradeoff |
| 109 | |
| 110 | mallory: providing streaming audio for folks not in MXC or NYC; last |
| 111 | year there was an audio stream; i didn't watch the video; and there |
| 112 | was an IRC channel that someone could read from. I don't necessarily |
| 113 | need the two-way, but i do want the stream to follow what's going on. |
| 114 | |
| 115 | jamie: i really want bidirectional audio somehow; for other folks, we |
| 116 | should try for one way audio (outbound) and have a text channel back |
| 117 | (similar to last year). ~30 second lag is OK for that arrangement. |
| 118 | |
| 119 | dkg: are we going to record this? are we going to discourage others |
| 120 | from recording? |
| 121 | |
| 122 | Jamie: not opposed to recording it, though it's tough to do something |
| 123 | with 9 hours of audio. Any objections? |
| 124 | |
| 125 | jack: i'm curious about how the reflections from panelists would be |
| 126 | structured? will each panelist cover specific reports? or specific |
| 127 | areas that they're involved in? or less connected that way? |
| 128 | |
| 129 | jamie/alfredo: we haven't made any decisions there. |
| 130 | |
| 131 | jamie: probably looser than stricter. give panelists leeway to |
| 132 | discuss what they think is important. each would get all the reports, |
| 133 | and then they could pick up the themes that they wanted to discuss. |
| 134 | |
| 135 | jack: seems like it might be a good idea to make sure all reports |
| 136 | should be covered. maybe ask ahead of time to ensure there aren't any |
| 137 | huge holes. |
| 138 | |
| 139 | alfredo: why should we put someone on a panel to discuss hillary's |
| 140 | financial report or even the membership report. they're critically |
| 141 | important reports, but i don't know if a panelist could make |
| 142 | reasonable commentary on it. I was thinking we'd take jamie's report, |
| 143 | divvy it up by themes and have the panelists present parts of them. |
| 144 | So we don't do all the reports, just the political report from the |
| 145 | director. i might be off-base, though. |
| 146 | |
| 147 | jamie: jack, you're expressing a concern that people won't read the |
| 148 | other reports. but we'll distribute them ahead of time, and then also |
| 149 | have them printed in front of them at the meeting. i think people |
| 150 | will get more that way. |
| 151 | |
| 152 | jack: maybe i misspoke; i don't expect that all the reports will be |
| 153 | fully covered, i just want to make sure that the important points get |
| 154 | covered. |
| 155 | |
| 156 | dkg: from the perspective of thinking what it would be like to be |
| 157 | asked to be a panelist, and being given a huge slew of reports and |
| 158 | asked to talk about what's important, I might be less intimidated by |
| 159 | being assigned a section and thinking what to present based on |
| 160 | that. That might be easier than being given all the sections and |
| 161 | needing to distill an analysis on the whole thing. |
| 162 | |
| 163 | Jamie: do people have thoughts or proposals on panelists? Staff came |
| 164 | up with Carlos Fazio, Mexican journalist. Great panelist: relatively |
| 165 | well known in Mexico, good radical politics, a MFPL member. Any other |
| 166 | ideas to put forth? Who we choose will be really important to the |
| 167 | success of the meeting. |
| 168 | |
| 169 | Jamie: also want to throw out: is it acceptable to have a panelist |
| 170 | that's not a MFPL member. |
| 171 | |
| 172 | dkg: wouldn't want a panelist actively opposed to being involved with |
| 173 | MFPL; allies who aren't members seem fine |
| 174 | |
| 175 | alfredo: this panel is as if we took Jamie and made him into six |
| 176 | different activists from across the country, grouping their |
| 177 | experiences, reflecting on your report. The relationship to the the |
| 178 | report/MFPL's work needs to be relatively intimate and on point. |
| 179 | |
| 180 | for example: we could take someone from SWAP to talk about |
| 181 | massification of membership recruitment; but ??? is conversant with |
| 182 | how MF/PL works internally, so we need some selections of people who |
| 183 | know what's going on within the organization itself; members will know |
| 184 | more about the on-the-ground issues. this is jamie's report! |
| 185 | |
| 186 | jamie: our goal is to have people who are members; but our need is to |
| 187 | have people who can converse intelligently about the goals of the |
| 188 | organization. |
| 189 | |
| 190 | dkg: wondering whether you were thinking that LC members should be |
| 191 | part of this panel or presentation or not. |
| 192 | |
| 193 | jamie: all LC members are candidates for that. Certainly not thinking |
| 194 | that LC members should be excluded, they would be fine on the panel. I |
| 195 | also think that any LC candidates would be great. |
| 196 | |
| 197 | jack: jamie, by wanting to find folks who are conversant with the |
| 198 | issues, it made me wonder what you think the themes might be. |
| 199 | |
| 200 | jamie: i haven't written the report; i plan on having a draft in the |
| 201 | next week or two that i'll share with workers and the LC. The general |
| 202 | sense of what i meant is: we need someone who is able and ready to get |
| 203 | their hands dirty with the politics of the organization and the |
| 204 | technology; the need to own our own infrastructure and what that |
| 205 | means, and so on. |
| 206 | |
| 207 | jamie: in particular, for this meeting, we'll want to talk about being |
| 208 | bi-national; what is the impact on adding over 100 mexican orgs, how |
| 209 | does it affect our political outlook and what does it mean for the |
| 210 | organization? |
| 211 | |
| 212 | jack: in part i ask because the topics that folks would be talking |
| 213 | about would affect my choices of who i would propose as members for |
| 214 | the panel. so more details of the report would help. |
| 215 | |
| 216 | carlos: panel logistics: is this something that we're asking them for |
| 217 | the whole day, or could a panelist just show up for the report part? |
| 218 | |
| 219 | jamie: we'd want them for the whole day but we could be flexible. |
| 220 | |
| 221 | jack: collaborative democracy workshop is always something that feels |
| 222 | cumbersome and not completely successful. I realize i bring this up |
| 223 | often and don't have a constructive counterproposal. i've also heard |
| 224 | that feedback from other people at the event. i think it might be |
| 225 | useful to think about either changing that approach completely, or how |
| 226 | the process could change; what are the goals that we could maybe meet |
| 227 | some other way? |
| 228 | |
| 229 | jamie: goals: to provide membership with the ability to shape the |
| 230 | priorities of the organization. The big vision for that is that the |
| 231 | members pick the main priorities; then it's the job of the LC to |
| 232 | propose and pass more specific proposals for how to achieve those |
| 233 | goals and priorities. It's pretty straightforward (?) piece for the |
| 234 | membership to do. With the org now straddling both Mexico and the US, |
| 235 | it's challenging to figure out how one group of people can do that in |
| 236 | one afternoon. That's one reason to be very partial to the |
| 237 | collaborative democracy workshop; for whatever its struggles and |
| 238 | difficulties, it's relatively successful in being able to do that. I |
| 239 | think there are some changes, in fact one in particular: adding some |
| 240 | sort of chat to it. Having a chat isn't as critical when everyone's in |
| 241 | the same room, but with multiple locations having chat might relieve |
| 242 | some of the pressure that people feel by providing direct |
| 243 | communication. That's one small change that I could make; if other |
| 244 | people have ideas about suggestions, I'm all ears. |
| 245 | |
| 246 | alfredo: i thnk that there's any question that the decision-making at |
| 247 | the last membership meeting was extremely lacking. we weren't able to |
| 248 | implement most of the decisions made by membership, and the decisions |
| 249 | themselves as general directions were too broad and amorphous and the |
| 250 | LC didn't implement a lot of that stuff. that's part of the |
| 251 | growing-up process. no surprise. I think the LC needs to be more |
| 252 | proactive about what the challenges are and what some of the issues |
| 253 | are that the membership needs to decide to move forward. Just doing |
| 254 | an amorphous thing about growth doesn't cover the important thing |
| 255 | about what we do hemispherically. we have severe differences within |
| 256 | the membership and within the leadership committee. Jamie and i just |
| 257 | go and do something or the staff does. If LC can tell membership what |
| 258 | these issues are and ... that can make a friendly conversation into a |
| 259 | more political discussion. we need debates and discussion where these |
| 260 | things can be brought into relief. I intend to flesh this out in my |
| 261 | own thing i write as an LC member. I think that explains some of the |
| 262 | triumphs and some of the stagnations of the organization. |
| 263 | |
| 264 | jack: i think one of the things that seems important here in the |
| 265 | collaborative democracy workshop is to be clear what we're asking the |
| 266 | membership to come up with; i've been in some CDW's where it seemed |
| 267 | like what we wrote right then would be published someplace, which gets |
| 268 | into wordsmithing instead of broader understandings and priorities. |
| 269 | depending on what we're asking people to provide might help people |
| 270 | focus better. |
| 271 | |
| 272 | jack: it's also hard with this tool and this workshop to indicate |
| 273 | relative priorities. people don't seem to be able to indicate what |
| 274 | they might care about more seriously. if there are limited resources |
| 275 | and limited time, how do they prioritize? it would be useful to hear |
| 276 | about that. |
| 277 | |
| 278 | jamie: re: alfredo's comments: our survey in which we propose 5 or 6 |
| 279 | priorities should be written in a somewhat extreme way, propose things |
| 280 | in an extreme way so that people want to respond, and use that to |
| 281 | jumpstart the CDW. What jack made me realize now is that what the CDW |
| 282 | encourages now is wordsmithing and endorsing, but not ranking. |
| 283 | Ranking suggests a different tool. imagine a CDW where there are 5 or |
| 284 | 6 priorities and your group needs to consider the rankings. then |
| 285 | there could be an accumulation of rankings to see which ones come out |
| 286 | on top. |
| 287 | |
| 288 | alfredo: but you also want the membership to discuss it. wordsmithing |
| 289 | can be annoying, but it can also be a conceptual disagreement being |
| 290 | phrased and framed. Part of the CDW idea is to see the importance of |
| 291 | their language; and exercise in getting people together to think about |
| 292 | how to use language. we were thinking of ways to get worldwide and |
| 293 | hemispheric discussion happening. It may not be the tool for the |
| 294 | meeting. people view it as an exercise, so they do all kinds of |
| 295 | things: battle over nuance, etc. i don't think there's enough |
| 296 | realization that this will be setting the workload and direction for a |
| 297 | bunch of people. I have trepidations over the CDW, but on the other |
| 298 | hand expecting people to raise their hand and go to a mic might be a |
| 299 | bad thing too. i don't have answer! |
| 300 | |
| 301 | mallory: i need to get off the call. nice hearing all of you! i'm |
| 302 | excited about the meeting, and will be available for more help <exits> |
| 303 | |
| 304 | jamie: seems like Jack and Alfredo are both saying that people don't |
| 305 | grasp what people's responses are going to used for. Obvious |
| 306 | suggestion: better framing before starting the workshop, which can |
| 307 | help but only go so far |
| 308 | |
| 309 | jamie: wordsmithing suggestion: what if we put a severe character |
| 310 | limit? |
| 311 | |
| 312 | jack: seems like there are good ideas coming out of this for the CDW. |
| 313 | we could get feedback from all the groups, and maybe have a scribe in |
| 314 | each group that records "what didn't you like, what did you like, how |
| 315 | could we improve it?" then you could get the feedback and details, |
| 316 | and lend some nuance. it would also be better than just seeing what |
| 317 | the last word was. |
| 318 | |
| 319 | my other thought is that the hemispheric/bilingual nature is going to |
| 320 | be even tougher on the wordsmithing front, esp. if there is lingo or |
| 321 | poltiical jargon. if we're going to have that participation it's |
| 322 | going to be even harder. |
| 323 | |
| 324 | jamie: challenge is figuring out how to provide a space for people to |
| 325 | reflect on the issues AND share feedback with the other |
| 326 | groups. Particularly interested in having that happen between Mexico |
| 327 | and NY. |
| 328 | |
| 329 | dkg: The CDW internally has a record of whats been edited and changed; |
| 330 | just because what's displayed is the last edit. A change that would be |
| 331 | useful would be to find the edit that had the most endorsements on |
| 332 | point A and highlight *that* at the end, or something like |
| 333 | that. Jack's proposal about getting nuance and comments/feedback is |
| 334 | useful; I see some sort of way to do that within the current |
| 335 | framework. Eg when you make an edit, explain why your group made that |
| 336 | edit in a few words. Also thinking about the relationship between CDW |
| 337 | and a ranking exercise; smells like straightforward vote arrangement; |
| 338 | that could miss out on the discussion part of it. Group discussion is |
| 339 | really useful; that's very different than thinking about what to get |
| 340 | out of it at the end. Maybe those two things shouldn't be explicitly |
| 341 | tied together; we can make it clear when we're aiming to get people |
| 342 | talking, hear where folks are coming from, what they agree and |
| 343 | disagree with, and also make it clear when we're actually trying to |
| 344 | set an agenda. Maybe what makes it hard is trying to do both of those |
| 345 | things. |
| 346 | |
| 347 | alfrdeo: i'm assuming that we'll divide int groups of 5 or 6 in both |
| 348 | places. it strikes me that the people in mexico are going to be a lot |
| 349 | less conversant with the history of the org than the folks in the US. |
| 350 | the major challenge is that the org, when it talks about politics has |
| 351 | to incorporat in its language the reality of mexico, which is very |
| 352 | different from the reality of the US. this is delicate because a bad |
| 353 | experience on the part of the mexican members could result in them |
| 354 | leaving, or at least in many of them not helping to build the |
| 355 | organization. many of the mexican members aren't particularly |
| 356 | comfortable with collaborating with folks in the US. this is 1/7th of |
| 357 | our membership so we need to make sure we really bend over backward to |
| 358 | invite them. the CDW as we have it framed is a minefield politically. |
| 359 | |
| 360 | alfredo: you put something up on the board in spanish, and someone |
| 361 | else that you don't even see (from the US) goes and changes it in 5 |
| 362 | minutes. it comes across emotionally as yet another imperialist grab, |
| 363 | even for epople who unerstand the situation technically and |
| 364 | intellectually. care has to be taken on this issue. |
| 365 | |
| 366 | dkg: is there any way to enforce that the groups themselves could be |
| 367 | binational within the CDW? |
| 368 | |
| 369 | jack: the translation issues and communications issues alone are |
| 370 | really challenging. alfredo is completely right on in what he said, |
| 371 | and it makes me leery about how to handle the workshop as one big |
| 372 | workshop. i think it could be really bad for people to see their work |
| 373 | be wiped away by a remote party, and people in mexico will see |
| 374 | themselves as being excluded. maybe two separate workshops? though |
| 375 | that is difficult too. |
| 376 | |
| 377 | jamie: yes, and despite the very real challenges you describe, i think |
| 378 | it's also really important to try to do this. I think it's good if we |
| 379 | can try to have people try to creatively and respectfully engage |
| 380 | across cultures and nations, and is worth the risk of a bad result. |
| 381 | |
| 382 | jack: i almost think there is a guarantee of a bad result with the |
| 383 | tool as it stands now, for two reasons: timing and typing and language |
| 384 | fluency is aggravating. also, while doing the engagement right you |
| 385 | describe would be awesome, i'm not convinced that we'd be able to do |
| 386 | it effectively enough, especially as a roomful of US folks trying to |
| 387 | engage with others. i say this even as a spanish-speaking latino in |
| 388 | the us. |
| 389 | |
| 390 | alfredo: I'm absolutely sure that it's a certainty that people will |
| 391 | get pissed off about it. I agree with you to some extent, that is to |
| 392 | be understood and is part of the learning process; there's no one here |
| 393 | with bad intentions and everyone understands that. The issue that Jack |
| 394 | just raised is: is it too much learning, and are we demanding too much |
| 395 | learning and growth in a session where people should be concentrating |
| 396 | on setting the organizational path. (We're running out of time, and |
| 397 | this group is fairly small.) There has to be much more instruction at |
| 398 | the very least before the meeting takes place, not during the |
| 399 | introduction. Maybe this is a blessing in disguise: maybe we can use |
| 400 | the fact that we're hemispheric to talk about a new way of talking, |
| 401 | conversing, decision-making, and talk about how that works; pioneer |
| 402 | that to some extent, which would require some things being sent out to |
| 403 | membership and some conversations. |
| 404 | |
| 405 | alfredo: I don't think we should go into the CDW the same way that we |
| 406 | did last year, because the organization is so radically different that |
| 407 | to involve the membership in the discussion, we must practice a huge |
| 408 | degree of sensitivity about how decisions are made. |
| 409 | |
| 410 | dkg: We seem to be batting around ideas of different things to get out |
| 411 | of this workshop, including bad things; in terms of the things we |
| 412 | want, it sounds like people are saying the possibility of figuring out |
| 413 | a new way to engage is in itself a [good thing]. That's very different |
| 414 | than saying we're going to hash out the program for the organization |
| 415 | via this workshop. Having the opportunity to interact with fellow |
| 416 | members is a critical part of the membership meeting, particularly |
| 417 | when operating under the kind of gulf that we have. Maybe that goal is |
| 418 | more important than a CDW, more important to find ways to open those |
| 419 | conversations so people can see where these conversations are |
| 420 | difficult |
| 421 | |
| 422 | Carlos: last year was the first time I participated in the CDW; it was |
| 423 | new to me, and there was that feeling of working hard on a proposal |
| 424 | and it disappearing. Having time to reflect and talk about the process |
| 425 | in the small group; we didn't have that so much. Is there a way to do |
| 426 | it so that it's a merge-type workshop where there's some aspect that |
| 427 | is voting/online/live thing that we do, but there's also more nuance, |
| 428 | connection to how people felt during the process, obviously very well |
| 429 | facilitated. That would have made me feel that the work we did in our |
| 430 | small group last year, coming up with different principles and |
| 431 | proposals, was somehow recognized. |
| 432 | |
| 433 | Jamie: we usually have that at the end of each workshop; we didn't do |
| 434 | it last year. Maybe ran out of time. |
| 435 | |
| 436 | Jamie: another thing with the CDW is that we normally don't pre-seed |
| 437 | it with priorities, particularly based on feedback from survey, would |
| 438 | give us an opportunity to start the workshop differently. Break into |
| 439 | small groups, online part isn't enabled, spend a good chunk of time |
| 440 | discussing what's there with your group before typing anything |
| 441 | in. Might give the chance to have that level of engagement without |
| 442 | having to frantically type things in. |
| 443 | |
| 444 | Jamie: the history is kept; the interface gives the impression that |
| 445 | it's disappeared, but we've just disappeared it. I wonder if there's a |
| 446 | way to make it more visible and prominent to get more of the nuance |
| 447 | that Carlos is talking about. |
| 448 | |
| 449 | jack: are we anticipating that there will be translation going on? |
| 450 | |
| 451 | jamie: we did that in guatemala and ny in 2008, and the wsf in 2009 in |
| 452 | 4 languages (which was crazy and fun). the way that translation works |
| 453 | is that when you're editing, you have both edit fields visible, and |
| 454 | can copy/paste yourself, or use machine translation. |
| 455 | |
| 456 | jack: the translation seems problematic; maybe we don't want machine |
| 457 | translation since they're so bad. |
| 458 | |
| 459 | jack: wondering if there's openness to doing something other than the |
| 460 | CDW? |
| 461 | |
| 462 | jamie: I'm open; I do think CDW is valuable, we don't have much time |
| 463 | before the membership meeting to implement something else. |
| 464 | |
| 465 | dkg: we might not be able to make the changes necessary to the CDW to |
| 466 | make the tool meet our goals, e.g. remote communication would be |
| 467 | critical. If the goal is to make it feel like one organization, not |
| 468 | having that ability to facilitate communication would make people feel |
| 469 | even more isolated. |
| 470 | |
| 471 | Jamie: I don't think we've come to a conclusive decision, but this |
| 472 | conversation has been incredibly productive and useful. Let's think |
| 473 | through next steps, moving this forward, make some assignments and |
| 474 | figure out follow-up. |
| 475 | |
| 476 | dkg: seems like there's an open question about whether the goal for |
| 477 | the CDW time-slot in the agenda is a decision-making process or a |
| 478 | communication/facilitation process. |
| 479 | |
| 480 | == NEXT STEPS: == |
| 481 | |
| 482 | * We need a proposal for how to achieve this goal of inter-member discussion on priorities. |
| 483 | * jack: i could write up a proposal about how to have the |
| 484 | conversation/facilitation section of the meeting. i could get it |
| 485 | done by the end of sunday. |
| 486 | * carlos: this is a holiday |
| 487 | * (conversation between folks on the call about how to give |
| 488 | proposals for CDW or alternatives; agreement that we can put out |
| 489 | at least a couple of proposals for how to approach it and discuss |
| 490 | further on the LC list.) |
| 491 | * carlos: if CDW was included, it should be changed to respond to |
| 492 | the concerns that have come out of using it in the past. If we can |
| 493 | figure out ways of including the CDW in the more conversation-type |
| 494 | workshop, there could be a possibility of joining them |
| 495 | * jamie: i'll put together a proposal of how we might modify the CDW |
| 496 | to address some of the concerns raised here. |
| 497 | * dkg: most of the concerns folks have raised about the CDW, I have |
| 498 | in general about the whole meeting. It will be difficult, people |
| 499 | will get annoyed and frustrated, there will be technical glitches |
| 500 | and logistical aspects that piss people off; nonetheless, I think |
| 501 | it's good that we do it. I mean this about the entire meeting, not |
| 502 | just the CDW. What we're proposing is a challenging process: |
| 503 | multinational, multi-lingual, multi-site concurrent meeting of |
| 504 | lots of groups that haven't met before. It will be difficult and |
| 505 | we shouldn't expect to come out of it without a few scrapes. |
| 506 | * Jack and Jamie will work on these and get them sent to the LC by |
| 507 | end of day Sunday. |
| 508 | * We need to draft initial priorities for the membership survey that will be sent out in September. |
| 509 | * Jamie: purpose of afternoon is to either set and/or discuss |
| 510 | organizatinal priorities for the coming year. The survey will be |
| 511 | before the meeting, get folks to vote on what they like, let folks |
| 512 | add new points; the results will help shape the pre-seeded |
| 513 | priorities for the afternoon discussion. Will also let membership |
| 514 | start thinking about the priorities, think politically, come |
| 515 | prepared to discuss. |
| 516 | * Jamie: also demonstrate we mean by priorities, what the scope of |
| 517 | an organizational priority is, by giving some examples. Don't want |
| 518 | members to come up with things that are so broad they are |
| 519 | meaningless OR so specific that they're [not actually useful in |
| 520 | terms of actual implementation] (that's a huge paraphrase!) |
| 521 | * Carlos: I can work on it, helpful to work with someone else, |
| 522 | bounce ideas off of folks |
| 523 | * Jamie can work on it as well |
| 524 | |