So there's been a bunch of describing, but not much about dealing with.
Also, holy cow, so much Palestine activism. Might as well not have bothered with B5 and made things clearer :P
I don't know if I'm naïve, but it seems to me that the key to getting things done is to not encumber oneself with people who get in the way of getting things done. In most of the cases here, the problems arise because people are tolerating non-performance, because they don't want to speak and deal with the problem. People have to accept that disagreement is essential to organizational growth. Debate clarifies things. Dialogue is productive.
There are governance problems in my housing coöp and some people have been trying to deal with them, but they've been so clumsy about it that I have provided only minimal support by attending GMMs so that my vote could count, and share a word of wisdom here or there, because otherwise I'm going to do everything, and I don't have the time/emotional energy. Just this week we had a special GMM because one of my allies decided all by herself that she knew how she would turn around the bad governance on Rent-geared-to-income tenants (RGI), and her attempt flopped in such a miserable way that any further attempt to re-open the issue is probably going to be boo'ed out of the room.
My own fault here was that I didn't tell her that her case wasn't rock solid, and I signed her requisition for a special GMM anyway. I should have withheld my signature and explained why.
Regarding process, well, people can use the process to demolish the process. If it's a democratic decision, and the majority agree to make the process lighter, what are they waiting for?
There can be a governance meeting once in a blue moon to review the main principles of the organization, both to state what the organization is for/against, and what the terms of engagement are, with a three strikes policy for people violating the latter. (There should be unanimity on the former, otherwise the group has larger problems that it needs to deal with first.)
At the aforementioned GMM, one member on my side of The Struggle became very disruptive, hectoring people, cutting the current speaker off, snickering, etc. The moderator stated a three strikes policy, and she was still very lenient about it, but eventually the member had to be kicked out. The moderator, instead of asking the person to remove themselves, asked the whole group if they would vote on removing the person. An overwhelming majority voted to kick the person out, and then the member didn't have a choice.
Anyway, I think having clear membership rules is a huge help. The group can always use the threat of kicking someone out as social coercion to get a member to shape up.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-08-13 08:53 am (UTC)Also, holy cow, so much Palestine activism. Might as well not have bothered with B5 and made things clearer :P
I don't know if I'm naïve, but it seems to me that the key to getting things done is to not encumber oneself with people who get in the way of getting things done. In most of the cases here, the problems arise because people are tolerating non-performance, because they don't want to speak and deal with the problem. People have to accept that disagreement is essential to organizational growth. Debate clarifies things. Dialogue is productive.
There are governance problems in my housing coöp and some people have been trying to deal with them, but they've been so clumsy about it that I have provided only minimal support by attending GMMs so that my vote could count, and share a word of wisdom here or there, because otherwise I'm going to do everything, and I don't have the time/emotional energy. Just this week we had a special GMM because one of my allies decided all by herself that she knew how she would turn around the bad governance on Rent-geared-to-income tenants (RGI), and her attempt flopped in such a miserable way that any further attempt to re-open the issue is probably going to be boo'ed out of the room.
My own fault here was that I didn't tell her that her case wasn't rock solid, and I signed her requisition for a special GMM anyway. I should have withheld my signature and explained why.
Regarding process, well, people can use the process to demolish the process. If it's a democratic decision, and the majority agree to make the process lighter, what are they waiting for?
There can be a governance meeting once in a blue moon to review the main principles of the organization, both to state what the organization is for/against, and what the terms of engagement are, with a three strikes policy for people violating the latter. (There should be unanimity on the former, otherwise the group has larger problems that it needs to deal with first.)
At the aforementioned GMM, one member on my side of The Struggle became very disruptive, hectoring people, cutting the current speaker off, snickering, etc. The moderator stated a three strikes policy, and she was still very lenient about it, but eventually the member had to be kicked out. The moderator, instead of asking the person to remove themselves, asked the whole group if they would vote on removing the person. An overwhelming majority voted to kick the person out, and then the member didn't have a choice.
Anyway, I think having clear membership rules is a huge help. The group can always use the threat of kicking someone out as social coercion to get a member to shape up.