Kia ora koutou
I held up a red card when this discussion derailed yesterday, ironically after we passed with unanimous green a minute around “Meeting guidelines”.
With unanimous green we agreed that when decisions are important, they are minuted and that we circulate notes with a discussion that led to these decisions. We take them by consensus only. Work Groups prepare them with research and recommendations.
Yesterday it came to light that ‘the decision’ around garden use 1) was important, 2) has had some history of communication and much investment (emotionally, physically, and timewise) but that 3) it hadn’t gone through the Decision Making Process.
If we follow that Process we can anticipate reaching consensus just like we consistently achieve, and include those close to the matter and those further away.
It would also mean that we start discussions about important decisions being well informed and considered without ill-prepared discussions with impromptu comments that can surprise.
It felt to me that Jeffrey essentially raised a process observation but it morphed into an unprepared discussion about options to use the garden (or lack thereof), hence my red card.
While I happily support suggestions by Rainer and Jess for setting apart more time to work out the things they suggest, including Work Group autonomy as proposed by Anne, I also believe that we have put much wisdom in our guidelines that we should not forget.
Regards Sander
Kia ora koutou
I support the korero started here by Jess, also the ideas and reminders from Anne and Sander.
Thank you all for sharing reflections from last night. Very important ongoing mahi.
I hope everyone sleeps beautifully tonight.
Ngā mihi mahana Ngaire x
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021, 18:40 Sander Paul Zwanenburg, spzwanenburg@gmail.com wrote:
Kia ora koutou
I held up a red card when this discussion derailed yesterday, ironically after we passed with unanimous green a minute around “Meeting guidelines”.
With unanimous green we agreed that when decisions are important, they are minuted and that we circulate notes with a discussion that led to these decisions. We take them by consensus only. Work Groups prepare them with research and recommendations.
Yesterday it came to light that ‘the decision’ around garden use 1) was important, 2) has had some history of communication and much investment (emotionally, physically, and timewise) but that 3) it hadn’t gone through the Decision Making Process.
If we follow that Process we can anticipate reaching consensus just like we consistently achieve, and include those close to the matter and those further away.
It would also mean that we start discussions about important decisions being well informed and considered without ill-prepared discussions with impromptu comments that can surprise.
It felt to me that Jeffrey essentially raised a process observation but it morphed into an unprepared discussion about options to use the garden (or lack thereof), hence my red card.
While I happily support suggestions by Rainer and Jess for setting apart more time to work out the things they suggest, including Work Group autonomy as proposed by Anne, I also believe that we have put much wisdom in our guidelines that we should not forget.
Regards Sander _______________________________________________ Ucol-shareholders mailing list Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders
ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz
-
Ngaire Tigeir -
Sander Paul Zwanenburg