These minutes were sent out to those present at the meeting before they were posted here in order to give them the opportunity to offer their approval. To the best of our ability these are an accurate summary of what happened at the meeting.

---

The third meeting of our community was June 8-10, 2007. After a very last minute need to change venues, it was held on the land of Deborah and Elizabeth, near Boone, NC; instead of at Earthaven as originally planned. Thanks to Sabo’s flexibility and hard work, many last minute phone calls by RiverOtter, and Deborah and Elizabeth’s amazing generosity we all found our way to the new location at Debrorah and Elizabeth’s land near Boone, NC and had places to sleep, good food and places to meet for the whole meeting.

Attendees: Aimee, ChangingTide, Crystalline, Diana T, Diane/Cricket, Emily, Jason/Scarecrow, Jessica, Pablito, Sabo

Some of us arrived on Thursday. On Friday we were able to do deal with some logistical issues and after all the new Exploring Members arrived we had some time to answer questions and give some history. Everyone had arrived before dinner and we cast our circle for the weekend, had a round of check-ins, and finalized our agenda before dinner. After dinner we went over some of the finances for the weekend and then had some amazing music and fun together.

Sat morning (Sabo took notes)
Attending members: Diane/Cricket, Diana T, Pablito, Emily, Jason, Sabo (notes)

Exploring members: Crystalline, Aimee, Changing Tide, (Jessica missing this morning)

8:30 AM - Process team

Process team was asked to decide on the actual decision making process we will use. Diane hands out a draft proposal. (you can see this original draft on the wiki at 1st draft of consensus process proposal)

Process team suggests that for decisions made at this meeting the process is to ask for attendees to approve the minutes and then ask any decision-making members not at the meeting to respond with any concerns about the decisions, and then go on from there if there are concerns about the decisions.

Guided reading of possible decision-making process…

Here is link to the concerns and questions that were raised for each section of the draft proposal: 1st set of concerns

Switch to discussion of Emily’s draft proposal (you can see this on the wiki at ProcessTeam, towards the bottom of the page under the heading “Consensus Training Proposal Draft”) while Jason scribes the concerns from above to get feedback. At the last meeting we said that we wanted consensus training for everyone but until then we’re flying by the seat of our pants.

Emily reads the proposal: The reclaiming community is…

1. Person receives a consensus packet
2. Person is offered a mentor
3. Person attends training, which would be offered at each face-to-face meeting and take 1-2 hours
4. Mentor and trainer recommend person’s comprehension. Outline steps of further instruction

For founding members

1. Receive packet
2. Break up into small groups to review packet and clarify questions
3. Attend training
4. have 1 year to attend training or will no longer be able to block decisions. Can appeal for longer

Discussion of questions and concerns – when trying to come to an evaluative decision – this sounds a little top-down where one group is evaluating someone else instead of a more egalitarian shared self decision and shared decision. In more progressive organizations, evaluations are done in a kind of way where both parties articulate strengths and weaknesses as a dialog. Concern about consensus trainings from before so people come in with uneven background in consensus so want acknowledgement of other trainings people have. Confused that we already had consensus training so why do we need to do it again – it just doesn’t seem necessary for founding members. Some feel like Jari’s training wasn’t training in our process, but people creating the packet would know it because they are creating the process. And not all founding members were at the Jari training or here while we’re creating this process, so need that acknowledgement. While we agreed to have consensus training we didn’t define what that process would be. We aren’t trying to reach consensus on this topic today. Emily is topic guide for this topic. There is also the “what to say and how to talk” part of consensus training. We’ve talked about other training and we’ll get into more of that with the behavioral ground rules.

Concerns – concerned that we spend too much time at face-to-face meetings rehashing consensus training.

Time to leave the training issue.

Figuring out how to handle concerns about the consensus process. Propose spending another half hour looking at the concerns, don’t spend more time on those, process team work on wordsmithing and we check for remaining concerns on Sunday afternoon. Twinkles.

The first page is laid down in the middle of the circle then put on a wall. Here is a link to the continued colledtion of feedback: 2nd set of concerns.

That concludes the process team piece. Now deciding what to do next. The desire to talk about what to do so a facilitator can express their concerns was expressed. The thing actually scheduled is behavioral ground rules. Suggestion of moving the facilitator thing to the toolbox. More questions and answers about when we use facilitation. Moving on to behavioral ground rules.

11:30 AM – Behavioral Ground Rules

Diana T. passes out the first draft of behavioral ground rules. (You can see a copy of this on the wiki at BehavioralGroundRules)

Where we are at in the decision process – discussion stage has happened, both at KC meeting and online – also discussed criteria at the KC meeting. Smaller group did wordsmithing and divided brainstorms into categories. Diane, Diana, Jason, Sibyl and Carol did online work. Decision-making process ideas went to process team. Tools and methods haven’t been dealt with yet. Some are in consequence group and others are held by the behavioral ground rules group. Divided the behaviors into six categories. This is labeled as a draft proposal and was sent to the list ahead of time. Now this is a real proposal, so this is a call for concerns.

Here is link to the concerns and questions that were raised for each section of the draft proposal: concerns about proposal

Lunch

Sat afternoon – Diana Leafe Christian Workshop (Diana T. took notes)

Here is a link to the notes taken during that time: DLC-workshop-notes. There were many useful handouts and we each gathered valuable information. No decisions were made as a group.

After dinner we enjoyed a wonderful ritual with many thanks to ChangingTide for her help in facilitating the planning of the ritual, and the many new musical talents that have joined us.

Sun morning - “Consequences” Working Group (Diane/Cricket and Diane T. took notes)

• From Cricket’s notes:

Pablito began with a review of the sorting he did of some of the Behavioral Ground Rules brainstorming from the KC meeting, and what it showed about the different ways that we value conflict RCommunity:Spring2007-consequences)

Jason lead us in a guided meditation to lead us back to our childhood and then back through our life experiences around conflict, to examine what we have gained from those experiences and how they have shaped our values around conflict, as well as what we want to take into the future to help shape how we will value conflict in our community. After the meditation, we had a brainstorm type sharing of what we came up with, and this was what we came up with:

-Ready to face conflict, be transparent, follow process for the reward of improved relationships.

-Accepting what I brought from child hood to avoid conflict and that I have a need for safety.

-Believe in the need for conflict resolution to avoid black cloud of tension.

-When things look the bleakest, new doors open because we loose attachments.

-Nothing in the “sieve” from what is brought forward from childhood experiences of conflict.

-When faced with conflict I need help maintaining integrity, honor and strength.

-I realize I feel unsafe with ongoing conflict around me among people around me or with me (people pleasing).

-I have a fear of losing in conflict. I want to look this fear in the face, to find what I’m attached to.

-Using the tools I have.

-Heart and Spirit can diffuse and transform conflict.

-Heart and Spirit can also prevail over superior force.

-I have made the choice to engage, work through, use and accept paradox/conflict.

-Conflict doesn’t have to include rage, blame, need to fix or any other overwhelming emotion bogging us down or preventing
other choices.

-Conflict can be invigorating when not judged/judging or blamed/blaming.

-Re-evaluation that when faced with unequal power, leaving may not be the only option.

-Everyone isn’t out to get me – disagreements come from the past.

-Conflict without blame – goal of everyone ending up happy, mutual transformation.

-Resolving conflict spawns intimacy, so be careful who you resolve conflict with.

-Fierce independence that comes out of self-preservation – value ourselves and others especially when in our authentic selves.

Then Sabo described the Conflict Resolution process at Earthaven and Pablito described the process at River Rock, for us to consider as two examples.

At Earthaven, after attempts for personal resolution of any conflict have failed, the following process is followed:

1. “Fire Tenders”, who are individuals involved with the team that assures that agreements are kept, will get involved and speak to the individual/s involved in the conflict or who have not been abiding by community agreements.
2. If the conflict is still not resolved or the agreement met, then a “Heart Share” meeting will be called and the whole community will attend and tell the person what impact their action has had on them.
3. If the “Heart Share” meeting still does not result in a resolution, then a Counsel Resolution (a consensus decision by the whole community) is made as to what needs to happen to the person still not meeting the community agreements.
4. As a last resort there is an 8 step process leading up to revoking of membership.

At RiverRock there is a very elaborate process (http://riverrock.org/~bame/ConflictResolutionChartRRC.pdf), which Pablito presented complete with the flow chart from beginning to any number of possible resolutions. Two of the important values inherent in this process were that 1) it needed to be open to the possibility that an individual involved in a conflict might have a position that could benefit the community by being considered and 2) once the process was begun it was important that it not stall. The process has built in steps for healing within the community and has graduated levels of community involvement and impact. This process is relatively new and has already shown some promise and some areas that still present challenges.

The “Consequence” Working Group has considered the different values that we have around conflict, and considered different possibilities and styles. And is challenged by how to sort out a combination of all of this, possibly providing a choice of different tools base on different individual values.

Vicky and Sabo, who were on this team will be stepping down. Jason and Pablito are willing to continue and would like others to join them, especially at least one woman. Any volunteers, please contact Jason or Pablito. Any one who has ideas or who want to add ideas to the brainstormed list of values are encouraged to contact either of them.

Their next step is to design some conflict resolution process tools.

• From Diana T.’s notes:

The Consequences Team presented a guided meditation to help all of us see what our attitudes toward conflict have been through our lives.

They then presented two conflict resolution models, that are used by Earthaven and that used by RiverRock Cohousing. The Earthaven model is less formal than the RiverRock model.

There was no proposal presented, because the team became involved in a huge philosophical debate.

A good way of defusing conflict is to have the two people work together more, to get to know each other, and to see each other’s approach and outlook.

Our community has the ability to bring even more heartfelt, magical and spiritual tools to bear on conflict resolution and thereafter community healing.

Sunday Mid-morning - Membership Issues (Diana T. took notes)

See Cricket’s email of May 31st, 2007, where the membership categories are explained to alleviate confusion.

Other suggested categories: Inactive and Residential.

Questions:
- Do we need changes/clarifications to the current process?

- Do we have questions about Exploring Members?

- How will our criteria be different when we actually go to live together?

- How is membership terminated?

- How do we eject a Supporter who is causing problems?

Current membership categories:

Supporter (Supporters) - “Someone who agrees with our mission, has joined the supporters list, introduced themselves on that list, participates constructively on the list and uses it only for the formation of the community.”

Supporters aren’t generally invited to face-to-face meetings unless there is room and time.

Exploring Member (ExploringMember) - “A supporter between the time s/he is invited to a face-to-face meeting and when s/he either becomes a member, the members decide not to invite the supporter to join the group, or s/he informs the group that s/he does not want to pursue membership at this time. If the members decide that they would like more time to get to know an exploring member, that person can continue as an exploring member until the group decides otherwise.”

Do the deadlines for Exploring Members work? No, because Aimee didn’t find out about it in time (a concern). Exploring Members communicate on the Supporters’ List, cannot edit wiki, etc. but can offer input and make proposals. Exploring Members may participate in all discussions except where excluded. Suggestion: “We reserve the right to ask Exploring Members to step back from a discussion”. Should they be present at the “barred” discussion or not? Exploring Members need to feel valued and given something to do.

Only Members can invite someone to become an exploring member.

We recognize that there are loose ends here. Diana T. volunteers to be the topic guide for online discussion.

Member (Members) - “Someone who is a full participant in all decision making for the community.”

Suggested new category: Residential Member.

Perhaps we don’t have to deal with this now. Also Residential Member vs. Resident needs to be clarified. One can also be a Member without being a Residential Member. Does the Member category need to be modified to take inactive Members into consideration? Probably not, as it can be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Inactive Member “Someone who has been a member and might choose to be a member again, but is not currently participating in the community. Inactive Members do not owe dues and probably have the same privileges as an Exploring Member (encouraged to offer their input on decisions but unable to block), except there would be a different path for returning to active membership.”

Should the case be reviewed after a certain period? How long? Sustaining Member a possibility. Interested Members should stay connected. They are more like Supporters than Exploring Members. Has the Member become inactive because of financial reasons? They should pay at least some dues. Ex-Members or Inactive Members are an important resource to keep track of, because they can do more than a Supporter.

We agree to table this discussion unless and until we need to deal with it.

Next we clarified the status of all 17 Members and Exploring Members:

Cricket, Emily, Diana T., Jason, MelisaBee and Pablito want to stay Members.

Changing Tide is open to becoming a Member, but is ambiguous about doing so after just one meeting.

Crystalline is interested in pursuing membership but not right now.

Aimee wants to continue as an Exploring Member for now.

Jessica wants to attend the next face-to-face meeting.

Carol wants to remain a Member and continue paying dues, although there are unresolved issues about living together.

Sabo is conflicted about being a Member. Would be interested in becoming an Inactive Member or becoming temporarily inactive or becoming a Sustaining Member. Will continue to pay dues.

Bob intends to focus on his Earthaven membership for the next 6 months, which will limit his participation in this group. He will pay his dues to give the group time to create an inactive member status.

Vicky and Sibyl will try to come to the Fall and Winter meetings.

Juniper wants to continue paying dues, hence remains a Member, however has stated her inability to participate very actively at this time.

RiverOtter will probably withdraw completely (see her e-mail of June 9th).

What are the next steps for Exploring Members? There was a discussion about exploring members attending two face-to-face meetings. They will come to the next meeting, so we don’t have to decide. What about absent Members who haven’t met the Exploring Members yet? There could be situations where an Exploring Member would never meet all of the members. Should Exploring Members be offered a vote of confidence by those Members present to keep them going? No, because we might not be able to do it time-wise or for another reason, creating uncertainty. After the first meeting, Members present could give the Exploring Members they’ve met a green light and allow them to edit the wiki. But it would be important to report any red flags as well. Perhaps there could be an online process to facilitate meeting absent members. It is suggested that Exploring Members be required to attend two face-to-face meetings before a decision is made. Those who still haven’t met the Exploring Members would be responsible for informing themselves about them. Would Exploring Members feel comfortable joining the group without having met all of the Members? The membership process is critical and needs as much attention as conflict resolution.

Cricket calls for a topic guide to continue this discussion on membership issues. Jason agrees to foster the topic until he can hand it off to someone else.

Also someone is needed to welcome new Members and follow up.

We should continue with current membership categories, at least for the next period of time.

Lunch

Sun afternoon (Sabo and Diana T. took notes, Cricket has tried to consolidate the two sets of notes)

First part of Sun afternoon – Addressing Specific Decisions/Issues

• Money for this weekend squared away

(Some of the details of how much was paid to who are not included for confidentiality reasons).
$45 (later increased to $55) will be returned to our account and all expenses have been paid.

• Procedure for collecting dues for the next 6 mo. Period and Treasurer’s report

- Dues due this solstice and will be late by July 1.

- Continue sending dues to the credit union because that worked out last time and avoids the expense of a post box

- Balance: $259.81

- Everyone paid their first dues and everything is in order.

- One person arranged a payment plan of four $25 payments for the upcoming period.

- Pablito suggests suspending dues for Sabo and Jason because of services rendered, to be rendered, they declined.

- Diane/Cricket will pay her dues this half. She expresses appreciation for not having to pay the first dues and wants to acknowledge that lots of people are making significant contributions to the group.

- Carol and Diana willing to continue as treasurers for another six months.

• Dues related consequences proposal

- Diane and then Jason read proposal that has been posted on the wiki for awhile: (DuesPaymentProcess)

- Does covering for someone who can’t pay dues mean dues are increased for everyone else?

- Would like to offer work trade to someone with a financial problem instead of being based just on past work.

- Need to have a non-member category in addition to an inactive member category. So someone leaving the group would need to choose whether to become an inactive member or a non-member.

- If we adopt this, we definitely need to empower the treasurers to carry out this process, hold some information, and that they are willing to do this.

- Note: Send any confidential information for treasurers to Diana because Diane and Carol share an email account.

- What if a treasurer wants an alternative payment plan? Perhaps it needs to be approved ahead of time. Perhaps as long as the co-treasurer is following one of the few standard alternate payment plans it would be OK.

- In case 4, would feel more comfortable if the treasurer contacts the person before making someone a non-member. Only do this for non-response over some period of time.

- Acknowledge that we’re using the “restorative justice” process that we don’t have yet.

- In case 1, should the person be required or encouraged to go through a restorative justice process?

- Need a collections officer. This should be rotated so everyone gets the pleasure.

- Overall, there are a bunch of words that are more background material so needs some reorganizing.

Proposal: The treasurers are empowered to create alternate payment plans for the July - December 2007 dues, as long as the full amount is paid before the 2007 winter solstice. The names of those with plans are confidential, but the number will be included in the treasurers’ report.

Concerns:
- Is this sufficient to allay people’s concerns about impact on cash flow?

- Will any members who are not here have trust concerns with the treasurers and this proposal?

We discussed these concerns and decided that the cash flow would be OK because of the schedule of upcoming meetings and we support the treasurers to implement this process.

Have all points of view been expressed? Yes

Have all concerns been thoughtfully considered by the group? Yes.

Can we live with this decision? Yes

Is this in the best interest of our community? Twinkles all around.

It was also agreed that a hard copy of the alternate plan would be retained with the treasurers’ records

There are ongoing concerns about the community empowering people to do work and then trusting them to do it. This is an issue to keep in mind.

• Fall meeting

Proposed for Friday, Sept 14-16. Cedar Lake, Indiana.

This wasn’t approved online because Juniper might not have made it, but her recent message about not participating in the group for the next 6 months suggests that she won’t participate on any date.

Proposal: The fall meeting will be held Friday, September 14-16 at Jason’s home. People can stay in his home or camp. Crystalline will do most of the cooking and shopping as work exchange.

Jason will have one house that can sleep quite a few people that he is building now. He has another house on the property that is smaller with rough floors and some mold. There’s a lake nearby. Meetings will be outdoors on a deck or inside on concrete. There will be enough room for everyone to stay there. Jason plans to have flush toilets, hot and cold running water, doors and maybe a lock on the bathroom door.

No outside facilitator, so this will be our first full meeting to plan. Plan to travel on Thursday, with meetings to start 9 am Friday. Fly into Chicago – non-rush hour drive is an hour from Midway, 90 minutes from O’Hare. Times will be much longer during rush hour. Flyers should coordinate travel to share rental cars. Crystalline might also be able to pick up people during a shopping trip.

Crystalline would like to do the cooking and shopping in exchange for some break in the price for the food as a work exchange.

Concerns: none
The evaluation questions were successfully answered.

• Any changes to the current on-line/between meeting process

- Diane is willing to continue as online facilitator. Concerns about whether enough has been offloaded from her plate. We’ll know more when we talk about next steps and whether it has enough momentum to continue.

- Vibes watchers – facilitator found vibes watchers helpful and would like more energy going into defining the role and how they can be effective. A vibes watcher offers that someone can contact a vibes watcher if they need help because it’s harder for the vibes watchers to know if someone is uncomfortable without being able to see the body language. Pablito, DianaMelisaBee, and Sibyl are current vibes watchers. Pablito will continue and contact the others to see whether they are willing to continue.

- Any changes needed to the online process? Pablito willing to work with Diane so we can see very clearly where we are in the process especially after we adopt a process with steps.

- Concerns about how hard it is to use the email list, especially get access to the list archives. Perhaps add a link from the wiki.

- Conference calls – Diana T. apologizes to Bob and Pablito about not organizing their conference call last month. Emily successfully herded her cats.

Proposal: Include exploring members in the conference calls.

Concerns: This could result in a lot of people being involved.

Not enough of a concern, to not support the proposal, so proposal does pass.

Pablito task: Redo June groups. Send to members list and send to exploring members individually. Ask current members whether they want to be on the June calls or not.

• Re-articulated Consensus Process proposal

Tried to address concerns through wordsmithing and tagged other outstanding issues as loose ends.

Here is link to the concerns and questions that were raised for each section of this re-articulated proposal: discussion on re-articulated proposal

Proposal: do next steps until 6 pm, the process team eats dinner together and discusses the proposal. We meet up after dinner to check on the process team work, checkout, have somemores and open the circle. Passed.

Second part of Sun afternoon – Next Steps

• Any unfinished business for 3 working groups

Behavioral ground rules

- Still Diane, Diana, maybe Sibyl and Carol. Jason is stepping off the group

- Collected a lot of good input. Diane will wordsmith and present to the rest of the working group and then to the email list. This working group will see the behavioral ground rules through consensus with the online decision-making process.

- Do something with the tools and methods items from the KC meeting. Pablito did a little work on them in the consequences group.

Process Team

- Emily, Pablito, Cricket. Jason is leaving. Don’t know about Juniper.

- Check with Juniper about continuing. Pablito

- Meeting at dinner to talk about consensus process.

- Three other potential proposals in the works. Emily got input on her proposal. Pablito didn’t get input on his. He’ll do this between meetings with the online process. Jason’s proposal will go back to the process team.

- Does the team need a convener and who will do this?

“Consequences” Working Group

- Pablito, Jason, maybe Vicky later. Sabo leaving

- Recruiting women

- Picking a name

- First crack at the first couple of steps of a process

- Integrating the information from today’s exercise to come up with a statement of the value of conflict in the community.

- Post meditation on the wiki with an invitation for other members to do the exercise and add their couple items to the list on the wiki, which will be on a copy of the page so people aren’t editing the minutes.

- Not sure what will happen with the not paying dues process. Propose an ad hoc team (topic guide) to further the proposal composed of Diane, Diana, and Carol. Twinkles on this. Diane will check with Carol to see if she has concerns about this.

• How to proceed with Legal and Financial Structure questions

- Propose start with homework to read the chapter in DLC’s book, perhaps the chapter in the Cohousing book or other resources, and notes from the workshop so everyone has a ground basis.

- Diana and Aimee will start initiating some conversations to hone in some of these issues. Aimee has a lot of relevant experience – worked in a mortgage company, has a real estate license, has done grant writing and is good at taxes. She has good internet access and offers to do some legwork, except the next few weeks she’ll be moving and out of town. She offers to do some research. Diana will be Aimee’s mentor in this process.

• How to proceed with membership issues

- Jason offered to be topic guide until he can get someone else to do it.

- Diane offers to topic guide the loose end about exploring members in face-to-face meetings.

- Give people who are not here the opportunity to volunteer to topic guide some of the other membership issues from the list.

- Do something with the inactive membership category after this meeting.

• Can we choose some issues/topics to work on between meetings?

- Non-violent communication. Crystalline suggested having an NVC training at a meeting. There are some good trainers in Minneapolis. We’ll talk about this between meetings. Who will foster this communication between meetings?

- Perhaps post answers to vision questions on the wiki because we didn’t get to share these at the KC meeting to give us some preliminary work in clarifying our vision. They might already be on the wiki.

- Encourage people who aren’t here to pick up topics from the wiki parking lot.

- Encourage exploring members and supporters to help with the legwork and picking up topics from the parking lot.

• Preliminary discussion about possibilities for Winter meeting and 2008 meetings

- Vicky, Sibyl and DianaMelisaBee might want to host the winter meeting in California. Crystalline might also want to host it in Minneapolis (burrrrr).

- Diane would like a meeting at Diana’s Grove to get training on the Cornerstones, group dynamic process, and rituals. Timing would depend on their schedule, not in the winter. Diane will start talking with them.

- Maybe try Earthaven again. Sabo should have a house in a year.

- Do we want quarterly meetings, or more or less frequently? Quarterly meetings are a hardship now and take up money from other things, but we don’t have enough time, so the current situation seems like an acceptable compromise. We might be able to cut back to three per year and make the same progress. Perhaps slightly longer meetings might cut overall travel expenses. Torn between wanting to be with this group of people more frequently but this is at a high cost. Prefer to meet longer than more frequently, but times in between are frustrating. Would probably miss one meeting next year to go to witch camp so don’t know if that means the group should still meet quarterly with less expectation of everyone trying to meet at all meetings. Something about meeting seasonally seems good and it feels like dropping to three times per meeting would be a huge barrier. Can’t go to far-away meetings so more frequent meetings let me attend more. Any potential for bioregional (or cheap-flight distance) meetings – perhaps have some topic or work group organized by region. If we had a regional meeting, we’d have as many members there are we have now between Colorado and New Mexico. What kind of topics could a regional meeting take on? We’ve identified another loose end…

• Sending out an announcement

- Diane to send it out to livriv, rwto, reclaimingcommunity, rspider. Mission/vision, how to get involved, next meeting location.

- Maybe we can forward it to other email lists.

• Anyone want to start working on a flyer for witch camps?

- Agree with the concept of creating a flyer, but how far do we want to send it? Perhaps not distribute it widely yet.

- Proposal: add item creation of a flyer to the list of to do items on the wiki. Approved.

- Proposal: continue with the same outreach we’ve had. Approved.

Dinner

Finished Consensus on re-articulated Consensus Process proposal

(Continued from the Sunday afternoon discussion)

Here is link to the final discussion about the remaining concerns that were raised for each section of this re-articulated proposal: final discussion on re-articulated proposal

Reflection on this decision-making process, the loose ends, the new wording… Any issues on the overall concept, how it flows, fairness, power… Any remaining concerns?

Proposal: We support this consensus process document with the understanding that it has many loose ends.

Crystalline stands aside because she values grammatical excellence in the community documents. Long discussion about the grammar of the rest of the documents. Add a loose end to fix the grammar. With this loose end, Crystalline supports the proposal.

All points of view expressed? Yes.

Have all concerns been resolved or addressed by the group? Yes.

Do we support this decision? Twinkles.

Is this in the best interest of the community? Twinkles.

Here is the actual document: ProcessTeamrearticulatedprop

We have reached consensus on this consensus decision-making process. Wahoo!!!

We then checked out around a roaring fire with s’mores. We opened our circle around the fire and while still sending a pocket of it to the tarot cards that we read back in the house. A picture of the spread can be seen at tarot-200706. (Please note that this is a large file and will take a long time to open, for those of you with slow internet connections.)

Background information

Date planning content from the original page

Proposal 12/28 - link to the actual proposal that set the time and location of this meeting.

Proposal EH budget - link to proposal for budget for this meeting.

Work done ahead of time on intention and agenda