WMA organisation/structure
Nov 20 2003 20:29
for a while now
weve carried on as always
plodding along
talking over things in meetings
sometimes carrying those things out 
most of the times not
now were getting to a point where we are being more active
as a group rather than with individual projects
we have some great new members
and the chance to really do something good with the Anarchy in the W.mids tour
isnt it about time we sorted the orgainsation of the group out so that we can function a bit better?
i know me GT and OD talked about this sometime in August
and some plans were drawn up (which i cant seem to find 
)
Things we need to sort out
Group bank account
group phone
A contacts list
Emails
Brum Brum meeting/production
propaganda
networking
who does what and when, decided by whom
when we have meetings
campaigns
WMA Socials
Chair at meetings
Meetings structure
This is just a rough idea of things
it was decided at the last meeting that i would carry on with the email which im perfectly happy to do, so that one is sorted, plus i dont mind doing the contacts list. Still the other things could do with being put up for discussion.
anything else?
It could be good to get some ideas moving on here and then talk them over at the next meeting
do we have a date for the next meeting yet?
hope your all fine and well
see you all soon
love and rage
Kid x
Nov 21 2003 16:44
#2
WetheYouth I think all meetings of more than about 5 people need someone to facilitate, by writing down the order in which people put their hands up, and prioritising new people or people who are quite quiet - otherwise you easily get the tyranny of the loudest/most obnoxious
If you rotate the person who facilitates each meeting you don't get a hierarchy 
Nov 21 2003 17:59
#3
alexa wrote:
WetheYouth I think all meetings of more than about 5 people need someone to facilitate, by writing down the order in which people put their hands up, and prioritising new people or people who are quite quiet - otherwise you easily get the tyranny of the loudest/most obnoxiousIf you rotate the person who facilitates each meeting you don't get a hierarchy :)
I disagree, i think if peopel can understand whos turn is next than it can work without a chair person, i also think that if we write who and when a person speaks, but without using a chair person, i beleive that would work.
Anyway its probably just the wording of chair person, taht makes me against it.
Nov 21 2003 18:16
#4
nah weve always used a chair person
and its always worked pretty well
otherwise it does become big gob vs shy gob
and thats not right
Its never been anything to formal
just one person each meeting
who first asks all members what they want to bring up then writes down the agenda, and takes the meeting through it bit by bit whilst writing down the minutes.
Its a way of keeping on track when you think we only have a maximum of 3 hours a meeting, and theres always quite a bit to get through.
Everyone gets their say and its always been pretty relaxed and informal
it just helps to have someone moving us onto the next issue when its needed
Nov 21 2003 18:39
#5
Kidda wrote:
nah weve always used a chair personand its always worked pretty well
otherwise it does become big gob vs shy gob
and thats not right
Its never been anything to formal
just one person each meeting
who first asks all members what they want to bring up then writes down the agenda, and takes the meeting through it bit by bit whilst writing down the minutes.
Its a way of keeping on track when you think we only have a maximum of 3 hours a meeting, and theres always quite a bit to get through.
Everyone gets their say and its always been pretty relaxed and informal
it just helps to have someone moving us onto the next issue when its needed
:)
Yeah, like i said its probably just the wording. could we call the person 'the guy/gal who makes notes' lol, joking.
Nov 22 2003 00:16
#6
maybe facilitator is a better word. but you really do need one, otherwise meetings get very shitty, boring and depressing very quickly. we do need to formalise some stuff so that it's nice and clear for new people interested, cos we don't want any informal hierarchies forming, because they suck. i think just rotating who does it each meeting would be the best. unless you want to copy the greek insurrectionary anarchists and just have a fist fight over everything
could we have a meeting next thursday evening? and could we have a social either somewhere in town or at the same location as our top secret cbi planning meetings were saturday after next? bearing in mind that there people can sleep over, there are no less than three offies within 5 minutes walk and no one will get chucked out for being under 18...
Nov 22 2003 15:54
#7
yeah most groups call them facilitators.
Nov 22 2003 20:44
#8
alexa wrote:
yeah most groups call them facilitators.:)
in WMA its usually
'the one who isnt at the bar'
Nov 23 2003 16:39
#9
Im up for a meet next thursday.
Nov 23 2003 23:45
#10
how about we all meet in new street at 7.30
then go to that pub we were in sunday night after the cbi
or im up for somewhere cheaper, that does better cider than the victoria and where we shouldnt have any 'legal age' issues arise
see you all thursday
x
Nov 24 2003 16:40
#11
Lol.
In 10 months we wont have the legal age issue.
Nov 24 2003 17:01
#12
this Thursday, New Street station, 7.30, bottom of the escalators?
Nov 24 2003 21:20
#13
yeah
can we expect to see you sorry? yay
wetheyouth, we wouldnt be proper anarchists if we couldnt get around the 'age issues' 
Nov 25 2003 19:24
#14
I can make it now, its next thursday i have to look after my runt of a bro so ill see youz then.
Nov 25 2003 22:26
#15
talking about this Thursday as in the day after tomorrow?
Cant make it unfortunately, am working... swapped my shift from tomorrow (Wed) to Thursday at a colleague's request today 
will try very hard to make the next one tho...
Local Stop the War meetings seem to work very well without a permanent chair, but with a rotating chair and a rotating minute-taker (my local StWC contains greens, trots, liberals and anarchists without overall domination by any one of those groups). I think the person taking the minutes should be a different person to the person with the start-of-meeting agenda tho, cos doing both at once is imho pretty impractical. (Minutes don't have to be detailed either, just a mention of each thing discussed and the decision taken if one was taken). As long as the decisions themselves are done by consensus democracy i don't think that structure can really be accused of being authoritarian... it's understood that it's just a practicality, and not a "leadership" position.
Nov 26 2003 12:18
#16
I'd be wary of using concensus... but then I guess you lot would realise that after the Gary experience...
you can use alternatives to majority voting though... like say an 80% consensus or attendees or members or whatever...
Nov 27 2003 15:25
#17
Sorry.
I cant come, im not feeling in the best of health over the last few days and it wont do me any good going out this evening or tommorow if i want to shift this infection.
One point i was going to raise and stress was the matter of outreach and trying to get more people to look into anarchy, if you could discuss that and put it into the minutes that would be cool.
Once again sorry, but im sure you all want your health.
Peace.
Nov 27 2003 15:27
#18
Sorry.
I cant come, im not feeling in the best of health over the last few days and it wont do me any good going out this evening or tommorow if i want to shift this infection.
One point i was going to raise and stress was the matter of outreach and trying to get more people to look into anarchy, if you could discuss that and put it into the minutes that would be cool.
Once again sorry, but im sure you all want your health.
Peace.
I am in total agreeance with everyting you said plus i think outreach needs to be the focus of our actions and therefore i think propaghanda needs to begin to be produced.
One thing, nobody should chair meetings, but we shoudl have a round table of us all.
anyway, see you all soon.