---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> Date: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:28 PM Subject: [demandsOWS] Facilitation WG Report back and feed back To: demandsOWS at yahoogroups.com
I went to the Facilitation Working Group to get us put on the schedule for Saturday and Sunday. They said we were on the schedule automatically by virtue of tabling. It turns out that's how tabling works. As for Sunday, we can't ask ahead, but if on Saturday we end up tabling again, and we table to Sunday, it would once again be automatic.
That could have been the end of the discussion in 30 seconds. But I then asked whether the discussion would begin with concerns and blocks, i.e., whether we would skip clarifying questions -- which seemed important, because otherwise we could conceivably have the exact same discussion again. There were obvious points both for and against skipping to concerns (which I can go into on request), and one of the facilitators proposed that they discuss this among themselves and get back to us. Proposal passed.
In the course of this, we had a substantive discussion about how the debate last Sunday got bent out of shape (the abuse of POI's and clarifying questions; the attacks on the legitimacy of the group's right to exist or present; etc.) IMHO this discussion was extremely helpful. The only people offering suggestions were facilitators; they were all in good faith; and they knew what they were talking about. And after thinking about, I think we ought to adopt their suggestions in toto.
The starting premise (offered by Leo, who was the guy who co-facilitated our discussion on Sunday 10/30 (as well as the Facilitation meeting we presented at the previous Tuesday), and who I have the utmost respect for as a facilitator) was that it didn't look like we were realistically moving toward consensus. I think most of us would agree with that, even those of us who think the proposal had strong majority support -- because a strong majority is not consensus.
Given that premise, it seemed to them obvious that the goal of discussion should be not to get a good vote that falls short, but rather to get closer to consensus without trying to get all the way, and then come back again to get closer still. And the normal way to do that would be to spend the first 20 minutes of our allotted time in break-out groups, in which we would distribute printouts of the proposal, field discussion, solicit input, questions and suggestions. We would then return to a general session where these questions and concerns would be addressed. And we would then incorporate this input a changed document, and bring that changed document back to the GA at a succeeding meeting to try for consensus again. Or we might have yet another GA meeting that went through the break groups format, and try for consensus the week after that. But the point is to institutionalize the discussion, and to institutionalize the taking of public input and the giving of feedback. To essentially deal with the fact that this discussion is too big for the GA to really deliberate at one meeting by organically connecting several GAs and having the discussion evolve across them.
My first instinct was to respond that this was what we had tried to do last week. But the more I reflected on it, the more I realized they were completely right. The only way for us to get credit and credibility for transparency and for taking input is to do exactly what they say: to do what we did last week but in the open, which means in a general assembly. So that when we come back, the entire general assembly sees what we've done and see how it has changed. The problem with the group to group approach is that it will never seem transparent compared to discussions in the general assembly. The general assembly is the heart of the Occupation. That is where we want the evolution of document to take place. Only in that way will it be the product of the General Assembly. And only in that way will it have a chance at reaching consensus.
IIUC, our primary goal is to have as thorough and as persuasive a discussion as possible of the desirability of clear demands in general as well of this demand in particular. This particular demand is a focal point for the larger discussion. If we can get two good GA discussions, or three, instead of 1, that seems twice or three times as good. If they are more reasonable discussions -- as I think small groups would be -- that would also be substantially better. And if publicly taking input and responding to it improves our chances of gaining support -- and of ultimately gaining the GA's consensus on a single compound demand -- well then, I just don't see any downside for this plan compared to our original plan, where IIUC we basically expected to fail, hopefully with honor and glory, and then figure out what to do next. This seems a much more constructive approach, as well as being closer to what is now becoming the SOP for large complex proposals (which the facilitation working group explicitly said they considered this -- because even though it's not long, it's filled with many disparate clauses full of condensed import). The structure proposal went to 5 GAs doing precisely this. Visions and Goals, Principles of Solidarity and Declaration of the 99% have all proceeded in exactly this manner (and are still in midstream).
The other suggestion they had, if we wanted to take up where we left off, is that we should consider starting our presentation with a short summary of last week's discussion, giving ideal types of the objections raised, and of our replies to them. That also makes sense to me.
Facilitation emailed me after the meeting to ask me if the group would agree to do break-outs, or if we wanted to try for consensus on Saturday as we did last week. The implication is that we can do either. But I strongly suggest we follow their lead.
Michael
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/demandsOWS/