[matilda] Re: Social centres, funding and the PGA Hallmarks

[Mr Jase Malgod]

Chris writes: 

> The people who have been pushing for the adoption of the
> PGA Hallmarks have been *very* paticient -- these were
> originally raised back in July and at *many* meetings it
> was decided that there wasn't time to discuss them.  
> 
> The people who were wanting to argue in favour of them
> being adopted have had to wait almost 4 months before they
> had a chance to put their reasons forward as to why they
> should be adopted. During this 4 month period did any of
> these people walk away? 
> 

Uh...! People in general have been 'patient' in working without a specific 
structure, but that is no reason to adopt a particular structure without 
sufficient debate. I think that the PGA hallmarks are too prescriptive but 
am happy to go along with them as long as they are not shoved down my 
throat. Too much debating just leads round is circles, I don't think there 
is any real likelyhood of complete concensus. Again, a reason for having a 
far more generalised, less prescriptive set of guidelines. 

The problem can be resolved by having the guidelines as a general thing 
within which to work, if people start pointing to them in meetings at every 
opportunity, rolling over the wishes of those present to stick to the holy 
rulebook then that will just alienate people so they leave because they are 
not included and the thing falls flat on its face. Therefore the 'Matilda 
PGA' thing does grate, I wasn't aware a name change was on the agenda and 
think it could be done without. I would like to think that nothing was set 
in stone, that the PGA could be amended/cut down at future meetings to 
ensure it really does represent the group as a whole and not one particular 
ideology within it. 

Jason