Proposal to Name This WG; Define Demands and Objectives; Define Path Forward

From discussion on this thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/demands.occupyseattle/?id=277714285584114

Please give your input on this thread. This is an ongoing discussion we have been having and I am proposing a solution.

FORMAL PROPOSAL:
I propose that we keep our Work Group name as Demands for now, so as not to confuse people, with the intent on changing our name to Objectives once those Demands are solidified.

Demands shall be defined as: What OccupySeattle believes is our end game, our goals.

Objectives shall be defined as: What OccupySeattle believes ought to be done for our Demands to be met. Objectives shall define measurable progress towards our Demands, and we must continually release them once the Demands are met.

Once the Demands are solidified, we will switch into Objectives mode. For all major actions and decisions, OccupySeattle shall ask, “Is this moving us toward our Objectives and therefore toward our Demands?” We need to stay focused on our goals for this movement to continue its momentum.

Thank you for listening, thinking, discussing, and debating.

3 Responses to Proposal to Name This WG; Define Demands and Objectives; Define Path Forward

  • OccupyMarkD says:

    L. Sam @10:46:
    Agreed that we should keep the name Demands for now… People seem to identify with this name and they know that they can bring their grievances to this group.


    L. Sam @ 10:48:
    After we have collected what we think is the bulk of the info, we can then focus on Objectives (but still be taking grievances and demands… b/c there is always a voice to be heard)


    Nick H. @ 11:17:
    seconded


    Trung L. @ 11:29:
    agreed


    Mark D. @ 11:59:
    Ugh… FB is terrible for this sort of discussion… would anyone be opposed to me moving it to OS.org forum?


    L. Sam @12:19:
    Seconded


    Kevin B. @ 12:23:
    OS.org has a workable forum now? And boy, I’d switch your verbage. Objectives would be the End Game and Demands the steps to get there! Love the discussion.


    Mike H. @ 1:17:
    There is a forum, but it is not much different than FB from the perspective of posts like this, and when I checked it yesterday, it was still pretty jacked up. I’ll look at it again.

    As for the comment, I actually do think that Demands are an end-game and objectives are interim goals, but I think we are REALLY unclear on our end game, while we can certainly outline objectives. I seriously doubt anyone is going to be able to say what conditions could be met that would end this right now. I also think, in general, that the end game is more of a global question, whereas objectives, goals and ideas for solutions can certainly be an easy local thing.

    So I’m still for calling it objectives, but I don’t think that is really very important. More important, I believe, is the general concept that we have multiple types of activity for the group, and I’d think we might benefit from clearly separating them.

    Ideas/Philosophy – Central ideas to our demands and goals that speak to the core of what we are doing. Ideally easily graspable and concise so we, the general public and the press can all latch onto them.

    Goals or Objectives (words mean same to me… choice of verbage) – Things we want to achieve. Should be broken into short term and long term most likely, and they should conform to our ideas/philosophy.

    Demands – Specific conditions that must be met, in which case we will be satisfied that our grievances have been addressed (with the caveat that if things digress, we will take up the issue again). The demands seem, in particular, to be something that is coordinated more globally with the other Occupy groups.


    Mike H. @ 1:18:
    Oh, cool — yeah, the forums look pretty solid now. Going to look at them a bit more to figure out if there are any issues before proposing we move everything there.


    Mark D. @ 1:23:
    Okay, here’s the link to the proposal: http://occupyseattle.org/forum/proposal-name-wg-define-demands-and-objectives-define-path-forward

  • OccupyMarkD says:

    I would like to see this conversation move forward with proposed amendments to the proposal. Any takers?

    (please do not reply to this comment; rather make each proposed amendment it’s own comment)

  • kit cosby says:

    1% transaction tax on all transactions (no exceptions if there is a higher rate for the transaction already the rate will be replaced by the 1% rate)
    Honesty Oath for politicians.
    Nationalize the FED so that power of the purse resides in the representatives of the people.