famous people

[Billy]

Tonight we had Reverend Jesse Jackson speak at the GA. I was very honored to have him speak at our GA and have great respect for the man and for what he stands for.

 

     None of that bypasses something that I think his speaking at the GA brings up. The entire GA is supposed to be a meeting of equals. In the world of equals 2 minutes is two minutes. I would like to think that if the mayor or the president himself wanted to talk at a GA he should be held to the same standards as you and I. This goes the same for George Clooney or Oprah Winfrey or any other famous person.

 

     That being said I also think that the strict 2 minute limit on announcements for everything is too short for all situations. So I propose that we institute a way for the moderator to call a vote on the spot as to if the Ga would like to allow who ever it is to speak for more than 2 minutes. This if voted on can not only be used for famous people it must also be open for anyone to use that has a particularly long announcement to make or it is of no use voting on and we might as well just let any famous person talk. I would warn that would open us up having occupy Chicago subverted by some group with ill intent like the Republican party did to the tea party movement with Sara Palin.

 

     I open this for discussion but with no input I will read it as:

 

     I propose that we allow speakers to request of the moderator the ability to vote for extra time for an announcement. Ideally this would be requested in advance but could be done on the spot if need be. I should be done before the speaker begins talking under any situation. The speak may request a specific amount of time but it is up to the moderators discretion as to the actual amount of time requested as it will need to fit within the time frame of the GA as a whole.

[arthurdent6]

Excellent in theory, I couldn't agree with you more that the Reverend and any other guest speaker, no matter how famous, can follow the same rules as everyone else.

 

Self defeating, in practice.  The time it will take to propose extra time will take up more time than the time it would take to let the speaker go over their time.

[Billy]

     I agree that it may not be efficient but the only other alternative I see is in allowing no one no matter who they are to speak for more than 2 minutes. Under that framework Reverend Jackson would have been cut short last night. Either that or the moderator would make the call for everyone else which is not consensus and is not democracy and certainly does not fit in the horizontal frame work.

 

     Also the voting need not take that long with some of the modifications that I have proposed for faster voting.

 

     I understand that we do not hold exactly to the two minute time frame but we do keep roughly to it. At some point some incredible people will want to speak with us for more than two minutes. We will also have some famous and/or powerful people want to use the platform that we provide to highjack the movement and subvert or disrupt it or otherwise destroy morale and break it's will. I think we need to begin a discussion on how to deal with that in a fair and equitable manner.

 

     It may be that we decide that no one no matter who they are can go over two minutes. If they want more time it will have to be scheduled outside the framework of the meeting. I'm fine with that.

 

     I can see both sides of this and honestly could go along with a multitude of solutions. But if we don't decide on something it will be decided on the fly and will not wind up being fair and equitable.

[arthurdent6]

I have an idea for a more general way of addressing this problem.

Abuses of the GA format.

How about a formal warning system?

There are many ways to abuse the GA format.  Talking for too long is one of them.  Addressing the group out of turn is another one we have had problems with.

The GA format is agreed upon precisely to allow the maximum amount of free speech possible.  Abusing the GA format denies other people their equal rights to speak at a GA.  Maintaining format is not an issue of censorship, but of maintaining the atmosphere that makes uncensored speech possible and efficient.

I would back a proposal that issues a formal warning for abusing the format.  Honestly I don't know how we should handle the hypothetical situation where someone persists, even after being repeatedly warned and asked politely to respect everyone else's right to speak and listen.

In terms of time, I think a speaker should be able to request extra time *before* getting on the agenda.  Once started, there should be a 30 second grace period for someone to finish what they're saying after time has expired.  Using this grace period to just keep going, or going over it for any reason, should be a formal warning.

[Billy]

what you say makes a lot of sense. The 30 second grace period is already in use. we start giving people the hurry up sign at 2 minutes so it is not a hard two minutes but only the point at which we tell people to hurry up and finish.

 

     As far as the famous speaker I've looked into it a bit more since I first wrote this and it seems an emergency vote can already be put forth under the current format so a famous person or someone on their behalf could get on the agenda and put forth a vote on this as I understand it. If I am correct on that then nothing really need be changed other than make it clear to the famous person looking to use or abuse the two minute announcement format that they will be held to it in the same manner as everyone else. That is nothing that need be voted on only noted by anyone intending to be a moderator at any point.

 

     As far as how to handle people that refuse to respect the format I don't have any really good ideas about that at this point.