Sponsors: Ryan & Hope
Proposal details:
In order to increase participation by increasing the ways in which both on and off site people can contribute, I propose that each workgroup create an unrstrictd facebook group which anyone looking to contribute to may join. This will allow us to change and grow in ways that are positive and promote greater participation overall. To this end, every work group will elect/decide upon at least one pointperson to be responsible for creating the facebook group and making certain that ideas and opinions posted there are brought to the in-person meetings.
How about we stop trying to control each other with GAs and work groups in our government approved park and go down to Wells Fargo Plaza and occupy Tacoma’s version of wall street. start acting like revolutionaries for a huge change. wanna meet me there?
The forum is already unrestricted. Action work group posts our notes in the forum. That is unrestricted and allows comments. Sarah Morken
Wasn’t calling the forum restricted–was referring to Facebook group options and trying to be clear how it should be created.
And quite frankly, the forum is difficult touse–we have these awesome social technologies at our disposal, why aren’t we using them?
Why aren’t we using them? because the people that where developing them, got bitched at so much by the park people that they finally gave them over to the park people that did nothing with them.
In typical fashion, the power elite of park wont even discuss any of their social transgressions.
I use the forum all the time and find great difficulty in finding anything on the Facebook stuff. It is like a bunch of monkeys all screeching at the same time and talking about disassociated crap and “he said, she said”. The forum used to be the same way and the “lounge” portion of the forum still is somewhat. But at least the topics are identified and you can see what the latest comment was and go right to it. The Facebook stuff is like string cheese to me. Finding the original entry for a topic is not easy on Facebook (or perhaps I just don’t know how to do it). It may just be lack of familiarity with the mechanisms.
It’s also a way to get ideas and inspiration from and communicate with other occupies directly.
Hope, Adam and Alan are working on getting some real forum software. The current forum software is just a plugin for WordPress and it less useful than traditional forums.
I support the idea of increasing organization of facebook. However, I don’t use facebook and so really can’t speak one way or the other on how much I support this idea.
Parts sound good though. Maybe you don’t need the elect/choose someone from each WG to implement some of the goals of this proposal?
At the same time we are improving some of our technology we also need increased communication and coordination.
Facebook, from what I have seen, not used, just seen, is not really a great place to have long running conversations. It also is not as available because not everyone uses facebook but anyone can post in the forum.
I’d ask you to consider that we use each of our technologies to the fullest capacity but also recognize that each has strengths and weaknesses. I imagine the forum is next to impossible to use on a handheld for example but a lot of people interact with the technology on a screen larger than 2X2. At the same time, sending out urgent messages or calls to action is the kind of thing facebook excels over something like the current forum.
I also don’t use Facebook because of the commercialization and the lack of security. I have had my account hijacked and really do not trust Facebook. However, the intent of this proposal is good and we should try to get the updated forum software discussed above.
Adam said at last night’s GA the technical part is implementable so we’re good there it seems at this point.
Maybe this needs a little tweaking though to work out the human element of the proposal and I have one misgiving I think. If either of you would, could you please address these questions and maybe consider tweaking the proposal?
1. Aren’t there like maybe 8 or 9 facebook admins already and only really maybe 4 active WG’s? Couldn’t you just break up the workload better by letting facebook admins pick a WG they wanted to work with and assign the rest to the others and they each would be responsible for working with a WG? You could even have 2 facebook admins for each of the most active WG’s. Action/Outreach have merged. Performance Arts is still active and may be somewhat merged with Action/Outreach but I may be wrong. Then there’s really only Media that is otherwise really active in reporting. I do think we need much better coverage of OccupyWG and Finance/Fundraising but I guess those may be separate issues.
2. When you get to a busy WG meeting, there isn’t always time to share even all of one’s own ideas and opinions though I do think that is a lofty goal. I’ve gone to a WG meeting with my own emergency agenda item only to see it pushed back for weeks and I have gone to support others ideas as well and never get around to it, so I realize best intentions really won’t mean this works exactly as the proposal presents.
3. There is no substitute for actually showing up at WG meetings. I’m not saying anyone should go to all of them, but we all should consider going to support some of them.
4. I absolutely wouldn’t want to see the guidelines for proposals switch to posting them on Facebook rather than the website for but one example of speculative worry as I really want to see proposals on the website so I can think about them, more people have opportunity to contribute to them before they are taken to a busy GA that may be rushed and discussion hushed or pressed for time. Throw in the people’s mic or much emotion and my brain goes haywire, so it’s really important to me that we post proposals in advance in a place easy for all to see and facebook is not it. It’s a misgiving, and speculative, but I’d rather state it up front than leave it unsaid.
In general, I think the idea is a GOOD one, I just think it needs a lil tweaking.
Please notice also that it took me over a day to process whatever concerns I had about this proposal. I appreciate that you posted this in advance. Not all of us can think quickly on the spot and voice reservations that one knows are there but can’t quite put into words.
To me it is just as important that a proposal is implementable and that includes not only considerations of technology but people power as well. As stated, you require volunteers from WG’s who are already possibly over-worked. It’s possible facebook admins should be responsible for doing the work of this proposal.
I wasn’t saying to move all discussion to Facebook. I’m talking about ADDING another venue for participation. Just want to open up more places for discussion. That is really it, I don’t see how this is bad.
Not saying it’s bad, I generally support the idea. I just thought the proposal could be improved.
Think for a minute how few hits the forums get versus how many hits our facebook page gets.
I’m unsure that’s relevant. Like I said though, I generally support the proposal. I just thought it could be improved.
like hope said it is not about removing or stoping the use of ANYTHING just adding to the resources and venues of communication, with this kind of thing you can never have to many “lines in the water” the more you have the better your chances of catching something. and as for implentmenting them the people in the WG’s can take it on themselfs to make it happen Adam doesnt have to deal with EVERYTHING tech in OT. he does a lot of good work but like I said at the GA he is not the only Techie in OT lol.
When one creates a proposal, one might consider that where the human resources come from is relevant. Agreed?
The proposal requires WG’s to do facebook. As such, WG’s ought to be consulted in my opinion. It’s simply courteous and respectful. Yes?
I offered an alternative solution that I believe would increase the chances this proposal is successful. That seems like a good thing to consider.
Other than trying to ensure a proposal is well crafted and resourced, I guess, you can do what you like.
Fwiw, if you brought something like this to MediaWG meeting today that didn’t include assigning new work to WG’s, I do believe it would have easily passed. Since you are requiring WG’s to do more work though, I think you have a small issue that is probably going to get in the way of follow-through. I actually want to see your idea succeed. I realize it may not have sounded like that but I tried to explain clearly why I thought it may not other than creating new areas which I wonder why you would need GA approval for in the first place. That’s just me though, my opinion, no more important than anyone else’s.
I believe the proposal will pass. If you have trouble with follow-through, please consider my alternative idea then. There really isn’t a need to abandon a good idea when it doesn’t necessarily work as you hoped and really just needed a lil tweaking. Good luck and I’m sure even if it doesn’t work exactly as you intended there will still be some good benefits to organizing OT facebook more.
I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about this proposal in light of the very serious problem that we have in the forum with terrorists and sock puppets and general mayhem makers. But I think my own proposal is a policy to REQUIRE that work groups use the forum for inter-Occupy communication between all work groups. Work group reports go in the forum in the designated areas for each work group.
The Facebook stuff is more visible and easier to use for EXTERNAL communication. It is also much more visible to the general public and more accessible to folks who are not real interested in getting an account on OT servers. I assume that it is possible to post a LINK to a work group report in the facebook data. And that should suffice.
The work group reports are very important to all of the people actually _INVOLVED_ in the movement who attend work group and GA meetings and do the actual work of planning and setting up events and actions and teach-ins and all of those things. And it is important for all of these folks to be able to quickly see what everyone else is doing. That data is also available to the public and the people who share an interest just by browsing the forum.
People on the “outside” who do not want to contribute to work group activities and attend GA’s but who are interested in what is going on and want to talk among themselves can use the Facebook facility and normally do. Non forum members can browse the forum at will. You do not have to have an account to browse the data. You don’t need a Facebook account or any other account other than your Internet provider account to look at what we are doing.
In my opinion work groups (and all of us internally) have a responsibility to note major events in Facebook and to look at conversations among the public that would be germane to Occupy actions and activities. When appropriate, these external conversations can be (and are quite normally) joined by the internal people. The substance of these conversations are sometimes moved to the lounge or other places in the forum where they are discussed by even more people.
This address of issues arising in Facebook seems to be the norm already.
This is defiantly a great idea for getting more people to help but I think we can be more productive if we kept our discussions in one place and I don’t think FB would be best for that. What if, under events on FB, we listed all of our wgs with a link to an introductory thread within the wg topic section in our new forum – that could work. It would be nice for wgs to create tasks list – with some description of that specific task and how it fits in with a plan – that can be continuously promoted as available via frequent posts on our FB wall as well. This should be really helpful for (potentially many) volunteers who can’t make it to the meetings but would love to help out with these specific tasks combating the problems they still care about.
There’s a plugin for the new forum that would help, I think. It requires php access to the forum – something I don’t have and haven’t requested either.
In the next couple weeks I am hoping that the tech admins(ones with access to the php files) have time to assist.
Basically it will allow some small bit of integration of the new forum with facebook, having the LIKE button for example, will make links in the forum easier to share and encourage facebook to outside facebook communication.
I can see it.
What ever happened with the initial WG guidelines? They stated that a forum on OccupyTacoma.org would be proved for each workgroup to use. Beyond that WGs were at liberty to use ANY means of communication between themselves and other Occupy Tacoma members, whether they wished to hold public meetings or use other online forums. The only requirement was meant to be the forum on this website and that any other means of communication by the group was to pubished on THIS forum. If there was a concern or a complaint about WG activity, then that should be brought to the GAs. Though GAs have there place and time, I am noticing that (in my opinion) way to much is being brought to the GAs. The purpose of WGs was so that folks could get together to work on issues, events, etc, part of the purpose was to cut down on the time spent in the GAs.
Anyone know if there are GA or WG guidleines floating about?
Hi Adria.
I’ve been asked to find if such a thing exists and will see if I can find anything.
It was suggested at several GA’s that we roll the work of the remaining WG into the GA – WG attendance had been low and the GA’s were being used as de facto WG’s anyway. It may have started before May Day planning but I don’t think so. There were several WG meetings scheduled to plan that event but to the best of my knowledge they were unproductive and unattended, rather, May Day planning WG was done in several GA’s.
I think GA’s have just been adapting to perceived needs of the organization/members, rather than following tradition. Adaptive is better than things not getting done in my opinion. If there are actual proposals that were passed, that’s relevant, of course. You’re welcome to find the actual wording of anything previously passed or craft a new proposal at any time.
As things cool down and activity increases, I suspect WG’s will come back.
Unless there are any objections in the next week, this proposal should be moved out of upcoming proposals.
I do recall Hope bringing it to GA, but I do not remember what the status is so it will likely be moved to unsorted.
The reason for doing this is there is some expectation as the cooler weather approaches that the upcoming proposal area is going to be used more frequently and people will want to know what is being voted in the next GA’s.
I waited two weeks without objections so moving out of upcoming proposals.
If anyone knows its appropriate status, it may have been passed, please add a comment saying so. Thank you.