Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of projects/membership-meeting/2012/notes/evaluation

Nov 4, 2012, 5:10:55 PM (8 years ago)
Jamie McClelland



  • projects/membership-meeting/2012/notes/evaluation

    v1 v1  
     2= Notes on Evaluation =
     4== From Steve ==
     6Deltas (and comments) from last 30 minutes of Mayfirst member meeting.
     8Question/Point of uncertainty.  What we've got up there is really
     9lukewarm.  There's one point with more than one endorsement. Many
     10things have few endorsements.  What do we do next to come up with a
     11broader consensus?
     13There are a lot of really important topics that were not observed in
     14the last part. The three teams, now that their process is over, want
     15to come up with an integrated document that integrates the
     16contribution of everyone.
     18Can single transferable voting be used for future voting.  It's
     19definitely a fair system.
     21Mexico is going to continue the meeting. Can we get some guidance as
     22to what that means.
     24Membership chooses priorities for the organization, and chooses the
     25leadership committee.  Leadership committed assigns projects based on
     26priorities.  Each priority has a change history, and there are lots of
     27changes and suggestions coming in.  Once all this is submitted, job of
     30incoming leadership committee will have the job of reviewing them, and
     31writing and integrated report based on their interpretation, and
     32presenting that to the membership.
     34Can any subset of members just keep meeting and working on priorities?
     36Our democratic process is in it's infancy; we make it up as we go
     37along.  I propose that we allow for a one-week period, where we invite
     38additional comments from membership on this process, and we will
     39consider all comments that come in during this week.
     41F has two endorsements.  All others have 1 endorsements.  We didn't
     42have enough time.  It needs more work beyond this meeting.
     44We should separate priorities and objectives, and continue to make a
     45list of proposals, for how to move this forward.  We should be able to
     46give a week to consider additional contributions.  Priorities should
     47be formulated as objectives, without getting into activities behind the
     50I was frustrated with the framing around last edit wins.  I don't
     51think the idea of winning is necessarily helpful.  Things that got
     52more endorsements are what we should be ranking, not necessarily the
     53last thing edited.
     55We had so much to talk about, and clearly ran out of time.  We should
     56have strategy in case technology takes longer than expected.
     58I understand logic for formulating things as objectives.  I'd like
     59space to be open for ideas, w/ some accountability from leadership
     60committee, so that these ideas can be incorporated into the
     61leadership strategy.  A lot of things can be introduced through
     62collaborative means.
     64I'm wondering if this could go on a web forum?  I'd be interested in
     65seeing what other peoples comments are, and replying to that.
     67Comment: on setting up a forum, we have  We
     68could use that to execute some of this collaboration work.
     70Next time we have to figure out an easier way for people to vote.  I
     71don't think it worked for many people to figure out how to vote
     74[From Mexico, missed first part -- static in headset] ... we're very
     75proactive.  Focusing on past of strategies and ideas was a good way to
     76frame the conversation, but there wasn't enough time to frame the
     79I'd like to make a point that it would be nice to see more voting
     80throughout the year.  More member involvement, beyond one membership
     81meeting per year.  I'd like to see more direct democracy than
     82representative democracy.
     84== From Daniel ==
     86here are some recorded notes from the meeting wrapup today:
     88May First/People Link Membership Meeting 2012
     90recording pluses and deltas from the day (my job was to record pluses,
     91but it wasn't always clear whether someone was doing a Δ or a + -- i
     92know i failed to record some Δ's)
     942012-10-28 15:32:43-0400
     97 + committment to making the link between mexico city and new york
     98   city happen
     100 + having discussion prior to the cdw really helped to focus thoughts
     101   and seem less like jumping into a competative environment
     103 + we think that a lot of really important topics or themes were not
     104   observed in the last part or present.  the three teams who were
     105   brought together now that the session is over need to continue to
     106   put together a perspective that joins everyone
     109 + In our work sessions here, we came to the conclusion that the
     110   priorities should be framed as objectives, not as activity; that
     111   task would we should separate the priorities and objectives and
     112   continue to make a list of how to move the work forward. and i
     114  week to continue to consider
     116 + It was great to see the effort that it took to get the
     117   communications between two places.
     119 + MF/PL is poised to be one of the groups that is poised to help end
     120   racism because of the position that it has -- point B is exciting,
     121   as well as training and expansion of technical knowledge, much of
     122   which is run by white people.
     124 + MF/PL has come a long way in the last year -- thanks to the
     125   infrastructure and the meeting planning!
     127 + conversation in the morning, the questions from rasha and carlos
     128   were very provocative -- the intent of focusing on the past, intent
     129   and ideas helped to frame the conversation, but there wasn't enough
     130   time to flesh it out.  We need more time to have the
     131   intergenerational geography (?) and
     136uncertainty -- neither pluses or deltas
     138 ? lukewarm endorsements - what is the mechanism for followup?  what
     139   happens next?
     141 ? can single transferable voting be used for future arrangements,
     142   better than first past the post?
     144 ? while planning objectives makes sense, but there needs to be room
     145   for specific ideas and plans to be incorporated into the LC; we
     146   have skills in the organization to get this done.
     153 Δ we don't even have consensus and it needs more work and we're not
     154   going to get it done at this meeting
     156 Δ how could we get have a plan for making use of technical downtime
     158 Δ could this go on a forum for some future discussion?  sending to
     159 isn't as satisfying or meaningful as having an
     160  ongoing discussion.
     162 Δ figure out easier way for people to vote.  voting didn't work well
     163   for many people
     165 Δ more votes during the year -- direct democracy is better than
     166   representative democracy