Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The GA Remodel

Circumventing derp and top-heavy logistics process in GA.


This is an open discussion on how to circumvent the top heavy logistics process in GA. While the working group model and affinity group model has gone some ways to alleviating the pressure, little outreach and action has taken place.  Please feel free to add to the discussion in the comments section, here's the first sally from Not Me.


There are comments at the bottom of this initial proposal post. Please read through the comments and ring in where you feel it is appropriate. Several other posts will be generated out of this and linked back to this GA remodel post. If necessary, I will generate a page for this conversation.




Okay, this is so not pre-typed, and probably a bit rambly (?probably?) but the basic idea is this: the internet sucks for real-life actions, it reminds me of Machiavelli's words on whether it's better to be loved or feared (man is fickle, ..., and whenever the danger is far theyre close by, etc etc).

Plus you end up with such a geographically diverse group that its almost self-defeating unless you're willing to foot the bill to fly a bunch of people around who arent motivated enough to fly themselves. So, good in some areas, bad for anything real.

Past that, it's a matter of studying how those who have come before us have tackled this-- both the legitimate and illegitimate ones and utilizing what we can and disregarding what we can't or don't agree with, et cetera. I agree that producing the curriculum online in the beginning makes sense, because well its a free way to bootstrap and make sure stuff is happening before anyone gets committed and it gives you content when you do hit the streets so to speak. However, I think trying to keep things there is fundamentally a wrong model.

In its base, ideally you want little scientology centers/madrassa's/etc all over the place, something that is open to anyone with the nerve to walk in and say hi. At that point you're wanting to throw them into very generic curriculum that educates but is also focused on determining a persons ideaology-- history, economics, religion.. creative writing. The problem here is that you're going to lose a lot of people that think you're full of crap and don't want an english comp 101 class. I'm not sure how to tackle that off-hand.

The entire idea in this phase is to identify people who are on the same page and invite them to do things like help TA classes, clean up the location, et cetera-- in an ever escalating fashion, all no pressure at your will, you get to go as deep or as shallow as you want. The cream will rise to the top.

At some certain point, as early as possible actually, you're wanting to group students together into the early stages of cells. You want them based on geography, skill-set, view points, etc. Those who get along and mesh well go together, then you want your cells to all share generic capabilities. You don't need a media team, you need a guy in the cell that knows how to work the internet/coms. So as the patterns in people emerge, you specialize their education towards whatever they're naturally inclined towards-- but a key point being that you're organizing cells around functionality and not causes.

You use the tiered education model to get people in the door and analyze them in a safe and passive setting that doesn't really infringe on them as people. You use volunteering to identify the motivated and those who have the time and ability to actually do stuff, and you elevate them into a higher tier of education and you start trying to group them with people who live and operate within some reasonable distance of each other, then by skill-set and most importantly by need (do we really need 95% hackers? [total bs number])-- each cell should have a basic knowledge of law, technology, mass media, etc so that they can legitimately operate independently. The overarching idea is that eventually, you've got the trust on both ends without having to really try to build it because it came naturally over the progression of the education so to speak.

IMHO they should be setup in a manner where ops are not performed unless the team in its entirety agree's to do it, giving it a horizontal aspect for the most part, however when the op is on there needs to be a strict chain of command, giving it the vertical aspect when its more beneficial.

I mentioned the hacker spaces previously because that's a perfect setting and reduces overhead and risk from actually opening a school itself, think of it as being akin to hosting your webpage on google to ensure you dont get a huge bill from a DDoS. It also undermines what DARPA is trying to do, which is essentially utilize the hackerspaces as the breeding ground for the 21st century spook, so bonus points.

At a bigger picture so to speak, I think the GA and working group model is bad. The GA ends up having to be the executive, legislative and judicial branch and subdivides itself out to the WGs to get work done, and maybe there isn't a working group for purple people who love 14th century french poetry and want to save rabbits, but probably every working group can empathize with the idea of saving rabbits. So in my world, the GA still exists-- its what legitimizes 'us' as a democracy, it has to be open to everyone and has to allow everyone to be heard, but it should really be acting akin to congress or the senate and outlining policy and beliefs, not so much what they mean or how they are realized.

You develop cells of say 15 people or so with X many cells per region, they operate off of policies set by the GA, but absolutely retain the right to say 'no'. Some sort of executive level cell is going to be requisite for determining what the GA policy even means and how to best realize it-- they say we dont like big banks, how do we combat that? infiltrate the bank? modify local laws? etc-- once that plan has been broken down, then it can filter out to the cells most applicable where they decided yes or no essentially until someone is a go or the idea hits the floor and you kick it back to the GA.

At some point, much like everything else, I mean to formalize this out more as it largely grew out of reading about the shadow government from the North Vietnamese and then the PRU groups formed by the CIA as a retaliation, but also to a lesser degree what we're currently seeing in terms of the formation of Al-Qaeda, and the response in Afghanistan with the creation of the ANLP or whatever (drawing a blank on the name of the villagers with guns model)-- searching for 'coin' and 'phoenix program' should yield a bunch of related docs from RAND et al (coin = counter-insurgency).

I don't know if all that made sense or not, but the short of it is follow the CIAs lead, they know what they're doing here, it's just a matter of repeating things in the US with a less sinister intention.

This is the diagram described in the comments below.

Click to view expanded image

72 comments:

  1. Agree with every point in this post. Thank cloud daddy someone's thinking :) Yes, we need the GA to agree on direction. Yes, we need structure & order in carrying them out. Lemme know how I can help. Looking forward to seeing more re:strategy group. Note: one thing I found especially disruptive in OWS was the insistence on inclusiveness regardless of how disruptive & destructive whoever was. Not looking to allow sabotage that easily again, so am thinking we need basic org rules, and have thought re:communication to keep this to a minimum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a Global Justice Movement model that allows for blocs to act autonomously but does not allow for inclusive destruction. I don't believe it would be effective to entirely exclude the blocs, rather we have to coordinate with them so that destruction is directed or constructive. (that may have made sense working on my first cup of coffee)

      Delete
    2. iawtc and would think it would be one of the first things the strategy wing in the proposed model comes up with. My only disagreement was if the process was not fair or was being abused for personal reasons or whatever, but otherwise /sign

      Delete
  2. GA has stalled on nearly everything worth taking action on. Although there is a lot of procedure, intended to bring about consensus building; essentially random people do not have the common vocabulary or conceptualizations to make effective teams. Part of the work would seem (as hinted above)to include developing a base of understanding, common language and reference points so that more precise and active teams can be formed from a larger mass of people. Part of the work has to be educating the citizens that will participate in the democratic process. We can't count on the educational system developed to serve the institutions of state to suit our purposes, and so we would have to take that matter into our own hands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a basic lexicon that is lacking. By supplying that lexicon to as many people as possible, it raises the general level of awareness for the entire group. They know what they are listening for. This will be a long process, I think supporting and including the Free School model is essential in this particular "battle"

      Delete
    2. Agree but this slows effectiveness of GA. Need people to take responsibility if they want to contribute. Go to school, learn the lingo & process, then stick to it or sit down.

      Another point-limit time in stack for each person. Definite rule I favor is nobody repeats ideas, problems, whatever. If the collective has already spoken your thought, keep it to yourself. Saves time, hypnosis by repeat, and avoids grandstanding.

      Consequences need to be defined, as well as enforcement.

      Delete
    3. agreed, the stack process needs to be moderated. If someone wants to get on stack they should make it so stack sets up 30 - 45 min prior to GA, so folks with an affinity can select a spokes person for that idea. This reduces the stack line and the first 30-45 minutes is a loose exchange of ideas/ set up. GA can kick off with a tight stack then move into proposal processing.

      Delete
    4. as for the education process, this will be slow. Education outreach is essential and *not* through GA. We must continue the free exchange of ideas, Free School University is a budding idea that is already making HUGE strides here in Boston on outreach and education. I firmly believe that the extension of this model will alleviate a lot of the GA load in this educational process.

      Delete
    5. Do you think it would be worthwhile to suggest a course of study paired with online resources for people to engage in? Concentric circles of curricula that might help facilitate the learning curve- or be an aid to people with limited engagement opportunities? It would allow people to lurk moar, while still hitting the mark in terms of topical instruction.

      Delete
    6. I think the combination of static and dynamic resources as well as local outreach. We can feed the information through FSU and other radical education outreach programs. They can facilitate local discussion, and each group can take away what they need. But the information would remain available to all. The information IS available it's just in so many places folks get frustrated searching for it.

      Delete
    7. I totally agree with basically everything said in this thread; inclusive of utilizing existing resources such as the FSU and so on.

      One particular point I'd make is that this also allows for training of people to properly populate tactical cells with the right skill-sets.

      On a side note, I really *hate* the progressive stack concept, I mean I understand it, but really? Are we equal or not? Are we color blind or not? Maybe it's because I'm a heterosexual white male, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure I'd dislike it just as much if I wasn't.

      Delete
    8. By progressive stack do you mean calling everyone up in order?

      Delete
    9. Ah, the progressive stack is in order, but minorities, women, gays, etc first because supposedly we need to show we're not racist misogynistic homophobes and do so by showing we're not the oppressive white people.. /shrug just annoying, like i said, are we color blind/etc or not?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack

      Delete
  3. Another problem I found back at the end of 2011 is the tendency to treat the GA as a single authoritative entity and NOT as designed (a fluid body of multiple equal entities).

    It makes sense for a single authoritative entity to do things like write an entire document or plan an entire action step-by-step. It does NOT make sense for a group of equal entities, whose membership fluctuates even during the decision making process, to handle such tasks.

    So again as in the Twitter thread that brought me here, I must stress that IMHO, delegation is not a dirty word... it is something it would be to our benefit to embrace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is going to be a long battle against the "leadership role" I don't think it's a fear of delegating, I think it's a fear of authority. No one wants to appear as the "dictator" so they do not take responsibility for delegating. Leadership isn't a bad thing, but folks are afraid of stepping up out of fear of being vilified by peers.

      Delete
    2. Me, I have the fear of being in charge. I don't like the idea of a dozen arrests on my head and my head alone, people coming at me with pitchforks out when an action goes Charlie Foxtrot. But that's me....

      Now, *bottomlining* a group of tasks with a small team, so we all have to be accountable to each other as well as to the movement as a whole, I'm totally down with that.

      Delete
    3. I completely agree, and for those that have multiple arrests, the current model doesn't lend itself for gaining any support or spearheading and idea.

      If you have an idea you can't garner support from GA out of fear of being "too visible". The policy model allows you to act in affinity within your "cell" in accordance with a specific action.

      Delete
    4. not for nothing, something of this nature can also be handled as simply as the old fashioned suggestion box method (Anonymous emails or typewritten/printed suggestions in a physical box).

      If an idea is good, it's good, if it is bad, it's bad. There is a rather pressing need IMHO to get personality differences out of the decision making process as much as possible. The GA can give a general up or down on such suggestions without identities needing to be revealed to the world or the GA's collective judgement of the idea being clouded by the appearance or personality of the person making it.

      Delete
    5. We have a model similar to that but there's no oversight. If you want to submit an idea it's very easy for someone to take the idea out of queue for any given reason. I've had it happen to me.

      Delete
    6. What is a possible solution for this? Annonymous suggestion is often eschewed due to filibustering?

      What can we do to have oversight into this process?

      Delete
    7. Agreed here too, especially with Kaymee's initial response. What I'd say is that while I'm hard pressed to come up with much outside of a directly tactical op off-hand, sometimes decisions have to be made and it's either incredibly hard/long/et cetera or implausible to do so via group consensus.

      That said, power corrupts, and I know I wouldn't want all of the mistakes hanging on me either.

      I think to some degree this sort of thing works it self out within the strategy wing formalization, but if it was found we really actually needed this, I would say it be done in a rotating manner so no one is actually ever the dictator.

      In the tactical side of things, I'd totally leave how that's handled up to the cells themselves, which again removes the dictator aspect from the strategy wing.

      That all said, I'm not entirely convinced any type of individual leader is really requisite outside of at "op go time" for the tactical units, but I could be wrong too.

      Delete
    8. Agreed. And the open model for the previous two branches allows for folks *in* the cells to ring in as they please when it comes to policy.

      Delete
    9. And the open model for the previous two branches allows for folks *in* the cells to ring in as they please when it comes to policy.

      exactly

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have limited time during day for the next month so will contribute in the evening (North America). Also need to read up on what systems you reference here for CIA ops re:strategy group. Have used flowchart for prob ID and decision making. Like that it objectifies arguments - removes personal/ality attacks. Basic team structure for that portion, with facilitator revolving as more gain skills. Not hung up on that part. Wondering about comms security in that scenario. Thinking it matters more in tactical groups than strategy sessions though. Anyway, looking forward to hearing more & put up some links if you have recommended reading. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We'll have a "paint" diagram of the flow chart up later this evening or tomorrow, since NM's handwriting is terrible. I'll set up a "GA lexicon" page later in the week with links to definitions and resources for the GA q&a.

      Delete
    2. Maybe even identifying pre-existing iterations of the kinds of processes we are talking about, so that people might have a frame of reference for how it should look/work/feel. Also a good idea if we want to reduce the amount of "new" suggestions that have been tried before.

      Delete
    3. Excellent, I will start compiling research for reference, it may take a bit I have a lot on my plate, if anyone has anything to contribute feel free to link it into this conversation and I will get the ball rolling on this "lexicon" page.

      Delete
    4. Feel free to send anything you have- I will add/extrapolate more references if I can

      Delete
    5. I like Pearl Trees for directories. Am thinking it would be useful for education as well.

      Delete
  6. (Elisa) I'm confused here. "very generic curriculum that educates but is also focused on determining a persons ideaology" This is what public schools do now. They indoctrinate students. If you are going to need people to make decisions even if they are binary decisions, they need to be able to think for themselves. I'm guessing a minimally invasive approach. Also, why have subjects at all? Maybe have projects instead?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I *think* the idea is to be project based, and largely we need to hammer out semantics.

      A generic curriculum again both dynamic and static, helps people to verbalize their ideologies if undetermined in a way that pubic schools do not.

      Delete
    2. Less importance on content-specifics, and more about the skills and faculties associated with critical analysis. We can attempt to avoid the danger of indoctrination by taking case studies (or whatever form these projects take) from a wide swath of human experience, and allow the "students" to chose which topically relevant examples they would like to engage with.

      Delete
    3. I think that a volunteer/ practical application facet is an important part of critical analysis. If someone expresses an interest in say foreclosure law, they can be looped into an organization like City Life/ Vida Urbana and gain experience in that area while taking a part in the dialogue.

      Delete
    4. One thing thats somewhat missing is that for me, it was meant not only as a method of education, but also as training & recruitment, so while I have no intention of indoctrinating people, identifying what people believe and so on would to me to be somewhat important at least for the purposes of recruitment into other layers of the structure.

      That sounds so much more nefarious than I mean though (

      Delete
    5. I think for a lot of occupations training is going to have to rest (at least in some part) with outreach. Until there is enough of a ready "force" folks will have to pursue their interests autonomously and bring those skills back for skill share training, looping in with Free School etc.

      Many existing organizations have skills and resources that we do not. In many cases hold free classes and skill shares that overloaded volunteers at occupy that ARE busting ass can't keep up with.

      We can incorporate the "coalition" mentality, by directing an active volunteer force to existing organizations while garnering skills *and* support from the community.

      Delete
    6. (Elisa) Ok, so how about this. Decide on educational objectives. Is the focus going to be academic, vocational, or behavioral. Are you interested in teaching people to follow instructions, use stuff, or to be the stuff creators. 101 classes are unnecessary.

      Why not let the students discover their own philosophies and how to apply them (methodologies)? Recruitment would be a separate process. You would avoid people who would not be a good fit because they would know that & choose not to become involved. There would be data from their studies & a good behavioral interview could be done to weed out anyone else.

      Delete
    7. I'm pretty sure we're talking about two different things.

      Delete
    8. Yeah, there are two threads going on; I agree with what you're saying Elisa, but the we sorta confused things by talking about two different things at once

      Delete
  7. A great big fat question is how will we address implementing a model once it is formed. I have some questions in particular.

    How do we open this dialogue face to face?

    How does a cellular model lend itself to outlying occupations?

    Is this something that can be implemented by existing coalitions, can we work outside of the occupy model in general?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GA needs/should be required to set general direction only. Identify issues and/or areas to be addressed. Strategy works out the next layer - what type of direct action where. Tactical figures out how to get it done. 3 different models; 3 different communication and organization needs.

      Am wondering what purpose it would serve to reinvent the GA wheel. Discussion here re:what worked and didn't MAY prove fruitful, but each location will have their own implementation, right? So we do the work we think s/b done, give out the tools we think are useful, then each group really does decide on their own.

      When I pictured another way to organize actions, I saw this as an interpretation of a hive. Only group I don't see that working for is Strategy, which - in my opinion - requires organized thinkers and processes. Free form/open and temporary groupings for GA and tactical should work well.

      As far as education goes, minimum should be education re:goals and process of all 3 groups as we envision them. Can add different theories, experiences, areas of knowledge as time goes on. Which is why I like Pearl Trees - all you have to do is add a link to the right spot and it's a public education tree online.

      Am not a fan of getting all caught up in words, theology, etc. Let's just get the main outline done and poke at it later. :)

      Delete
    2. I am not familiar with Pearl Trees, I'll look it up and get back, I think that's the missing piece of my understanding what is being said.

      Delete
    3. Here are a couple of examples:
      http://www.pearltrees.com/#/N-u=1_107377&N-p=18551304&N-fa=2559799&N-f=1_2559799&N-s=1_2559799

      http://www.pearltrees.com/#/N-p=26926938&N-u=1_84397&N-fa=934903&N-s=1_3480810&N-f=1_3480810

      Delete
    4. trying to figure out how to use it lol, I'm technologically idiotic.

      Delete
    5. How do we open this dialogue face to face?

      I'm not totally positive it's going to be requisite on a day-to-day basis for the structural side of things, but I'm sort of on a different thread-- the education centers are a product of the organizational structure, not the structure itself. That said, AFAIK, everyone is within a couple hours of each other and so where necessary I wouldn't think it be impossible for face-to-face, but I'd think video conferencing and such could compensate in most instances.

      How does a cellular model lend itself to outlying occupations?

      In my mind, as a guiding hand probably made up of people who also occupy. The basic premise is to route around what is intolerable and try to make it easier for people to accept our help than to try and DIY it; think back to the blackbloc discussion and the principle of avoidance instead of meeting conflict head-on. There what I was suggesting is that a series of surveillance teams basically help guide marches and protests to avoid the police instead of trying to confront them. Those teams could work completely independently of the actual march itself sans a few people up front receiving the incoming information and saying 'turn left here', 'run', et cetera. So there, it just compliments what already exists and helps it be more effective without trying to control it and hopes that the merits of the accurate information is enough to act as a guiding hand.

      This is basically on the same conjecture-- integrated with, a part of, complimentary, but separate.

      Is this something that can be implemented by existing coalitions, can we work outside of the occupy model in general?

      I would say leverage everything we can that already exists, but that the base structure is probably best served as an independent entity.

      GA needs/should be required to set general direction only. Identify issues and/or areas to be addressed. Strategy works out the next layer - what type of direct action where. Tactical figures out how to get it done. 3 different models; 3 different communication and organization needs

      More or less exactly, although I'd leave tactical to just getting it done and leave the how of it to strategy, to put on my consultants hat for a moment, basically strategy would put out a statement of work sort of thing and run them by the tactical cells until enough people were willing to do it or it fell flat and strategy went back to the drawing board taking back whatever criticism they received. That all said, more or less exactly.

      Delete
  8. :) The hardest part if that you work backward and have to engineer the drill down - just like you do on a spreadsheet or data view. So, the main Pearl is just a title. Second layer is like the table of contents chapter headings. 3rd layer is toc details spoking out from each heading arranged by topic with links wherever there are intersections. Here's an article that might be helpful. Or send me outline w/links and I'll be happy to do it.

    http://blog.pearltrees.com/

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'll definitely look at the blog but if you'd like to get the tree rolling that'd be great. I'm running into migraine land be back to this tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi,

    Okay, I've read *none* of the comments so far, first I want to cover existing ground & summarize some of what was discussed on twitter earlier. There was two or more ideas actually discussed, I would say what was posted would fall more under 'recruitment & growth'.

    Essentially, what I tried to express earlier was that the GA is great, but it's ineffective at getting a whole lot done because it's essentially the executive, legislative & judicial all in one. I feel like the WG model as well intended as it is, is also ineffective as it encourages people to align along causes instead of location, skill-set, et cetera when in truth we all have at least a loose common cause and that should be more of the operational model.

    I pasted a hand-drawn 'org chart' earlier that I hadn't and still haven't really put a ton of thought into and my hand writing is pretty horrible, I couldn't even read a lot of what I wrote down there. That said, I've drawn it up in visio which can be found here http://twitpic.com/a0yy2f.

    To briefly introduce everything, under the 'policy wing', we have principally the GA, but I included a couple other organizations that don't themselves fit within the GA mostly as examples, so don't get hung up on 'i hate organization XYZ' or whatever, outside of the GA they're just examples. The basic premise is that there's no good reason to be restricted by the GA, although IMHFO, the GA is the most legitimate structure there. As I expressed earlier, the GA legitimizes us as a democracy and *MUST* exist as an open society where anyone can come and be heard and have their vote counted.

    What I mean by 'policy' is that after visiting a bunch of GAs in a few states, what I found was that the masses are good at expressing emotional ideas, but pretty horrible at forming educated ones or usable ones, et cetera. So when asked things like what are they protesting you'll get answers like 'the corporations & banksters maaan', which is valid, but when pressed many cannot seem to express much more than that. When asked questions like 'what do we change' you get sorta non-sense answers like 'destroy capitalism' or 'make a documentary', which may or may not be valid, but they're probably not the impact a lot of people would like to have or particularly actionable.

    So instead of trying to 'reform' the masses, they fall into a policy role, where what they say has to be interpreted. An example I used was 'the corporations & banks man' could mean 'we would like to see less influence of big business in our communities and more help with making local business competitive', which could mean 'pass laws which require cities/states/et cetera to treat local business as a protected entity that requires preferential treatment when handing out contracts and similar.

    The green indicates that its totally open to anyone always, in this model its actually external to the other two wings and liaison's essentially ferry information back and forth.

    (continued)

    -- @not_me

    ReplyDelete
  11. The next wing, the strategy win could be thought of as a CENTCOM of sorts, broken down into logical business units. The divisions aren't actually meant to be divisions, but more implying that some organized approach must be taken-- how come it's always a pain in the ass to find a lawyer to review contracts or ops even though we certainly have attorney's in the movement? How come we depend so much on bloggers as journalists when there are professional journalists in the movement? et cetera-- the divisions are simply meant to imply formalization.

    In the strategy wing, once the policy is set by the GA, we'd go about interpreting and planning actions based upon the policy-- this is where the 'pass laws preferential to local business' would come from and determining HOW that is actually accomplished. Once that is realized, it would be passed off to one or more cells in the tactical wing for actually performing it.

    The yellow in the strategy wing indicates that its still totally open, but that particular roles within the structure are based off of merit and skill-set or "its great that you want to be an astronaut, but are you qualified?", I don't mean to intend its exclusive by any means, just that formalization requires it somewhat, and certain roles, like interacting with black cells would require compartmentalization.


    Next, we'd have the tactical wing, which is sub-divided into black and white. The basic idea here is that, I, myself, do not have qualms with actions which are of questionable legality (providing it's non-violent), and in some instances we may actually find that it's required to accomplish some goal. My personal preference is to minimize this as much as possible and I really think we can accomplish basically everything without resorting to that, but there is room for that idea at least. White means exactly what you'd think it would, strictly legitimate and legal operations.

    I painted the two sub-divisions red and yellow to indicate the inclusiveness to outsiders, obviously any black cell is going to have legitimate security concerns that basically no one else in the structure would and so they'd be far less inclusive. That all said, my personal sentiment here is that you let the cells decide for themselves how they dealt with letting people in and out, with black being far more tricky overall.

    Nothing in the chart is really intended to be exclusive and by and large the connection lines can be thought of going from each group to each group sans the black cells, where we'd have to put some serious thought into how to deal with communications, recruitment and funding. It may actually be that the only real possible way to deal with it without risking the entire structure is to move the black groups out into their own and they interact and cooperate and so on autonomously and where we can we help, but I don't know.. That's why we need legal )

    That essentially concludes what I was saying with the org-chart I think, feel free to ping me with questions, comments, suggested revisions, et cetera. I'll address the post topic in another comment.

    -- @not_me

    ReplyDelete
  12. The original blog post is a copy/paste of a twitlonger of mine, so it *is* my thoughts, the only important part I'd add on is that IMHFO, it would be secondary to creating at least the strategy wing, and would be a/the source of recruitment for the strategy & tactical wings, so it would be something that went through whatever process was agreed upon and then implemented.

    -- @not_me

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think that we can bang out the semantics of what everyone is saying here in comments and tool out another post with everyone's input. I'd like to get a few other folks ringing in, not sure if Security Cult has been over yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. agreed, although this model overall is going to quickly become unmanageable I think and a wiki or forum format might be better suited overall

      Delete
    2. IAWTC, I'm familiar enough with moderating forums, however setting them up is beyond my ken. I would be willing to invest time into populating and moderating.

      Delete
    3. Couple of points just from reading:
      Strategy section - Key point will be decision-making process about how to interpret what GA mandates. Hardest part?
      Tactical Black Ops - DISAGREE that this should be open, and that each cell should set own security protocols. Strongly...vehemently...disagree. Details re:getting it done? Fine. Each cell does that. Structure is too important to allow it to be guided by 19 yr old hotheads.

      Delete
    4. Kaymee, I'm not sure what you mean about structure being dictated by 19 yr old hotheads. Can you explain which part you are referencing? The communication between strategy and cells, or allowing black tactical ops to ring in on strategy/ policy? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just not sure which portion of the threads you are commenting on.

      Delete
    5. re: forums; ill sit down in a little bit and see what I can dig up thats easy to do, google has an amazing amount of services that we can probably get something setup today or tomorrow. This may wait until tomorrow though.. starting to get cooked myself.

      re: black ops; I totally agree with you Kaymee, on all points, but a key thing to remember is that we'd be opening ourselves up to RICO and such because that single sub-section essentially could make us a criminal enterprise. It's an area that would require a lot of care in basically every aspect and we may find that a think-tank-esque model where we don't actually operate or oversee any of it, but publish plans and 'hey someone should do something like this' and then hope it gets done may end up being the only realistic outcome. My guess is that a lawyer would simply say "don't"

      Aside from that, I totally agree with you on all points, I was mostly leaving it at 'this is a tricky subject thats going to require more thought and professional advice'

      Delete
    6. I went ahead and started a forum http://garemodel.proboards.com/

      Delete
  14. Ah...apologies for not being clearer. I don't think blackops teams should be open to the public, or open in any matter whatsoever to be honest. It's not safe for them or for anyone who has to rely on their results. And I definitely believe we need blackops. What I would like to see is this particular tactical group be extremely rigid about communications structure, and about security structure, while allowed free reign to plan their own ops. Is that any clearer? Reasons for this seem self-evident to me, but please ask if you have further questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No that clears it up entirely thanks! :)

      Delete
  15. Okay.. basic proposed flow-- http://twitpic.com/a0zqsu

    policy:
    The GA says something like 'man the bankers man!', that starts the process essentially.

    interpretation:
    Liaison's report back on the GA, 'they said the bankers man'. A sort of round-table discussion on interpreting what they mean, in this case just, we'll say it came out to mean "they want less big business/financial sector influence",

    actionable?:
    Can we actually do something about this policy? In other words do they want to fly 20 people to the moon or something? Yes? pass go, No, hit's the floor.

    planning:
    Again round-table utilizing all business logic units, from this we'll just say "pass legislation preferential to small and local business", this is where politics/legal/et cetera come in and we determine the how we're going to do it.

    viable?:
    Is this something we can realistically do? Do we have the people, funding, et cetera? Yes? pass go, no, back to planning or we shelve it until its viable.

    logistics:
    How many cells/people do we need? what do we need to give them to realize the task, et cetera-- also serves generically as the part where the liaisons actually start contacting cells to find out if they're interested, willing and able. To fit within the context of the example, start seeking out cells to canvas neighborhoods and collect signatures for an initiative to pass legislation or whatever.

    accepts?:
    Two boxes are here just to underscore that it would be a one-to-many relationship; This is essentially does an individual cell want to be involved? If yes, pass go, if not and strategy finds itself unable to actually complete the task, then it goes back to planning for revision and may/may not get shelved/dumped/whatever depending on context.

    perform/report back:
    Exactly what it sounds like, tactical cells perform the task, report back on the outcome and go through whatever after action processes there are.

    Then we all dance or whatever it is we do until the next policy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I finally went and just looked at the flowchart link, and i have to say, it actually made 10x more sense to me than the explanation. Detail is good though, at least there's a place to start.

      On another note: I guess a forum, wiki, or even a pad would work for expanding this discussion further without it getting too unwieldy to navigate - but I'm thinking we could try Redmine via projects.occupy.net.

      Anyone else have experience using Redmine? Click around at the URL above, let me know what y'all think.

      Delete
    2. I'm on board for redmine, I like it already. Now to figure out how to use it...

      Delete
    3. I looked at Redmine - it is robust and seems suitable. Am wondering: do we need it at this stage in the game? I am thinking it should be worked on as a project, but its implementation should not delay the start up of this effort. And we need a team of people as well as decision about how to approve posts, a host server, security, etc. So maybe we are trying to run before we walk? #js

      I would really like to continue with the PearlTrees effort as the beginning documentation of this attempt at structure. We still need an online forum that will provide an opportunity to comment and collaborate, but see Redline as programer/expert intensive and not sure the 4 of us have the requisite time to devote to that project. #Burnout before we begin! :)

      My suggestion is that we implement in stages, as if the current stage was building a Statement of Work. Start with an outline (which we have, but only in the most casual sense of that word); collaboratively add details and brainstorm (this is where something like cryptochat or another "chat" program could be useful); poll current users for intel; move all these details to TreeSheets (LOVE IT!); build a project management schedule for move to Wiki/Redmine. PearlTrees is interim solution to track links and resources.

      Have thought about having an online (not sure if should be anonymous or not-need discussion) forum set up to post successes and problems with current GA structure. Can start a pearl with links for documentation of that current structure, as well as techniques that have failed/succeeded. The success of some structures may have to do with demographics, something a forum (if we build the registration doc correctly) would tell us ("intel").

      For now, I would like links from you all that lead to documentation of current structures used and any problems/successes identified. I will begin on Pearl Trees, mapping that data. Since everyone's time is limited, would you all please post your ideas for interim collaboration/chat tools you prefer? What I like about cryptochat is, well, "crypto"...lol! but have to admit I don't know that we need to worry about security at this point in time. Perhaps we just need the ability to limit those who join a chat to those who were invited to. Lemme know what you think. Again, I have limited availability right now as I started a new project and it's full-time for a while.

      Love to all you dedicated rebels :)

      Delete
    4. I finally went and just looked at the flowchart link, and i have to say, it actually made 10x more sense to me than the explanation.

      Some people need pictures, some can read text, some need both-- thus why I included both )

      Redmine
      Will take a look at it now..

      pearltrees
      Eh, so my basic premise is that I wanted something that's can be easily referenced when I'm looking for a particular thought or piece of information, what I saw from pearltree's looked pretty, but seemed like it might be chaotic when trying to go back later and extract information? Seemed far more visual in that sense?

      I could be wrong I haven't played with it a whole lot yet.. I'm already losing track of these comments, and having to ctrl+f to specific words then scroll up and down to wherever the reply link is, then scroll up and down to find what im referencing, etc.

      I suggested a forum, but IMHFO a wiki+forum makes the most sense, but I don't really care what we use so long as we're making forward progress.

      I'll check out the redmine stuff and then get some links over on the GA/spokescouncil/etc stuff

      Delete
    5. Is redmine the system itself hosting projects.occupy.net ?

      Delete
    6. I started a forum... http://garemodel.proboards.com/

      Delete
  16. Links and resources in no particular order

    SEO for Wordpress
    http://yoast.com/articles/wordpress-seo/

    Occupy Boston Wiki
    http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Main_Page

    Basic GA rundown (no description of stack process or progressive stack)
    http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/General_Assembly

    Working Groups according to OB
    http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Working_Groups

    Occupy Boston Media
    http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Media

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh and Free School University
      http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Solidarity/FSU

      Delete
    2. Nothing at this link: http://yoast.com/articles/wordpress-seo/

      Delete
    3. weird, the SEO tutorial comes up for me... I just copied and pasted the same link you pasted in.

      Delete
  17. This discussion has been moved over to the GA remodel forum

    http://garemodel.proboards.com/

    ReplyDelete