From:   Abraham Heisler <abe@abrahamheisler.com>
Sent time:   Saturday, October 29, 2011 2:14:08 PM
To:   globalrevolutionmedia@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] ABE & FIX PROPOSALS
 

I will be there.

 

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:10 PM, <jaimexo@gmail.com> 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 <senorfix@gmail.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" <katiedavison@rogueproduction.com>

> wrote:

>>

>> 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

>> procured?

>>

>> 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

>> heard.

>

 

 

 

--

www.AbrahamHeisler.com

www.vimeo.com/heisler

www.imdb.me/heisler

www.newdawnlab.com

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >