Arts meeting
|
View:
New views
11 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Arts meeting
by Philip Mantione
::
Rate this Message:
Hello all, The Arts group meeting tomorrow will be extremely important, and I encourage everyone who is interested in the artistic direction of the Complex to attend. But if you cannot make it, please give your opinion to the following issues so we have a idea of the community consensus. 1. The most important issue to me is how decisions are made regarding arts and music events and funding. Thus far it has been unclear to me whether these decisions are made by majority vote or unanimous agreement. The paradox is...how to decide this...by majority vote or by unanimity. 2. Secondly (or perhaps firstly), who gets to vote? 3. How can people vote? Is email legitmate or must one be present at the meeting? 4. If it's decided (somehow) that you must be present, must there be a quorum and if so, what percentage (51% or more?) 5. Should we introduce hierarchy in the form of a director or chairperson? As Paul says, group dynamics have set in. But now that we're here, there's no turning back. Please think about these issues and come tomorrow if you can. Phil
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html |
|
|
Re: Arts meeting
by Alysse Stepanian
::
Rate this Message:
Hi,
Since I can't attend the meetings, I'm responding to your points in the body of your email. alysse On Nov 1, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Philip Mantione wrote: I have problems with majority vote. This can lead to friction, alienation, and divisiveness. Everyone ACTIVELY involved with any of the arts at the Complex. Email today is as legitimate as anything else. And once you put it down in writing, your intentions become most clear. If it is somehow decided to go with majority vote, with the stipulation of being present, then YES. And prior to voting, an email should go out to the entire list, with clear listing of the issues, and with enough time for everyone to try to make arrangements to be present. However, making it mandatory to be present is completely unfair. Many people have to be at work, or have other commitments in life. No. As many others, I've been drawn to the Complex because of its "open source," open decision-making policies. Creating hierarchy will institutionalize the Complex and kill the energy that has sparked my own program, as an example. We're all equal and no one is needed to rule all. We're all working as volunteers and should be treated equally. This should be taken as an opportunity to air out disagreements and for all voices to be heard.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html |
|
|
Re: Arts meeting
by Robert Cordingley
::
Rate this Message:
It's my understanding that...
A core Complex value system/imperative is Sociocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy) under which the governance of a boid is developed. It seems on the whole that boids can develop their own governance processes and methods - hierarchies don't seem to be excluded - consensus plays a big part. Mostly it is: proceed until someone has a rational objection then work things out until the objection is retracted or it's point embraced or worked around. The goals of any boid should be consistent with the Complex's Mission ( http://sfcomplex.org/adobewiki/index.php?title=Mission). There's more on Complex boids (aka Roundtables) at http://sfcomplex.org/adobewiki/index.php?title=Roundtables tho' the cast of characters has changed. I'm willing to be corrected. Thanks, Robert C Alysse Stepanian wrote: Hi, _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html |
|
|
Re: Arts meeting
by Philip Mantione
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Robert,
In theory this all sounds great. But it doesn't address the problem at hand. As you say, "boids can develop their own governance processes and methods - hierarchies don't seem to be excluded - consensus plays a big part." But how is consensus defined? 51%? And who gets to vote? Is consensus a "big part" or a requirement? The idea of proceeding "until someone has a rational objection then work things out until the objection is retracted or its point embraced or worked around" is mostly how things have been happening thus far, I think. But there seems to be a need for more clarity instead of a vague notion of how things are meant to proceed. It there's a "rational objection" that is not retracted or embraced...who decides how and when to "work around" it. Is this when the benevolent King steps in? I think the Boid idea works well in the macro sense, but tends to break down within the Boid itself. It seems that Reynold's algorithm treats each Boid as an individual agent acting in relation to other Boids. But the behavior of the Art group as one Boid in the Complex of Boids is not in question. It's the organization of the elements that make up the Art Boid that's to be debated. Are you saying that those elements are Boids within a Boid? That's a lotta boids... Phil On Nov 1, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Robert Cordingley wrote: It's my understanding that... _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html |
|
|
Re: Arts meeting
by Victoria Hughes
::
Rate this Message:
Well! Phil et al, here ya go:
On Nov 1, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Philip Mantione wrote: Can't imagine that things will be unanimous very often. Majority consensus works for me. Different ideas will inspire different people to be active, involved. The times things seem to be unanimous are when there is a 'vote' to agree to pursue something further. But the things I have noticed that are important or substantive are discussed and rediscussed among all the interested people. Everyone doing work towards the project. Everyone willing to put some energy into making something happen deserves input into what that thing is. Some people want to create the specific event, piece,etc. Others want to create the general thing, which is the sustainability of the Complex, and the specifics are less important. There is a need for both, and everything in between. I agree completely with Alysse' analysis here: email is valid, time must be given, and saying people have to physically be there is not appropriate for all individuals. ------- I like the Orlando model- a moderator, a facilitator, someone who keeps in mind the larger reason for the meeting, holds people to it, strives for fairness and accessibility. Although I think Orlando does a great job, and I would love it if he somehow kept doing it forever, this may be a case where different people are [assigned? assign themselves?] to moderate different micro-groups. Ethan and the PRDE for instance: this is a useful micro-group headed by someone with the clear understanding of a need, and the desire and commitment to take action on it. It might be beneficial for many of us to experience the demands of moderating; to give us more awareness of how to behave on the other side of the table in a more effective manner, with a larger perspective. Of course they did. We are humans, this is inevitable, there is nothing wrong with it. What would be wrong is for 'group dynamics' to mean factionalism and ego-focused behaviours that countermand the goals of the group. And this group after all is constantly morphing, and is made of a very creative and intellectually fecund bunch of people. This is the predictable next stage in the development of a culture. Where we can really prosper is to use this morphing, the combining and recombining, for growth and innovation, for the greater vision. If we can genuinely agree on that vision, then no matter what the individual group dynamics are, the various groups are all working toward the same end, and using their individual skills and approaches to do so. The only thing "wrong" with group dynamics is the old-culture tendency to use it for power and control, for enhancement of individual egos. I really do not see that happening at the Complex. I see different small groups of people all wanting to do what they are good at, and not wanting to be asked to do what they are not good at. This can be seen as an ideal situation, as long as the shared vision is genuinely held among all, and everyone realizes that their personal unique abilities are the best thing they can contribute. Idealistic, sure. But it's more possible here than many other settings. And has less risk attached. We can improvise. You musicians know though what that requires: maybe the whole Complex should do a couple of UUUTs and then ponder the experience for a bit. Understand that what we set out to do in the physical, we are also doing in the non-physical. New forms of collaboration, exploring boundaries, finding what emerges if we take on indefinable challenges: art, science and technology all stem from our humanity. Ultimately, what we are doing is exploring new ways to carry our humanness forward. We can be as serious or as playful as we want. I find play gets us there with more grace and better toys.
Thanks for asking Phil. I will not be able to come tomorrow, either, but you have my two cents worth, and a couple bucks more: enough for coffee anyway! Tory ___________________________________ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html |
|
|
Re: Arts meeting
by David Enoch
::
Rate this Message:
I am also unable to attend, and would like to respond to this email.
I think all of the programs that people who have put the energy into creating over the past year should be part of any funding applications for the next year, depending on their relevance to the grants being applied for. I think whoever is gifted at grant writing should collaborate with creators of the programs on writing these grants. I think that scheduled meetings are important, but shouldn't be the only means of decision making. Scheduling PUBLIC daytime meetings favors people who can attend, and putting the rule that all art activities that occur at the complex must be funneled through this group is unfair. I think that those people who create ongoing events and/or are creating events, should meet when everyone who needs to be in attendance can be in attendance, not at a fixed time. I propose that this discussion list be moved to a forum, and that it also serve as a decision making making vehicle. That way ANYONE who wants to can weigh in on an issue, and not have their personal email jammed with a bunch of banter. (This has been an issue before, and reasons why people leave this email list who would otherwise like to be involved with the complex) . It also doesn't discriminate as far as scheduling, since everyone can typically get online at least every few days. I think majority rule by vote at a meeting that not everyone can attend doesn't work. I think that anyone who has the gumption to pull off an event or a program at the complex that relates to the complex mission, should be able to, and should also be eligible for grant money. On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Robert Cordingley <rjcord1@...> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html |
|
|
Re: Arts meeting
by Victoria Hughes
::
Rate this Message:
On Nov 1, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Philip Mantione wrote:
I would add that the behaviour, and the existance - or lack of existance - of other Boids is also a question here. Meaning there could be more of them, and more effective groupings of them than there are. Again, the PRDE group is a great example and step forward. There will always be a major difference at the Complex: for almost all of us, what we contribute to the Complex is what we choose to give after we have also done our day jobs. This means we have different motivation than some other systems. Assumptions of observers about non-volunteer systems are not always useful here: we are self-selected and thus self-motivated / self-identified elements. The individual elements of the Arts Group are one level of organizational complexity, whose actions and choices are negotiated in large part by what we think needs to be done for the Complex - that we can do. The whole Complex is dependent on what all the Boids and their constituent parts and organizations are doing simultaneously. If there were other Boids in the Complex that existed to deal with some of the aspects that the arts group handles, because it seems good for the Complex (grants, PR, community visibility, linking to other similar spaces, etc) that would also change the dynamics within the arts group, perhaps leaving it more able to do what it wants to do and can do best. Another seventy-five cents worth. Tory
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html |
|
|
Re: Arts meeting
by Stephen Guerin
::
Rate this Message:
Yes, we are trying to govern ourselves with the Sociocratic approach
that Robert points out from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy). The biggest change from the typical democratic approach is less reliance on voting and majority rule. As Fabio presented last year, the consent-based approach tries to avoid the schisms that can be caused by majority rule. Here's a description from <http://www.sociocracy.info/about.html>: "That sociocracy is based on consent is profound. It affects every aspect of the sociocratic organization because it means that the group cannot move forward if one if its members objects. But objections must be "paramount and reasoned." "Paramount" means that the objection must be directly related to the person's ability to work effectively within the group. "Reasoned" means the person must be able to explain the objection to other members of the group. Unless they can understand the objection they cannot resolve it. Objections are important in sociocracy because they help the group find better solutions -- solutions that help everyone work more effectively toward the group's aims. An objection is not a veto; it is a valid reason why a particular decision will prevent a member of the group from doing their job or otherwise supporting the aims of the group. Not all decisions in a sociocratic organization must be made by consent. The group can decide by consent to use majority vote for some decisions (when to hold the next meeting) or autocratic decisions for others (letting the shop supervisor assign daily tasks). But everyone must consent before another decision-making method is used and everyone must consent to the policies that determine the parameters for such decisions (who must be included in meetings and how daily tasks are defined)." From my partial observations of the ARTS group, I would say it has for the most part used "consent-based" decision making. We have a sociocratic method as a goal at the Complex though we have some holes in our implementations. For example, we don't have strong "double-linking" between different circles/boids where: "Circles are connected by a double-link consisting of the functional leader elected by the next higher circle, and two or more representatives elected by the circle, all of whom participate fully in both circles." If there's room in the agenda, I would like to take about 5 minutes to discuss the double-linking aspect and have the ARTS group elect a representative, via consent, to attend the more general operations meetings along with Orlando. -Stephen --- -. . ..-. .. ... .... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... .... stephen.guerin@... (m) 505.577.5828 (o) 505.995.0206 redfish.com _ sfcomplex.org _ simtable.com _ ambientpixel.com On Nov 1, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Robert Cordingley wrote: > It's my understanding that... > A core Complex value system/imperative is Sociocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy > ) under which the governance of a boid is developed. It seems on > the whole that boids can develop their own governance processes and > methods - hierarchies don't seem to be excluded - consensus plays a > big part. Mostly it is: proceed until someone has a rational > objection then work things out until the objection is retracted or > it's point embraced or worked around. The goals of any boid should > be consistent with the Complex's Mission ( http://sfcomplex.org/adobewiki/index.php?title=Mission) > . > > There's more on Complex boids (aka Roundtables) at http://sfcomplex.org/adobewiki/index.php?title=Roundtables > tho' the cast of characters has changed. > > I'm willing to be corrected. > > Thanks, > Robert C > > > Alysse Stepanian wrote: >> >> Hi, >> Since I can't attend the meetings, I'm responding to your points >> in the body of your email. >> alysse >> >> >> On Nov 1, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Philip Mantione wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> The Arts group meeting tomorrow will be extremely important, and I >>> encourage everyone who is interested in the artistic direction of >>> the Complex to attend. But if you cannot make it, please give >>> your opinion to the following issues so we have a idea of the >>> community consensus. >>> >>> 1. The most important issue to me is how decisions are made >>> regarding arts and music events and funding. Thus far it has been >>> unclear to me whether these decisions are made by majority vote or >>> unanimous agreement. The paradox is...how to decide this...by >>> majority vote or by unanimity. >> I have problems with majority vote. This can lead to friction, >> alienation, and divisiveness. >>> >>> 2. Secondly (or perhaps firstly), who gets to vote? >> Everyone ACTIVELY involved with any of the arts at the Complex. >>> >>> 3. How can people vote? Is email legitmate or must one be present >>> at the meeting? >> Email today is as legitimate as anything else. And once you put it >> down in writing, your intentions become most clear. >>> >>> 4. If it's decided (somehow) that you must be present, must there >>> be a quorum and if so, what percentage (51% or more?) >> If it is somehow decided to go with majority vote, with the >> stipulation of being present, then YES. And prior to voting, an >> email should go out to the entire list, with clear listing of the >> issues, and with enough time for everyone to try to make >> arrangements to be present. However, making it mandatory to be >> present is completely unfair. Many people have to be at work, or >> have other commitments in life. >>> >>> 5. Should we introduce hierarchy in the form of a director or >>> chairperson? >> No. As many others, I've been drawn to the Complex because of its >> "open source," open decision-making policies. Creating hierarchy >> will institutionalize the Complex and kill the energy that has >> sparked my own program, as an example. We're all equal and no one >> is needed to rule all. We're all working as volunteers and should >> be treated equally. >>> >>> As Paul says, group dynamics have set in. But now that we're >>> here, there's no turning back. >> This should be taken as an opportunity to air out disagreements and >> for all voices to be heard. >>> >>> Please think about these issues and come tomorrow if you can. >>> >>> Phil >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss@... >>> http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@... >> http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@... > http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html |
|
|
Re: Arts meeting
by Carrera, Fabio
::
Rate this Message:
Great explanation Steve!
I would just add one last important element: the "round" whereby every single member of the circle is called upon to express an opinion or comment on the issue at hand... Fabio Carrera http://venice2point0.blogspot.com (from iPhone) On Nov 2, 2009, at 6:49 AM, "Stephen Guerin" <stephen.guerin@...> wrote: > Yes, we are trying to govern ourselves with the Sociocratic approach > that Robert points out from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy). > The biggest change from the typical democratic approach is less > reliance on voting and majority rule. > > As Fabio presented last year, the consent-based approach tries to > avoid the schisms that can be caused by majority rule. Here's a > description from <http://www.sociocracy.info/about.html>: > > "That sociocracy is based on consent is profound. It affects every > aspect of the sociocratic organization because it means that the group > cannot move forward if one if its members objects. But objections must > be "paramount and reasoned." "Paramount" means that the objection must > be directly related to the person's ability to work effectively within > the group. "Reasoned" means the person must be able to explain the > objection to other members of the group. Unless they can understand > the objection they cannot resolve it. Objections are important in > sociocracy because they help the group find better solutions -- > solutions that help everyone work more effectively toward the group's > aims. An objection is not a veto; it is a valid reason why a > particular decision will prevent a member of the group from doing > their job or otherwise supporting the aims of the group. Not all > decisions in a sociocratic organization must be made by consent. The > group can decide by consent to use majority vote for some decisions > (when to hold the next meeting) or autocratic decisions for others > (letting the shop supervisor assign daily tasks). But everyone must > consent before another decision-making method is used and > everyone must consent to the policies that determine the parameters > for such decisions (who must be included in meetings and how daily > tasks are defined)." > > From my partial observations of the ARTS group, I would say it has > for the most part used "consent-based" decision making. > > We have a sociocratic method as a goal at the Complex though we have > some holes in our implementations. For example, we don't have strong > "double-linking" between different circles/boids where: > "Circles are connected by a double-link consisting of the > functional leader elected by the next higher circle, and two or more > representatives elected by the circle, all of whom participate fully > in both circles." > > If there's room in the agenda, I would like to take about 5 minutes to > discuss the double-linking aspect and have the ARTS group elect a > representative, via consent, to attend the more general operations > meetings along with Orlando. > > -Stephen > --- -. . ..-. .. ... .... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... .... > stephen.guerin@... > (m) 505.577.5828 (o) 505.995.0206 > redfish.com _ sfcomplex.org _ simtable.com _ ambientpixel.com > > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Robert Cordingley wrote: > >> It's my understanding that... >> A core Complex value system/imperative is Sociocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy >> ) under which the governance of a boid is developed. It seems on >> the whole that boids can develop their own governance processes and >> methods - hierarchies don't seem to be excluded - consensus plays a >> big part. Mostly it is: proceed until someone has a rational >> objection then work things out until the objection is retracted or >> it's point embraced or worked around. The goals of any boid should >> be consistent with the Complex's Mission ( http://sfcomplex.org/adobewiki/index.php?title=Mission >> ) >> . >> >> There's more on Complex boids (aka Roundtables) at http://sfcomplex.org/adobewiki/index.php?title=Roundtables >> tho' the cast of characters has changed. >> >> I'm willing to be corrected. >> >> Thanks, >> Robert C >> >> >> Alysse Stepanian wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> Since I can't attend the meetings, I'm responding to your points >>> in the body of your email. >>> alysse >>> >>> >>> On Nov 1, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Philip Mantione wrote: >>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> The Arts group meeting tomorrow will be extremely important, and I >>>> encourage everyone who is interested in the artistic direction of >>>> the Complex to attend. But if you cannot make it, please give >>>> your opinion to the following issues so we have a idea of the >>>> community consensus. >>>> >>>> 1. The most important issue to me is how decisions are made >>>> regarding arts and music events and funding. Thus far it has been >>>> unclear to me whether these decisions are made by majority vote or >>>> unanimous agreement. The paradox is...how to decide this...by >>>> majority vote or by unanimity. >>> I have problems with majority vote. This can lead to friction, >>> alienation, and divisiveness. >>>> >>>> 2. Secondly (or perhaps firstly), who gets to vote? >>> Everyone ACTIVELY involved with any of the arts at the Complex. >>>> >>>> 3. How can people vote? Is email legitmate or must one be present >>>> at the meeting? >>> Email today is as legitimate as anything else. And once you put it >>> down in writing, your intentions become most clear. >>>> >>>> 4. If it's decided (somehow) that you must be present, must there >>>> be a quorum and if so, what percentage (51% or more?) >>> If it is somehow decided to go with majority vote, with the >>> stipulation of being present, then YES. And prior to voting, an >>> email should go out to the entire list, with clear listing of the >>> issues, and with enough time for everyone to try to make >>> arrangements to be present. However, making it mandatory to be >>> present is completely unfair. Many people have to be at work, or >>> have other commitments in life. >>>> >>>> 5. Should we introduce hierarchy in the form of a director or >>>> chairperson? >>> No. As many others, I've been drawn to the Complex because of its >>> "open source," open decision-making policies. Creating hierarchy >>> will institutionalize the Complex and kill the energy that has >>> sparked my own program, as an example. We're all equal and no one >>> is needed to rule all. We're all working as volunteers and should >>> be treated equally. >>>> >>>> As Paul says, group dynamics have set in. But now that we're >>>> here, there's no turning back. >>> This should be taken as an opportunity to air out disagreements and >>> for all voices to be heard. >>>> >>>> Please think about these issues and come tomorrow if you can. >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> Discuss@... >>>> http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss@... >>> http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@... >> http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@... > http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html > Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html |
|
|
Re: Arts meeting
by Victoria Hughes
::
Rate this Message:
We brought this up and discussed it briefly at the last Arts meeting, and I believe at the PRDe meeting as well.
This seems overdue. I hope you can make it to the Arts meeting and reiterate the need, so we can move on with this. Thank you, Stephen Tory On Nov 1, 2009, at 10:48 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html |
|
|
Re: Arts meeting
by Philip Mantione
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. As I've said, in theory, this is all great. But there's a certain amount of vagueness that is still vexing. I think this stems from the fact that certain core concepts such as "consent" have not been clearly defined within the Arts group. I look forward to your discussion on double-linking...but I'm not sure that electing a representative to attend the general operations meeting, which can be attended by anyone as it is, really solves anything. I've not heard anything from Orlando regarding these meetings, nor have I ever been asked my opinion on anything that is discussed there. But I should clear things up regarding my own position which by now may be misconstrued: -I love the sociocratic concept. It's what convinced me to get more involved at the Complex. -I'm completely against hierarchy, especially when power is concentrated within one individual. -I'm for consent--based decision-making for all issues that affect the arts at the complex (ie. events, funding, group organization, etc.) Although I'm still unclear as to who makes up the consenting body. -It's clear to me that someone's physical presence should not be a factor. But this assumes, as should be the case, that proposals or ideas are ultimately put in writing, so they can be emailed to the consenting body for consideration. -The only person responsible for disseminating the proposal is the author, who should take responsibility for its implementation. The author must be willing to respond to "rational" criticism from the consenting body, which may involve written communication if necessary. -I believe that lack or response, within a reasonable time frame, implies consent. -I think that decisions about specific media, such as music or video art or installation, and how or what is to be presented at the Complex, should be made by individuals or committees of individuals with a history and expertise in that area. This means having autonomy in making curatorial decisions. This decision-making power could of course be revoked at any time, based on a consent decision. -When a third party approaches the Complex with an interest in a certain area, they should be directed to an individual or committee with the most expertise in that area, so that the Complex is represented in the best possible light. "Most" of these things are already in place. I'm just concerned with developing a consistent approach within a clearly defined context. Phil On Nov 1, 2009, at 10:48 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote: > Yes, we are trying to govern ourselves with the Sociocratic > approach that Robert points out from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Sociocracy). The biggest change from the typical democratic > approach is less reliance on voting and majority rule. > > As Fabio presented last year, the consent-based approach tries to > avoid the schisms that can be caused by majority rule. Here's a > description from <http://www.sociocracy.info/about.html>: > > "That sociocracy is based on consent is profound. It affects every > aspect of the sociocratic organization because it means that the > group cannot move forward if one if its members objects. But > objections must be "paramount and reasoned." "Paramount" means that > the objection must be directly related to the person's ability to > work effectively within the group. "Reasoned" means the person must > be able to explain the objection to other members of the group. > Unless they can understand the objection they cannot resolve it. > Objections are important in sociocracy because they help the group > find better solutions -- solutions that help everyone work more > effectively toward the group's aims. An objection is not a veto; it > is a valid reason why a particular decision will prevent a member > of the group from doing their job or otherwise supporting the aims > of the group. Not all decisions in a sociocratic organization must > be made by consent. The group can decide by consent to use majority > vote for some decisions (when to hold the next meeting) or > autocratic decisions for others (letting the shop supervisor assign > daily tasks). But everyone must consent before another decision- > making method is used and everyone must consent to the > policies that determine the parameters for such decisions (who must > be included in meetings and how daily tasks are defined)." > > From my partial observations of the ARTS group, I would say it has > for the most part used "consent-based" decision making. > > We have a sociocratic method as a goal at the Complex though we > have some holes in our implementations. For example, we don't have > strong "double-linking" between different circles/boids where: > "Circles are connected by a double-link consisting of the > functional leader elected by the next higher circle, and two or > more representatives elected by the circle, all of whom participate > fully in both circles." > > If there's room in the agenda, I would like to take about 5 minutes > to discuss the double-linking aspect and have the ARTS group elect > a representative, via consent, to attend the more general > operations meetings along with Orlando. > > -Stephen > --- -. . ..-. .. ... .... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... .... > stephen.guerin@... > (m) 505.577.5828 (o) 505.995.0206 > redfish.com _ sfcomplex.org _ simtable.com _ ambientpixel.com > > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Robert Cordingley wrote: > >> It's my understanding that... >> A core Complex value system/imperative is Sociocracy (http:// >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy) under which the governance of a >> boid is developed. It seems on the whole that boids can develop >> their own governance processes and methods - hierarchies don't >> seem to be excluded - consensus plays a big part. Mostly it is: >> proceed until someone has a rational objection then work things >> out until the objection is retracted or it's point embraced or >> worked around. The goals of any boid should be consistent with >> the Complex's Mission ( http://sfcomplex.org/adobewiki/index.php? >> title=Mission). >> >> There's more on Complex boids (aka Roundtables) at http:// >> sfcomplex.org/adobewiki/index.php?title=Roundtables tho' the cast >> of characters has changed. >> >> I'm willing to be corrected. >> >> Thanks, >> Robert C >> >> >> Alysse Stepanian wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> Since I can't attend the meetings, I'm responding to your points >>> in the body of your email. >>> alysse >>> >>> >>> On Nov 1, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Philip Mantione wrote: >>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> The Arts group meeting tomorrow will be extremely important, and >>>> I encourage everyone who is interested in the artistic direction >>>> of the Complex to attend. But if you cannot make it, please >>>> give your opinion to the following issues so we have a idea of >>>> the community consensus. >>>> >>>> 1. The most important issue to me is how decisions are made >>>> regarding arts and music events and funding. Thus far it has >>>> been unclear to me whether these decisions are made by majority >>>> vote or unanimous agreement. The paradox is...how to decide >>>> this...by majority vote or by unanimity. >>> I have problems with majority vote. This can lead to friction, >>> alienation, and divisiveness. >>>> >>>> 2. Secondly (or perhaps firstly), who gets to vote? >>> Everyone ACTIVELY involved with any of the arts at the Complex. >>>> >>>> 3. How can people vote? Is email legitmate or must one be >>>> present at the meeting? >>> Email today is as legitimate as anything else. And once you put >>> it down in writing, your intentions become most clear. >>>> >>>> 4. If it's decided (somehow) that you must be present, must >>>> there be a quorum and if so, what percentage (51% or more?) >>> If it is somehow decided to go with majority vote, with the >>> stipulation of being present, then YES. And prior to voting, an >>> email should go out to the entire list, with clear listing of the >>> issues, and with enough time for everyone to try to make >>> arrangements to be present. However, making it mandatory to be >>> present is completely unfair. Many people have to be at work, or >>> have other commitments in life. >>>> >>>> 5. Should we introduce hierarchy in the form of a director or >>>> chairperson? >>> No. As many others, I've been drawn to the Complex because of its >>> "open source," open decision-making policies. Creating hierarchy >>> will institutionalize the Complex and kill the energy that has >>> sparked my own program, as an example. We're all equal and no one >>> is needed to rule all. We're all working as volunteers and should >>> be treated equally. >>>> >>>> As Paul says, group dynamics have set in. But now that we're >>>> here, there's no turning back. >>> This should be taken as an opportunity to air out disagreements >>> and for all voices to be heard. >>>> >>>> Please think about these issues and come tomorrow if you can. >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> Discuss@... >>>> http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss@... >>> http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@... >> http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@... > http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
