attending joe ( fac) lara, carol (notes, yuki, adewole, mayi, john, somerset, elya, daniel, sandy, claire, josh, zoë, randy, becca, jordan
Agenda review 5 minintroductions and heat breaker what animal represents laev role 15min
SCHEDULING Jordan’s full membership interview and decision - josh & jordan 5 min. greenlight x 3 1/2 mo./ mo.; feels ready; knows people. plan, if not trumped by board meeting business next week (13th) - questions , decision 20th; make-up 27th . some discussion about protocol for time frames. the proposal satisfies policy.consensed - community feels ready to make decision about Jordan’s full membership.
“Although it is the facilitators’ right and responsibility to put forth an agenda as they see fit, it is the understood expectation that agenda items should be submitted to facilitators by noon on the Friday before the weekly Community Meeting, and facilitators should post agendas by noon on the Saturday before that Meeting.
Furthermore, it is not possible to come to consensus on any item which has not been posted as part of an agenda put forth by the facilitators as of 7:30 pm on the Sunday (24 hours) before the weekly Community Meeting.”
explantion: My impression of the concerns raised, and hence my reasoning for this language and this resubmission, is as follows.
The main concern seemed to be that we already have a policy in place which we’re simply not following. At the risk of being confrontational, this doesn’t seem valid to me, as we can always consense over previous decisions, and no one knows where this policy is anyway. If people feel the time frame put forth in that policy (wherever it is) is superior to mine, that’s fine; however not knowing what that is I am resubmitting the time frame as before.
It was requested that I review the bylaws and I have done so. I did not see a requirement for meeting agenda notification, only notification of meeting times and places. Therefore I still believe this policy is necessary.
A concern was raised that sometimes emergencies arise and items may then be submitted over the weekend, and also that in general we need to give facilitators flexibility. Indeed I had intended to allow this flexibility before, and I have reworded the language to emphasis that this time frame is an expectation and not a requirement. However I have retained the 24 hour cutoff for consensus decision, as I still maintain that some reasonable level of notification is required to obtain consensus.
Finally it was brought up that it is variously the responsibility of the facilitators or the item submitters to assess if proper notification was given and if an item can be decided or not - fine and good, but how is that responsibly enforced? By putting forth guidelines, I submit that it will allow individuals to understand what their expected rights and obligations are, and empower people to ‘nudge’ others when obligations aren’t being met.
current policy - includes introduce a week before decision.
sandy- would prefer more positive language. concerned that only items posted by 7:30 sun are eligible for vote in mon. meet; sites possible emergency situation. that concern was raised by a few others. lara - noted: old policy: only a provisional decision could be made on any proposal not properly noticed until publisied or brought to meeting again. currently - we usualy introduce policy proposal & vote at least 1 week later.
yuki- concerned about need for more flex. when facillitator’s schedule conflicts; seemed to prefer this be guideline v. policy
becca - what problem does policy address?
josh - getting agenda on time. for example members recently consensed on an issue that didn’t have (sufficient or any) notice. no opportunity to say something about it.
becca - interprets as trying to create cultural shift to respect people’s time, and a cultural norm; you’re empowered to make decisions if you’re here.
josh - re emergencies: bylaws allow for meeting with 2 day notice.