[statecom-discuss] Separate thread for discussion on consensus

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Okay, I think we have moved from consenus onto fun   :-)    so we need to 
change threads - I love walking around and talking to people - might give GRP 
folks a sense of the impact of the run finally - Love, grace
In a message dated 6/3/07 10:23:20 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:


> Well,  I'd say that we should be courteous enough to let Mike respond since 
> even his change may be technically already in the bylaws, we should respect 
> the fact that something is bothering him and so maybe he should have a chance 
> to try another proposal to deal with whatever it is that is bothering him.
> 
> I do share your sympathy about the need for training in the process although 
> at the same time I have seen it done very well.
> 
> I maintain that it is not our process that is stifling but rather our 
> agendas...It would be nice to do something physical at one of these Statecoms. 
> 
> Why don't we use your personal popularity (or is notoriety a better word !)  
> to take advantage of a walk through some neighborhood and talk to some 
> people or do a standout on some issue like the war or human rights for 
> Palestinians - something that would really clearly distinguish us from the pwooh - 
> gwessive ! Dems - and link it with an anti-poverty issue....
> 
> Ron
> 
> Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote: Ron - I agree about separating this thread - in 
> fact i already tried twice,
> lets see if people follow it when you do it.
> 
> anyway, rather than waste the group's time I had asked Mike to look up the
> GRP bylaws before suggesting we change them - but he chose not to.   so I 
> have
> looked it up and Mike's "change" is what our bylaws already change - so we 
> can
> just dump that part of the proposal.
> 
> I guess I'd like proposers to at least go through the bother of checking our
> bylaws before proposing a change which is what our bylaws presently say.   
> It
> would save all of us time and seems respectful.
> 
> So not only is it similar (as you stated in your email) but in fact that is
> our agreed upon process.   so this issue is closed.
> 
> I do want to re-iterate since, Ron, you too, seem to have missed what I 
> wrote
> in response- straw polling and the issues others have raised have to go with
> faciliation NOT our decision-making process.
> 
> In your specific example - of course facilitators decide when to drop to a
> vote - it is in the bylaws but it is also always the role of facilitators.
> 
> Can we please now agree to a training on facilitation and consensus since we
> don't have disagreement with our stated rules we just don't seem to be able 
> to
> follow them? - Love, grace
> In a message dated 6/3/07 12:15:39 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
> 
> 
> > A quick note is that consensus will tend to be less laborious for those
> > groups that have well-shared principles or well-determined objectives such 
> as
> > single issue coalitions.
> >
> > For more nebulous and multi-faceted groups such as GRP, then consensus 
> will
> > be more laborious.
> >
> > Nevertheless I don't think that Mike's proposal is that far from our 
> current
> > consensus process so I'm not sure that there is any serious disagreement
> > here (as I think Lloyd is basically realizing when he talks of a 
> compromise...)
> >
> > Here is Mike's proposal       "4. The consensus process will be changed:
> >   An attempt will be made to reach consensus. After a reasonable time, the
> >   facilitators of the meeting are authorized to shift to other ways of
> > making decisions (straw votes, etc.) When votes are taken, a 2/3 vote or 
> greater
> > will be needed to make a decision."
> >
> > 1) As it works right now we try to "reach consensus" by stating concerns,
> > so that aspect would be the same.
> > 2) Proposers try to meet concerns by making changes, so that aspect would 
> be
> > the same.
> > 3) Facilitators are allowed to take straw non-decision-making votes 
> whenever
> > they want to, so that aspect would be the same
> > 4) Irreconcilable concerns are often put into a small group, outside of 
> the
> > main group to try to resolve them, while the full group continues with 
> other
> > matters.  If this falls under "attempt to reach consensus" then that 
> aspect
> > would be the same.
> > The only difference is that Mike's proposal allows the facilitators to 
> move
> > us, at their sole discretion, to a 2/3 vote if they choose to do so 
> bypassing
> > any extending attempts to reach consensus (lengthy repetitive debates for
> > example)
> >
> > It seems to me that if we are going to debate this topic then we should
> > sharpen the debate and deal with the following question:
> >
> > Do the facilitators have the power to decide when a reasonable "attempt to
> > reach consensus" has been made and unilaterally move us to a 2/3 vote ?
> >
> > I would like to hear comments on that.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
> > Ron Francis  wrote: I am proposing a separate thread for
> > the discussion of consensus so that it does not get mixed up with other
> > discussion....
> >
> > If you agree then please use this subject line for future comments.
> >
> > Ron
> > _______________________________________________
> > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **************************************
> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 
> 




**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.