|From:||Abraham Heisler <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Sent time:||Saturday, October 29, 2011 2:14:08 PM|
|Subject:||Re: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] ABE & FIX PROPOSALS|
I will be there.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:10 PM, <email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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" <email@example.com>
>> 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
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|