[Ssf] Including...

[noone noone]

  I think that it is the nature of email and internet communication that 
leads to some people not wanting to say too much too early, I think that it 
is really difficult comiting to somthing that you are not sure about and to 
people that you may have only met a few times.  It takes time to build trust 
and understanding and instant emails don't lend themselves to this task.

  As for political meetings, unfortunatly, those that are use to them are 
going to find it far easier to make their point and those that arent will 
find it more difficult to make their point.  Whats more, because alot of 
people (and especially the experienced ones) want to make their own mark on 
the meeting other will be left on the side lines and the meeting will be 
alot slower.  Lots of other factors are in play also e.g. gender inbalances 
and the more it seems like a few people dominate the more extreme ideas need 
to be thought up to re-balance the meeting e.g. going around and letting 
everyone have a chance to speak or using some sort of magic microphone and 
these ideas tend to slow the meeting down even more.

  I think that there is something wrong with the way people communicate in 
meetings, especially when compared to real life.  In a meeting when anyone 
talks the spot light is on them and when someone asks a question the spot 
light can end up being ping ponged between two individuals, effectivly 
excluding everyone else.  In a two hour meeting if an agenda is not produced 
a good few days before the meeting then when one is produced (often two 
minutes before the meeting begins) it gives people very little time to think 
things through and make sensible suggestions.  Once individual personalities 
are taken into account often a conflict in a meeting ends up being because 
of personalities clashing/grating and some people not being able to get on 
with others, in real life if i dont get on with someone then i dont have to 
spend time with them - problem solved.  In political life if people dont get 
on with each other often it ends up with some people leaving the group or 
just not taking part.

I don't know what the solution is but i think that being aware of our own 
behavour/actions is definatly a step in the right direction.


from
cuthbert


>From: Chris Malins <chrismalins at gmail.com>
>To: Ssf at lists.aktivix.org
>Subject: Re: [Ssf] Including...
>Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:56:23 +0000
>
>Well, as I see it we have this list, SSF meetings regular, SSF meetings 
>arranged specifically and the Democracy cafe to use. The Democracy cafe 
>idea is good for the purely open structure, it can allow people to throw 
>around a few notions with no pressure of time, no need to keep all present 
>considering the same idea and without an expectation that action needs to 
>be taken away from it.
>
>It would seem to make sense that SSF meetings should be facilitated with 
>some moderately enforced time constraints to deal first with specific ideas 
>raised via email or other forms of contact and coming out of Democracy 
>Cafes etc, but that some time should be set aside for new ideas to have 
>preliminary spontaneous attention, albeit not necessarily resulting in any 
>decisions. Within this structure I would suggest that we can remain relaxed 
>about the minutiae of agendaing and be positive about arising issues which 
>need immediate action.
>
>Perhaps one major barrier to people committing to get involved in issues is 
>that people don't want to be in the position where they let anyone down. I 
>personally like to have a controllable set of responsibilities that I am 
>answerable to someone or ones for, and then put extra time into 
>non-committed stuff. This is not necessarily very organisationally 
>efficient for the group as a whole! For instance, I could say, 'Wow Dan, 
>writing stuff sounds like a good idea, I'm sure I could churn out an 
>article every couple of weeks', but I don't want to get committed to doing 
>something like that regularly, so instead I keep stum, and offer to 
>proofread which is a clearly defined manageable task. Maybe I will 
>occasionally put pen to computer screen, maybe not.
>
>I guess that the gist is that what i want is to be able to sit back and 
>contribute when I see a project that is of particular interest or fits my 
>skills (which I am doing at the moment with various groups). I don't want 
>to get drawn in to feeling responsible for doing stuff that I can't 
>sustain, where I could be letting people down. And I suspect that plenty of 
>people have the same sort of caution.
>
>
>Chris
>
>Dan wrote:
>>Hi again,
>>
>>Jeez, sorry for all the e-mails, but I've got one last question.
>>
>>Question: what can be done to be more open and inclusive?
>>
>>There are currently 40 members in total on this list, and many more people 
>>'out there' who one might imagine would want to be involved in SSF.
>>
>>Stuff is generally written saying, 'please get involved / please muck in' 
>>- but I get the sense that it doesn't work.
>>
>>What might be the reasons for this?
>>
>>To everyone else out there on this list - what would involve you?  What 
>>are you looking for?  What do you want to see happening, and do you have 
>>any time to contribute to making it happen?
>>
>>I sometimes get confused between two opposite poles: if a meeting is 
>>totally open - 'come along and bring your ideas' - the meeting can drift, 
>>and people don't bring their ideas because they don't have a sense of what 
>>it is.
>>
>>Opposite to this is, say, me or Kev or Jase or anyone else running away 
>>with their own ideas - leaving no space for input.
>>
>>What can be done?
>>
>>Dan
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Ssf mailing list
>Ssf at lists.aktivix.org
>http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssf

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger