Decentralize

@jeremyentwistle anyone can report back or help. Good God, I wish they would.
Organizing is not a bad thing.
Please pick a word that works for you...
http://thesaurus.com/browse/assign

As you can see empower is a synonym for assign. :)

In my experience, assigning people to things doesn't mean they'll be there. And it opens the possibility for somebody to intentionally take responsibility, then not be there.

I entirely agree that there should be a "main meeting" where all the groups update everybody with their progress. However, limiting people from updating at this meeting doesn't seem to do anything. Those who are facilitating these meetings should just keep us on topic by talking strictly about updates.

Usually, this is done by saying "does anybody from the outreach group have any updates?" Those in the group can decide to update everybody based on their own process, not a process imposed on them.

I Agree with Jeremy's points. Assignments and representative democracy don't fit.

I don’t think anyone is talking about limiting reportbacks to any one individual, just ensuring that someone gets the ball rolling. Heaven knows we can keep going once we get on a roll! Also, rereading the proposal, I am not sure about the validity of the implicit concern—that the call as main decision-making body, as it was in 2013 and I believe 2012 would be a bottleneck for individual projects. I see no intention to limit anything, just to ensure coördination among individual efforts, that we have the resources for what is being planned, that we know what equipment is needed where when, etc. Anyone can make a decision that does not affect the overall event, or does not involve exclusive use of NatGat resources (e.g., if someone requests sound equipment, we had best be sure that nobody else requested it at the same time).

Yes, Jeremy, what you described is what we do on the calls: "Who has a reportback for outreach?", then "Anyone have anything to add to that reportback?"

even if we don't formally reach consensus on the final calls, it allows for the discussion to be out there and the discussion is enlarged. everyone can then take their own personal queues and act in solidarity with the general principles of solidarity most occupiers value, those who are in consensus will continue to work together most likely ... that's what I've always found to be true, anyway. =)

I will be proposing that Sacramento’s facilitator, Faygo, be our main GA facilitator at the Gathering.
If he thinks we are genuine enough! ;-)
He has the the best head for it. And will work well with other facilitators

I would not like to see one main facilitator for all GAs. We have a number of volunteers who have indicated interest, and last year we tried to have a male/female team for most (someone who was there help me remember?). (That would naturally be a female/male team for Fem GA, although there is no reason to assume that either would take the lead.) I have been wanting to get an e-mail group/list together for those interested in facilitating; I probably should start that ASAP.

Sally, last year there were four GA facilitators, two men (who each facilitated alone) and two women (who co-facilitated the Fem GA). No woman/man combination happened.

That's awesome. Last week we used all LGBTQ Community members at an assembly. always great to have team reflect the community it is facilitating with!

Sorry; was it Philadelphia? Or . . .
I don’t know; I am sure I remember it from some Occupy! And in Kalamazoo last year we had Chris (male, local) and Iwanka (female, Philadelphia, exp. with NatGat2012) as co police liaisons; they did very well.

Gender parity was a big issue the first year. We chose to have a male and female and all the important roles. Dustin Slaughter and Julia Alford-Fowler did media in '12 and Preacher Larry and Lauren Beller facilitated the Vision for a Democratic Future Assembly