[matilda] Getting people involved...

[R&A]

Hej, dear Danny

Also in support of your proposals:
>> First, I propose that new people should be given time *right at the
>> start of meetings* to ask their questions, be given answers, and to
>> propose new uses. 

and particularly *collectives* being more or less arranged ...

thank you all for your brilliant inspiration, for the time being all i
could do if wanted is contributions (literary and surrealist mad
contributions) to a Wiki. (?let's have a look-a loop-a hook)

amp



dan at aktivix.org wrote:

> Allo once more
> 
> Sorry about this... more stuff to read.  One of the agenda items for
> next week was 'how to get a space for working in'.
> 
> Three new people came to the meeting last night, and had to go
> through the rigmarole of approving the groundrules again, listening
> to much toing and froing on what the agenda was etc – when all they
> wanted to do was:
> 
> 1.Find out how to get involved in doing some art – which in practice
> means getting involved with a particular collective. 2.Tell the group
> about a proposed new use for the space.
> 
> A couple of things from this.
> 
> First, I propose that new people should be given time *right at the
> start of meetings* to ask their questions, be given answers, and to
> propose new uses. They should also be allowed to bugger off
> immediately afterwards – and be told that's the case.
> 
> Reason: these Monday meetings, while frequent at the moment, are the
> main meeting. They may (I hope!) reduce to one a month when the place
> gets going. The aim (I think?) is that the various collectives will
> take ownership of their areas ASAP, so the main meeting will be less
> vital.  (And, at any rate, large meetings follow the same iron rule
> of shiny new ventures – large numbers of people at the start, and a
> slow attrition til you're left with a handful – another reason why
> working collectives are the way forward!)
> 
> If autonomy for the collectives is the aim, this means that anyone
> wanting to get involved in, say, the art collective (or an art
> collective) should be able to go straight into that without sitting
> through meetings about the genealogy of the PGA Hallmarks and the
> history of the Zapatistas.
> 
> I'd say that when people come along wanting to get stuck in, that
> should be made as painless as possible.  This in no way detracts from
> the philosophy of the building.  Why?
> 
> Well – an example.  I noticed last night one new person was asking
> questions about a photography studio.  He was keen to know whether we
> had all the equipment.  The reply came – no, not yet.  That needs to
> be sorted, and that's what the collective's doing.
> 
> His only choice was to get involved to help make this happen.  The
> option of merely consuming the centre's resources wasn't there.  Of
> course, each collective will have its own dynamic, but the DIY-co-op
> principle is built-in.
> 
> So when people say 'I want to put on an event' or 'I want to do some
> art', it should be crystal clear to them that
> 
> 1.This isn't a tenant-landlord situation – you're gonna have to get
> mucky wit' da collectives. 2.But that its really clear who they need
> to contact to get stuff done.  It really wasn't clear last night...
> 
> For this to happen, I think each collective must have some minimum
> requirements. Two I can think of now are:
> 
> 1.A named key-holder for each collective, so that other members know
> who to talk to about getting in and out.  So we'd need more keys cut.
>  2.A named-or-e-mail'd contact for newcomers to the collective who
> can tell them how it works, and how to get started.
> 
> (We could also do with an in-out board for all key-holders.)
> 
> OK!  That's probably my last rant for the day...
> 
> love n peas,
> 
> Dan _______________________________________________ matilda mailing
> list matilda at lists.aktivix.org 
> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda
> 
> 


-- 


Please, never despise the translator. She is the mailman of human 
civilisation.
(Pushkin).