Event:2015/07/26 Challenging Dominant Culture

Attendees

 * *Libbie (remote)
 * Diana
 * Matt
 * Dusty
 * Julio
 * Ben (first time)

Agenda

 * Role of CDC in Visioning, "Becoming Omni"
 * Recurring Potlucks
 * Ziji Follow-Up?
 * Lynice Pinkard Follow-up/Report Back
 * Welcome Orientation Project
 * How does this interact with Becoming? Does this address the door/access situation?
 * SEEDS Report Back
 * RJC Training Follow-Up
 * Next meeting PP:Julio

Role of CDC in Visioning, "Becoming Omni"

 * Dusty: I think we need to clarify the role of the CDC at the Omni, in terms of our collective role in Becoming. Will the efforts of the group be focused on Becoming or will we be doing work alongside this process? I feel a bit confused about our role, I suppose.
 * Dusty: doing circles might be enough work for the CDC? I feel that the creation and facilitation of community circles and such is where we have been with the CDC, and am wondering if the group is going to keep doing this.
 * Diana: does the order of events matter? Do we need to have cohesion via circles before planning?
 * Libbie: will the circles be simeltaneous with the planning process? (we don't know yet when or how long it will take, after the Aug 9th meeting, but probably the 30-hour thing will start early September)
 * Dusty: should we make a decision between choosing to focus on "Becoming". There is a lot of momentum toward the visioning process and we could jump into that. We could, too, decide to focus elsewhere while individually being involved.
 * Julio: I feel that there is a group of people engaged in the process, and I know I'll be gone the 9th and so will Dusty and perhaps they can specifically ask us for work and...
 * Matt: I think these are completely linked in that our circles can really help for the visioning, or/and it could happen as a result of the visioning process. The CDC feels a little in flux, folks are sort of cycling in and out. There is no exact CDC to make that call, maybe people should consider a strategy...
 * Diana: I think someone should be there with a CDC hat on and to be very consious of the role of dominant culture in our visioning process. That we have a presence in an intentional way and that we could have a sort of independence.
 * Julio: I am less worried, we can say we're the CDC...who is the CDC? Sarah P. will represent all of these perspectives, Libbie is fully committed to the values of the CDC, Laura too. I have no concerns that these perspectives won't be represented.
 * Diana: I think it's useful, though, to have a designated person thinking about this as a role, in that people planning a big process may be able to lose some focus.
 * Julio: I would highlight that Yar is involved, and Yar does not have to be reminded to represent the values.
 * Ben: I'm really interested in this, my first CDC meeting. Do we have very specifc questions that the CDC can bring to the process?
 * Matt: One of the best questions is what Libbie is bringing, do we meet our statement of solidarity? that's a great guiding point.

There's two ways to address this problem: one is to ensure that we create space and call out the categories of issues we want to talk about from the start... (ugh, sorry i can't type this right now. Will come talk about it in 20 minutes with ya'll in disco room)
 * Libbie: I have a big question for ya'll regarding the Aug 9th planning meeting, that connects to the CDC presence question. The format that Laura is helping us use--Technology of participation-- uses a question-based format that in some ways pretends to provide a neutral framework to support the people in the room. However, if the room is full of, say, patriarchal or white supremicist folks, the voices and question and critiques we need represented will simply not be represented. (this is an extreme example).
 * Matt: To me, I don't understand what would make "Technology of Participation" necessarily a "neutral framework". I see it as a sufficiently arbitrary, but certainly non-neutral method. In terms of slant, I am familiar with other methodologies of equal if not greater slanted than "Technology of Participation" seems to be, based on my review and understanding. In fact, what I see as a huge potential is to remix and alter that ToP framework to subvert some of the negative features as they may arise.
 * Libbie: It's neutral in the sense that it claims to draw all of its content and meaning from the people in the room--by only providing a list of questions as guides.
 * Matt: To me, all that means is that a linear narrative is constructed based on the words and framing are stated, giving us some map of where we were and where we might be going. I don't see why we have to believe any "definitive" conclusions of the process unless we can reflect and really grapple with the full implications.
 * Matt: Our lawyer suggests a strong point. There is no silver bullet and the only thing that will save us is a strong culture and relationships.

Ben: Sees lots of dedicated people in the space and wants to be optimistic, and trying to figure out how i can best contribute to that process--including how to connect with people. Libbie: my concern is. the last meeting was with Sarah and laura and it s the three of us who will be designing. Matt helped write the email. Laura has used this process and all of these, the questioning framework, they dont' provide content or buckets of subject matter. Nothing in what we've talked about so far corrects for the existing prejudices that we hold or the blinders that we have from spending time with one another, being white folks, being in capitalism, and such. I'd really like guideance on how to integrate those things into the framework instead of pretending that we have a nuetral framework that will allow us to....
 * Libbie: I have a strong favor for everyone in CDC for being a part of the visioning and planning process
 * Julio: I don't disagree, but perhaps we can continue to meet as the CDC unless there is an explicit conflict in terms of time. there will probably be some activity that someone will want to undertake related to the CDC outside of the visioning.
 * Diana: It would be good for CDC to focus more on community building. Robustness comes down to who owns it. if there is no level of trust it is hard to build this more inclusive vision. that's my worry.
 * Matt: Right now we're going to have an organizing meeting. a small number of folks, a lot of hard work. Already devoted will be there. A high barrier of entry. No expectation to have people show up who aren't already invested in having the Omni survive. Expectation is that it's up to that group to go above and beyond to make sure that those who will offer critique will be in the room. Individual invitations to people who will have something to bring. that's the task. That's what youre signing up for. Don't see any other options.
 * Dusty: I feel like this visioning process is going to happen very soon... not enough time to do the community building work that we should Agree with Matt: people that show up have already built a sense of trust to the project. The process will also build trust between the community involved.  Good to have people invited who will bring a cirtical lens.  Like that Ben showed up to this meeting... would be important to me to figure out how to have folks like you (Ben)... would like to have more than the same 5 people that talkk about the Omni all the time.

ONe way is we brainstorm and ask the group about categories. Think about race and inclusion, gender, finacnce, providing space and content up front.

Another way is anti-capitalist and anti-racist frameworks should be the entire lense through which we organize this process. Not just a separate bucket. If those are our values.


 * Matt: Do you see those options in conflict with the methodology
 * Libbie: the methods don't make for seeing blindspots. They could be done simultaneously. We could introduce new questions to the structure. I have lots of ideas as to how we could modify the structure.
 * Julio: Any process is arbitrary and they can be changed, how to "hack" the process. We can continue this later but come up with questions that we would like to have addressed. I plan on meeting next sunday and we can also do this via email.
 * Libbie: The questions have been sent out in an email and we could look at those.
 * Julio: We had the same questions in january and we can hack it. Don't know how laura feels about it.
 * Matt: She seems very open to that. We could even produce this process for other groups.

Diana: you are not starting from scratch. RE-calling core agreements could be good. Julio: I think it's okay, even autocratically, to say these are our values and to remind people of what they are and to make sure that we talk about them. For the sake of keeping us accountable and not going off into the weeds. Diana: Makes me think about the demand on people's time and options of input, how to get people involved and.
 * Dusty: want to see what the perspective of anti-oppression work looks like.
 * Diana: at AMC, Anti-Oppression Facilitation; can share material
 * Dusty: could do restorative justice circles either before or after some of the sessions for visioning
 * Libbie: there is this feeling that we are smart hardworking proud people, radical in various ways. The idea for the 4 hour meeting is to have a popcorn time where everyone gets imaginative and develop key topics. With the 30 hour we come in with buckets, more tightly framed. Shoudl we just rely on the four hour popcorn, or does that also need buckets or a system of accountability so that certain things are addressed. An issue here is one of inclusivity. What liberties should the planners take around inserting safety nets if things fall out of conversation.
 * Dusty: Great question, totally thought about this too. Go into it popcorn style, but we also have some ideas about how to talk about certain specific topics. Even as someone who doesn't like being told what to do, I would totally appreciate it.  As long as it's suggested, to keep us accountable.

= For a later meeting =

Recurring Potlucks

 * Matt: schedule a trial "planning" meal? +++ (late August)
 * Sarah will talk with Phat Beets and FNB about their involvement
 * Sarah will schedule meeting with Ziji (late August)
 * Ziji Follow-Up?

Welcome Orientation Project

 * How does this interact with Becoming Omni? Does this address the door/access situation?