Process minutes: 2016-05-09

Minutes:

Process Cmtee meeting
5/9/16
7-8:15pm, CH media room

Present: Patti, Sarah, Jillian, Rachel, Elph for part

AGENDA
1. Checkins- oops missed doing that this time, sorry!
2. Monkey Review
3. Common House and the Door Locking question followup
4. Payment for training
5. Work followup
6. Input in Absentia followup
7. Next Process meetings and facilitator brunches
next meeting - more Input in Absentia followup
next meeting - Email Etiquette followup
next meeting - Parking followup



2. MONKEYS:

ONGOING MONKEY:
Bringing chocolate for the two community meetings a month:
Jillian just stocked up on meeting chocolate at Trader Joe's so we're set
for a while.

DONE: Jillian will fill in the Process job assignments for summer in the
work survey system, then hand out the scheduling forms, collect them,
figure out the assignments, and communicate them out.

Re-MONKEY: Sarah emailed Go-tech to ask about how we can enter the data
gathered at a community meeting, about how people like to be contacted, in
to the contacts database. Sarah will check her email correspondence with
Rod; Rod was going to look in to possibilities.

Re-MONKEY: Mary and Sarah to share their handouts and powerpoint to the
Process cmtee google folder in drive. (See 3/19/16 Process minutes)

Re-MONKEY: Mary and Sarah will send out invite to all about the Lilacc
facilitator email group to see if others want to join. (See 3/19/16 Process
minutes)

Re-MONKEY: at our next process meeting let's read through the notes from
the 1/18/16 cmty meeting about the email etiquette discussion (which also
touched on input in absentia) to see if we should propose any changes.

Re-MONKEY: At an upcoming meeting, present the Input in Absentia agreement
with a proposal to add a sentence about stand asides and blocks. Also a
potential additional discussion item, not a proposal, about video
conferencing. Revisit the January Process cmtee meeting minutes and the
1/18/16 community meeting minutes about the input in absentia agreement.

MONKEY: Jillian will email the community to follow up on April 8 kids in CH
thread and make sure people are aware of the email etiquette agreement and
that CH cmtee will bring forward a discussion about the CH doors.

MONKEY: Jillian will make sure we paid Sarah and Mary's company, We Can
Work It Out LLC, for GOs share of the tri-community training earlier in
Spring 2016.

MONKEY: the June 5 facilitator's brunch can discuss the topic of having a
Martyrs and Slackers conversation at GO about work.

MONKEY: Process should ask the community about community meeting times and
if First Wed Third Mon at 6:30 is still what people want. And, find out why
else don't they come to meetings, even though its a responsibility of all
who live here. Did not flesh out how - survey? Cmty meeting?

MONKEY: Idea to do a Refreshing policy moment about blocks. Do we need to
spell it out more and we need to discuss skyping and blocking - so perhaps
more of a discussion item than just a refreshing policy moment. Related to
input in Absentia.


3. Next steps on the CH door locking question

We need to have a community conversation about it.
CH cmtee should bring a discussion item to the next community meeting -
school gets out the second week June. Some people feeling very anxious
about it.

Some good things could come out of discussion. Clear communication is part
of the solution. Locking the doors is only one part of anything we come up
with.

I think we're creating a problem by leaving the doors unlocked.

I don't want to sacrifice people's input.

A proposal could be as simple as, the CH proposes we keep the doors locked
all the time. And then we can discuss.

But how do you feel about a trial run to increase likelihood of passing it
quickly?

What I'd really like is to see it as part of a package. Locking doors,
there are a number of other things that could come along. Is the proposal
about the safety of the common house? About the safety of non GO members on
Campus?

Yes.

Then a solution could be made that addresses safety as part of a bigger
package that has a scope. What are we intending to do?

There's also a practical concrete thing. We're not setting clear boundaries
for a group of kids who come over and take advantage of that. Locking doors
sets a clear boundary. Our work is not done but this is an important first
step.

Who will flesh out more things we should be doing to communicate and set
clear boundaries?
And helping us in delivering a consistent message?
My concern is we'll make a proposal to lock the doors and that will be it.
Who else might bring it forward?

I feel like neighbors would help.
How to respond effectively to Non GO kids on campus so they're safe and GO
is safe.

One aspect is to lock the CH doors.
Another is someone to develop talking points and the community to commit to
learning them.

CH feels like it needs more input from the community to know if they should
lock the doors. Then CH is empowered so they can do a trial run if they get
input to do so.

Process got feedback that some newer members were not familiar with GO's
email etiquette of not continuing complex topics on email, and requesting
that they move to in-person discussion.

Two aspects to this, one is reminding people about our email etiquette
agreement, and the other is that the committee who is going to pick up the
thread and continue it should have said so.

MONKEY: Jillian will email the community to follow up on April 8 thread and
make sure people are aware of the email etiquette agreement and that CH
cmtee will bring forward a discussion about the CH doors.


4. Facilitation training followup

MONKEY: Jillian will make sure we paid Sarah and Mary's company, We Can
Work It Out LLC, for the tri-community training earlier in Spring 2016.


5. Community meeting about Work - people were broken up in to small groups.
Very constructive problem-solving meeting. It didn't allow the group to
discuss feelings as a full group.
I think we need to have the "martyrs and slackers conversation" that Laird
has talked about - system isn't broken but this conversation might need to
happen as it does need to periodically I think.

Do we want to do anything about, people who don't come to meetings. Process
cmtee hasn't asked in a long time if Mondays and Wednesdays.

MONKEY: the June 5 facilitator's brunch can discuss the topic of having a
Martyrs and Slackers conversation at GO about work.

MONKEY: Process should ask the community about community meeting times and
if First Wed Third Mon at 6:30 is still what people want. And, find out why
else don't they come to meetings, even though its a responsibility of all
who live here. Did not flesh out how - survey? Cmty meeting?


6. Input in Absentia

Didn't have minutes in front of us from the January meeting but should
review those. If someone Skyped in, could they block or stand aside. They
need to have been part of the conversation all along. They need to make a
commitment to work with whoever is working on the proposal, to help find a
solution. A lot of caveats, such as if they are not available to work on
the agreement within a timeframe, the community will move ahead.

Because of the difficulty of doing the work of resolving blocks and issue
we might want to propose no blocking long distance even by Skype.

It is odd when people skype in. Adds an odd dynamic. If we lost them need
to be clear we'd just carry on. But for young people coming in, skyping is
normal.

MONKEY: Idea to do a Refreshing policy moment about blocks. Do we need to
spell it out more and we need to discuss skyping - so perhaps more of a
discussion item than just a refreshing policy moment. Related to input in
Absentia.


7. Dates for the summer

Facilitator's brunch, Sarah will check in about Sunday, June 5, 10:30am,
with TS hosts, to make sure it's still happening.

Process meetings
Thursday June 9, 7-8:15pm CH sitting room
Thursday July 14, 7-8:15pm CH sitting room
Thursday 8/25, 7-8:15pm CH sitting room

--end--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gocoho.org/pipermail/process-minutes_gocoho.org/attachments/20160530/71e83974/attachment.html>