Please Let's GET ORGANIZED!!

I think it might be useful to get our priorities in order. The following is just my thoughts on getting us organized, and moving forward effectively. I'm starting with a public interface website, and it's long.

Priority 1) A Public Interface Website project should be begun immediately. It will include-
A Landing Page with a brief (very brief for now) writeup which we will agree on explaining what we're doing. Maybe different news pieces or updates and such.
A Get Involved Page, asking for volunteers where people can either sign up to their local groups pages, or signup to our crowd-source workgroups, where we can say we are looking for ..oh Artists, Community Organizing Volunteers, Fundraisers.. among other things, or donate, via the handy donation box link. There'd also be just a Sign up for email updates option, links to the registered occupations directory and the forums. Of course these links will all be in our sidebars or navbars.
An Open Forum, for open discussion with subforums for all of our Issue Areas and a different set of subforums for each state, where they might focus in on local issues and problems and discuss the merits or lack thereof of their reps and candidates and potential delegates, when we get there. Must register to participate, (with zip and email update opt-in) and there will be no real guidance of discussion here. The state forums will be for just regular people who don't want intense policy debate to connect with their locals, and the issue forums will allow them all to connect across states and discuss issues more casually, sharing with each other and such, rather than intensely debating over policy goals.
A separate but open forum for our crowdsource workgroups, which will be divided by issues only, not states, maybe have another for 99delegation rules and procedures. These will be visible and open to the public, must register to participate (all registrations require a zip or district and an opt-in to email updates) and will be specifically for crowdsource discussion of specific policy goals.
There will be one more separate but open forum for refining everything into something literate and comprehensive, subforums for each issue, and a voting mechanism by which people in the crowdsource groups can vote on what we come up with. Who will participate in these 'Coalescing' work groups will be decided via priority 2, getting our rules of quorum established.
We will also have on our one big main portal website a registration place for signing up a catalogue of the various occupation groups, indicating which ones have agreed to participate in the peoples' assembly, and letting them upload their own declarations if they want, and indicating which voting districts still need a local assembly to be started. In time, this directory may come to include local news, rep, candidate, and potential delegate information and such, and there should be clear links between the directories and the state forums.
And we'll need to begin a library of fully neutrally crafted educational essays on various issue topics, where people can just learn, and begin to understand. We can do these both in writing, and also alternative pictures and graphs versions.

Priority 2) Establishing our Rules of Quorum. Discuss, debate, and vote and get it over with.

EDIT: All work groups will have two levels, as discussed above in the forums. There will perhaps be a limit on the number of volunteers, and they can be voted out by a vote the procedure of which will be decided on when we discuss priority 2. The vote would be open to crowdsource work groups and the actions and refining workgroups members, ideally. In this way we have a crowdsource group which can go hogwild, and a refining and actions group which must focus and push forward, fully observable by the crowdsource group at all times. The Refining and Actions Work Groups would always have to put their results and decisions to an open 'bicameral' vote, before acting. I can't figure out what to call this upper work group, no real suggestions right now, but it would either provide the final debates and decisions, or the final debates and drafts, and then take whatever action would be called for from there, issuing their work or implementing it, but we do not wish to call it an executive committee. We'll figure all that out.

Priority 3) Start a Legal Work group (both levels).

Priority 4) Start a Finances Work group (both levels).

Priority 5) Issue work group both levels, everything both levels, organized by issue areas. To start with, they'll concentrate on research and education, and wait for the onsite listing of the declarations from the 'satellite' groups before they really start voting and refining our own final declarations. This will give whomever wishes to participate time to research and provide drafting of educational pieces anyway. They need form and start doing that now.

Priority 6) Outreach and P/R Teams in Every State. Really just one level, or maybe 2, one for planning, one for people who just want to be there when needed.

Priority 7) Fair Elections Research Work Group, both levels.

Priority A Journalism Standards board, both levels.

Priority 9) Elections Teams in Each State, which will hopefully include the people from the outreach and p/r teams.

Priority 10) Our own central p/r team & messaging team, which can also do things like coming up with brochure, flier and handout designs and text, easy one liner slogans, ideas for signs, and stuff like that. Things our outreach team can use, and we can all use in our talking points and press memos.

Priority 11) An Art group, for whatever we need.

Priority 12) A media group, for whatever we need.

EDIT:
Priority 13) A Goals group, to decide exactly what we all agree to do here.

I'm not sure we need to two levels for all of these work groups, we can figure that out when we discuss quorum rules. Let me add they're not really listed in order of priority.

So basically we need to start the main public interface site where all discussion will move to, figure out our quorum rules, and our goals first, and then start all these work groups, now, here, as we can, until we get the new interface with all necessary forums set up.

Obviously I may be missing some things. Can we add them here, stay linear, and move forward?

There is a good deal of participation here, but we are not being productive, we are not making any progress. We NEED to get organized, and the first thing we need to do for anything further to have ANY meaning is to agree to the rules of quorum, for us right here.

We need to create a structure for making decisions and for making progress, or else we are wasting this great opportunity.

We don't want any leaders, or dictators, we want this BY THE PEOPLE, and dont forget FOR the people. We have a responsibility NOT to waste this opportunity. PLEASE let's get organized. In order to do that we must decide on rules of quorum.

Let's figure that out first. Here is the best I've come up with, please tell me what the rest of you suggest.


An online open forum consisting of a double set of the issue topics and the other work group topics. One set would be used by the organized work groups, kept to a limited number, and be fully visible to all. The second set would be for the public commentary. The organized groups will submit decisions or final drafts to the public groups for approval, and members of both groups will be able to vote. Membership in the organized groups will start with whoever volunteers, be capped at a manageable number, and anyone can call for a vote to remove someone which would need like 80% to pass. New members can be voted in only when there's an opening.

In this way there is no one in charge, no positions of even implied power, every decision is democratically checked, the entire process is open to the public, and streamlined, we all know our jobs, there can be no tyrants or dictatorships, and maybe we can begin to make real progress, democratically.

That's the best I've got, what do the rest of you think?

Please discuss. Now. Here. This is priority one.


 

I'm merging this with your other thread in this topic, DJ. Let's try to keep new threads to a minimum, folks. I'm going to try to pull all the suggestions that we've got here, and that I've received in e-mail, into one working thread. One central thread will make consensus easier.

It's a start Molly, glad to see you're still here.

DJequalityNash wrote:There is a good deal of participation here, but we are not being productive, we are not making any progress. We NEED to get organized, and the first thing we need to do for anything further to have ANY meaning is to agree to the rules of quorum, for us right here.

We need to create a structure for making decisions and for making progress, or else we are wasting this great opportunity.

We don't want any leaders, or dictators, we want this BY THE PEOPLE, and dont forget FOR the people. We have a responsibility NOT to waste this opportunity. PLEASE let's get organized. In order to do that we must decide on rules of quorum.

Let's figure that out first. Here is the best I've come up with, please tell me what the rest of you suggest.


An online open forum consisting of a double set of the issue topics and the other work group topics. One set would be used by the organized work groups, kept to a limited number, and be fully visible to all. The second set would be for the public commentary. The organized groups will submit decisions or final drafts to the public groups for approval, and members of both groups will be able to vote. Membership in the organized groups will start with whoever volunteers, be capped at a manageable number, and anyone can call for a vote to remove someone which would need like 80% to pass. New members can be voted in only when there's an opening.

In this way there is no one in charge, no positions of even implied power, every decision is democratically checked, the entire process is open to the public, and streamlined, we all know our jobs, there can be no tyrants or dictatorships, and maybe we can begin to make real progress, democratically.

That's the best I've got, what do the rest of you think?

Please discuss. Now. Here. This is priority one.


 

I've commented on this in the Re-Building Thread after seeing what Molly has written.... These forums can easily become very overladen with repeated posts if we aren't careful...

Thank you for this. I must admit that, although I still want very much to be involved with this group, I'm feeling at a loss for the moment. My area of expertise is not in structural organization, nor is it in using web technology. I feel I have little to offer to either of these discussions.
Furthermore, I am not a democratic purist and I don't have much problem with the idea of leaders, as long as I respect those leaders and what they are doing. I know we want to be as inclusive as possible and should strive to continually attract new and diverse voices, but all we can do is our best.
in reading the thread "Stepping Out," I found myself agreeing that we risk getting so bogged down in creating an unassailable system that we completely lose momentum, AND MEMBERS!
Therefore, I am in agreement that we organize in some fashion post haste and tinker with it as we go along, understanding that we will continue to make many mistakes, and that we will correct them.
As an aside, I do wish there was one place I could go when I log in to see all the new posts, rather than having to comb through all the threads. Probably not possible, though, or you already would've done it.
Peace,
Johanna

Johanna on the home page, right above the forum topics listing, are three links in small red text. The first one I believe will let you see All New Posts Since Your Last Visit. Hope that helps!

I'm sorry for the multiple posts, just trying to bring attention to the priority. We also need to discuss a few other quorum rules, exact procedure for voting in new members and stuff, and the percentage needed for a move forward vote. Please also offer alternative ideas, additional suggestions, or just state your general agreement so we can start to move forward.

Molly has also started a thread about the exact work groups we need. It's also under the Improving Workgroups sub forum. Let's get these decisions over with.
Go there, voice your opinions.

Sounds like a fabulous idea. Well thought-out and prepared.

Thanks for these recommendations!

I posted repeatedly about the need to get organized. This can be found elsewhere and I am tired of repeating myself.

Some among us are pushing for democracy, slowing down, etc etc. I dont want to antagonize any valuable contributor but just need to highlight my concerns about the loss of momentum.

We are already seeing this. A few very active people contribute a good number of posts. People dont see to vote anymore, which is a shame since this is a great tool to bring closure to open issues and move on.

I would go a bit further. We had a leader in Michael. No matter what each of us thinks of what he did or how he did it, he succeeded in rallying people. He had his failings, but at least there was an "authoritative" voice whose role was to build consensus and keep the momentum.

I am seriously starting to think we need someone to fill in the vaccuum.

I think we just need to get organized in a way that doesn't require any designated leaders. It's just a different way of thinking and will take a small bit of time to transition to. I'm not against Michael in any way and thought he was doing a fine job. I'm also sure he wasn't trying to 'be a leader', but just to move things forward. Once we create the system, progress can be made through work group consensus and public approval, without any need for designated leaders with extra privileges and potential for an abuse of power.

Let me repeat, I don't think we saw anyone trying to abuse their power, just trying to get things done. Without a good organized system it's hard to get everyone's attention on one topic in a timely manner that allows for consensus without just clogging up progress. In the meantime, everyone is just doing their best.

DJequalityNash wrote:I think we just need to get organized in a way that doesn't require any designated leaders. It's just a different way of thinking and will take a small bit of time to transition to. I'm not against Michael in any way and thought he was doing a fine job. I'm also sure he wasn't trying to 'be a leader', but just to move things forward. Once we create the system, progress can be made through work group consensus and public approval, without any need for designated leaders with extra privileges and potential for an abuse of power.

Let me repeat, I don't think we saw anyone trying to abuse their power, just trying to get things done. Without a good organized system it's hard to get everyone's attention on one topic in a timely manner that allows for consensus without just clogging up progress. In the meantime, everyone is just doing their best.

Let us agree to disagree on this. If not a leader (you may also want to call him a facilitator instead), at least we may need an executive committe. Which is what we seem to have here although these people have not introduced themselves. A poll may help at some point.

In starting anew I have a forum design to facilitate half of what was mentioned here. DJ has a good point that we need to start thinking about a landing page. Another member REALLY wants to poll America and a landing page would be a great place for that.

External poll for America, internal poll for us. Will maybe help shape the direction. (* Please remember polls can be hacked and abused, so do take external polls with a grain of salt though - we should listen but it isn't always 1:1 with reality.)

George I don't agree that we need an executive committee to make decisions for us. If we form a 501c3 or c4, we'll have to have a board. I think that board should be elected, term limited, conduct only fully open meetings, and be very constrained in their actual capabilities. But that's just me.

I think we have compiled a good list of the necessary working groups. I'm going to go ahead and create a thread on establishing goals and a mission statement, and another one on rules of quorum and democratic procedures. Forgive me, but I'll also be starting one on what group name we'll be operating under. Please find those threads, right here under the Improving Work Groups sub forum, and voice your opinions.

DJequalityNash wrote:I think we just need to get organized in a way that doesn't require any designated leaders. .

Then expect failure.

We're seeing the effect of leaderless activity right now. Multiple postings on the same subject. No sign of progress toward the goal. In fact, no well-articulated goal.

If we just can't tolerate an executive director then we must have an executive committee.

We're seeing the effects of unorganized activity right now, as well as feeling the effects of a rapid die-off due to a no doubt unintentionally nondemocratic startup. Because 'executive decisions' were being made behind the scenes with no public input, people quickly grew disgusted with the charade and left. Those who remain understand that we're reorganizing, although this shouldn't mean work should stop.

Take the 501C incorporation issue. Noone really had any justification for objecting to a need to formally organize, it was the way the decision was being made for us with little or no debate and consensus, same thing with the donations box, obviously we'll have to, but who, when, where, why and how should be a group decision.

Some of us are actually using our real full names. We have a stake in this too.

If it's an executive board, then it should be by group consensus. If it's an anonymous executive board operating under rules of its own making, and casting decisions which make our hard work potentially moot and useless, that's a huge issue.

Let there be an executive board, and let us vote on the number sitting on that board, and for who they are, exactly, and their functions, limitations, and term limits. I'm sure that is all anyone is asking.

DJequalityNash wrote:George I don't agree that we need an executive committee to make decisions for us. If we form a 501c3 or c4, we'll have to have a board. I think that board should be elected, term limited, conduct only fully open meetings, and be very constrained in their actual capabilities. But that's just me.

I think we have compiled a good list of the necessary working groups. I'm going to go ahead and create a thread on establishing goals and a mission statement, and another one on rules of quorum and democratic procedures. Forgive me, but I'll also be starting one on what group name we'll be operating under. Please find those threads, right here under the Improving Work Groups sub forum, and voice your opinions.

Let me rephrase if unclear. An executive committe's purpose would be to coordinate, facilitate and keep the momentum. All of us would still be free to make our voices heard, and complain if we feel not listened to through a complaint thread for instance.

georgesetal wrote:

DJequalityNash wrote:George I don't agree that we need an executive committee to make decisions for us. If we form a 501c3 or c4, we'll have to have a board. I think that board should be elected, term limited, conduct only fully open meetings, and be very constrained in their actual capabilities. But that's just me.

I think we have compiled a good list of the necessary working groups. I'm going to go ahead and create a thread on establishing goals and a mission statement, and another one on rules of quorum and democratic procedures. Forgive me, but I'll also be starting one on what group name we'll be operating under. Please find those threads, right here under the Improving Work Groups sub forum, and voice your opinions.

Let me rephrase if unclear. An executive committe's purpose would be to coordinate, facilitate and keep the momentum. All of us would still be free to make our voices heard, and complain if we feel not listened to through a complaint thread for instance.

I just want to be able to find what I'm looking, and accomplish what I mean to, for with the least effort...I think Nash did some great work laying out a "fomat" I guess I'll call it...i didn't reply sooner, because, while I can describe what I want to be able to do/get from the effort spent, I'm relatively clueless on the issue of what software can do what???,Or how to construct a Forum..So I thought I read, we were going to be on a new format soon, and I fig'd I'll wait to see what we get....I'll tell you my Approach to some of this...I'm forming an "Objectives" working group with my local "#occupynola"..I've got my plan..I'm going to do what I can to work with as many of my groups members to come up with something that resembles The Declaration,here maybe..hehe..I will then present any proposals that have gained consensus, there, here...I'd like to think, as I stated b4 somewhere...we can make quicker work of a lot of this stuff, online...but having every voice heard, and that those voices, concerns/issues are fairly and as equitably addressed, I believe will be critical to growing this, and maintaining Integrity..doesn't mean Minority voices , should be allowed to hijack the process, but there's some smart folks around that can fig. out these details, like Nash, apparently..My "Objectives" group unlike most of the working groups will not have any autonomous power to speak for the group without gaining consensus to do , through a GA.. most of the other working groups act with a measure of autonomy once approved(I think...I'm still kinda new to "the process"...Don't know if much, or any of this helps, or is relevent...But there you have it...

Yeah, Uncommon, you're right. Most of what the work groups do should be autonomous. That was all stuff I figured we'd clarify whenever we got around to discussing procedure and rules of quorum.

Once we decide on what relationship we want with OWS and the GA's, we might put out a request that the GA's send us a copy of their own statements of national grievances, for those who have made such.

uncommonfilth wrote:

georgesetal wrote:

DJequalityNash wrote:George I don't agree that we need an executive committee to make decisions for us. If we form a 501c3 or c4, we'll have to have a board. I think that board should be elected, term limited, conduct only fully open meetings, and be very constrained in their actual capabilities. But that's just me.

I think we have compiled a good list of the necessary working groups. I'm going to go ahead and create a thread on establishing goals and a mission statement, and another one on rules of quorum and democratic procedures. Forgive me, but I'll also be starting one on what group name we'll be operating under. Please find those threads, right here under the Improving Work Groups sub forum, and voice your opinions.

Let me rephrase if unclear. An executive committe's purpose would be to coordinate, facilitate and keep the momentum. All of us would still be free to make our voices heard, and complain if we feel not listened to through a complaint thread for instance.

I just want to be able to find what I'm looking, and accomplish what I mean to, for with the least effort...I think Nash did some great work laying out a "fomat" I guess I'll call it...i didn't reply sooner, because, while I can describe what I want to be able to do/get from the effort spent, I'm relatively clueless on the issue of what software can do what???,Or how to construct a Forum..So I thought I read, we were going to be on a new format soon, and I fig'd I'll wait to see what we get....I'll tell you my Approach to some of this...I'm forming an "Objectives" working group with my local "#occupynola"..I've got my plan..I'm going to do what I can to work with as many of my groups members to come up with something that resembles The Declaration,here maybe..hehe..I will then present any proposals that have gained consensus, there, here...I'd like to think, as I stated b4 somewhere...we can make quicker work of a lot of this stuff, online...but having every voice heard, and that those voices, concerns/issues are fairly and as equitably addressed, I believe will be critical to growing this, and maintaining Integrity..doesn't mean Minority voices , should be allowed to hijack the process, but there's some smart folks around that can fig. out these details, like Nash, apparently..My "Objectives" group unlike most of the working groups will not have any autonomous power to speak for the group without gaining consensus to do , through a GA.. most of the other working groups act with a measure of autonomy once approved(I think...I'm still kinda new to "the process"...Don't know if much, or any of this helps, or is relevent...But there you have it...

I hope I will not sound too offensive, but could you organize your posts in a few bullet points, i.e.1), 2), 3)? I, for one, cannot follow a list of sentences with ... in between.

georgesetal wrote:

uncommonfilth wrote:

georgesetal wrote:

DJequalityNash wrote:George I don't agree that we need an executive committee to make decisions for us. If we form a 501c3 or c4, we'll have to have a board. I think that board should be elected, term limited, conduct only fully open meetings, and be very constrained in their actual capabilities. But that's just me.

I think we have compiled a good list of the necessary working groups. I'm going to go ahead and create a thread on establishing goals and a mission statement, and another one on rules of quorum and democratic procedures. Forgive me, but I'll also be starting one on what group name we'll be operating under. Please find those threads, right here under the Improving Work Groups sub forum, and voice your opinions.

Let me rephrase if unclear. An executive committe's purpose would be to coordinate, facilitate and keep the momentum. All of us would still be free to make our voices heard, and complain if we feel not listened to through a complaint thread for instance.

I just want to be able to find what I'm looking, and accomplish what I mean to, for with the least effort...I think Nash did some great work laying out a "fomat" I guess I'll call it...i didn't reply sooner, because, while I can describe what I want to be able to do/get from the effort spent, I'm relatively clueless on the issue of what software can do what???,Or how to construct a Forum..So I thought I read, we were going to be on a new format soon, and I fig'd I'll wait to see what we get....I'll tell you my Approach to some of this...I'm forming an "Objectives" working group with my local "#occupynola"..I've got my plan..I'm going to do what I can to work with as many of my groups members to come up with something that resembles The Declaration,here maybe..hehe..I will then present any proposals that have gained consensus, there, here...I'd like to think, as I stated b4 somewhere...we can make quicker work of a lot of this stuff, online...but having every voice heard, and that those voices, concerns/issues are fairly and as equitably addressed, I believe will be critical to growing this, and maintaining Integrity..doesn't mean Minority voices , should be allowed to hijack the process, but there's some smart folks around that can fig. out these details, like Nash, apparently..My "Objectives" group unlike most of the working groups will not have any autonomous power to speak for the group without gaining consensus to do , through a GA.. most of the other working groups act with a measure of autonomy once approved(I think...I'm still kinda new to "the process"...Don't know if much, or any of this helps, or is relevent...But there you have it...

I hope I will not sound too offensive, but could you organize your posts in a few bullet points, i.e.1), 2), 3)? I, for one, cannot follow a list of sentences with ... in between.

Absolutely, I'll do any/everything I can to accomodate,the improvement of our exchanges.
I'm kinda new to this,but I think I had someone give me some similar advice in a poker forum.
so, Yes I'll do what I can.