[Peace-discuss] Regarding "News of the Week"

[Karen Medina]

I think we need to face the issue. Mort is back in town, Linda Weber was 
interested in being present. As long as the father of the proposed rule is also 
there, this week would be the right time to bring it all to a decision.

imho,
-karen medina

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 23:36:11 -0500
>From: "Randall Cotton" <recotton at earthlink.net>  
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Regarding "News of the Week"  
>To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>I could be wrong,  but I suspect a number of AWARE folks would rather not
>face this issue - that we just not do anything about it since the flap
>that emerged a few weeks back might seem to be receding in the rear view
>mirror.
>
>I think that would be a mistake. If we do not address and resolve it, I
>think it will continue to hang over us and I think it is bound to erupt as
>a point of contention again in the future.
>
>I had made a proposal intended to resolve things, which received some
>support, while a few folks had reservations. We didn't get to discuss this
>last week, partly because the News of the Week segment took so long (and
>set everything else back) leaving no time at the end. We agreed to table
>it to the next meeting (this coming Sunday), but that it would be
>addressed right after the News of the Week segment (conducted at the
>beginning of the meeting as usual, but expressly limited to 20 minutes for
>this meeting only).
>
>I am throwing out my proposal again with a modification that may bring
>everyone else on board.
>
>To review:
>
>The status quo prior to the flap was that 10 minutes had been reserved for
>Carl at the very beginning of each meeting to provide us with his news
>summary, greatly valued by many (including myself), in a long-standing
>tradition that began when AWARE asked him to provide these news summaries
>at least five years ago (which actually predates even my involvement with
>AWARE).
>
>The flap arose due to strong disagreement and objection with some of what
>Carl says. While everyone seems to agree that there should be no attempt
>to single out Carl and squelch him, the disagreement has drawn attention
>to the fact that we do have an understanding, a convention, practically a
>rule that the first 10 minutes of every meeting is reserved for Carl to
>share news items in a monologue format.
>
>Now, not only has there emerged strong disagreement with some of what Carl
>says (this has been simmering for a while, I suspect), but it has also
>emerged that there seems to be universal agreement that the more
>contributors there are sharing news items, the better. And I think it's
>evident that having a rule that reserves the first 10 minutes to one
>particular person thwarts broader participation. So consequently, I think
>it's safe to say there is no longer complete consensus that we should
>continue with the standing unwritten rule of the first 10 minutes reserved
>for Carl.
>
>So what I propose is that instead of a rule where the first 10 minutes are
>reserved for Carl, we open things up a bit, making the news review segment
>*less* restrictive, still allowing for Carl's news summaries (absolutely
>not singling him out for any squelching), but also opening the door to
>equal opportunity for others to contribute news items as well. My proposal
>was to reserve 15 minutes for everyone to share news items (or maybe 20
>minutes if folks think that's more appropriate), with a maximum of 10
>minutes reserved for any one person. The 15 or 20 minutes could be
>extended if there is no objection, of course. Even the 10 minute limit for
>one person could be extended as well, if there was no objection. But as a
>rule of thumb, we would go with 15 or 20 minutes total, 10 max for one
>person. After the news items, we would have discussion of those items
>(just as we've had in the past).
>
>It's understood that an additional responsibility falls upon the
>facilitator to ensure that either enough time is set aside for everyone to
>make their news item contributions or that the time is divided fairly. I
>don't think this would be a difficult burden.
>
>Now, regarding the opposition by a few to my proposal, I am guessing that
>the resistance may have a lot to do with a concern that after so many
>years of this standing tradition, having greatly appreciated Carl's
>tireless efforts, they feel Carl is being targeted and are consequently
>inspired to stand in his defense. I can sympathize with that, but I do
>think it would be more beneficial to the group to loosen the restriction
>on that first 10 minutes, opening up the sharing of news items to
>everyone, while still providing a way for Carl to contribute to the exact
>same extent that he has in the past (just not with a pre-determined
>reservation of the first 10 minutes). Please understand that the intent of
>my proposal is not to target Carl, but rather loosen our own restrictions
>to open the door to more diverse and egalitarian contribution in our "News
>of the Week " segment while still allowing, perhaps even encouraging, Carl
>to continue as he has in the past.
>
>In fact, I suggest (and this is my new modification) that along with the
>proposal above (which I essentially already put forth a couple weeks
>back), those of us who wish to see Carl continue with his 10 minute
>presentations just as they were in the past, collectively and formally
>appeal to Carl that he continue to provide his 10 minute news summaries in
>the future as part of the new (now more open and egalitarian) format. I
>would certainly include myself in that collective group.
>
>So this is what I plan to propose at the next meeting.
>Comments/feedback/criticisms welcome.
>R
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss