Another guideline is that if there is a discussion topic, which a person may or may not have complete (or merely adequate) knowledge about, making a proposal doesn't help, or if it does, it means that the proposal will lead to even more discussion, so that the result may bear little resemblance to the intent of the person who posted the discussion in the first place, who, though, didn't post the proposal, and the person who put up the proposal didn't inquire of the person who posted the discussion.

An example is the "Reparations for Native and African Americans" discussion. The proposal that is before it now, seems an odd proposal given my purpose in posting the discussion. Its possible if that proposal passes, that my purpose in starting the the discussion will be defeated. Yet maybe a new and better result will be achieved.

I don't know what the result will be if the current proposal is passed. So that discussion with its current proposal should be taken down. It would be hard to do an effective counter proposal.

I didn't expect the discussion to lead to a proposal. I was trying to narrowly open a big topic. It seems now we have a wide opening on an unknown topic.

How about proposals of a 1st draft proposal be put on the on the discussion thread b/f putting it up for a decision?

Yes. More than one proposal might be good for a discussion. I think we know that merely through slick wording, or through electronic sabotage, our words and intents can be twisted. Perhaps the instigator of the discussion should have some say on the proposal and there should be opportunities for more than one proposal. Right now, because of the proposal in the "Reparations" discussion, the result could turn into a big embarassment for us.
Tricia, could you make space for more proposals in that discussion?
I think the discussion so far could help create the sensitivity we need. However I think the current proposal will booby-trap that.

It seems loomio only allows for one proposal at a time - I agree we need a mechanism to ask for a proposal to close so another may be proposed. Please add more concrete, specific ideas for how to do it, in a sentence or phrase. Here's mine:

Ask for a Proposal to End so a new Proposal can be made.
Use a phrase [I move to end this proposal]
3? people use the phrase, the owner of the proposal removes it unless they further clarify why it should stay up.

Recap of new additions so far:

Additions:
The thresholds for consensus should be clearly defined, and the resulting decision should be posted.
I’m not against blocks if they are not given doomsday powers.
There should be some attempt to adjust the proposal to remove the reason for a block if possible.
I personally like 2/3 block overrides, without any promises to leave.
jmcg - loomiodisc 5-9

I would only share this thought, for me to do it, autonomy is important. I suggest that proposals only be made to the group that you are willing to do, coordinate and hold with or without the group’s blessing. NikiV loomiodisc 5-9

Do we need a process for adding new members? Tricia loomiodisc 5-9

blocks should not have doomsday powers - Julia loomiodisc 5-9

Blocker must really know the issues and the positions of each person and also must know the members generally and have a track-record of being involved in the particular issue, without being disruptive. Sea loomiodisc 5-9

http://natgat2014.titanpad.com/57

I still do not like percentages/fractions; I believe that blocks should only be used by someone who is finding the decision contradictory to principle, etc., and is willing to walk away from the group if it moves forward. It is then up to the group to decide if they can accommodate the objections or is willing to let the blocker walk away; either can be valid.

Levels of consensus & proposals can take all forms.

It should not be the last thing we use but a tool we can leverage when needed.

Seems to be working quite well as groups form around projects & ideas.

Discussions should be allowed to become proposals at any time..

But setting a min 7 day time frame would only be fair-

I understand the thoughts on a 7-day minimum, but would notice sent via e-mail/Facebook/etc. enable that to be cut down if needed without overly limiting people’s opportunity to participate?

I've been away at a mountain retreat for the last 48 hours. I meant to write up something at the beginning of this thread, but ran out of time before I left. I've added two things to the context at the top:
- Under "Usage" I've included some guidelines about starting off with discussions rather than proposals, levels of importance of proposal, and where to introduce a proposal (main group or a working grou).
- Guidelines for blocking in consensus. To me, this is what's always been missing (and why consensus hasn't worked so well in Occupy). The "I will leave the movement" thing has never worked for me. At the same time, overriding someone who has a principled block, IMO, is heinous. I like "Block means you’ve got serious objections and you’ll be extremely unhappy if this proposal goes ahead", although it's not our place to make sure every is happy or unhappy, so I'd prefer more concrete ways of determining whether a block is legitimate. I should be able to completely block a decision if my reasons are based on the decision violating a principle or principles we hold. The guidelines for blocking I've offered are form that intention.

I like the 2/3 override on blocks

Does anyone have the text of the writer from Canada who invented the hand signals and the idea of a Block?

There have been 2 recent Blocks in the Sacramento GA. Both involved "racism".

It's been a while since some of us have been in an actual GA here's a refresher on hand signals. It's interesting to see how we are trying to use this non verbal language on a verbal platform. http://vimeo.com/m/30816750

I spend most of my life in full consensus groups and communities (cohousing, my men's group, collaborative teams, etc.). I would likely not be part of anything that would all a majority to run over a minority by overriding a legitimate block. (As far as I know, Philly has perhaps the weakest decision-making process in Occupy (I think you settled on 75% or 2/3; too much like Congress for me). (I heard that there were folks who were advocating for a 50+% majority, so that the higher nubmer was a stretch.) Consensus is consensus, and supermajority is not, no matter how you slice it.
In Oakland, I would watch in horror as 90% would roll over 10%, with that minority having no resources. In such a racially charged and violence-prone city, I held my breath, waiting for the day when that 10% turned out to be mainly people of color or women. IMO, the whole thing would have melted down bigtime if they had been rolled over like that. OO was lucky; that day never came, but at the same time, they escaped having the heinousness of a majority rolling over a minority be tested.
I will continue to advocate for guidelines for blocking, rather than just having some percentage that allows a large bunch people to force a small number of people to get in line with them.
(To me, this discussion warrants a call. The amount of time that I'd spend reading and writing on this subject could get out of hand.)

So we can all agree that blocking is a serious decision and people need to listen to their conscience.

That said, we decided that a Loomio was going to merely inform decisions made on the Wed conference calls. So discussion on blocking is moot.

The nature of our online coordination of a one time event is qualitatively different than longstanding groups who meet around a shared value or identity.

Conssider a Loomio a Temp Check and no more.
Please let's not get lost in analysis paralysis.

Check!

I was speaking as if I were discussing it for decision-making in general. If we're just talking about Loomio temp-checking as just you described, I can hold off on that until another discussion on decision-making (which should be the area of focus of the process working group, but there wasn't a lot of juice in that group, but I imagine it will be resurrected at some point in the not-too-distant future.

right this is for Loomio - though I imagined having done the work, we would have a basis for overall decision making.

I don't agree the block is a moot point. We've already seen it used several ways here, including "I will leave the group".

Tricia's right about Loomio being a temp check for decisions that effect the whole gathering and the wider planning group. But I see value in being able to make many smaller decisions or subgroup decisions here that are binding (to those who will do the work of the proposal).

Agreed with Jackie about subgroup decisions here, same as on as a subgroup call, but only those.

Seems to me that a subgroup would need its own Loomio group (consisting of just the subgroup's members) in which to make those decisions.

I've just added two new guidelines:

Under "Guidelines for Participation...":
- Respect the subject threads: Since there’s a lot of traffic here, keep the threads intact. Don’t post something that mixes one thread with another. Better to refer to people, “I just posted about abc in the xyz conversation.”

Under "Usage:"
- Proposals cannot be brought by one individual. At least three proposers are required, preferably at least one of them from a different Occupy, so as to encourage the spirit of collaboration among different Occupys. (If you as individual want to advocate for something, start a conversation, and if enough people get on board, then three or more of you can turn it into a proposal.)

Cal - on the Home page - the one that comes up when you click Occupy National Gathering Organizing Group up top

right hand column, there are subgroups, previous decisions, group description.

re: the proposals, you mean 3 people on (x-group) who align on an idea make a proposal?

If you don't have some kind of set threshold so that you know a decision has been made, it would take a real long time to get anything done. I mean, we have a lot of proposals up right now, and most of them have conflicting opinions. We need to make a million decisions by the end of August. If there is no percentage threshold a no vote is as good as a block.
How do we know when we have reached a decision?

John, first of all, we don't need to make as many decisions as would appear. IMO, people are making things into proposals that ought to start out as discussions (not as proposals), some (many?) of which, perhaps ought to stay as discussions Further, many of the smaller decisions need to be made by subgroups and should not be brought to this main group. (The subgroups can use any tool to make their decisions.)
Second, I don't know what you mean by threshold. In consensus, you build alignment. You know you've reached consensus when everyone is sufficiently aligned that there are no remaining objections (which depends on having a well-crafted set of guidelines for blocking). (Funny how even many Occupiers are still stuck in the old model of "democracy" wherein some majority runs over the rest; that's not what consensus-building is.)

The people who block can offer solutions - and make another proposal. Just blocking with no solutions is holding us back

Only problem with that process on Loomio is that the new proposal would have to go to a new page, unless the original proposer closes the first one early. Maybe that is not a bad idea—a block that includes “I have a suggestion to make this work; see it on [name of new proposal page]”.

One of my suggestions is that we decide on a phrase, like
"I move to end this proposal". and if 3?5? people copy the same phrase, the proposer must close it within 24 hrs.

that way the proposals for one discussion will stay under the one discussion.

plus we haven't decided if a block STOPS a proposal from going forward. If we go with the loomio version, it means serious objections, and the proposal can be changed to accommodate.

Sacramento has made really good decisions and it has been hard and there have been very few Blocks, and the two recent ones concerned ethnic sensitivity, and the Blocks have worked. Our GA is now amenable to ethnic sensitivity/anti-racism training.

Another Block happened about 2 years ago and it concerned a presumed police mole who was about to convince the group to do something which ultimately didn't happen because of the Block.

We have a member named Faygo who facilitated the two Blocks regarding sensitivity. In both cases he said the Blocker should explain their moral reason for Blocking.
We get consensus, unanimity on the things that seem to pan-out to really matter. So far we allow a Blocker to prevent any further action until the Block is resolved. I think this was the intent of the Canadian writer who taught OWS about the Block and the hand-signals.

Cal said, "Funny how even many Occupiers are still stuck in the old model of “democracy” wherein some majority runs over the rest; that’s not what consensus-building is."

We need to be smart enough and patient enough to arrange everything so that we foresee problems, and so that we can get unanimity. No majority rule. If a person Blocks and seems to be disrupting (not just at that moment but that the Block might seem to continue to disrupt weeks later), it is our (the GA's) fault, for being hasty. I'll say this for Faygo. He's not hasty.

I think the key is in writing the proposal clearly, defining the level of consensus with each and allow at least one full week for group to weigh in- maybe making sure it is announced on the phone call?

Blocks can be addressed as they happen & how they are defined in the proposal.

Last year, Occupy Kalamazoo brought out one of their facilitators to facilitate one of the GAs in which a proposal was brought. Someone blocked and the facilitator didn't seem to know how to handle it. I don't now for sure, but it seemed that they'd never had blocks there.

IMO, it's unreasonable to require everyone who objects to provide a solution. Solutions can come from anywhere in a group -- indeed that's one of the advantages of groups, to be able to tap into its collective wisdom. What is important is to articulate clearly what the block is and why it's a legitimate block. (Hence the guidelines for blocking I've suggested in the context part above.)

I really don't think Occupy would have ever happened if those that disagreed with certain directions the majority wanted to take didn't decide to go along with the majority for the greater good.
For example, there were many of us that thought thought there should be a defined message from day 1, but 2/3 said we should leave that for after the initial event.
There is still no consensus in Occupy on that point. If we had not been willing to go with the majority, we would still be trying to reach consensus instead of Occupying Wall Street.

Although it is good to work towards complete agreement, I still don't see it is practical under our time constraints,

Additionally, it seems to me that demanding absolute consensus can be more divisive than modified consensus.
If when I blocked the Move On proposal last year, we had used a 2/3 modified consensus, after the first vote, I would have said, "I think this is a mistake. I tried, I lost, but I'll go along with it because there are other important things to do."
But because the facilitator considered blocks absolute, the whole thing turned into a @#%$ fest.
Yes there are times when majorities are abusive, and when that happens the minority can appeal to to facilitation and to the more fair members of the majority to understand how they are being abused. But to demand that everyone agree on every action means that 1 person can keep anything from happening, or at least slow everything to a snail's pace.
Shouldn't our enemies at least have to show up with 50% of our numbers to block our proposals?

John, your use of the phrase "absolute consensus" doesn't describe what I'm talking about. In consensus (in for example, cohousing communities), the by-word is "can you live with it?", not "do you agree with it?" (though I personally think that "can you live with it?" tends to result in lower-quality decisions. Agreement/disagreement may be okay for temp-checks (which, from what I can see, generally aren't binding on the group), but doesn't really capture the spirit of consensus.

One of the participation guidelines is "Seek Alignment rather than Agreement: Alignment is shared intention, whereas agreement is having a shared belief or opinion."

And I would further description it as "sufficient alignment". When I facilitate (not the Oakland GAs because that was supermajority not consensus), I often say indicate if you are aligned with this..." (which is usually taken as "if you are sufficiently aligned with this...". I can align with something that I don't agree with (or at least don't fully agree with) or even like. I care less whether you agree with me than whether you "can" sufficiently align. We're not looking for perfection but enough alignment from everyone that we can move forward.

thanks for bringing up time constraints John.

While in theory and heart I go with Cal's pure consensus model, in practicality, for the purposes of putting on an event, we have to have the means to move on and do what we can do. I don't like strict percentages either, but would go with the group. the important thing is to have that agreement. I appreciate that you would have stuck by a consensus agreement had ng2 had one.

we're a small planning/organizing/coordinating working group with a limited amount of time to produce an outcome. working is key.

the purpose of this group is to make natgat happen, physically, logistically, food, supplies, reasonable attempt at housing. financially - fundraise! outreach, media, messaging. etc.

So, next steps?
get draft proposals together to agree to.
how
separate discussions
add to pad:
Loomio
http://natgat2014.titanpad.com/57
3? people agree to post proposal [another decision that would have to come first]

Cal suggested at one point there are really three discussions here.

I agree, and will create 2 more discussions to focus the work towards proposals and hopefully agreements.

I think Cal’s point is important; it is reflected in John’s post: “I really don’t think Occupy would have ever happened if those that disagreed with certain directions the majority wanted to take didn’t decide to go along with the majority for the greater good. ” That choice, NOT to continue the block, may appear after the fact as unanimity, but it is not necessarily 100% votes in favor, not necessarily 100% agreement—it is 100% “this is acceptable to me; I do not have a reason that THE GROUP should not go ahead with this”. With that as the understanding of what consensus means, I stand by “absolute” consensus—that does not feel absolute to me.

Awesome!

I will take some time to write up the OWS process, modified to include the guidelines for blocking, and post it on the decision-making discussion, after Jackie has has had a chance to separated out the threads.

done - read the description - probably was doing the same time you were writing last reply.

This article is germane to this topic because it outlines the pitfalls of these discussions about "process" http://roarmag.org/2014/05/occupy-resisting-liberal-tendencies/

Sally, I see where you and Cal are coming from, but what is the mechanism for ending the discussion, having people realize that they might have to live with a different direction than they want to go, declare a decision, and move on?

Ask the blocker to explain per concerns. Open the discussion as to whether those concerns are valid for others, how the decision might be amended to take those concerns into account. If suggestions are raised, temp check them and then revisit the decision, now amended. Yes, it can take a long time; impractical for very large groups; but we could be doing it here and on the calls without setting a percentage, I think.

OK, so now that we have separate threads for these discussions, this one is the most simple.

1.Can we agree upon the the above participation guidelines.
Yes - make a proposal
No - add more, edit, suggest

1. what is process for complaint, resolution or removal. this needs more development.

Please take decision making discussion to
https://www.loomio.org/d/z4RIg1tK/how-we-make-decisions-loomio-decision-making

If there is no percentage 100%, 90%, 67%,... how does a temp check decide anything?
And if you insist on 100% buy in on every decision, doesn't that mean that one or two saboteurs can keep every decision in limbo for weeks?
An intentional community of people living together is different from a movement of people trying to change the world paradigm. Trying to achieve perfection in decision making, and entertaining the destructive impulses of any member of the group has been one of the main obstacles to Occupy. I watched it destroy Occupy Staten Island and the NYC GA and the OWS Spokes Council.
If 2/3 or 3/4 want to follow a course of action then everyone else can either get on board or split off.
The majority of people that have left Occupy left, not because they were overridden in a decision, but because they see an inability to move foward, or deal effectively with obviously destructive individuals.

Can we avoid duplicating the same posts in multiple places? (This is already time-consuming enough with so many discussions happening.) I thnik it's better to post in one place (and if you really feel there's a need to, then refer people to where you posted it). We can all see all the discussions, and we're pretty much the same people in most of these discussions.) Thanks.

Cal, What happened on Fridays Structure Working Group call? Why is Donna so hurt?

Actually, I felt hurt on Friday's Structure call, on the verge of tears.

There are serious hurt feelings in Sacramento, in Southern California, and happening on our conference calls. More importantly there are very serious hurt feelings amongst outside groups that find it hard to participate with us. Those groups, are who, are going to make or break our gathering.

If the authorities in Sacramento respond positively, they will, because they pick up that we have risen above what they are incapable of rising above.

We're strong enough to withstand anything. And we're smart enough to stop doing bad stuff to ourselves.

Well said, Sea! TOGETHER We Rise!