[Ssf] Re: Including...

[Jase]

G, mornin,

>> Facilitator shows round agenda and then has a go round group with
>> people introducing themselves and adding any items/issues they want
>> to talk about to the agenda. Agenda revised, similar items condensed
>> etc.
>
> I particularly vote in favour of this (above)... but
> Shouldn't different persons be chosen as facilitators for each Meeting?
> This could be done by drawing lots on each meeting, so we share the
> efforts of drawing agenda, etc. as facilitators would do. Thus, real
> inclusion or inclusivity-
>
> We would share also the rewards of participating, and avoid ghettoing or
> éliting.
> Does anybody agree or has this already being proposed?
>
> Hi,
>
>There are a lot of points being raised on this list but for now I shall
>just pick up this one.  Ideally it would be wonderful for everyone to
>take turns to facilitate.  However it takes certain skills to facilitate
>well.  This is particularly important when the meeting gets
>contentious.  More people should learn these skills but not everyone is
>capable sadly.  No one comes back to badly facilitated meetings.
>
>Peace,
>D Dave

In general I think we should take the task of facilitation more seriously and
try and improve our own skills, people could facilitate for parts of meetings
helped by others to get experience, and we should have some simple rules to
stick to. Agreed facililitation is not for everyone but we should also try and
spread the task as much as poss.

> People HAVE TO SPEAK THROUGH THE FACILITATOR, it just doesn't work
> otherwise and we have power imbalances as Cuthbert describes

> Now i don't understand that Jase here above means that people cannot
speak but THROUGH the facilitator as a ventriloquist,

That WOULD take people some time to learn:) It means that you indicate to the
facilitator you want to speak and then they indicate to you when it is your
turn to speak. The facilitator keeps track of who wants to speak so everyone
gets their turn.

On the faclilitation for projects, think as many as want to could do it as
long as shared responsibility didn't mean no-one took responsibility.

If the SSF part of the meeting focused on organisation then there could still
be plenty of time for action to be discussed, but after the main meeting and
in a voluntary way.

>Just thinking that including includes excluding, therefore we are
>excluding , implicitly or explicitly (eg SWP, BNP...or any Sheffielder
>belonging to these organizations unless they attend in good faith and will).
>Thanks to the person(s) who drew the 2005 Planning, which i suppose is
>open to open discussion (perhaps one of the items of next agenda?

On political groups and stuff, another bit from the guidelines:
Members of political parties are welcome in the space as persons with a
political affiliation, expressing their personal opinion, listening to other
participants rather than feeling compelled to deliver a formatted party
speech. They are not welcome as political body representatives competing for
the control of the space, and "killing the hen that laid the golden egg" by
trying to make the forum space an instrument for their own political agenda

Parties as organisations cannot directly organize activities in the forum
space. They can set up associations with a milder approach, that organize
activities in forums can be participants and active members of "action
collectives" emerging from the forum outside the forum space


On the BNP et al, would've thought some general guidelines on respect and
equality between all should handle that. Inclusivity, I think, will depend a
lot on the meeting being welcoming with a social feeling which is safe and
supportive to people, so that individuals do not feel excluded by the
political and personal prejudices of those present.

Jason

_______________________________________________
Ssf mailing list
Ssf at lists.aktivix.org
http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssf