OCP Workshop 10/31/2012

• Ron:  starting today with requirements for membership – three categories – how to become a member, how to stay a member, and how to know when someone is no longer a member
• Teig:  wonders if someone might be able to do 3 (or some number) requirements for membership
•  Mike:  regarding spirit – someone who gets up when a food donation arrives, optimism vs dragging people down, positive attitude
• Jonathan:  doesn’t like the idea that spirit should be required of members
•  Matt:  doesn’t think the project should be a requirement
• Ron:  doesn’t like the idea of spirit being a requirement because it is not quantifiable
• Teig:  wonders about non-spirit – someone who engages in behavior that is annoying or often causing problems

• Mike: trial period – not really in this list, but sort of a reference to it;  can we identify keepers and put things in broader categories
• Heather:  would like to see us talk about behavior and volunteering
• Matt:  wonders if volunteer hours is a requirement in any other way at ocp
• Mike:  doesn’t think we have this requirement anywhere else right now
• Trista:  worried about coming up with a project – some clarification about maybe just participating in a project
• Anna:  likes the idea that someone has to volunteer but also has to participate in the day to day or ins and out

• Matt:  sees people work on conflict mediation everyday
• Ron:  clarifies that if someone is in a big conflict, a member would be required to participate in mediation of some sort
• Mike:  members would learn better how to do mediation
• Cat:  wonders if there is a penalty for not following the requirements of membership – what about some short probationary period
• Daneen:  sometimes people tell daneen what to do at OCP, and maybe members need to pay attention to this with people – not being bossy
• Mike:  some of the items might get more discussion as we categorize
• Mark:  worries about team participation not working because there is a small core that helps and people can only be stretched so thin and there will only be a group that volunteers that already volunteers
• Anna:  doesn’t want to create more barriers than already necessary for membership – a person could volunteer a lot and not get on a team;  why would it be mandatory to be on one if there are other ways to volunteer
• Jonathan:  worries about leadership with teams
• Ron:  was going to speak in favor of teams but worries that we have never been successful with teams and maybe we should start with what we have successfully
• Mike:  if we could go back to the idea of having members be on teams if we eventually had them, membership should ideally create some leadership – membership is a way to participate and a way to see participation;  team leaders are going to be helping keep track of who is doing their hours and who may be on the way out; 
• Anna:  very pro-team idea – maybe just shouldn’t be a requirement to be on one to be a member
• Zach:  we should have a team about matt not speaking when he isn’t on the stack
• Mark:  if we have a code of behavior, why do we need a workshop;
• Mike:  mark is a very practical person;  even if we have a code of behavior, we still might need a workshop to help teach us how to follow this code of behavior
• Ron:  cooperative behavior workshop is a very specific topic – there are power plays that will manifest in a group,;  conflict is inevitable in a group and we can find a positive way to move forward instead of letting conflict destroy us;  it is sort of like a life skills thing;  maybe down the road we have leadership classes;  thinks it would be cool to require but not tied to it
• Heather:  code of behavior is like putting heather, mark, and khaleel in the same room;  all have different personalities – we have to learn to accommodate each other and co-exist;  maybe that is why we do need this
• Matthew:  there are some really big topics – maybe we can come back to the other topics later – focus on the ones that we have agreement on; 
• Ron:  the ones with a lot of people in opposition, we should probably set those aside
• Mark:  cooperative behavior workshop – there is a leader conducting a workshop – whose ideas are being put out – what if we don’t agree with the information
• Mike:  there are various types of behaviors that members will be expected to follow;  understands where mark is coming from
• Kris:  so many people against spirit – would really like to speak in favor of this idea
• Ron:  also understands mark’s concerns, maybe ron could do some workshops in the future to see what people think and if the group really likes them, we could make them a requirement
• Mike:  the topics that had opposition could fit under other categories; 
• Anna:  feels like people exhibiting cooperative behavior is the most important, and people going to the workshop every week for ever might never get it;  likes the presumption of coorperative behavior
• Ron:  we are letting team participation and cooperative behavior workshop go as main requirements for membership;  we will also let spirit go; maybe we can let the idea of projects go as well
• Ron:  hopes that we are always a group – a dynamic democracy – that ideas can get to an agenda and be dealt with
• Zach:  meeting attendance – if over a years time, someone comes to a meeting but never really has anything to add – is there some requirement to give some input
• Ron:  zach’s idea can be part of a discussion as we get to talking more deeply about each of these topics
• Ron:  participation – seems like we already having a requirement to volunteer – if someone doesn’t want to participate in other ways, that seems like someone’s right;  we shouldn’t require
• Anna:  is now against participation
• Heather:  in a way, this should be free will on certain things, but
• Jonathan:  thinks we can get to it under maybe the topic of behavior – code of behavior
• Mark:  has been here for a while, volunteer staff on Monday, doesn’t feel like he is missing out on anything
• Ron:  things people are hearing are coming from Ron or Philip, and new people should probably know some of the information;  might not matter whether Mark has ever been to one, but could have been helpful – being around a long time, people do pick stuff up, but could be good for people to get
• Mike:  this is good training for how to be a member here – something for new people to get
• Mark:  if this is such a good idea, why has Mark never been required to be at one; 
• Ron:  could we change the term to something like “New Member Workshop”;  doesn’t seem to be healthy to ignore history;  there is no indoctrination-free zone – we are always getting information – to explain what this place is about seems important for new people coming in;  would like to see us create a “New Member Workshop” to be developed by the membership
• Anna:  very for us having volunteer hour requirements for membership;  what about people coming in to do volunteer work for a class or court or some other requirement
• Philip:  has hope that things in the future
• Ron:  wonders about Mark’s feeling about a new member orientation that we could develop    

 

• Categories for membership:

•  Volunteer hours – all in favor
• Team participation – a few people against this idea
• Cooperative behavior workshop – one person doesn’t agree with this
• Trial period – no one against this
• Code of Behavior – all in favor of this
• Spirit – six people seem not into this idea
• Projects – looks like 5 ½ people oppose
• Meeting attendance requirement – no one opposed
• Participation – 2 people seem opposed
• Attending a volunteer orientation/ocp history – 2 people against
• Mediation/honesty work/conflict resolution – all in favor
• Sponsorship/Mentor – 4 people not in favor