Post by kim on Nov 11, 2011 21:46:51 GMT -7
So to confirm the communications group meeting for Saturday, 11/12
So far, 4 people have confirmed tomorrow 11:00am at the Break for the communication meeting. Followed by a facilitation group meeting at noon for some of us.
J, you can't attend we'll miss you!)
Anyone who has not confirmed, please join us! Everyone is welcome!
In response to J's comments:
My reason for including the structure document in the communication discussion is that the purpose of writing it up is to communicate the structures to the broader movement, especially new participants. I am not creating the process in this document, just communicating it. I think there is a lot of communication around our structure that needs to be defined: how GAs operate, how work groups operate, what work groups are, making minutes available (I decided at the Tueday GA that I would start a Minutes binder at the camp to make the information more available to everyone). These are internal communications issues, which will cross over with facilitation by (I hope) making facilitation easier.
I would like to discuss it with the work groups (communication & facilitation) to iron out as many wrinkles as possible before presenting it to the GA (e.g. defining the work groups & subgroups!).
These are my thoughts!
I'll cross post this on the proboards to so it is available to everyone.
Look forward to seeing you all tomorrow!
-Kim
----email string (personal info deleted to protect the innocent!)-------
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Communications group/Tomorrow at 11am/Break Espresso?
I'll be there. Thank you.
V
---------
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Communications group/Tomorrow at 11am/Break Espresso?
Would it be ok to make the Communication meeting from 11:00 to 12:00 and then have facilitation meeting right after, same spot, 12:00 to 1:00? I am interested in both topics.
Thanks
D
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM, J wrote:
HI Kim,
Unfortunately, I won't be in Missoula on saturday.
Your structural document looks great. It has described the loose process we've been using very well. I think it will really help the GA and facilitation team to have a written script to work from. It might be good to make a bunch of copies to pass out at the meeting, along with the guide to consensus we've been using (the one sheet handout).
While I'm not opposed to talking about the structure at a communications meeting, this discussion I think is more appropriate for the facilitation workgroup. But I'm not sure if they are meeting regularly enough to consider this. So I'm fine with it. I don't really think that communications needs to involve itself with process. I think that the facilitation workgroup, and (if we decide to form it) a consensus workgroup should handle structure and process for the GA.
As to the structure of "Communications" I'm still uncomfortable with the notion that we started with on day 1 with comm at the top, and sub groups (i.e. technology), as your outline still indicates. I'd like to see it spread more horizontally. I'd think communications should be more concerned with developing the message--and strategies to spread it--for the GA to approve for all of the different avenues that OM has: tech/online; print; info desk; spokespeople talking with the city/county/press, signs, video/radio, etc.
I think that if we spread out our work more horizontally, and be clear with the responsibilities of the workgroups so that they don't get muddled, we'll get a ton done!
I'm excited to see the organization of OM move forward on these positive notes! And thanks for taking the time to get the structural doc put together. It really helps!
in solidarity,
-j
So far, 4 people have confirmed tomorrow 11:00am at the Break for the communication meeting. Followed by a facilitation group meeting at noon for some of us.
J, you can't attend we'll miss you!)
Anyone who has not confirmed, please join us! Everyone is welcome!
In response to J's comments:
My reason for including the structure document in the communication discussion is that the purpose of writing it up is to communicate the structures to the broader movement, especially new participants. I am not creating the process in this document, just communicating it. I think there is a lot of communication around our structure that needs to be defined: how GAs operate, how work groups operate, what work groups are, making minutes available (I decided at the Tueday GA that I would start a Minutes binder at the camp to make the information more available to everyone). These are internal communications issues, which will cross over with facilitation by (I hope) making facilitation easier.
I would like to discuss it with the work groups (communication & facilitation) to iron out as many wrinkles as possible before presenting it to the GA (e.g. defining the work groups & subgroups!).
These are my thoughts!
I'll cross post this on the proboards to so it is available to everyone.
Look forward to seeing you all tomorrow!
-Kim
----email string (personal info deleted to protect the innocent!)-------
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Communications group/Tomorrow at 11am/Break Espresso?
I'll be there. Thank you.
V
---------
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Communications group/Tomorrow at 11am/Break Espresso?
Would it be ok to make the Communication meeting from 11:00 to 12:00 and then have facilitation meeting right after, same spot, 12:00 to 1:00? I am interested in both topics.
Thanks
D
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM, J wrote:
HI Kim,
Unfortunately, I won't be in Missoula on saturday.
Your structural document looks great. It has described the loose process we've been using very well. I think it will really help the GA and facilitation team to have a written script to work from. It might be good to make a bunch of copies to pass out at the meeting, along with the guide to consensus we've been using (the one sheet handout).
While I'm not opposed to talking about the structure at a communications meeting, this discussion I think is more appropriate for the facilitation workgroup. But I'm not sure if they are meeting regularly enough to consider this. So I'm fine with it. I don't really think that communications needs to involve itself with process. I think that the facilitation workgroup, and (if we decide to form it) a consensus workgroup should handle structure and process for the GA.
As to the structure of "Communications" I'm still uncomfortable with the notion that we started with on day 1 with comm at the top, and sub groups (i.e. technology), as your outline still indicates. I'd like to see it spread more horizontally. I'd think communications should be more concerned with developing the message--and strategies to spread it--for the GA to approve for all of the different avenues that OM has: tech/online; print; info desk; spokespeople talking with the city/county/press, signs, video/radio, etc.
I think that if we spread out our work more horizontally, and be clear with the responsibilities of the workgroups so that they don't get muddled, we'll get a ton done!
I'm excited to see the organization of OM move forward on these positive notes! And thanks for taking the time to get the structural doc put together. It really helps!
in solidarity,
-j