|Sent time:||Friday, October 28, 2011 4:23:15 PM|
|Subject:||Re: Re: [september17discuss] Structure Proposal GA Tonight|
I love the GA, but I don’t know how many you have attended. I brought my women’s group last Friday, andafter sitting through a 40 + minute discussion on what to pay to rent a truck,they were turned off and left saying they, very active women, could never affordto function that way. Not many ofour hard working Labor Group members attend GAs as they are now. The analysis by the Spanish occupiers of why theirGA, which was great in the early stages, eventually failed points to the sameproblems we have tried to address. Theysaid boredom, disempowerment and dilemmas rising from the consensus methodcaused people to leave (see Doug Singsen’s post Thursday 9:40). I think the new structure will make the GAsmore participatory when it comes to important decisions.
From: email@example.com[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of rob hollander
Sent: Friday, October 28, 201112:24 PM
Subject: Re: [september17discuss]Structure Proposal GA Tonight
The beauty of a GA isthat anyone can speak. It affords anadmittedly limited but yet fully equal enfranchisement and empowerment. So far, OWS, using a GA, has been successful, Iventure to say, way beyond anyone's imagination.You are about to fix something that has empirically worked. If it is dysfunctional, do not assume that's aproblem. Study OWS's success firstbefore assuming it needs repair.
The purpose of a structure is to make decisions.That's assuming that OWS is an organization.Well, in August, it was: an organization designed to create a social movement.
It succeeded: OWS is nowa social movement, not an organization.Social movements don't make decisions.
Organizations within a social movement makedecisions for themselves. That'swhat OWS should allow to flourish.But to imagine that some structure should call itself OWS and make decisionsfor OWS is, well, to coopt the movement.This structure is a coopting of a social movement.
I find great wisdom in the GA. Ifind this spokes structure at best counterproductive, at worst, divisive,disempowering and a threat to the local effort.
Once a structure makes decisions easy, there will be too many decisions andmany will be mistakes. Where OWSneeds such quick practical decisions like financing, OWS ought to set upstructure for those, but only for those.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jon Good <email@example.com> wrote:
This is SUCH a better proposal than the one initially brought to the GAlast week!
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Marisa Holmes <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
I'm in the structure working group.
For the last 3-4 weeks we've been meeting to discuss
the coordination and communication problems in OWS.
The result is the following proposal:
Tonight, we will be presenting at the GA.
We need this.
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|