STRATEGY MEETING: INTERNAL/ W.G. MEETINGS SATURDAY 14/12/2013
AWAITING TRANSCRIPTION. Work in Progress.
Occupy London will hold every 3 months a meeting which will have at least 1 delegate from each working group present.
Working groups or individuals may also call GAs on specific issues when needed.
Internal issues may be taken to the strategy meeting, but if possible this should be avoided, as
the Strategy Meetings should continue to focuss on political goals, campaigns, political analysis, training etc.
– what will be the process to call GAs on specific issues
– How can we allow Working groups (especially Operational WG – finance, website, press,…) to work autonomously while remaining accountable and transparent
These questions , among other things, will be discussed in the next internal Issues meeting.
OL Strategy Meeting. Purpose of the G.A. – Sunday 14th December 2013
Mark: Three types of meetings, take these terms lightly as we haven’t gotten round to the fiddly bits. One is the Internal Business. Decide on Internal matters, safer spaces perhaps.
Second is this sort of meeting, for the moment are called Strategy meetings, which is all about organising issues, thinking about planning, jiving, discussing, . Third, This was Outreach events. Designed to engage directly with the public. It could take the form of assemblies teach outs, protests, direct action, public talk. That kind of thing.
So now we get to the bit that probably weren’t cleared up, by the end of the discussion. For one was the regularity of these meetings? There were many people, as I recall,. Correct if I’m wrong, but there were several people who were, the impetus was that some sort of regularity or structure of regularity, should be brought into this so as to make Occupy London a more acceptable, thing that people can engage in by having this regularity, but the nature of this regularity wasn’t decided upon.
What exactly to call these meetings, right? So in a way that people would know what they are talking about. So we don’t get confusions about what is the General Assembly, or is this a meeting? Or a General Assembly and was that, how do they inter-relate. Another thing was …getting more clear about, maybe not super clear, but getting a bit more clear about exactly the sort of decisions that can be made in each of these eventually. .
There was a couple points that I missed actually and all of these meetings should be open and I think that if I remember, just correct me if I’m wrong, but there was a sense that decisions can be made at all these meetings. Just the question of figuring out which decisions were inappropriate for certain things
VICA wavy hands.
MARK: That’s where I remember being. We can approach these things one at a time. The first issue was the regularity of them. So…[gestures to Vica].
VICA: For sure for fifty minutes.
MARK: Okay, so the regularity question. As you know, the Strategy Meetings, already have a monthly rota, so there would be, I suppose. the Outreach Events are a bit tricky in that regard, cause they can from a protest, to a General Assembly, in a public place, or whatever. So, I don’t know, we could decide that there should be a minimum amount of regularity. With other things additional, too random to give it a regularity or whatever, but we could probably decide on the Internal Business meeting.
Do people feel that the Internal Business meeting needs to have the regularity, in the sense that the strategy meeting does or just be adhoc?
INKA: It can be once every three months, couldn’t it? It doesn’t need to be …nope.
MARK: One suggestion. Other suggestions.
OBI: Sorry, three months for the?? Which one? The Internal Business Meeting?
INKA: Actually, do you mind explaining, what the Internal Business Meeting was again, please?
MARK: Where we might decide on Finance proposals. ….. just on top of my head.
INKA: Internal Issues.
MARK: So, I suppose, one thing you would not necessarily deem strictly polite to bring new people that would involve issues that only really able…you wouldn’t be able to engage with them properly, unless you already know what’s going on. Probably, well that’s my interpretation.
5:04 JAMIE: I’m sure the feedback from the Working Groups. Even though they fall into this strategy meeting, because it’s their opportunity to ever kind of get together, for the first time, in a while. Generally, those kind of meetings can happen in internal space.And Strategy meeting, more be given over to more bigger picture stuff. More kind of like Shoutouts, rather than in depth feedback.
5:35 OBI: I was thinking that Internal Business Meetings, I am looking at more as in the way of Logistics. How we supply, as in Finance, or..things like that, of course. I’m not sure if that would be appropriate, as a term, but definitely, Finance should not be outside, in the great beyond and the public.
06: 01 MARK So you’re saying that Finance you don’t think, should be in an Outreach event.
OBI: Definitely Not!
MARK Don’t know how controversial that is. ..
06:12 Vica, was next in line, then Jonny, then Inka.
06:25 VICA: Some of us were saying… what we’re discussing now. Isn’t that like an Internal Meeting? So I agree with you, Logistics (points towards Obi), Organisation and so on. My concern is that these meetings are really hard work, they’re really boring, they’re not exciting. They have a lot of conflict in them, until what happens is that, very often, the same two people who participate or it happens that we just don’t have these meetings. So we don’t deal with the organisational issues. So, my concern is not like, okay, should it be regular, should it be not. What about things that we can put in place, to ensure things do happen and they happen in a way that helps us to move forward. So when you said three months (gesture to Inka). For me that was like… what kind of organisational things can we discuss. Or do we just accept that a lot of people are not interested in it, but they are happy to delegate to other working groups, but then they delegate and they don’t start saying “Oh, but I don’t like what you’re doing”.
07:40 MARK: Let me register that question. Then after Jonny, we come back.
07:45 JONNY: I think , not sure there is enough meat to have an Internal WG.
08:00 MARK: It’s not a Working Group.
JONNY: G.A. ..actually
General discussion. Too many voices.
JONNY: I didn’t mean to say working group. Okay..So we’ve mention Finance and discussing this kind of thing. Okay, It’s difficult. Is there enough internal issues to have a body worth having. Also could the website be one of them?
08:44 MARK: The website as Internal one?
08:49 INKA: I’m thinking quite clearly actually. I think this should be Internal Issue meetings, should be once every three months. I’m going to push for that. In that, we will have the working groups, will, you know, delegate somebody to go to this meeting. This is important. Otherwise, and this is where I become a bit of a Nazi. Otherwise, you’re not part of Occupy, unless you’re part of Occupy [gesturing with her hands going inwards in a circle]. For example..So this is where the RDWG, which is doing things that the people are questioning, at the moment. They need to come to this meeting. Say what they’re doing and why they’re doing it and justify it, if they need to. This will be the meeting where they can do it. And also the Website, this is a good place for it. to get feedback from working groups to see how it’s going. The Strategy Meeting is totally different. This is not exciting, it will be work. It will be considered an obligation to be part of Occupy. One member of your working group comes to this.
10:00 TIM. You said there’s no meat in it. Partly of it is that we’ve totally dropped the ball with Finance WG. We don’t have any signatories. It doesn’t actually exist, the Finance Group, it’s just an Interim Group at the minute. For example, there was a meeting which said that money should go to Balcombe, in the summer and it didn’t, because there was no mechanism anymore. We couldn’t get any cheques signed. So partly there’s no business, just because it’s completely collapsed.
The same with Safer Spaces, some issues have arisen and we’ve not really pursued them. There are Safer Spaces issues that needs to be really expanded and thought upon, which have come up recently. Which would help the movement and give it strength and again it has gone to total abeyance. Also the group that are meeting, feels like an interim group. They don’t feel properly constituted. They have anyone to go to report to, really. There is meat there, but so to speak. We haven’t addressed a lot of stuff.
11:20 Mike: On the Internal Issues G.A. etc. I can go along with everything, with the proviso, if something crops up. Then a meeting will have to be called, rather than wait for the three months. The Strategy Meeting . Peter Dombi and I wanted a G.A. to consider a future strategy. Tim in a discussion suggested a workshop and somehow it became known as a Strategy meeting, which is probably the most disastrous title it could have been given. No one could agree what Strategy means. So I would suggest we get rid of the word strategy and just call it monthly meeting. I think what it should include is reports back from all the working groups. I think what we found in the first meeting, which is probably why the second meeting took place was what we haven’t anticipated when we planned it was that people would be glad to have the opportunity to meet people from other working groups who people had not seen. Suddenly. We’ve got an umbrella, if you like, for the whole of Occupy. I think it’s very good to keep that umbrella. I don’t think it’s a place for training, I don’t think .. I do think it’s a place for working groups to report and may be it shouldn’t start till after lunch. As it appears Occupy have a problem getting anywhere, before lunch, and maybe it should be shorter, but there should be reports back about things going on at the time. And that’s about it.
13:22 MARK: Two things, we used to have meetings, I think monthly meetings, I think it was once a month. Used to be called Organising meetings. Sounds similar to what Mike was saying. Discussing things that were coming up, It was very action orientated. There is a question about whether monthly meetings should incorporate training into them? My one point. Seems to me, I’m getting more clarity, by basically observing what you’re doing, by talking about what people see as being the content of these meetings. I’m wondering. We’ve got a few things listed for the Internal things, the kind of things one would expect out of those meetings. Can people feel like elaborating more on the Strategy Meetings? While we’ve got the pages out? If we can get, if people can decide what people want out of those meetings and seeing them up. That might help find out more.
14:34 OBI: I mentioned already, yesterday. The fact that Occupy London as a whole cannot support as the whole of Occupy, instead we had working groups say yes and we are part of Occupy London. We should have a mechanism in place to say that yes, perhaps it will be in the Internal Issues Meetings.
INKA: I would think it would be in the Strategy Meetings.
OBI: Whichever one is available first really. Perhaps if each working group will be sending a representative into Internal Issues Meeting and somebody can say, “Okay, we need to make a decision. Somebody asked for Solidarity. Can we add our name?” Can all these people turn up at this meeting and we can decide yeah or nay. Otherwise it’s going to be Economics WG supports this, EEE WG supports, RDWG supports. It’s not going to be Occupy London. It’s ridiculous.
15: 40 MARK The internal issues meetings as being the space where we come together. Either all together or with delegates from other groups. Where “Okay, Occupy supports RMT or does not support RMT”.
15:51 OBI Internal Issues might be where we have it once every quarter, which probably we will need anyway, but there would also be a way to call them in, in an emergency or perhaps email.
16:09 JAMIE I was thinking that to me the question of frequency is one of the questions. Almost the first question. When these meetings are called kind of matters. We should be thinking through the various things that need to happen, working group feedback, finance to be sorted, multiple things. How often is it useful to meet for those and structure based on that. For example, Strategy meetings, in so far as it is. Like small level tactical and strategic conversation that’s happening constantly, How often we need a big picture, put that every three months. That can be infrequently. That can be a wider picture, Some of these need to happen more often. So I would just encourage thinking of frequency, of each of those functions, before we pocket them all off into their etymological title.
17:12 VICA: I’m thinking along those lines. I see this as once every three months. As sort of what we had with the Working Groups Assembly. Or something in between a working group assembly and an Open Day? So it’s a space, where we have delegates from each Working Group, but it can also be an Outreach space, where people can find out about Occupy, because I actually find it abit boring within the Strategy Meeting to have these brief reports. I would like to have broader report on what the working groups have been doing over a series of months. To be more in depth on what they’re doing. So I quite like that idea.
I really think the space we have created. It’s really, really precious. I would really like us to continue. At least, a bit more to understand what it is, rather than already trying to change it. So I would like us to remain a monthly meeting. The length of it as well. I thought of these working groups. I would feel much more comfortable, giving more autonomy with these working groups to get on with the more boring stuff, because they require so much hard work. To respect the people prepared to take on the task. That they don’t get .. “Oh, I want it to be like this, like that”. If it’s something you’re concerned with, Finance? Join the Working Group. Obviously, there’s a way for these working groups to report back. Either online or a Strategy Meeting. Something we have spoken about when we still had the camp, is that these sort of operational working groups, as we were calling them, they would have the autonomy. They would have meetings and so on, but once a month or once every three months, then they would have an open Finance meeting, where you would invite everyone else to come and bring up all their issues. Then they would go away and work on that.
19:23 TIM: May I say something about frequency. I find it hard to wrap my head around it, because. Sometimes like Finance We really need to something passed through right now. Couple of things. Three months is too long. Liz Beech definitely wants to finish on it. Safer Spaces is the same. Something comes up and that’s when you need. So I kind of find it difficult to think of monthly.
Do we change how much deciding power you give to the Finance group. That they can make a financial decision without coming to the G.A.? That’s a big thing, you’re really losing a lot of power there and democratic control, in my opinion. Reeling off the top of my head, but there should be a way, in which, when there are issues coming up and can simply call it. You know for a G.A.
JAMIE INTERJECTING could not make it out clearly.
20:36 MARK: Would it make sense..for those thinking… Would it make sense, to clarify the sort of issues and content of that meeting, then we organise one for like January, or something like that.
INKA INTERJECTING: See how it goes.
MARK: See what decisions and things need to be addressed and when that meeting is finished we look at what’s happening and decide when the next one is going to be, later on. Or if we think it needs to called sooner, if things are coming up. Then it can be done in that way. Does that make sense? I’m addressing whether…
VICA CLARIFICATION: Call an internal issues meeting? …I still don’t understand your point.
21:32 MARK: I’ll say it again. We formalise the Internal Meetings and clarify it to the satisfaction of what it is, in January, sometime and then if there are proposals, decisions. People were talking about Working group feedbacks in that meeting again? Now, if people get a sense, okay, that was productive and we could probably do with that next month or whatever it is and Do that. On the other hand, if there’s a sense, okay we covered a lot in January, we don’t see anything in the future, we wait until there’s a need to have that meeting again. Rather than saying, okay, let’s just going to start it off now and three months down the line. We don’t know why, we don’t what issues that will bring out. See what I mean?….
At the moment, we have the strategy meetings that are regular and makes sense. Every month, it’s were we all come together discuss strategy, campaigning and that seems to be working. As far as I can tell. I’m asking whether the internal will need to have that similar framework, whether that has to be a determined regularity.
22:39 MIKE: Okay, I don’t think we need two meetings. I think we need a monthly meeting. Full stop. If there are issues, which are internal issues, they could be taken at the beginning of the meeting or at the end of the meeting. The idea of having two monthly meetings… I tend to think not worth it. Internal issues, the point has been made, we don’t know when they’ll turn up. The mechanism should be that I wouldn’t like to think the main strategy meeting, the monthly meeting, should have both internal issues., the reports back from the groups etc. And if there is as..pointed to Tim, you can’t say to the Finance group, they can make a decision on expenditure because traditionally that has had to come through a G.A. And there may have been a lot of infighting over those decisions, but at least it had a democracy about it. So uhmm.I would suggest we have a monthly meeting and if there’s internal issues, it has to be addressed at the monthly meeting.
23:51 MARK. How do people feel about that.. with hands.
23:55 MARK: Pretty mixed. Okay, there was a queue. Steve, Dave.
24:02 Steve. I think there.. a fixed regularity should be the skeleton starting point. And then that should be moveable depending on uhmm incidents and necessity, as it occurs. Right..it’s inevitable. We don’t have something rigid, so we have this skeleton and we adapt the skeleton depending on urgency. Urgency and events. I actually think, the conversation we’re having at the moment is part of Occupy Strategy, so it can be expanded upon and have more discussion on this strategy meeting and actually when it comes to the strategy meeting, I think actually. Two fundamental questions we have in the strategy meeting. What have we done? Since the last strategy meeting. Next question is what are we planning to do? Those two questions. Then when it comes to what have we done. How successful was it. And also, how have we failed? And then, what have we learned?
25:23 MARK INTERJECTING: The Debriefing and analysing.
STEVE Those simple questions. What have we done, what are we planning. Success, failure and what are we doing about it? Then ..Why? That’s it.
25: 33 Dave: Okay, so, if you want a skeleton, you could have, you know, a minimum of every three months, but you could perfectly call meetings forward if there’s something big or you need to. Or you could call an extraordinary meeting to deal with whatever is extraordinary. On the rationale with Finance. First of all the next interim Finance meeting isn’t until about January 7th and that’s hopefully that meeting will be able to put forward a structure, and terms of reference, to a general meeting, of a general assembly, of some sort. Once that’s done and clarified, I’m not expecting too many sort of mega-urgent needs to pull people out. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
My skepticism with the word strategy. People used to write text books with titles like Corporate strategy, about forty years ago, and the only problem with it was it never really worked., because things kept changing. So I mean by all means, we want to visit objective thinking. We would need a multi-pronged approach, rather than one single, we are going to do this whatever the weather. Kind of thing. By all means, talk about strategy, but please don’t imagine that you can totally plan out everything.
27:33 MARK: Please people do no harp on about the title. Okay, it’s just a way for people to communicate at this point, because it’s called Strategy.
DAVE: Doesn’t mean it has anything to do with strategy, okay.
MARK: To decide on what the meetings are about. The biggest question is not whether we call it strategy or not.
28:00 INKA: I’m going to talk about Finance autonomy and I hope it’s relevant to talk about it at this point. I think that the fact that the Finance meeting have not.. nobody has taken responsibility for it, is a problem. That we should realise is because it’s related to the system we have from the Finance team. So, if we gave the Finance Team autonomy and a sort of different regulation. In terms, it was a great idea. We tried the G.A. type of Finance, and it’s actually it was a great idea, but it didn’t really work. It didn’t work on two levels.
One it wasn’t fair. It was aimed at being fair, but it wasn’t. That somebody could just come in, block something and that was the end of your funding. I remember that of course, with my £200 for the camera, being blocked. It was basically blocked by someone who didn’t understand the full extent of the work that I had done. So ,it was a good idea, but it didn’t work on that level and wasn’t actually fair.
Secondly it wasn’t fair on the Finance people, because they were attacked full blown anyway and nobody has taken responsibility and as a job it doesn’t give you that sense of ownership. Which is a fundamental..you know.. kind of sense. I think we should give it a go and actually giving the Finance team responsibility, but also heavily regulate it Ironic I used those words, but heavily regulate it. We allow them freedom within these limitations. Give them boundaries, so they don’t end up spending the whole kitty, one of their girlfriends doing a campaign on or something.
30:25 DAVE: In my opinon, the interim finance committee is surprisingly making positively good progress. It’s getting somewhere. … anyway it’s not like it’s all just in Limbo. Technically it’s in Limbo, but it’s moving forward.
ANDRIA: Who is the Finance? Interim Finance.
VICA: I’m not.
[She is not..lol ]
OBI: Obi. Liz, Julie, John, Dave. And TIM
31:27 MARK: Let me sort of take a step back. The meeting we’re having here. The impression I’ve got. They wanted to preserve the freedom of meetings like this. Not to say have Finance discussions. Things like that. They wanted a special place for those type of things, people knew, can basically make it impossible to do anything else. Too contentious, what not… too unpleasant. Mike suggested that we deviate from that and we have a monthly meeting, that this could be, and any issue, Finance, whatever, could be brought into that. People don’t seem to agree.
This is where we are at really and we haven’t gotten there yet. The sense is that the group doesn’t want to wedge it all into one monthly meeting. We want to make a distinction. This could be the meeting where we can have strategic conversations, campaign conversations, but we don’t want Finance discussions. So we just looking for a way to figure out..
The Outreach meetings ..could be put to one side. Fairly easy products. They need massive promotion, they need mass participation. . The distinction is between these two subjects.
33:05 MIKE I’m quite happy to go with two meetings., but we have got 14 people here at the moment? We didn’t have 14 before lunch. We probably reduced down as the afternoon goes. I don’t think at this moment, we have enough people who are going to travel into the centre of London, twice in a month, to have a meeting. Tim’s point that you can’t have it every three months because things will spring up. Maybe we can have meetings every three months and anything urgent it has to be dealt with on the monthly meeting. I don’t see that we have enough people that would turn up twice a month for these meetings.
33:54 MARK That’s your premise. The EWG have been meeting Mondays and Fridays for two years. I was in a meeting in Friend’s House last night and we had ten people. I’m not perceiving a shortage of people.
34:17 VICA: Okay,
MARK: Let’s see if we can get this concrete.
VICA: yeah, actually ..
VICA: I’m trying to imagine what this Internal Issue is. If these are the issues we need to be talking about: Finance, Website, Structure, Solidarity.
Try to Imagine an Internal Issues meeting where you have to talk about Finance. We need to talk about the structures about how autonomous working groups are. I just don’t see how all these things go to one meeting. I see them more, as each of them, needs its own space. Each topic is so different that it’s going to need its own way to operate. Are you following me? Look on faces…
I personally think, as I said before that a certain amount of autonomy for these working groups, but then there should be a space for these working groups, to also interact with those people that are not involved in it. I would imagine that each working group decides according to how they work, if they’re going to be meeting once a week, once a month or whatever and they decide also how they create that space in which other people can engage. Rather than thinking of a general Internal Issues meeting.
36:25 MARK: You don’t want one meeting. You want four meetings?
MARK: If you want to go to a Finance Discussion, you go to the Finance WG?
VICA: You can’t be at every meeting, it’s too much. I would say, each of these working groups are going to decide which space, they’re going to invite people. Finance working group are deciding what practises they’re going to use. We’re going to have our regular working group meetings, but once a month there would be an assembly, we’ll decide how to give out money. It’s that working group’s decision or with feedback from other people. The Website, meeting once a week to work and once a month a meeting to decide what people want or with a pirate pad.
To me talking about Internal Issues meeting is an abstract, but these are concrete things and we need to think about how to facilitate their work.
37:50 DAVE: Finance, fine provided, you have an agenda. Say that the Finance group decides that it wants to buy shares in the National Lottery or whatever. That should be on the agenda, beforehand with people notified, rather than something that we decide on the meeting.
ANDRIA: Can I just clarify, Vica. When you say. That there would be general assemblies. i.e. major decisions. Or be part of general assemblies.
VICA: in a certain sense it could all be like that. Website WG can do its work. When it’s something contentious and people are complaining about. We say okay. There’s an urgent call.
ANDRIA: It’s not a General Assembly?
VICA: I’m not that attached to the word, but it can be a General Assembly.
JAMIE: May be the confusion is attached to the word General Assembly.
OBI: General Assembly. People think that any meeting apart from the General Assembly should not make any decisions for Occupy London That’s the problem with the Solidarity. Internal Issues would be the logistics side of Occupy London. So people can decide. We support this. Occupy London. Done. Logistics Internal. Strategy is Strategy, Tactics side would be the Outreach.
If we need Solidarity or Finance quickly, we can call an Internal Issues meeting, we call it, but not everyone has to turn up and start an argument.
41:00 MARK: I’m having trouble synthesising it. Let’s summarise it at this point. Anyone have an idea?
41:30 INKA: I think it’s messy. I think one meeting where all working groups, members of working groups meet. You being one meeting to discuss. Having delegates. Having this meeting open as well. Everyone will be there. Other people are invited as well. To be able to say their piece. I think this is simple and I think. What I’m understanding from you is much more complicated, much more wishy washy. Nothing structured about it. Whenever someone feels like saying something, they say it. They call a meeting when they think it’s important. It just doesn’t sound structured. I like structured and I think we can be comfortable with structure. I like structure.
42:35 JAMIE: As I understood it, the culture for like autonomous action in a democratically accountable framework. A kind of inner logic that underpins Occupy activities, always. And, as I understand it, empowering those groups to carry on. Finance seems a more contentious point or maybe like this morning the website might be contentious as well. The idea that the groups are interested and leave them at it and work autonomously. I think that’s great. As I understood it, there would be an infrequent, like three monthly coming together of those groups, but through regular minutes being made available and the ability to call an urgent one, structures are put into place to respond to any kind of like democratic deficit that people might feel, around the infrequency of that meeting. That’s how I understood it and for me that looks to be a good solution.
43:39 MARK: How do we feel about Jamies point? Did anyone understood Jamie point?
OBI: Okay, Try again.
43:50 DAVE It’s basically back to what where we were before Vica said anything.
43:55 JAMIE I think it’s what Vica said.
44:00 MIKE I actually agreed with Inka and totally against what you and Vica said, and that is based on experience of groups. That the moment you have small cabals caucuses running something without a proper report back system and especially if you tell them to make the decisions, which is not about investing in the National Lottery, it’s actually what Inka said earlier, it’s about giving money to somebody’s girlfriend, for instance, to do something, which has not been put through a proper work. I would say, rather than us going round in circles that I think very much, we need one monthly meeting, which can handle all the things that need to be done. Now if that is split between morning and afternoon sessions, then so be it. I suspect that on longer occasions, what we call internal issues that the major one will be finance and I think. It may be that we may have four monthly meetings, but I suspect that one monthly meeting is going to be enough and I’m totally against giving god knows how many small working groups that have so much autonomy that we would actually be back to where we were before we had these meetings. That we don’t have communication between the working groups. This monthly meeting does give a communication between the working groups. It’s unfortunate that people like Peter Coville and Julie are not here today, because we haven’t got what we had at the previous two meetings and that is a sufficient number of people to actually be able to handle a number of subjects. All I can say is that I do agree with Inka.
46:35 DAVE I don’t think the two proposals are all necessarily opposed. I don’t think they need to be. I think we need a monthly meeting every three months. I think we can put up at maximum full forward if there is a particular need. If as I say, we have in our agenda. Nights at whatever hotel for so and so’s girlfriend and that agenda beforehand and we say five days notice, then maybe it would be acceptable to delegate that sort of thing or maybe 500 sheets of photo copy paper for the EconomicsWG, beforehand and other separable things, so that other people can prevent things from happening that they don’t want to happen. I think the notion of one large meeting is important. I don’t think there would be many iffy things coming out that fast. I wish there were. I wish the Economics WG came out with something radical and controversial every fortnight. Just hang on.
That’s it basically, you can have a mechanism whereby you’ve got democratic control and information, with an element of this sort of thing .
WORK IN PROGRESS 35 more minutes to transcribe >