there a lot in this message, read on if you have
 the time.  if nothing else it's entertaining.

On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Beth Jackson wrote:

]Hey everyone,
]
]By asking for a vote, I was just wanting to get a picture of where we're
]starting ie, what date everyone thinks they want based on the
]information they have now - not wanting to hurry anyone into making an
]uninformed decision...
]
]But I'm interested in Rocky and Sameer view a consensus as different
]from a vote of the collective.  In my mind consesus=solidarity.  And how
]do you compare majority to solidarity...

 complicated!  in the end, it comes down to why we unite
 as a group, the respect cand credit we give one another,
 and putting one's ego in the back seat.

 consensus is solidarity.  one disennting voice and there
 isno consensus, no action or decision.  imagine the
 complexity of running a restauraunt with 23 people or so.
 some thigs were easy.  others not.  once we ddebated for
 three hours over toothpicks: wood = deforestation, and
 plastic = petroleum-industrial complex.

 in consensus you have for, against, and what we called
 "stand aside".  this is the sluggos pizza version, as
 we were independent of management and made policy over
 ten years as the generations passed thru our ranks.
 we used an in-person, visual process to make this happen,
 and a lot had to do with vibe.  you'll see why it's
 nearly impossible to consense via email and in person
 it works ok.

 1: discussion of the subject, brainstorming ideas, etc.
    everyone is called upon in turn, by the moderator.
    no one is interrupted, and dialoging, though tolerated
    when apropos, is discouraged.  when the vibe is
    right, a person puts a proposal onto the floor,
    usually the person who put the discussion on the
    agenda.

 2: the proposal is stated very clearly, for the record,
    almost over-clarified.  a call for consensus is made.

 3: consensing commences.  if you agree, you put a hand
    or two toward the middle of the circle and wiggle yourr
    fingers.  if you stand aside, you do nothing, and this
    often includes people who disagree but are building
    consensus, more on this in a bit.  if you disagree,
    the is a physical potion for block, hands up, but
    most people speak a block aloud.  if there is but one
    block, the proposal does not pass.  discussion is
    open again.

 a vital element, and why i mention respect, trust, etc,
 is building consensus.  if you are one of a small group
 that is not wiggling your fingers, then stand aside in
 the descision and trust your brothers and sisters,
 knowing that they will do the same for you.  it's like
 money, or the stock market, it only works because all
 of the participants agree with it.

 this was a pretty hippy/punk rock place.  there was a
 lot more to our meetings than this one sequence - the
 bi weekly, sunday morning meetings started with a
 go-around, everyone checking in as to what was up in
 their life, how they were doing.  the next xegment was
 strokes and whatever we called anti-strokes, where
 a person was free to make public the accomplishments
 (or, very rarely, the shortcomings) of a fellow worker.
 where the check-in's brought us all closer to one
 another as living, emotional beings, the strokes and
 !strokes allow for feelings to air, not be withheld.
 witholding from someone, is, in many an opinion, on
 the same level as a lie, and cloud interpersonal
 relationships.  that clouding makes trusting one
 another to build consensus difficult, and inflates
 egos, etc...

 next came, god i forget, something that included
 "paranoid fantasies" which is a section to air fears
 about the business or hopes or whatever.  then
 comes agenda items, many of which result in
 proposals to be consensed upon.  at the end there
 was check-out and some kind of other touchyfeely
 thing.

 meeting roles were moderator, note taker and vibes
 watcher, all decided upon at a previous meeting.  the
 moderator is a process nazi, one can *only* speak
 if one is recognized into the queue by the mod,
 it all runs more smoothly than it sounds.  note
 taker is obvious, vibes watcher can call time out
 if there is excessive dialoging, argument, insult,
 inturruption, etc.

 the finger wiggling is key.  in discussion, instead
 of saying "right on" (which is an interruption) or
 sending a WOB email saing "right on", you could
 just wiggle, adding steam to the consensus vibe.
 i still wiggle in meetings at work, to the puzzlement
 of some of my coworkers.  the visual aspect of it
 allows for magic to happen, free of the pains and
 difficulties of expressing things by words, and
 it allows everyone to "speak" volumes at the same
 time with no cacophony, no dissonance.

 it worked.  we got to run our own company, working
 in a perfect atmosphere:  loud music, no manager,
 smoking dope in the freezer all day or having a
 weekly pizzamaker shift where you dropped acid.
 we paid ourselves well (not lining the coffers of
 an owner allowed more hourly pay), paid people with
 children $1/hour more, and had full-time bennies
 long before it was common for $5 food service
 workers.  it's the only grungy food service job
 i could imagine *loving*.  i loved it, and i
 love my sluggos family, though we're in a crisis
 of diaspora at the moment.

 i believe that we're similar to fnf, though fnf is
 not such a heavily "daily basis" kind of thing.
 we were an evolving family, even once you left the
 collective you knew you could always go back,
 you knoew that it was living as a life unto itself
 while you were away.  cool art on the walls, bands
 played (including camper van beethoven's first
 gigs).  if you and your fellow closing shift workers
 wanted to just stay stoned and take three hours
 to leisurely close up shop, you could, though of
 course you only clocked a fair amount of time on
 your card - with profitsharing you would only
 be stealing from yourself.

 only one thing (more or less) was ever put to
 actual majority vote:  firing someone.  obviously
 it might be hard to reach consensus if you don't
 want to be fired.  firing required everyone to
 voice an opinion, in turn, about should x person
 be fired or not.  in the open, to the whole group,
 with x person present, that person usually being
 a sister or brother that just did their job so
 poorly that it made it difficult and unpleasant
 for others.  this had to happen twice in my two
 and a half years with the collective.

 *whew*.  anyway, many of these things could be
 brought into our process, drawn from, etc.  that's
 the beauty of consensus, there is no right or
 wrong, just what the group decides.  as i have
 said, i am willing to share my experiences, even
 teach some of the skills - not as a leader, but
 to call fourth individual leadership in all of
 us, as equals.  no heirarchy.  not that we have
 ever had a problem with it, i guess, though
 responsability levels sometimes vary.  this
 was even the case at sluggo's, where each quarter
 we had a 7 member "core council" who took on
 more responsability since that was necessary
 when so many people were fulltime students.

 in fact... it was one of those sunday morning
 meetings... patric farley (e-sheep.com) and i
 stumbled into the meeting, still barely tripping,
 from a drive down highway one after a party
 called 'cyber spider', october 1991.  when it
 came time for our check in... well, the slug
 was the first time i had the "i went to the
 most *AMAZING* thing last night, the music, the
 lights..." conversation...

 an

 
--
 rocke mullin
 http://caliban.sf.ca.us/
 two strokes are faster than four!
 this message was composed using the vi editor.
 '83 ur-q - yamaha rz350 - suzuki ts250 -  chaotic good