OCP Workshop 09/26/2012

• At the end of the last meeting, there was a proposal:  to develop a membership system that encourages, coordinates, and captures the volunteer energy to make OCP and the community at-large a better place to evolve over time from workshops
• Mike:  wants to be clear that we have a proposal and we are in the discussion phase of the proposal; 
• Ron:  the workshops and the membership might actually serve two different functions; 
• Mike:  once a proposal has been made and seconded, can the proposal be changed and/or how;  reminds us that we have a list of what types of issues the membership might deal with – privileges, rewards;  we need to make a decisions about membership or not
• Jonathan:  maybe we should scrap the current proposal by voting it down and then focus on what the workshop group is doing – what is their purpose
• Ron:  maybe the only purpose of the workshop was to create the beginning of the body that would help create and develop OCP
• Sigi:  would like to see us go back to community meetings
• Teig:  how do we “judge” ourselves;  what about people who throw cigarette buts on the ground – how do we police ourselves;  if I felt like I was a member of this community with some power, maybe I could speak up;  we should have some sort of judiciary committee – so that people who do something wrong can be judged by their peers – 5 or 6 people, maybe 12; 
• Ron:  not sure community gatherings got things done because there were no teeth in those things;  often there were college interns and no community members;  how can the body that is upholding the rules be respected;  we are always trying to mediate, not punish – how can we have people get along in our community;
• Sigi:  some of the community meetings were very profound;  membership and policing are freaking sigi out
• Daniel:  with regards to breaking rules (ie. Throwing cigarettes down), you could explain that we are trying to keep things clean instead of making the person feel badly about their choices;  doesn’t like the idea of a judiciary committee here at ocp; 
• Daneen:  the idea of rules and discipline – likes the idea of friendship more than membership;  some people come here that don’t know what we are doing, maybe we could develop some sort of book for new people to explain what we are doing;  where is the money going to come from for those books?;  maybe the membership could donate some money for this; 
• Heather:  people shouldn’t be drinking on the property – people being passed out on the property shouldn’t happen; 
• Ron:  lets try to focus on the system of membership – pro or con
• Sigi:  doesn’t think that a membership is going to fix the problem of cig buts on the ground;  likes the word friends better than membership – people are going to do things that they aren’t supposed to do
• Ron:  doesn’t feel like the gentle approach that Daniel talks about has ever worked – maybe there is a way to have some ownership in this place and some authority;  the issue is are we going to create something where people are in or out with privileges and responsibilities;  would like to see a dynamic democracy – anyone with an idea can get a topic to the group and then the group can discuss and decide;  if there is a problem, the group can come together to figure out the issue – the people involved in the community can help figure out answers to problems;  we tend to structure organizations with one person in charge, and is there a way to get rid of the “one” focus and turn to the group
• Mike:  do we want a membership system or not and do we need to focus on this or not;  would like to see us vote on this;  why are we using the term membership when we don’t like the term – but this does some up the concept;  this group seems a bit like community meetings;  hopefully this group can make some decisions and keep people interested;  would like to see the words associated with membership up on the board – privileges/rewards, behavior/standards, governance/adjudication, standards/behavior, staffing;  we should run in parallel and develop the concept of the membership system while this group continues to meet as “Friends of OCP”;   
• Teig:  would like to see us develop a way to deal with people – a way to deal with peers
• Daniel:  all for a body of people with some extra privileges, standards, etc;  feels like we have some governance – the staff;  would like to see some other level where other community members have some authority;  can’t imagine the idea where 30 or so people have enough authority to tell people where not to put cigarette buts;  having a small group in power seems to keep things tidier; 
• Ron:  occasionally use language that brings up the old days – like someone cussing someone out – not sure how much of an issue this is – it is a better scene now;
• Sigi:  we are definitely at a better scene – a lot of the things we are talking about just seems to happen naturally – it doesn’t really take a membership to tell people what they should and shouldn’t do; 
• Daneen:  we can’t run to the staff for everything that comes up;  having a group like “Friends of OCP” could be helpful
• Philip:  people still do some cussing around here;  want some people who have some passion for developing membership to break off into a committee and maybe bring it back to this group;  we have a sort of ethos that is very forgiving – we should be hopeful; 
• Teig:  who is the chief enforces – who is the governing body – right now Ron or Philip – right now it’s Philip – you have justice and mercy on your side – is this the way that it is supposed to be or should we have a jury of our peers?;  really worried about this – key to what this place is all about;  ron wants us to govern ourselves –with a jury – how do we do this – we should talk to people who aren’t following the rules – we should be able to govern ourselves accordingly
• Ron:  the judiciary thing might happen like monthly – only in extreme times – when we couldn’t figure things out day to day;  what is MY motivation for membership – being able to rely on – certain things are going to be done and handled – what is the motivation for people to take responsibility – in Rogers mind, OCP being here is enough of a reason to plug in – if he works it keeps going, if no one works, it doesn’t keep going;  do there have to be other benefits;  some people here get paid US currency to be here – what are some other things that motivate people;  are we always going to have community meetings where things get lost
• Philip:  we do want to have something so that we can agree on rules and what is right to do
• Jonathan:  thinks we should vote on the membership proposal and looks forward to the future where the membership can make decisions about staffing 
• Mike:  the founder is no longer getting cussed out – perhaps we are moving from a sort of old testament to a sort of new testament – maybe this is the process that we are going through – AA went through a similar process;  tried to twinkle in support of Philip’s idea – something is an important issue, but it is too detailed and we could create a smaller group to look at certain issues or topics;  maybe a smaller group could look at some of the details under “membership”
• Ron:  wanted to make the recommendation that preparing lunch is an issue – we don’t have the input from some of our most hard-working people – not sure how to fix this problem, but does seem like a problem;  not sure about the think-tank going away – what about a session where groups break up during this time and then report back at the end of the meeting;  what might some of the aspects of membership look like;
• Ron wonders about letting the proposal sit until next week and then allow people to break out into smaller groups first before voting on this idea of membership
• Teig:  likes the idea of breaking up into groups for more concise conversation
• Ron:  thinks this idea would break things up and make it more fun
• Daneen:  wants to rephrase what Sadie has said about having this meeting after lunch so that lunch people can be involved
• Matthew:  agrees that right after lunch is not the best time either
• Daneen:  we have two dilemmas
• Jonathan:  doesn’t want to see us stay open an hour longer – close and then have the meeting
• Ron:  do we lose new people if we don’t stay open
• Matthew:  if we have membership meeting after 2, the ocp is still open to those involved; 
• Christina:  what about doing these meetings an hour earlier?
• Teig:  groups idea – each table could have a subject and then we move people from table to table
• Ron:  another way would be to focus on one topic at a time and have all tables deal with that and then discuss to the group and then switch topics; 
• We will all think about times that work better for the kitchen group to be involved

OCP Workshop 09/19/2012

• Ron:  reminds people of some of the rules of the game – try not to repeat, you can twinkle to agree, raise your hand to talk and we use a stack, we would like to have a time keeper and a vibe keeper
• Thursday night:  no decisions were made on Thursday night
• Last weeks discussion we touched on membership – one person made a point that we are maybe talking about two different topics – one the term, and two the concept – these could be two different discussions
• The topic is not “how do we want membership to look” but instead the topic is more like “should we have something called membership or something like a membership”;  currently we do have some pieces of something that might be a membership
• Someone else talked about setting up their house – would ask the person who lived at the house, not strangers on the street – maybe there is a reason to create some sort of group on the inside that cares about ocp
• The phrase – “Friends of OCP” – came out of the discussion as a possible name for this group
• We will continue  discussion on membership
• Membership discussion continued:
• Jonathan:  Two people at the last meeting talked about not wanting a membership
• Sigi:  would like to see today’s discussion be put out to the public – we do put it on the blog
• Matt:  would this place lose something that is what OCP is really about if we had a membership – not that he didn’t want it
• Daniel:  are members people who are allowed to vote?
• Jonathan:  wants to see a membership but always hold onto the OCP anyone is welcome idea
• Ron:  expectations and benefits for members – if it is all expectations then what is the benefit of membership – maybe it is enough that we have a community center – teams is an idea that comes up a lot for ron – members would be on some team;  teams might be:  entertainment, kitchen, maintenance, tidy/décor, etc;  Ron visited Sisters of the Road – they had a large number of staff – the community wasn’t really involved – Ron will talked to the group of the Sisters of the Road – staff gets paid a lot and is not really a part of the community;  years ago it was staffed by people from the community – people in the community came up with this idea;  would like to see what we can do about running a community center WITH the community – we probably always need staff, but can we have a community run community center with a skeleton of the staff
• Heather:  wants Philip to add things to the conversation
• Daniel:  if membership is only something that means people in these meetings can vote then we already have a membership and we debating the term
• Daneen:  loves the community here, doesn’t want the community to be upset – we have rules and things to follow in the building – related to housekeeping – people seem to be smoking wherever they want right now
• Matt:  agrees with Daniel – what this place is about – has really been thinking about the idea of membership – likes the term “Friends  of OCP” better than the term membership
• Sigi:  the benefits that people have include responsibility –
• Ron:  having a say in meetings and having a say in structure might be enough of a benefit;  since we do have these meetings, someone could make a proposal at any time – like members need to be on teams – then we have discussion and it passes or doesn’t pass;  at the beginning, we decided not to have people do a certain number of hours – because we couldn’t keep track of that;  
• Philip:  very interested in this conversation – not bored – twinkles a lot;  really wants to hear what the community thinks about the next steps of membership – if we do mandatory work hours;  
• Teig:  likes the idea of teams;  would like to brainstorm a list of teams – some of the necessary things;  would like to say that membership has its privileges – if you are working here more often then you should have some privileges
• Mike:  would like to see someone update us with philip’s twinkling, etc
• Ron:  seems like each piece of membership might be a big discussion so maybe the first deliverable should be to decide on a membership or not;  privileges is an important question – maybe lockers, laundry, computers, and showers could be part of the privileges – we could keep the threshold low enough so that anyone could be a member
• Jonathan:  proposes that we call this group:  “Friends of OCP”;  Kris seconds this proposal
• Daniel:  thinks the next step for this group might be to set the threshold a little higher; maybe there are various steps of membership; come to three meetings and you can vote; come to six meetings and you might get some other privilege
• Kris:  a benefit of being a member is being a part of this group that can help this community;  everyone who is a friend of ocp would help make this a safe place to be;
• Mike:  wonders if the name gets us to the question of do we want a membership or not;  is wondering about a minor adjustment to the proposal about whether or not we want a membership – was going to propose to have a membership system that encourages, coordinates, and benefits from the volunteer energy that makes OCP and the community at large a better place, that we now call it friends of ocp, the naming might change later, that we start with this group and this group can evolve over the process
• Matt:  thinks people are behind “Friends of OCP” and then talk about the concern of do we want a membership;  
• Mark:  we are talking about two separate things – we have a voting members and what we will call that group – the other topic is membership – Mark is thinking something completely different when we talk about membership;  we are spinning our wheels right now
• Ron:  we have a democratic process in this thing – which indicates we do have something like membership – we invented it and we come – then proposals can be made to alter the idea;  this is an organic group that can change over time;  intrigued by Mike’s idea of “WHY” we might want a membership – should this be part of the discussion in one of our deliverables;  would be in favor of amending the proposal but maybe we should just vote on this current proposal – then maybe talk about there reasons for this idea
• Sigi:  feels like 3 meetings might not be such a low threshold – would like to see us try things from today for 60 days
• Daniel:  would like us to solve one problem before moving onto another
• Philip:  likes Mike’s proposal and how specific it is;  no one is speaking against such an idea;  if people really don’t like the idea, Philip hasn’t heard that yet;
• Khaleel:  wonders about the difference between ocp workshops and the farm workshop;  
• Some talk about if you haven’t been to three meetings you can’t vote but you can be at the meetings
• 16 yes, 1 no, 1 abstain
• Teig:  voted no but is willing to block the decision – prefers the term membership – “Friends of OCP” is a bit wishy-washy;
• Anna:  started as staff recently – wants to congratulate the room for hearing people’s voices and that’s why it takes time sometimes;  this is the kind of community that Anna wants to be a part of;  really happy to be a staff person
• Sadie:  likes the idea of Friends of OCP because it sounds a lot more welcoming
• Ron:  would like us to talk about the purpose of the idea of “Friends of OCP” – Mike mentioned Mike’s comments about this group making ocp a better place that then makes the community a better place;  Mike is trying to clarify that we have not yet decided whether or not we actually want a membership or not;  
• Ron:  disagrees – we have something called “Friends of OCP” with a democratic process and working with the board to come up with non-negotiables;  
• Kris:  talks that there could be a group called “Friends of OCP” that vote on things but that maybe there is a different group that does things like teams, etc;
• Christina:  likes the name “Friends of OCP” – can we move on
• Mike:  none of the proposal addresses whether or not we want a membership – not sure where we stand on this;  we need to decide whether or not we want a membership
• Sigi:  since there is no membership – who decides when someone is removed from membership
• Ron:  maybe hears what Mike is saying – this is just some group that we came up with to decide various things – this group could give birth to a membership but maybe this isn’t actually the membership;  ron is for Mike’s idea or proposal, but the idea of the word membership can be dropped, but it seems clear that we have the mechanisms in place to decide things -  all of the things like teams, etc can come after this;  seems like too much right now to completely flush out the requirements of how to become a member that might come up over time;  
• Daniel:  once you come to three meetings you are a voting member – then this group is now called “Friends of OCP” –  agrees that we should let the idea of membership happen naturally and let that be the “Friends of OCP”;  
• Heather:  asks Mike not to talk so loud into the mic;  now that we are the “Friends of OCP” lets find different levels
• Mike:  jonathan’s proposal did not include the details of Mike’s comments about a sort of proposal – doesn’t want to take a leap for the sake of historians – with a slight modification, Mike’s idea could become a proposal;  proposes that we develop or originate a system of membership which encourages, coordinates, and benefits from the volunteer energy that makes OCP and the community at large a better place, that we now call it friends of ocp, the naming might change later, that we start with this group and this group can evolve over the process of these workshops; teig:  seconds
• Philip:  wonders if the group or the individuals are the “Friends of OCP”
• Ron:  concern about the proposal is that we don’t get nailed down on the purpose of this group – maybe we are developing a system of membership without the addition of what we will be doing – the volunteering bit
• Sadie:  can voting members block a proposal – thinks that it needs some more definition before we vote so we all know what we are voting on
• Mike:  concerns with Ron’s modification would confuse the proposal:  we originate a membership system, beginnings are OCP workshop called “Friends of OCP”, purposes and definition of membership system would be allowed to evolve over the course of the OCP workshops
• Daniel:  feels like Mike just wants clarification that we would be allowed to evolve into something more – this Friends of OCP;
• Ron:  thinks we can strip the proposal down or we could spend some time with the meat of the proposal to delve more into the purpose of this thing
• Ron:  there is a proposal on the floor and we will continue to talk about it next week and we will work on tweaking it a bit in order to make it more clear – then we could have a vote on it next week after we have more time to talk about purposes;  Ron would like to see us discuss more the part of the proposal about purpose
• Melissa:  there are good people here that help out everyday

OCP Workshop 09/12/2012

• Currently this is proposal on the floor:  Spend time talking at our meetings talking about membership, funding, and programming
• We did agree to spend the first 15 minutes talking about purposes, so we will start there
• Ron reviews some of the discussion about things that people here feel like we wouldn’t want changed
• Purposes:
• Mike:  agrees that if we continue on the deliverables, these will help us figure out what is missing from our purposes;  mike feels like nothing is really non-negotiable, we can talk about whatever we want and make decisions;
• Ron:  this idea doesn’t seem true, so we need some clarity
• Mike:  wants to get some clarity on what happens when a decision is made by this group;  has never felt that this group could change things without an approval process, but seems to have heard that as long as there is a staff person around, then it sounds like there would be some sort of proposal process up to someone
• Ron:  the board didn’t really have time at our last meeting to get a list of non-negotiables so the board asked the group to brainstorm a list to bring back to the board for review;  it is hard to have full clarity on such a topic quickly – it may just take time to come up with this list;  
• Jonathan:  if the group decided to spend the first 15 minutes on purposes why aren’t we doing that
• Matthew:  thought that we would come in and have a vote right away on the proposal
• Ron:  helps explain what happened to get us to the point of deciding to spend the first 15 minutes of each meeting talking about purposes
• Matthew:  thinks that this is part of what we are talking about – what is more important to talk about – lets figure out a plan to help us not get sidetracked
• Sadie:  agrees with Jonathan that if we decided to talk about purposes
• Ron:  feels like we shouldn’t talk about purposes at the beginning of each meeting because that kind of discussion seems like it might take a full 1 ½ with a very focused discussion
• Mike:  maybe sometime we could break up into groups to talk about things like purposes;  would agree with Ron that talking about purposes in small amounts of time might not be very productive;  
• Ron:  think we could go ahead and vote on this proposal on the floor and then move on with changes if we want it to say something else
• Proposal on the floor:  Spend time talking at each meeting about membership, funding, and programming
• Jonathan:  thought there was some group sense that this would be a decent idea, but not attached to the idea
• Ron:  likes the idea that we focus on one idea at a time instead of  having multiple topics;  seems like it could be too constraining and would like to see us have more flexibility
• Matthew:  thought that this was just the order that we would begin with and that we wouldn’t talk about each of these all in one day;
• Philip:  agrees with Ron that three different things might cause us to play catch-up at each meeting;  
• Mike:  supports Ron idea that we should focus on one thing at a time;  sees a lot of inter-related issues but still thinks we should talk about one at a time
• Kris:  remembers that there would be one main area of focus but that we would touch on some of the other topics
• In favor:  two; opposed:  ;  overwhelming voted down
• Where to go next:
• Mike would like to see us start with the idea of membership – maybe we can think of somethin44Mike would like to see us start with the idea of membership – maybe we can think of something else to call it but for now to talk about it
• Ron:  could the topic be to talk about the idea of membership
• Mike:  Proposes:  Open up a discussion of membership; seconded by Teig
• In favor:  14, Opposed:  0 – unanimously passed
• MEMBERSHIP
• Ron:  been talked about for years;  teig has said before that having a membership would make some people feel unwelcome;  there has been a lot of getting excited and then not feeling excited about it
• Mike:  wonders if it might help to break it into, 1. The term membership and 2. The concept of membership;  in terms of concept, how best can be harness the volunteer energy around OCP – in some ways this would mean rewarding those who participate;
• Jonathan:  would like to see us continue on this path without ever excluding anyone
• Teig:  sees a lot of problems;  giving some people power can be bad
• Heather:  agrees with Jonathan, people aren’t going to let power go to their heads – we have very little power compared to the staff and board;  who cares what the word “membership” sounds like to the rest of the world
• Matthew:  why try to make this more complicated, we have this, we have voters; what is the difference and what we are doing already;  if people want to be a part of this group, they can be;  there are new people here today
• Kris:  mentions “friendship” – who is a friend to ocp, acquaintances are still and always welcome;  we are kind of getting at who is a friend and who is an acquaintance;  if Kris is setting up a house, he would set up the house how the people in the house wanted, not go to the street and ask people out there\
• Sadie:  some people want to know why these meetings go around in circles
• Jonathan:  agrees with Matthew that we already have a “membership” but would like to see us get a better name
• Ron:  there is a term in the bylaws called “friends of ocp”;  the board would run things by the friends of ocp before making lots of decisions;  doesn’t appreciate the comments that someone made to Sadie about not getting anywhere – we have done a lot and we are doing good work and moving forward;  Ron pictures that someone would do some sort of hours per month, but maybe we don’t want to deal with this issue – maybe we don’t need to add much;  does want to support teig’s point because it is impossible to tell what any human beings will do with power – some people left alone at OCP for two minutes will take over the group and yell;  there may come a time when we might come up with something like, “you need to be a friend of ocp to be on the property”;  maybe the term “core volunteer” but we are more than that;  maybe there is some rule like in order to have the building open, there needs to be one staff person and two members;  ron also wonders if this “membership” means just coming to this meeting or supporting the ocp in rules, etc; circling up?;  some kind of pledge
• David:  wonders why he would want to to come to these workshops – we keep talking about the same things – if we vote some things, we don’t even follow these votes;  where will we be in a month or two
• Philip:  what is exciting about membership?;  others are here more than staff members;  how do we decide to let people back on the property who have been kicked off?;  how can we come up with more open times?;  
• Matthew:  worries that we come up with rules and requirements for membership, you might lose many of the people who are currently a part of the community
• Mark:  we are getting sidetracked by a word, and we don’t even know if we know if we are going to have a membership;  not all stockholders have as much stock as others;  just come on a Tuesday and see who is doing the work;  
• Peter:  being an “a” personality who pushes things forward; nothing wrong with talking things out
• Sadie:  the person who said that these meetings are just going around in circles has been at these meetings;  either we are going to call it a membership or we aren’t
• Teig:  what if one guy wants to light the woodstove, would a member be able to say no;  what about keys to the shed or pantry – an “a” class member might be able to ok this;  there may be different degrees – like the “core” membership;  what about “associate” – class a or class b associate;  the more you give, the more say you should have;  some people have to have more power than others in order to make these decisions
• Kris:  things have been getting done, we don’t need to rush;  we will see more things change as we move forward;  maybe we shouldn’t worry about the name so much right now;  would like to see this come about – so that there is a group outside of staff that can make decisions and help out;  lets have a discussion about what a member would be;
• Jonathan:  wants a membership that can make decisions about a staff, money, and programming
• Ron:  wonders what would happen when people in the seats here might get some power and help be involved;  other ways of governance might be options, but are they the best;  the little grill has been worker owed for almost 10 years;  the two concepts are that we have to be loving and welcoming – infuse into our persons – you don’t know what someone is going through; on the other side, people who plug in and participate – shouldn’t be abused by people who don’t participate and won’t plug in and won’t follow the rules;  we need to find a balance between these concepts
• Heather:  one thing that people are forgetting is that we need to have patience with these meetings;  nothing happens over night – you want it done, work at it;  if you want to complain and complain and complain, go somewhere else;  we are trying – there are some of us here that don’t get paid and come anyway;  shouldn’t a member be able to say something to people who aren’t doing anything;  if everyone in this room was a member, we have a right to say something to someone who is doing something wrong, people don’t listen, what is the point;  
• Matthew:  very opposed to this talk of membership;  what about everyone having a voice who comes in;  to sit here and have only a certain group of people – if the membership can have a special meeting and other people can’t attend, what is ocp
• Mike:  these are Mike’s concerns too – that we don’t need to classify people differently, but maybe there does need to be some sort of reward structure to keep ocp being something that we like;  in terms of facilitating the discussion, we could use a term like “friends of ocp” in order for the word not to get in the way;  we need to break things out
• Jonathan:  we could move on with what we have for membership and we can call it “friends of ocp”
• Mark:  feels like we have some concern about separating people but we haven’t even decided to have a membership or not;  if people want to be involved they can be;  
• Kris:  agrees with Mark, no one is going to be kept off the property
• Ron:  what can we do – people come to ron with idea after idea and then move away after four months – who will help make sure that things are sustainable – who will help enforce ideas and new concepts – we want anyone to be involved who wants to be involved – maybe “friends of ocp” people are on at least one team – maybe friends of ocp agree to try to volunteer some amount of time each month;  maybe we create a judiciary team to deal with issues that come up;  worries about the way these meetings are run – two black people think these meetings are stupid and there are a bunch of white people sitting around?;  maybe there are some cultural, race, or gender issues that cause some people to not want to be involved;  we can always improve here, but they people making decisions takes time
• Jonathan:  is interested in having this group called “friends of ocp”
• Ron:  we could break out into small groups and then report back

OCP Workshop 09/05/2012

•  Discussion on moving on from talking about purposes right away and instead going into some of the more tangible deliverables
• Maybe we set some amount of time that we spend on talking about purposes – so that discussions don’t go on and on forever
•  Kris:  lets spend some time but maybe set a clock to talk about purposes so we get a little of both
• Ron won’t be here next Thursday – Philip will lead the Thursday meeting
•  Purposes:
• Ron reviews some talk what people have said in the past
• What shouldn’t be changed about OCP
• Ron:  probably wont be drinking allowed in the building
• Mike:  OCP exists to serve the community and make it a better place – community means both the OCP community and the larger community
• Mark:  the OCP is serving the larger community if only by making the place more free from problems
• Matthew:  would like to keep the lawn jam, night outs, etc – current programming – this group couldn’t change these things
• Teig:  ultimate authority – cant dissolve the board or the organization
• Mike:  change community meals
• Matthew:  hours and days of being open – we could propose a plan, but this group can’t actually make this change
• Mike:  do a lot of our ideas come under the level of making proposals to the board
• Ron:  maybe we could make changing about a smoking policy but maybe never in the building
• Mike:  the difference between changing the smoking policy and changing the open hours – maybe things that have a large effect on resources come as a proposal
• Matthew:  sleeping on the property
• Jonathan:  wants to make sure this group feels empowered and has the ability to make some changes
• Ron:  no activity on the grounds that is unsupervised without someone who is “allowed” to supervise around;  resources/staff
•  Mike:  thinks we can come up with which deliverable we want to move on – hours and access is pressing on people, membership is pressing, and behavior might be something that could wait, programming and funding might be the last two things we need to get to 
• Ron:  would disagree that hours would be first because we are going to need to have staff around and we don’t have the resources;  Ron likes the idea of funding coming early – this could be part of our programming – sisters of the road, products, theater;  membership seems important too so that the membership can start volunteering and make things happen; 
• Matt:  agrees with Mike’s ranking a bit more right now;  adding another program might cause more stress
• Jonathan:  behavior, governance, funding
• Ron:  keeps coming back to membership – part of this might be creating the teams that we are all a part of;  remembering about the place in Charlottesville – the Haven – before lunch it is open to the public but after lunch it is closed to the public only for the membership;  membership could be a long discussion
• Kris:  membership, funding, programming would be his three  - membership will work around the hours, funding will fund the ideas
• Heather:  membership, funding, programming – once we get membership down other things can fall into place; 
• Mike:  likes the beauty and explanation of Kris’ thoughts on the order;  once we have funding in place, there can be whatever programming we want
• Matthew:  meals schedule could be discussed in membership – but we aren’t ready to discuss that without talking more about what this place is about – we don’t quite know what this place is about – this puts “purpose” back first
• Mark:  agrees with Matt
• Matthew:  purpose, membership, behavior
• Ron:  likes the direction and explanation of Kris’ idea;  we have purposes and they are pretty good but we could go right into membership
• Kris:  there is an outline of a purpose – we could make this somewhat simplistic for now and know that we will get back to it – Christian based organization that is helping the community – it can be simple now and we can continue to work on it
• Matthew:  if Kris’ purpose is going to be true, we are going to develop membership based on this idea and then you need to be a member to be here – seems rough
• Mike:  supports Matt’s concern and has major concerns about the term membership – we are talking about organizing and coordinating the energy (volunteer) around here;  there is an importance to establishing purpose – we are going to address it as we go along but maybe we never get to the meat if we we focus too strongly
• Ron:  wants to remind us of the idea of how OCP has felt to people on their first time here – part of a community right away without a membership – maybe this group that is developing is just expanding and this group is just coming up with more organization;  can’t imagine a membership card but can imagine a time when the ocp isn’t open to the public
• Matt:  feels like we are spending a lot of time on this and maybe we should make a proposal
• Kris:  agrees with Ron that everyone would still be welcome here 
• Philip:  likes Mike Farrands recap of the idea of membership – a way to make their support practical;  we have been wanting to make this shift for a long time
• Jonathan:  likes the words leadership group and community driven
• Christina:  likes the leadership group idea – everyone would still be welcome
• Mike:  likes an alternate term to “membership”;  cant get a good one – there is enough problem with the term membership that maybe we want to change the category name;  once this “leadership” idea is figured out, it can drive a lot of these other things
• Matthew:  slightly worried about how much time we might spend on membership compared to other topics
• Ron:  these topics may just take time – the collective took nine months with 3/hr per week meetings;  it may just take a couple of months to establish who makes decisions;  ron remembers that the deliverable about membership was “are we going to do it or not; we might decide we don’t want to do membership and we move right on;  if we had a judicial board, the board would be made of members – there may not need to be all of the staff members on this board – such an idea would come out of membership
• Jonathan:  we could be the “ocp community collective”;  we could create an agenda with time for various topics
• Matthew:  membership thing is already happening – what more are we looking for with this topic – once a person comes to three meetings;  what more are we looking to talk about?
• Ron:  sees people in the group that do plug in and help with ocp – defining this a little more would be the conversation around the “m” word;  this group might be asked to take on various responsibilities – this group might have some privleges and this group might also agree on upholding a certain way of being for the community;  maybe membership, funding, and programming would be an order to move forward with
• Jazmine:  is hearing that we don’t want to use the word membership – what does it mean to be a member?;  suggests the idea of a team to work on some of these topics that could bring things back to the larger group;  would like to see us learn some policy as we go; 
• Ron:  we are trying to figure out whether or not
• Jonathan:  proposes that we spend next meeting talking about membership, funding, programming with time spent on each topic; jai seconds
• Mike:  is interested in changing the proposal to focus on spending all of our time on membership
• Matt:  can we come in next week and decide which option to go with at the beginning of our next meeting;
• Sadie:  what if someone in this group decides that they do not want to be a part of this
• Ron:  a little sheepish on this proposal;  ideas will come up – maybe we do need to pick one so that we can see where that leads us;
• Mike:  what about Matt’s discussion of putting the vote off
• We will end the meeting and this proposal will come up at the beginning of our next meeting
• Kris:  likes the idea of having some smaller topics to talk about along with a larger topic which might be “membership”