Hope this isn't out of place...
Manniq, 08 Nov 2005 10:38:39
...and if suggestions for such are already well under way, etc., then my apologies to everyone who has started to plan such.
However, despite the approach, which raised a few hackles, Silver (and Amelie and quite a few others) have made some fair points about needing to get a bit more explicit, maybe more formal (who knows?).
Right now, I am of the opinion we haven't the time - and all resources should be directed at December 2. But what about the Day After?
Or more specifically, 8 days after?
I think it would be a very good idea to get together on a Saturday, IN LONDON, somewhere where there are decent acoustics and a good chance for people to debate intelligently, to discuss:
- didn't we do well? (or not, as the case might be)
and
- whither Backlash?
My suggestion is that we go for 10 December, rather than 3rd as quite a few people will be just coming down from a last week of frantic activity AND, if there is any press interest in the consultation close date, we don't want to trip over that.
And that we start to put together an agenda on here now, rather than wait until the day.
A SHORT agenda, please.
Anyway, apologies if dem already has this all fixed up....but otherwise, any thoughts?
Regards,
M
demolitionred, 08 Nov 2005 10:41:49
err I'd rather the third as I intend to take some time out to do some other bits and pieces in December.
Manniq, 08 Nov 2005 10:47:06
Might be worth setting up a voting board on this!
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> err I'd rather the third as I intend to take some time out to do some other bits and pieces in December.
demolitionred, 08 Nov 2005 10:47:33
I would also like to know what you are suggesting.
Personally and I know others share my view I am against setting up a new organisation with a new level of bureaucracy.
We have done so much so fast because people are free to do whatever they choose and there are no procedures.
People who are nothing to do with backlash can get on and do stuff and don't feel locked out.
Yes it can be chaotic but it works.
This same system also works at Unfettered.
adrian, 08 Nov 2005 11:31:19
A formal structure can gain credibility and sometimes do things that
an informal one can't. It can also have the effect, whether via the
best intentions or by just about anyone with malicious intent, to
hobble it in its own bureaucracy.
Even without malice, it cannot work without the people who would be
needed to provide the admin. We definitely don't have them now, and
while we have very specific work to do against a deadline we shouldn't
devote any resources to it. I don't think these disinterested servants
will pop up when things go quiet.
In general, the informal system works. I suggest we have the formal
entity to handle the money, but leave the working side of Backlash as
informal as we can.
I agree with getting explicit - in the sense of having an agenda,
giving people responsibility for tasks, keeping track of progress.
None of these has anything to do with whether we have a committee,
board of trustees, influential patrons etc.
Manniq, 08 Nov 2005 12:17:04
Indeed: I suspect we will need to have a debate (sometime - but NOT at a meeting of this sort) about what we actually mean by 'formality'.
I think formal allocation of responsibilities, plus some sort of structured report back (so that people KNOW when they are getting a report back) would be a good idea.
F'rinstance, I asked dem a specific question yesterday. She pointed out that the answer was already posted 'out on the board'. But I have a number of issues with that. First is signal to noise ratio: loads of people post loads of stuff on the board (I know I do) and a lot of this is pure waffle (I know I do).
But some of what gets posted is very importatn.
We need a simple way of lifting things like reports back and current state of play off the generality and into a space where people go: 'oh, yes - that's the document that tells me what has happened in lobbying or fund-raising or whatever since a fortnight ago'.
I certainly don't think we need to have enormous constitutional debates, committees, whatever, since those ARE likely to get in the way and piss some people off. I do think we need a little more discipline ...but maybe that has nothing whatsoever to do with this campaign.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> A formal structure can gain credibility and sometimes do things that
> an informal one can't. It can also have the effect, whether via the
> best intentions or by just about anyone with malicious intent, to
> hobble it in its own bureaucracy.
> Even without malice, it cannot work without the people who would be
> needed to provide the admin. We definitely don't have them now, and
> while we have very specific work to do against a deadline we shouldn't
> devote any resources to it. I don't think these disinterested servants
> will pop up when things go quiet.
> In general, the informal system works. I suggest we have the formal
> entity to handle the money, but leave the working side of Backlash as
> informal as we can.
> I agree with getting explicit - in the sense of having an agenda,
> giving people responsibility for tasks, keeping track of progress.
> None of these has anything to do with whether we have a committee,
> board of trustees, influential patrons etc.
«No Name Set», 09 Nov 2005 18:45:40
Weekend meeting? In December?? Are you serious???
Count me out - I'm booked or double-booked up every weekend day in
December long since. Unless you want to put in a bid for
afternoon of 24th - I think my first commitment that day isn't
till about 10pm.
--
Rosemary