On Occupying and Occupying Everywhere
October 13, 2011 7:57 AM Subscribe
Please help me learn a little bit about "process" in the Occupy Everywhere world, especially from a comparative perspective (i.e. how is the consensus or direct democratic model structured differently in NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, and other cities.)
I'm interested in firsthand account from people who have been to multiple cities' occupations, and of course I'm also interested in
articles, blogs, or other resources online that take up the question of process in these occupations.
I've been going to OccupyLA this week and there has been a fruitful, but also frustrating, public conversation about consensus and consensus reforml. Many occupiers assert that NYC and Chicago operate on a 90% consensus vote model, and someone even told me that Boston is a straight 60-40 majority vote.
Trouble is, I can't find documentation of this anywhere so far.
My own view of the LA occupation is that the more-or-less 100% consensus model has thus far empowered the Ron Paul folks and the no-fluoride-in-the-water contingent to veto all consensus. Much of the conversation has focused specifically on process and, by extension, the branding of OccupyLA and the question of who has the right to use the term OccupyLA in their various and sundry marches and other activist doings. I remain optimistic, but I'm curious how this is happening in other cities.
I provide this background not to spark chatfilter, but by way of context so folks can point me to stuff that addresses these issues, or of course provide their own reflections based on experience.
I'm interested in firsthand account from people who have been to multiple cities' occupations, and of course I'm also interested in
articles, blogs, or other resources online that take up the question of process in these occupations.
I've been going to OccupyLA this week and there has been a fruitful, but also frustrating, public conversation about consensus and consensus reforml. Many occupiers assert that NYC and Chicago operate on a 90% consensus vote model, and someone even told me that Boston is a straight 60-40 majority vote.
Trouble is, I can't find documentation of this anywhere so far.
My own view of the LA occupation is that the more-or-less 100% consensus model has thus far empowered the Ron Paul folks and the no-fluoride-in-the-water contingent to veto all consensus. Much of the conversation has focused specifically on process and, by extension, the branding of OccupyLA and the question of who has the right to use the term OccupyLA in their various and sundry marches and other activist doings. I remain optimistic, but I'm curious how this is happening in other cities.
I provide this background not to spark chatfilter, but by way of context so folks can point me to stuff that addresses these issues, or of course provide their own reflections based on experience.
Trouble is, I can't find documentation of this anywhere so far.OccupyBoston guidelines for reaching consensus at their GA. Available off the front page. They require a 75% vote to adopt a proposal.
posted by bl1nk at 8:26 AM on October 13, 2011
I don't have direct OWS/anywhere info, but I was involved in a consensus based collective. Yes, it can get frustrating.
However, this is what happens: You discuss, then try for consensus. If consensus is not reached after trying to compromise and reach a decision that everyone is happy/ok with, you take a break. Go for a walk, etc. Then you come back, discuss, try and reach a compromise, try for consensus again. If it doesn't pass, then, you can either decide to table it, or put it to a vote.
Also: if one person consistently blocks consensus, then you can ask them to consider if their efforts might be better involved elsewhere.
Consensus is great, but there still needs to be a fail safe for the jerks who just love to be confrontational.
Oh- we had a rule that you couldn't block consensus if you weren't a full member of the collective.
Also- consensus based decision making involving hundreds of people boggles my mind- we'd have enough issues with four people (quorum)!
posted by titanium_geek at 5:33 PM on October 13, 2011
However, this is what happens: You discuss, then try for consensus. If consensus is not reached after trying to compromise and reach a decision that everyone is happy/ok with, you take a break. Go for a walk, etc. Then you come back, discuss, try and reach a compromise, try for consensus again. If it doesn't pass, then, you can either decide to table it, or put it to a vote.
Also: if one person consistently blocks consensus, then you can ask them to consider if their efforts might be better involved elsewhere.
Consensus is great, but there still needs to be a fail safe for the jerks who just love to be confrontational.
Oh- we had a rule that you couldn't block consensus if you weren't a full member of the collective.
Also- consensus based decision making involving hundreds of people boggles my mind- we'd have enough issues with four people (quorum)!
posted by titanium_geek at 5:33 PM on October 13, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by ottereroticist at 8:19 AM on October 13, 2011