Deactivate NatGat Loomio Planning Group

I think that deactivating the group is fine, as long as what was posted -- from the time we started using until through the completion of the planning effort on Wednesday, Aug 27) -- can still be accessed in the future. I don't think that what occurred on Loomio should simply disappear as if it never happened.

I wrote to Loomio to see if the information will still be available after deactivation.

I will wait to vote until we get an answer about the material remaining accessible; that will determine my decision.

I don't believe in de-activating an active space. A name change might be in order - unless this is a new group to plan the next gathering. I'll wait to vote too.

i'd just say the timing of this proposal was really not good, at least in the view of my email box and the other postings made to Loomio with respect to the NatGat, especially after experiencing what I have witnessed and been a part of these past 7 months. sigh, makes me listen twice to that voice for transparency, etc.

We had previously agreed to disband so there would be no "insider" group, that people can form a new group, with new people and veterans of past years to plan another gathering if desired.

I feel this is degenerating into a witch hunt, unfounded accusations - looking at someone's other groups and speculating about them, conspiracy theories, saying there are mysterious happenings when the process has been completely transparent.

That's not cool. That's not Solidarity.

I'd like to see a new working group that would develop some guidelines to help us avoid the kind of dissension that occurred this year.

I'd like to be finished with the weekly calls, but I'd like to stay connected (email lists?) so we can find ways to sell our leftover T-shirts. Can Elane set up a T-shirt online "shop" for us?

Here's the response from Loomio:

Hi Tricia,

At this stage when you deactivate a group the content is preserved but hidden. So maybe what you'd prefer to do is to remove the group members so there is no further activity, but keep the group as it is (active) so that the content is still accessible as a reference.

I'm sorry there's no perfect solution, we are working on ways to improve these systems :)

Please let me know if I can answer any further questions.

Kind regards,

Hannah

I don't think ppl will like to be removed from the group ~ We could change the name and continue on as an "affinity" group with a clean slate. People who want out can remove themselves.

In light of this response from Loomio, and the fact that they are in Beta mode, why not ask their help by seeing if they could use what happened here as guinea pigs and find out where things went right and how it went wrong.
Then we can all "condense" on creating or sharing guidelines of communication to use as reference in the future.

A suggestion was to change the name to include "Retired"

this thread is indicative of the issues that remain. but, seems like people don't care about that for others who still have issues that remain. it will naturally end when it does, let things naturally happen. or not. when it is your issue, you would want the same respect.

my 2 cents:
Retaining and maintaining already active Occupy or NatGat urls is important.

The work should remain natgat focused if the name is retained. The twelve coordinators seems to insure it will not devolve into something not natgat organizing.

The natgat 2014 planning group as an entity closed on the last call.
What continues is a community of whoever remains. The members will be fluid. The group will evolve into a new iteration or not.

It could become a stable natgat space like the facebook page - a step towards not starting from scratch each year.

There are 55 members in this group that might become engaged if visions, discussions and organizing that appeals to them goes on. A big part of Occupy is establishing and maintaining trusted networks, and documenting our processes. This group could recess into the background archives as new natgat organizing occurs on top of it. The old discussions would get pushed to the bottom.

I like Tricia's idea of including Loomio - I don't know anything about storage or how long, how much data they are prepared to hold if the group last years.

I'm with Niki - it will naturally happen or not. Out of respect for the group, I'm hanging on until after the Sept. 10 call and then will probably be an infrequent poster.

Niki, are your issues Transparency and Accountability, the subjects of the 9/10 call, as I understand it, Or are there other issues that you're concerned about?

my issue, why I blocked, yeah, probably starts with the transparency issue and ends with exclusionary actions (whether intentional or not), which, to me, just looks and feels soooooo wrong and only serves to empower the impression, if not actuality, of non transparency. not willing to add fuel to fire.

Since we can't take the site down and we have a block, the decision is moot.

I am probably going to remove myself. The lack of love and trust feels soooooo wrong.

indeed it does Trisha. since everyone to me was a complete stranger in this nationa l gathering, except those who I know from occupy la and occupy fights foreclosures, holding space for the process of another stranger and their process is what I would do for anyone in an inclusive movement. the fact I see what I do is neither a lack of trust nor a lack of love. /Niki

I found this and thought it might be helpful to this conversation

"To our understanding, Collective Thinking is diametrically opposed to the kind of thinking propounded by the present system. This makes it difficult to assimilate and apply. Time is needed, as it involves a long process. When faced with a decision, the normal response of two people with differing opinions tends to be confrontational. They each defend their opinions with the aim of convincing their opponent, until their opinion has won or, at most, a compromise has been reached.

The aim of Collective Thinking, on the other hand, is to construct. That is to say, two people with differing ideas work together to build something new. The onus is therefore not on my idea or yours; rather it is the notion that two ideas together will produce something new, something that neither of us had envisaged beforehand. This focus requires of us that we actively listen, rather than merely be preoccupied with preparing our response.

Collective Thinking is born when we understand that all opinions, be these opinions our own or others’, need to be considered when generating consensus and that an idea, once it has been constructed indirectly, can transform us.

Do not be discouraged: we are learning; we’ll get there: all that’s needed is time." http://occupytogether.wikispot.org/General_Assembly

+1
My absolutely favorite description of consensus and collective thinking. The very first consensus article I ever read - the result of the experiences of the Group Dynamics Commission for the Assemblies of the Puerta del Sol Protest Camp from the 2011 15M movement.

http://takethesquare.net/2011/07/31/quick-guide-on-group-dynamics-in-peoples-assemblies/

hmmmmm, posts seem to be disappearing. I asked given the above, how this proposal contributes top the notions presented above given the reality of the residual work, imho, that remains. then in email, Trisha had a comment about this committee was an ad hoc committee and just curious who determined that. what was the"formal" genesis of this ... not speaking of Loomio use as this is a tool for the group that came together? I don't know, there seems to be two different conversations happening here.

There is no "formal" anything. Each of the three groups that planned the three National Gatherings disbanded after the event was over. I think if this national group wants to continue working together, then it needs a reason for being and guidelines, maybe even "formalizing" it so there's less confusion going forward.

One one hand, each year's planning group dissolves after the debrief call. That leaves the next year's group to be re-formed.

On the other hand, having an ongoing planning group that helps potential host Occupys get to be a/the location seems useful. It provides some continuity, in the form of 2 or 3 or 4 people continuing from one year to the next, but largely each year's group consists mainly of different people, as it has each year.

IMO, decentralizing is a general tendency is fine, but any extreme (including eliminating every ounce of decentralization) makes for re-inventing the wheel each year and can make coordinating difficult to nearly impossible. To me, can there be a balance between a group that acts as "glue" to hold things together and the host city that has the passion, vision, drive, and organizing muscle to pull off even a regional gathering, let alone a national one.

I would say if there is a general occupy national group forming, they should start another loomio group.

Leave this one idle and open for things concerning natgat - like when various Occupys decide they want to call for natgat - they can then have this space to temp check interest, recruit a team, etc. and then carry on for the next natgat planning.

second Tricia on there was never a formal anything.
here's how it has seemed to me:
1. Occupy X decides it wants to call for a natgat; creates a basic vision
2. Occupy X reaches out among national networks for planning help.
3. NGWG forms - sets up basic structure. NGWG reaches out nationally for more help.
event happens
group disbands

Agreed. Having trouble right now organizing V2V campaign. Ipetitions problems, no list-serve responses, being signed out of accounts unpredictably. what FUN!!! THANKS FOR EVERYTHING. Why isn't the V2V declaration still on the InterOccupy Newswire???

Niki, not sure what posts are disappearing, or how that would happen. I am not sure about the “formal” start of the group; for me, I saw some posts on Facebook that indicated that Sacramento had agreed to host a gathering and that calls were happening for NatGat2014, and registered for not only the main call, but a bunch of the e-mail lists. Loomio came along later.

it may have just been the mobile connection and glitches from that, I can email in responses better than going to site. nothing important lost, just the present moment phrasing you never quite get again that second time you have to scribe it. :-) all good in general. yeah, I saw it on fB, after I met Donna at the rose parade on new years day who mentioned it ... I didn't think about it again until I saw a posting. I knew about Philly and Michigan and so wanted to go but as a fellow occupier from OLA was really pushing me to go ... i was on restrictive probation the first year and timing/schedule the second. wasn't going to miss one this close to home!

"Sally G (Loomio)" wrote:

Niki, not sure what posts are disappearing, or how that would happen. I am not sure about the “formal” start of the group; for me, I saw some posts on Facebook that indicated that Sacramento had agreed to host a gathering and that calls were happening for NatGat2014, and registered for not only the main call, but a bunch of the e-mail lists. Loomio came along later.

--
Reply to this email directly or view it on Loomio:
http://www.loomio.org/d/lf7mFoeI/deactivate-natgat-loomio-planning-group?utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment#comment-216173

Change your email preferences:
http://www.loomio.org/email_preferences?unsubscribe_token=aazV7opYDyZX5ay8eo5m&utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment

I think the work of the NG2014 Planning Group is not finished. We were talking about things that went well and did not go well, and one of the major "not's was not discussed or worked on. Guideline for Participation #7 was not observed, we did not take on accountability for it, and it was a major problem and obstacle to the effective functioning of the group. We could not be accountable for #7, "Be excellent to each other," because we never determined what behaviors are aligned with the Guideline and which are not. Once we have decided what the specific behaviors should be, the next step would be to decide what should be done when the Guideline is violated and what each of us needs to do to be accountable for maintaining the Guideline. IMO, until this essential work is done, the job of the Planning Group is not finished.

I agree completely Carolyn.

I'm pretty sure the phrase "Be excellent to each other" is supposed to be self explanatory, as the definition should come from your heart.
John

Carolyn, The Guideline #7 that you are referring to was part of a group of guidelines that was never consensed, and further, is a quote from the movie, "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure." Early on in the planning, we suggested adopting the OWS Community Guidelines, but as everything else in this group, someone delayed the approval of that and instead we were presented with the Guidelines from which you are quoting, which were not voted on ... ever.

It should be fairly obvious to you by this time that there will be no accountability forthcoming from those who have continually avoided answering the simplest questions. OCCUPY is TRANSPARENT, so when non-activists are controlling our national actions and events, this is to be expected. We are moving away from this petty, controlled environment. It has been toxic since the beginning, before i was chosen as a target to distract everyone.

However, as many have realized, this journey through unchecked patriarchy, hierarchy, and misogyny has revealed much for our future success. We refuse to be burdened with archaic systems that impede our freedoms and create targets of the honest & truthful.

We were being excellent to each other.
Then the hierarchy showed up, sabotaged the plans for Nat Gat, which were ready to go, and then had the AUDACITY to state on yesterday's call that this process was not transparent!!! NEWSFLASH: ANYONE CAN CALL FOR A NAT GAT.

So we spent the next 5 months on the conference call deciding on a replacement date that was a) the hottest week of the summer, b) when reps were NOT in session at the Capital, and when it would be impossible fir Backbone Campaign to attend.

IN OTHER WORDS: SABOTAGE AND UNACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE START.

THIS WHOLE PROCESS SERVED TO MAKE THE NAT GAT AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE AND AS FRUSTRATING AS POSSIBLE, AND NO ONE SEEMS TO BE AWARE THAT THE SAME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN STEADILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INCREASED CONTROL OF NAT GAT AND ITS DECLINING POPULARITY & ATTENDANCE.

The Zapatistas informed us that when our "leaders" refuse to step back, we should "make them" step back, This is where i am at ... so how do we do this? Just ignore them? i for one am DONE being used by the patriarch as a distraction and a "personal issue" when this false narrative has nothing to do with the original questions of accountability & transparency that arose and which i was then "punished" for asking ... STILL. All attacks against me and any "poisoning" against me that was done by the hierarchy was intentionally done to affect my contributions and work towards the Nat Gat. On Day One, i arrived knowing that i would have to counter the sabotaging "smallness" that was characteristic of this gathering. So i set up Little Zuccotti Park West, and arranged for "OCCUPY" flags to be on hand to make us more visible and to increase our outreach possibilities. But by then, the damage was done.

As we moved to a different place everyday, and were tucked in a corner away from any public notice or interaction, it was increasingly disheartening for me to witness that NO ONE seemed to know or care how much micro-managing, non-activist "leaders" had co-opted yet another OCCUPY event.

NEXT YEAR, A WHOLE NEW GROUP OF PEOPLE STEP UP, AND THERE BETTER NOT BE A HIERARCHY JUMPING UP IN THEIR WAY AND FUCKING EVERYTHING UP. WE WILL BE WATCHING.

d*p

Party on, dudes! http://youtu.be/N_yJFLvmjJY

While my heart is with you, John @jemcgloin. I can see why Carolyn might want it more clearly defined. People's upbringings condition them to see expressions of love differently (sometimes playing out through their coping strategies) - a mother being really tough on their kid to help them grow might be seen as way too harsh by another, who had a gentle mother. Or, someone who had a father who spent his time intellectualizing (and spend no time in heart space) might be emulated as "excellent" by someone who believes he/she is being excellent by pontificating. Others may think that being nice all the time is being excellent, but then withhold their truth. Still others might think that being forceful is the only way to speak their truth. And some who have abuse or trust issues may think that controlling the thing that they don't trust is the coping strategy. There are so many ways that people might believe they are acting in line with that phrase.

I myself prefer kindness and curiosity, particularly when bothered by something someone else does. But I also believe in holding clear boundaries.

This comes into play in the way we do (and don't) give and receive feedback. (More on this later, maybe.)

I agree with Donna Piranha. There’s the non-sequential chit chat, and there are those who actually take action to get things done; even if by themselves, a vanguard it may be, but if it is for a good cause, others will hopefully join in.

The main goal is to get things accomplished! As I had previously said, it’s time to move on,…

http://occupynewhampshire.org/blog/category/public-events/

Denny ☮

so, the email response doesn't seem to be working.

guidelines? What guidelines? I've never heard of these guidelines and I've been here since what Feb our march?

guidelines are tools if heirarchy to define and control, exclude and punish mostly. as soon as a group our any individual is handing out guidelines they are seeking to control others.

we have our principles of solidarity already, don't need no guidelines, just need humans, with tolerance and willingness to hold each other accountable for how our own personal interactions manifest. I put that under "empowering" one another.

@Donna, @ElaineX The Guidelines for Participation for use during conference calls, from which I quoted #7, "Be Excellent to Each Other," were consensed upon by the early InterOccupy Working Group which was the Movement Building Working Group in Zuccotti Park. See interoccupy.net/about/participation-guidelines

i absolutely refuse to "be excellent" to someone purposely abusing me. Most on the call see what's really happening, and to those who are supporting abuse .., WAKE UP.

If these guidelines are part of InterOccupy then why did we allow a facillitator who constantly went against these principles and was so "unexcellent to each other" that many people left the call in the first months? Why then was "the worst facillitator exchange" allowed to occur between Nikki and Cal, which is the moment i stepped in to object, and was forever afterwards chosen as Cal's nemesis? And why, in spite of continued complaints, did the situation never change? Why did THIS GROUP allow such an "unexcellent" situation of hierarchical & patriarchal abuse to continue for 8 months?

These guidelines were not observed by Cal and his continued use of mind-fuckery is now the subject of many academic papers. If any supported abuse or the abusers .., shame on you. If you supported hierarchy, patriarchy and misogyny in Occupy, shame on you.

If Maestro calls on InterOccupy have to be hosted by a hierarchical, patriarchal misogynist who IS NOT AN ACTIVIST, and if EIGHT FUCKING MONTHS GO BY WITHOUT ANYONE STANDING UP TO THE NON-EXCELLENCE OF THIS DYSFUNCTIONAL GROUP .., we had best look for other ways to have meetings..

OCCUPY should not support abusers who use manipulative techniques, distraction, delay, and LIES to harm ACTUAL ACTIVISTS.

...and there lies the rub -- you refuse to be excellent; you have taken your personal assessment and put the screws to the planning group at every opportunity. Does it ever occur to you there are more people than Cal in the group? and that you have some responsibility for its dysfunction and the eventual poor attendance at the event.

accountability? take some.

and please, please keep us posted on the various analyses - anxiously awaiting them.

Donna, by carrying on this odd vendetta against Cal, you are doing more to dishearten the group and drive people away than Cal could possibly do. I see no sign of patriarchy, of misogyny (note that many of Cal's staunchest defenders are women), or of "mind control". Cal is a stand-up guy with the highest integrity. Please quit harassing him!

oh boy, time out.

seriously.

first, Nat Gat was not an inter occupy event, or was it?

if it was, as integrated into the planning process as i was, experiencing it as the newbie as Niki is, and as experienced as i am, such was NEVER disclosed. in fact, such was denied, our stated to be not the case, repeatedly.

the guidelines are a hierarchical tool, as is evidenced by the discord they have created here. no one in these responses are being excellent to themselves let alone one another.

anyone who has to be defended by others and is engaged in the conversation can do it for themselves . and the compulsion of people to defend by naming any names, while that person is involved in the conversation, IMO, is not honoring the principle of solidarity of autonomy, let alone empowering the conversation between two people to have an autonomous conversation without taking sides and empowering a heirarchy of one position over the other in the group.

again, IMO, not occupy.

Interoccupy is looking for volunteers, so if you want to know more about Interoccupy and what roles it plays in Occupy, you can join and see for yourself.

As for Cal, let's just give it a rest. The NatGat 2014 calls are over and people who don't want to be around each other don't have to be.

Hi Elaine,

At the first NatGat, InterOccupy volunteers came to the gathering and helped facilitate a bunch of topic-themed breakout sessions in the mornings (I forget what they were actually called), but IO was not in the center of the organizing/planning and had no "official" role, other than to provide services as we do for any Occupy or group or action that wants to use these services.

The second NatGat was a project of InterOccupy, so there was more heavy involvement. (Jackie can say more about that, since I wasn't that involved with the second NatGat planning, other than to facilitate some calls, and to help people who wanted to facilitate prepare to do that as soon as possible.)

This third NatGat was more like the first one, in that IO provided services to the NatGat planning group and its working groups, same as we do for any Occupy or group or action that wants to use these services.

So you're correct: This gathering wasn't an InterOccupy event. (And actually IO doesn't generally put on events; we're not really set up for that.)

Elaine,
The difficulty here is that this set of communications has been rather one-sided, and so very many allegations and contortions of the truth have been made, that the sheer length of the posts required to separate the facts from inference, conclusion, projection, etc. would, IMO, be overwhelming to most people here - not to mention the amount of time to put this together (especially not time that I need to deal with the urgent situations in my life), though I suppose I'll have to find the time, and in so doing, jeopardize some aspect of my life. And, from the responses, it would appear that most people don't want to go through all of this, and some are clearly crying out for this dynamic to end as quickly as possible.

Given her hostility towards me, Donna would not appear to be interested/willing to have a real dialogue with me (as she said she would after the gathering). It's possible that I could be mistaken, and so, Donna, if that's not the case and you are interested, let me know. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be a way to reconcile this, or even to address the feelings and pain.