I will be there.
On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Abraham Heisler <email@example.com> wrote:
> I will be there.
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:10 PM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> In the interest of moving forward, let's allow for tomorrow's meeting to be
>> the last opportunity to express concerns and making amendments to these
>> proposals. We should bring it to a vote by meeting close.
>> I recommend a high attendance tomorrow, so we can clear agenda items and
>> plan for the week/weeks ahead.
>> Can I get a raise of hands to who plan to attend the 11am meeting?
>> I will attend.
>> On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Fix <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Hey everybody,
>> Let's all try to get to the meeting tomorrow folks so we can discuss and
>> find solutions to Katie's concerns and insure there are no others - ok?
>> Besides there are still some additional items to discuss and there is the
>> schedule for the day.
>> Any chance we can start the meeting at 10:30 given there ara a variety of
>> events to be covered that start at 12?
>> Michael Fix
>> Sent from my Star Trek like, mobile communication device, which is
>> destroying language.
>> On Oct 28, 2011 5:35 PM, "Katie Davison" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> Re the coordination and creative proposals.
>>> Abe's proposal - sounds fantastic.
>>> Fix's proposal -
>>> I have some concerns with the way proposals are touted.
>>> To me, this proposal reads like it still favors working outside the
>>> working group.
>>> What if there isn't enough time at the meeting to get to your proposed
>>> project and you have some kind of deadline for the free gear or space you've
>>> What if your specific project isn't prioritized for a variety of reasons
>>> that could range from someone missing it on the 1000 email deep email thread
>>> we are all dealing with, to the interest level of other individuals in the
>>> working group?
>>> I think this undercuts a level of autonomy that needs to exist to allow
>>> people any level of creative satisfaction.
>>> Am I right in understanding that at least 3 people from the working group
>>> need to be involved to make a project a go?
>>> I think that's problematic.
>>> What if someone wants to work with creative's outside the existing working
>>> group. BUT the very nature of getting those people involved will bring them
>>> into the Occupy fold. How would this be handled? Would they have to first
>>> come to meetings before the project could begin? How many meetings? Just
>>> one? Just one meeting doesn't feel like active participation in the group
>>> to me.
>>> Anyone that's been part of the process for any amount of time has felt the
>>> frustration of working within the process.
>>> I absolutely agree that that needs to be dealt with, however, I don't
>>> think it's a good idea to require all projects to first be vetted, voted
>>> upon and prioritized by the group before they even begin.
>>> This feels a bit like creative castration by the process. However, I have
>>> not been at a meeting all week, so I know I have not heard the vast array of
>>> arguments for this proposal. I am all ears. I will be there tomorrow.
>>> I just asked that this not be pushed through without my voice being
Kalabash Food Coop