[Peace-discuss] Robert's Rules and Legal support

[Paul King]

that's interesting, i didn't know that. i always just thought that the
facilitators needed a little practice ;). how do we operate? i think we
should discuss this, unless it already has been at length and i just
haven't been around. there are some good books that have been published
with great techniques. i've read recently about hand signals that can be
used. they do two things: (1) allow the decision process to happen a lot
faster and (2) register more input into the group process, which is really
cool. why in the world don't we use consensus?

paul


On Tue, 27 May 2003, Linda Evans wrote:

> Understood, but it was discussed in a previous meeting
> that AWARE does not work by consensus either.  Maybe
> we should discuss working by consensus, but I bet some
> people would disagree.  :-)
>
> Linda
>
>
> --- Paul King <pmking at students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > This may be known by many of you, but consensus does
> > not require everyone
> > to agree. It simply requires that everyone has had
> > the opportuntiy for
> > input. An action can always be blocked by anyone who
> > feels *strongly*
> > opposed to it; but general opposition - as long as
> > it is expressed and
> > considered by the group - does not mean that the
> > action is dropped.
> >
> > This is a common misconception about consensus.
> >
> > paul
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 27 May 2003, Linda Evans wrote:
> >
> > > After thinking about it, it seems like we should
> > just
> > > drop the legal support proposal.  It seems like
> > AWARE
> > > works best when all are in agreement and if anyone
> > is
> > > against an idea then we don't go foward.
> > Individuals
> > > at the meetings may take the criteria into
> > > consideration on their own when the question of
> > paying
> > > for someone's legal fees, but it doesn't seem
> > > AWARE-like to go ahead with any formal criteria if
> > we
> > > are not all in agreement.  Sorry, I dropped the
> > ball
> > > as facilitator Sunday and didn't go forward in
> > AWARE
> > > fashion.
> > >
> > > Linda
> > > --- Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > One of the benefits of Robert's Rules of Order
> > > > (anathema as it may be to AWARE culture) is that
> > > > this
> > > > kind of confusion doesn't happen.  The question
> > of
> > > > accepting the revisions and accepting the
> > revised
> > > > product would have been clearly separate.  I,
> > too,
> > > > thought the question was on the revisions only,
> > > > until
> > > > we moved on.
> > > >
> > > > It's no one's fault.  It was just a long meeting
> > and
> > > > we needed to move along.  Maybe, in hindsight,
> > we
> > > > should have put off the decision for one more
> > > > meeting,
> > > > since we did have several questions and concerns
> > > > raised.  Now, I think Randall's solution is
> > probably
> > > > best: revisit the issue once the present case is
> > > > over
> > > > and we have the benefit of more hindsight.
> > > >
> > > > Ricky
> > > >
> > > > --- Randall Cotton <recotton at earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Linda may have had the impression that we were
> > now
> > > > > all OK after two
> > > > > revisions (the "charged" leaving the AWARE
> > meeting
> > > > > during discussion of
> > > > > their case and removal of "level of active
> > > > > participation in AWARE" as a
> > > > > criteria by the MAP committee). The revisions
> > did
> > > > > seem to have agreement
> > > > > without objection. But the general
> > reservations
> > > > > behind the proposal as a
> > > > > whole, expressed by myself (and Carl, to a
> > lesser
> > > > > extent), were not
> > > > > resolved. A question like "Is everybody now OK
> > > > with
> > > > > the proposal?" was never
> > > > > asked.
> > > > >
> > > > > I considered reiterating my concerns at the
> > end
> > > > > there, but I decided against
> > > > > it since I would've just been repeating myself
> > and
> > > > I
> > > > > didn't want to come off
> > > > > as harping on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I ask to be recognized as objecting to the
> > > > proposal
> > > > > as it stands as if I had
> > > > > done so during the meeting. And that if we
> > revisit
> > > > > this, we do so after the
> > > > > event that brought this all up (Lori's legal
> > > > issue)
> > > > > is fully resolved so
> > > > > that we can discuss and debate with the
> > benefit of
> > > > > hindsight.
> > > > >
> > > > > R
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Alfred Kagan" <akagan at uiuc.edu>
> > > > > To: <Peace-discuss at lists.groogroo.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:19 AM
> > > > > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Legal support
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > When it looked like we had finished the
> > > > discussion
> > > > > of the guidelines,
> > > > > > I specifically asked if we were now all OK
> > with
> > > > > them after the two
> > > > > > revisions. Linda, as facilitator,
> > specifically
> > > > > acknowledged that.  Of
> > > > > > course, we can always revisit our decisions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: "Randall Cotton"
> > <recotton at earthlink.net>
> > > > > > To: <peace-discuss at lists.groogroo.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] legal support
> > > > > guidelines
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 14:07:44 -0500
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_15D8_01C32390.2D7D6040
> > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > > > > > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > > > > >
> > > > > > legal support guidelinesI must say that I
> > don't
> > > > > recall any expression of =
> > > > > > approval by the meeting as a whole. I do
> > recall
> > > > > expressions of both =
> > > > > > approval and dissent. In any case, I was not
> > > > asked
> > > > > if I objected. If I =
> > > > > > was, I would have said yes and others may
> > have
> > > > as
> > > > > well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, I agree with Carl that when the rubber
> > > > meets
> > > > > the road in future =
> > > > > > cases, the course of events will very likely
> > > > > outrun and circumvent the =
> > > > > > proposed guidelines, policies and procedures
> > > > > below. Given that, it might =
> > > > > > be suggested that I have little motivation
> > to
> > > > > object. There would be =
> > > > > > some truth to that, but I'm concerned about
> > the
> > > > > precedent this is =
> > > > > > setting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This all seems to me rather arbitrary and
> > > > > unnecessarily restrictive =
> > > > > > bureaucracy - exactly the kind of thing
> > AWARE
> > > > has
> > > > > a history of =
> > > > > > successfully avoiding, to its great credit.
> > I
> > > > > could now proceed to =
> > > > > > outline my objections to various individual
> > > > > provisions of the proposed =
> > > > > > guidelines, policies and procedures below,
> > but
> > > > > instead, I would like to =
> > > > > > suggest the material below not yet be
> > formally
> > > > > adopted, that it be set =
> > > > > > aside for now and that it be further
> > discussed
> > > > and
> > > > > debated once Lori's =
> > > > > > legal fight is resolved.
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> =====
> "I know you are smart and I know that you think you are doing what is best for me.  But if freedom is handled just your way then it's not my freedom or free."  Toni and Slade Morrison from their children's book "The Big Box"
>
> "Well, I think it's much too late and I think things are much too bad for pessimism."  John Robbins
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>