Notes on Evaluation

From Steve

Deltas (and comments) from last 30 minutes of Mayfirst member meeting.

Question/Point of uncertainty. What we've got up there is really lukewarm. There's one point with more than one endorsement. Many things have few endorsements. What do we do next to come up with a broader consensus?

There are a lot of really important topics that were not observed in the last part. The three teams, now that their process is over, want to come up with an integrated document that integrates the contribution of everyone.

Can single transferable voting be used for future voting. It's definitely a fair system.

Mexico is going to continue the meeting. Can we get some guidance as to what that means.

Membership chooses priorities for the organization, and chooses the leadership committee. Leadership committed assigns projects based on priorities. Each priority has a change history, and there are lots of changes and suggestions coming in. Once all this is submitted, job of

incoming leadership committee will have the job of reviewing them, and writing and integrated report based on their interpretation, and presenting that to the membership.

Can any subset of members just keep meeting and working on priorities?

Our democratic process is in it's infancy; we make it up as we go along. I propose that we allow for a one-week period, where we invite additional comments from membership on this process, and we will consider all comments that come in during this week.

F has two endorsements. All others have 1 endorsements. We didn't have enough time. It needs more work beyond this meeting.

We should separate priorities and objectives, and continue to make a list of proposals, for how to move this forward. We should be able to give a week to consider additional contributions. Priorities should be formulated as objectives, without getting into activities behind the objective.

I was frustrated with the framing around last edit wins. I don't think the idea of winning is necessarily helpful. Things that got more endorsements are what we should be ranking, not necessarily the last thing edited.

We had so much to talk about, and clearly ran out of time. We should have strategy in case technology takes longer than expected.

I understand logic for formulating things as objectives. I'd like space to be open for ideas, w/ some accountability from leadership committee, so that these ideas can be incorporated into the leadership strategy. A lot of things can be introduced through collaborative means.

I'm wondering if this could go on a web forum? I'd be interested in seeing what other peoples comments are, and replying to that.

Comment: on setting up a forum, we have We could use that to execute some of this collaboration work.

Next time we have to figure out an easier way for people to vote. I don't think it worked for many people to figure out how to vote online.

[From Mexico, missed first part -- static in headset] ... we're very proactive. Focusing on past of strategies and ideas was a good way to frame the conversation, but there wasn't enough time to frame the conversation.

I'd like to make a point that it would be nice to see more voting throughout the year. More member involvement, beyond one membership meeting per year. I'd like to see more direct democracy than representative democracy.

From Daniel

here are some recorded notes from the meeting wrapup today:

May First/People Link Membership Meeting 2012

recording pluses and deltas from the day (my job was to record pluses, but it wasn't always clear whether someone was doing a Δ or a + -- i know i failed to record some Δ's)

2012-10-28 15:32:43-0400

+ committment to making the link between mexico city and new york

city happen

+ having discussion prior to the cdw really helped to focus thoughts

and seem less like jumping into a competative environment

+ we think that a lot of really important topics or themes were not

observed in the last part or present. the three teams who were brought together now that the session is over need to continue to put together a perspective that joins everyone

+ In our work sessions here, we came to the conclusion that the

priorities should be framed as objectives, not as activity; that task would we should separate the priorities and objectives and continue to make a list of how to move the work forward. and i

week to continue to consider

+ It was great to see the effort that it took to get the

communications between two places.

+ MF/PL is poised to be one of the groups that is poised to help end

racism because of the position that it has -- point B is exciting, as well as training and expansion of technical knowledge, much of which is run by white people.

+ MF/PL has come a long way in the last year -- thanks to the

infrastructure and the meeting planning!

+ conversation in the morning, the questions from rasha and carlos

were very provocative -- the intent of focusing on the past, intent and ideas helped to frame the conversation, but there wasn't enough time to flesh it out. We need more time to have the intergenerational geography (?) and

uncertainty -- neither pluses or deltas

? lukewarm endorsements - what is the mechanism for followup? what

happens next?

? can single transferable voting be used for future arrangements,

better than first past the post?

? while planning objectives makes sense, but there needs to be room

for specific ideas and plans to be incorporated into the LC; we have skills in the organization to get this done.


Δ we don't even have consensus and it needs more work and we're not

going to get it done at this meeting

Δ how could we get have a plan for making use of technical downtime

Δ could this go on a forum for some future discussion? sending to

info@… isn't as satisfying or meaningful as having an

ongoing discussion.

Δ figure out easier way for people to vote. voting didn't work well

for many people

Δ more votes during the year -- direct democracy is better than

representative democracy

Last modified 9 years ago Last modified on Nov 4, 2012, 5:10:55 PM