Decentralize

Voting goes against the idea of consensus decision making and the idea that all voices are heard. "It's true that majority voting enables even controversial decisions to be taken in a minimum amount of time, but that doesn't mean to say that this decision will be a wise one, or even morally acceptable" http://seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

This tool is superior to the conf calls in many ways, its transparent and leaves a clear record. It allows us to speak freely, work across 5 time zones and affords plenty of time for questions and clarifications. It's inclusive b/c you can invite anyone into a conversation by emailing them.

I am not an experienced admin and let the conversations meander, and lots of people are here, but not participating, haven't quit.

It's us who have to do a fair amount of work to do to let go of old ways and our short institutional knowledge about group dynamics and learn to use this new tool developed by Occupy Sydney effectively. Or at least let's clearly state how we'd improve it.

I concur with your last paragraph. I've been in dialogue with the Loomio folks, discussing improvements, which are in the works, but which we won't see within our needed timeframe.

The calls have been a major step towards bring us into a new way. The fact that we can do temp checks and make decisions on calls and run stacks, etc., is something we've never been able to do like that ever before. (It's one of the reasons why InterOccupy emerged, and why it emerged around calls. Thus far, calls are still better for collaboration, IMO.) While Loomio may make it so some people who otherwise might not be able to participate on calls, it doesn't really help keep those people connected with the heartbeat of what's happening, the way email and calls can, and so it can still leave those folks on the periphery (as evidenced by one frequent poster/proposer here who seems off somewhere in his own world).

And while for us (Occupy), our institutional knowledge about group dynamics is short, there's a lot of prior knowledge in that area. (As a Jungian and as a member of a group (not Occupy) that has been pioneering collaboration in places where hierarchy has been the historical way, group psyche/dynamics/relationship/process is one my particular areas of focus.)
And just to be clear, I'm not a fan of majority voting.

I think the tools work well TOGETHER; now that we have all 3 (e-mail, call, loomio), I would not go back to being without any one. There IS a record of the calls, not only notes and our decision pad, but also the audio recordings. Recently a few of us were discussing whether there is enough of a demand for, and what the logistics would be of, posting those recordings somewhere—inconclusive at this point, but the fact is that they can be requested even now. Whenever I am on a conference call from another organization, I miss Maestro! Keep wanting to press 2, press 1 to say something, ask for a temp check; they really make the calls efficient.
The only improvement I can see for the calls would be a way to include opinions from those who cannot be there at the specific time; adding time for prevotes means that those folks do not have full information, especially of any adjustments made on the call, and the problem with postvotes is that (a) the decision must wait for the postvotes and (b) issues raised after the call are unheard by call participants. Thoughts for addressing these concerns are welcome.

Sally, to your last point: In one of the councils I'm on (only men, at least so far), we have a provision for people who can't make a meeting (and can't have a "second" there in their stead. They can review any decisions and weigh on them. (And some decisions aren't final until we hear from absent members.) This was a controversial part of the process because some men wanted to say that if someone missed the meeting, they simply couldn't vote. I protested because each of represented a whole community and so an entire community could be left out of a decision, which I found unacceptable. (This started me looking at online voting as an adjunct to the meetings, some of which are on calls and some of which are face-to-face.)

Of course, this is easier when the group has actual membership, so we can know who all of participants are. In Occupy, there's the challenge of not having members, although many working groups, while not excluding anyone from joining, nonetheless do have a stable membership. And I see people dropping in just for one vote as problematic. To me, if someone don't want to participate, at least with some minimal regularity, how can they even know what our community is about? While I want to include them, I'd want to make sure that have the context for what their entering before they participate in decision making. I see this as one of the weaknesses in Occupy, indeed one of the most disrupting internal things: the deck would get stacked by people being brought in to vote on one matter and then were never seen again. (The Occ Oaklnd Facilitation Committee had new people not being able to vote in decision making until they had attended at least one meeting (and one working group was leaning towards making it three meetings.)

It was a very productive call tonight. Thanks @chasschaeffer

I extended the closing for a week to give us time to find clearness.

We can have unity within diversity, order without structure, even solidarity without agreement. The gathering will happen and be beautiful even if everyone here "withdraws from the planning" and becomes a "lowly participant".
It's because of ALL the autonomous and coordinated WORK everyone has done together since the beginning of this movement three years ago.
A fresh approach would re-enage the disaffected and put some wind in the sails.
It's healthy to acknowledge the creative tension between established order and liberty to dissent. I've been on both sides.

I see wisdom in all the perspectives presented here. If it doesn't get personal, it can be productive. We are still learning.

Occupy was powerful not where consensus worked but in instances where groups and individuals showed a commitment to a collective idea even when they disagreed.

http://roarmag.org/2014/06/counter-power-as-common-power/

Tricia, for me the most important thing you said here is “if it doesn’t get personal”. The individual hurts, lashouts, etc., are bringing me down—it is hard for me to think of how those directly involved must feel. I so want this to succeed—I am seeing that it is taking on a life of its own, and I am staying committed to moving forward. Please, everyone, remember that we are all vulnerable human beings, and all came into this movement to create a better world. TOGETHER We Rise!

@jeremyentwistle What if before each call someone (possibly a different person each week) volunteered or was appointed to make that week’s report-back? Would that be acceptable? Getting communication across platforms is important, I think.