[Peace-discuss] proposal for "News of the Week" format

[Jan & Durl Kruse]

Far Far away in the state of Utah........
Where controversies are *religious* in nature.
Prefer to keep the *News of the Week* as it is:
Carl with 10 minutes and anyone else may challenge, debate,
or support the news from Carl.
To me Carl (and the news) is a Working Group.
Don't we allow folks to create working groups and then go forth?
In the past some AWARE members have arrived at 5:15 to avoid the news.
Lots of ways for anarchist to address this issue without all the 
complications, timekeeping and regulations............
Those who don't like Carl's news can always take it outside after the 
meeting.
Please don't eliminate a long standing *Working Group* with some voices 
far far away.........
As for the *bestowing of (a particular personal) recognition* ....... 
sounds more like the bestowing of a *Thankless Job*!
Hope consensus will be to retain AWARE News of the Week as it currently 
is, was and should remain..........
a Working Group with work that can be discussed, challenged and 
encouraged and not dumped.
Besides who would want to facilitate and grant time to others?....... 
sounds messy!
JAN Kruse



On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:46 PM, Randall Cotton wrote:

> As suggested at the last AWARE meeting, I'm putting forth a refined
> proposal in an attempt to resolve the recent conflict regarding the 
> "News
> of the Week" section of our meetings.
>
> 1. The problem (as best I can humbly determine)
>
> I gather that Carl began providing a news summary at the beginning of
> every meeting, at AWARE's request, several years ago. Though Carl's
> summary has a long history of being appreciated, there is presently at
> least one person that dislikes Carl's particular viewpoint (no 
> viewpoint
> being perfectly objective). I think it is safe to say that everyone 
> agrees
> that no one's viewpoint should be squelched and AWARE should not be in 
> the
> business of trying to shut people up at its meetings. However, it would
> seem that there is no longer consensus regarding the long-standing
> convention of reserving 10 minutes at the beginning of each AWARE 
> meeting
> specifically for Carl's news summary.
>
> Some might argue (as I did at one point) that there's no need to change
> the meeting format because there is nothing preventing anyone in AWARE
> from adding their own take on the news during the "News of the Week"
> section. However, this discounts the fact that, in practice, at least 
> 10
> minutes are understood to be reserved specifically to Carl, thus 
> bestowing
> a particular personal recognition (a decision made long-ago by the 
> group).
>
> 2. The current "News of the Week" convention:
>
> Currently, at the very beginning of each meeting, the floor is given to
> Carl whereupon he provides roughly 10 minutes of news review. Following
> that, there is an opportunity for anyone else to say whatever they like
> about recent news (including commentary/analysis/discussion on what 
> Carl
> presented as well as contribution and discussion of other news items.)
>
> 3. The proposed *revised* "News of the Week" convention:
>
> I propose retaining a "News of the Week" section and a subsequent
> commentary/analysis/discussion section. However, instead of 10 minutes
> reserved for Carl, let us reserve 15 minutes for anyone to contribute 
> news
> items. The facilitator would check among attendees to see who had news
> material and how much time was needed to share it. The facilitator 
> would
> then allocate time in a fair manner from the 15 minutes available. No 
> one
> person would be allocated more than 10 minutes. After the "News of the
> Week" section, there would an open-ended commentary/analysis/discussion
> section, similar to the current convention.
>
> If someone arrives late (after the time allocation) and wants to
> contribute news items, they're out of luck unless some of the 15 
> minutes
> remain unassigned, whereupon the facilitator could assign from the
> remaining unused time.
>
> ****************************
> Examples:
>
> Example 1: five  people bring news items, each requesting 5 minutes.
> Clearly, the fair allocation is 3 minutes per person (though, of 
> course,
> the group could decide to extend the "News of  the Week" section for 
> that
> week to fully accomodate all requests).
>
> Example 2: three people bring news items. One requests 3 minutes, one
> requests 7 minutes, one requests 8 minutes. One fair allocation might 
> be 3
> minutes, 6 minutes and 6 minutes respectively.
>
> Example 3: one person brings news items, requesting 10 minutes. Since 
> no
> one else requests time, the maximum 10 minutes are allocated. Someone
> arrives late and wishes to contribute 3 minutes of news items. Since 5
> minutes remain unused, their request is granted by the facilitator.
>
> My understanding from what Carl voiced at the last meeting is that he
> would have no objection to this scheme of allowing *anyone* to 
> contribute
> to a review of the week's news in a fixed period of time (as opposed to
> just him).
>
> This requires someone to keep track of time. While I would prefer 
> others
> (preferably a *variety* of others) volunteer to provide this, I would
> agree to do it as a last resort.
>
> Feedback/Comments/Suggestions/Criticism welcomed
> R
>