[Ssf] Re: Including...

[robin&amparo]

Yes sheffjeff of course we want the stuff and hand outs, we do need to 
use it!
How could we reach you?

R&A


sheffjeff wrote:

> On the facilitation thang!
> I did a brilliant workshop of facilitation at Earth First this year
> It was run by Seeds of Change
> So I have all the hand outs and stuff if any one wants to use it
> Sheffjeff
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jase" <spodulike at freeuk.com>
> To: <ssf at lists.aktivix.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ssf] Re: Including...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ssf mailing list
> Ssf at lists.aktivix.org
> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ssf mailing list
> Ssf at lists.aktivix.org
> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssf
>