Michael,
thank you for the report. Hopefully it will have a remedial effect on FUD (within this list, but also, if it okay with you I would like to post it - with attribution to you - on my blog; which doesn’t have a lot of readers, but if I link to Dean’s post etc, it will hopefully get picked up by the Googles and serve its purpose).
—ravi
> Okay, I just got back from the park and 60 Wall (which is the hive of the working groups) and this was clearly a non-issue. Nobody mentioned it and everyone is still working with timelines extending into the indefinite future. I was a little embarassed to ask, to be honest, it was so obviously an exaggerated rumor. But when asked, the general answer was the same: the GA/drum circle conflict has been there since the beginning, and conflict and negotiation with the neighbors and city officials has been there since the beginning. Nothing's changed or come to crisis. On the contrary, things have recently gotten substantially better on both fronts precisely because the drummers are drumming substantially less now. So the conflict will continue, and hopefully continue to improve. No one was worried. People getting mad or feeling agreements were reneged is just considered SOP when there's a conflict. It always leads to another meeting.
>
> And speaking of conflicts -- or lack thereof -- the Demand working group met today with the Facilitation working group, the one that sets the agenda for the nightly general assembly. They couldn't have been nicer or more efficient. We asked if we could propose it and they said sure.
>
> So rumors that this would somehow get strangled in its cradle behind the scenes seem entirely ungrounded. To judge by this meeting, I don't see how it would such smothering would be even possible, this committee seems so transparent and rational and non-judgmental. It looks at this point as if the whole idea was either a misunderstanding or a bluff or both.
>
> Michael