Here’s what I found in this page: we.riseup.net/ribeana/notes-for-18th-mo...
Alright, now ‘moving forward’, here’s a suggestion on recruiting members:
We really need to start growing again. Great work for those who were going to bring people in tonight, it’s cool that we have these people interested. But yes I totally agree with Tisha that we need to know how to go about it. So here’s what I think could work nicely:
I have 3 (possibly 4) potentially new members, one whom we dined with (big afro) and 3 from Brixton/Streatham. I realise that we have no isolate our procedure so I acted out the above as suggested by Wanji, and formulated on an urgency basis by a few of us. I have informed these 3 dudes the above procedure, I am however aware that this is not the final process, and they will be fine to be informed of any new decisions, I needed to let them know they can’t come to the Monday meet (we had invited them before).
- we are low on capacity so need to expand and do so without compromising the trust, security and positive vibes of the group.
Other ways low capacity can be addressed?
Other groups that I have been part of used a system where we had a tiered system of engagement for new members. we could try and use something similar -
You have three circles
How to move between the circles:
1. known activists – where someone is known and can be vouched for by someone in the ‘internal circle’.. that person would post the persons name and say a little about them, how they know they them, what their political engagement is and why they want to join. There would be a 5 day grace period where anyone on the list could object and state why they wished to block this person from immediately joining the inner group. A political rationale would have to be given for a block. If a person is blocked they remain on the activist list and there has to be at least 2 months before they can be proposed again. In that time we can try and get to know the person and decide if the political block is still valid.
2. Moving from activist circle to inner circle – after we have worked with them over a period and got to know their politics and their general level of engagement (so we could exclude disruptive elements from disrupting the internal dynamics). Someone from the list could propose the person as a useful addition to the decision making circle and we would use the same 5 day grace period for any objections.
It should also be possible for people who are currently in the inner circle and who may have other matters to deal with (family/studies/work/personal etc) to also ask to shift down from the inner circle to the activist circle. That way we can also skill up and develop new layers of activists and their ‘leadership’ skills, as well as ensuring we have a gender balance in the decision making circle.
We should be open and transparent to all our supporters about our decision making structures – that we operate using an inner and outer circle. We dont have to identify who is in the inner circle, if people dont wish to be identified – but at least some people should be willing to be seen as visible ‘points of contact’. That will set us apart from LBR – and now that we have made a critique of the ‘undemocratic’ nature or LBR we have to show we are different.
Hope thats helpful
All this info is great! I can draw up something tonight tying up these suggestions and come up with a proposal to move forward? Are there any more comments ?
Also, I know that with some of the more established members that things are much trickier for you guys, just down right heavy – so as a newbie myself I want to send out some love there. And hope with some new fresh faces that momentum will pick and restore your faith in humanity.
Peace and Love x
Thanks Zak! Great idea. All I would say is that we need to think hard about this. I do relaly like the idea of an inner circle, especially if we are really open about that and the fact thta this is how we operate. At the same time I don’t want to be called out on our lack of horizontality. SO we need something written and clear (hence need for manifesto… once again…).