|From:||Renée Renata Bergan <email@example.com>|
|Sent time:||Saturday, October 29, 2011 2:40:45 PM|
|Subject:||Re: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] ABE & FIX PROPOSALS|
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:
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?
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> 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.
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|