[matilda] Thoughts about meetings and organisation

[Anthony McCann]

Hi,
   
  Just a suggestion, and one offered after only attending one meeting (though  have been following the e-discussion), but I was wondering if it might make sense to be a *little* more formal with the running of the Monday meetings? 
   
  I realise that many of the conventions of bureaucratic administration are unhelpful, but some are very helpful indeed. It would seem to me that if meetings are going to be held, with a chair, and if they are where Matilda business is to be discussed, then with that structure already in place it might be appropriate and important, particularly as the number of people/items increases, to instigate a slightly more definite order at the meetings. Otherwise I feel they will, as the weeks/months go on, get longer, more unwieldy, and will likely become almost unworkable for decision-making, whether by consensus or any other way. That may already be happening, in some people's views. It wouldn't require an iron hand, but it would mean that discussions not be allowed to spiral beyond the point where they are directly relevant to the point of discussion. It is possible to get through a lot of things at any meeting, and to discuss them adequately (within reason), but only if there is a
 general commitment to dealing with the concerns of the meeting in an efficient manner. Efficiency can sometimes be a helpful value.
   
  By the way, I didn't understand there to be any consensus decision-making as such on Monday in the short time I was there, unless consensus is assumed to be the absence of disagreement. I always thought consensus was the explicit declaration of agreement by everyone in a group. I would suggest that the latter consensus decision-making tends to be pretty much unworkable without a more formalised meeting order, and that the former tends not to constitute consensus, necessarily. I was aware of a lot of confusion while I was at the meeting about what was being or had been discussed and/or decided at any point, and it's possible to avoid that kind of confusion in very helpful ways. Proper consensus tends to be impossible without real clarity of discussion, and full voicing of opinions. Such conditions also make consensus almost unworkable (which goes back to one of my earlier emails). 
   
  Another thing, and this was perhaps suggested by some of what I heard  at the meeting, is that aspiration to the absence of hierarchy and/or authority muddies the waters considerably when it comes to responsibility and accountability. In any attempt to bring people together, clearer accountability and responsibility can be really helpful, directly proportional to the numbers of people involved. As soon as a group is larger than a small group of friends who all know each other, particularly if growth is an aspiration, then it might become important to start thinking about when or where it might be appropriate to allow certain people to simply be responsible for particular roles, and maybe then let them get on with the job, and feedback as necessary. Otherwise, hierachies will likely emerge anyway (probably already have. It happens.), and if there is not already an openness to how that simply happens, such dynamics may cause confusion in the future. People can earn authority, as well
 as authority being granted, but it can all be very delicate when there are a lot of energetic personalities around. Also, it is important not to fall into the dynamic of everyone having to constantly monitor everything that everyone else is doing in Matlida. That would be corrosive.
   
  Both concerns are very much underpinned by a question I would have, which is about what kind of interactional dynamic people envisage being in and around the Matilda building in a year, two years? And to what extent the dynamic might relate to an organisational structure? (there already is an organisational structure, but how do you think it might develop?) Is the possibility of getting turfed out preventing people from thinking that far ahead? If there is a longer term, and if a lot more people become involved, a certain clarity of roles and responsibilities and accountabilities might be helpful, if only because over time, in the apparent absence of such, certain people might invest a lot more time and energy than others (equality simply doesn't happen in real life, as much as much rhetoric might convince us that it should). That, in turn, often leads to a multitude of resentments in such situations. 
   
  Do people think Matilda is a short-term opportunity, or a long-term project?
   
  I'd like to know what people think about my meanderings.
   
  All the best
   
  Anthony
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/matilda/attachments/20051117/6662e94c/attachment.html