dagblog - Comments for "Time to Retreat"

I guess my point would be the

Elusive Trope — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:57:52 +0000

In reply to I understand the basis for

I guess my point would be the playing field is not level out there - which is why it is an issue. If one creates a group which has the playing field leveled to begin with, then whatever outcome is generated by the group is not likely to get the buy-in from the groups which are resisting the playing field from being leveled. The reason that the playing field remains unleveled is that those who are over-represented so to say are able to resist any changes. Why are they resisting? Is there some approach and angle we can take that will actually be effective in achieving this outcome?

So one can have as one of the goals of the retreat: to achieve a level playing field (I'm just throwing that wording out there, but one could come up with something better of course). The challenge is how to not only get buy-in to the idea through effective meeting facilitation, but also develop actual strategies to achieve this goal back in the "real" world.

Another way of looking at it - if one cannot achieve these goals in a retreat with this kind of representation which reflects the current country - then I suppose one has to turn to anyone who is trying to achieve progressive social and environmental change in this country and say "why bother?"

I would add that as facilitator, one is able to have some influence on the retreat - the initial agenda, how the visioning process happens, etc. So being from the liberal side of things, one is able to help steer the process in a way that would facilitate a compensation for something like lack of representation. Of course, one does have to be subtle because if one alienates the conservative wing of the retreat, no much is going to get done.

I understand the basis for

Aunt Sam — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:03:35 +0000

In reply to The representation isn't

I understand the basis for the representation dynamic.

However, any process beginning with the declaration.....

'The representation isn't suppose to be fair.'

seems to me needs to deliver criteria that, at the very least, has a format which enables a process to achieve something that is better than the status quo. Or else, why bother?

IMHO, leveling the playing field is mandatory if the goal is for this process to be widely embraced as credible, useful and worthy of note. As stated, the configurations will most likely insure skewed results akin to what is already in place. If not in fact, then definitely in perception.

Here is one site which

Elusive Trope — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:55:10 +0000

In reply to I could support the base

Here is one site which provides some general information about the visioning processes that many cities and counties around the country are conducting.

http://www.nh.gov/oep/resourcelibrary/referencelibrary/m/masterplan/prep...

(I have to admit I would think about renaming the end product the "Master Plan" for obvious reasons.)

The representation isn't

Elusive Trope — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:50:38 +0000

In reply to I could support the base

The representation isn't suppose to be fair. It is based on the percentage as represented in the general population. If participants are chosen at random, then whites, for instance, who represent nearly three quarters of the population, are going to be selected more often than other races. Same goes for the metropolitan area residents.

In this fashion it does represent in a sense how our government functions. Just doing this little exercise, one can see how government gets skewered. Even if you take away campaign finance issues, there are certain populations and demographics that will be able to have more influence than others if one looks at from a simple majority approach.

This is part of the challenge if one thinks about the facilitator role. If someone who notices the dominance of the whites, for instance, and believes that various races or ethnicities should have a voice, then how does one deal with this dominance? The same or similar challenges occur in the real world.

Because the outcomes of the retreat - a national vision to put it broadly -would then be used to create a national vision with all of the other retreats.

Again, if the retreat represents the percentages out there - then this would be the same mix of people one would face in developing a national movement.

So we are looking for common ground. It isn't so easy in this country. If one is coming from the "very liberal" position, then it will be difficult to achieve much of one's agenda. It doesn't mean one can't voice that opinion. But given the predominance of those coming from other positions, the likelihood of persuading the others may not be in the cards.

This retreat scenario is just something I am using to entertain myself in essence. I haven't worked out all the details. But that is where the fun is at, at least for me. For instance, would it be simple majority to agree to something or would there need a larger majority. If one with consensus, there is little chance much would be produced when everyone has to sign off on it.

I could support the base

Aunt Sam — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:15:15 +0000

In reply to Time to Retreat

I could support the base foundation as to the format.

However, can't get on board with the participants (specifically) grouping as to ethnicity and race. The 'white' segment is way too dominant. Don't really believe that utilizing this type of ratio would ever be accepted as the best, much less fair, representation of segments of our society.

I'm also concerned about the dominance of metropolitan participants. Just like with the different socio-economic groups having some different needs - rural residents have vastly different challenges.

Also, IMHO, there would need to be equal representation of blue collar/white collar citizens.

And after the 'fusing' of the retreat data, then what?