New Beginnings: re-Membering TAC
It's been 7 months since we were all together in one room. Remember convincing ourselves that our experimentation of collaborative processes could continue long distance? Well, it's official, blog friend just doesn't bring the cheese to the meeting.
We have been discussing new members for tac for AGES, and before we all wither up and die under the greying light of our PC screens, action needs to make it happen.
Welli has plans afoot and has already found ourselves stumbling into uncharted collaborative territory. We need a collective plan for negotiating the borders between autonomy and unity without the need for an international diplomacy manual.
In the absence of any experts, tac once again turns to its members for their sage and silly contributions towards a renewal of localised collaborative projects.
How do we allow new tac regional groups to make their own decisions without loosing the sense of what brought us together in the first place? What components of our current processes should continue and what should change to allow for new beginnings?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I reckon we should blog individual meeting comments maybe under regional name postings? So then people in other areas can still keep up with what's going on.
Personally I also think we are maybe worrying a bit too much about keeping things the same as they have been. I reckon as long as there is no hierarchy and we keep using consensus, those are the main things that matter. The idiosyncracies of our group have come about because of our personalities rather than any 'policy' or particular way of doing things ( as I see it; feel free to disagree!)
I think in getting new members the group / s will naturally evolve and change, and that has to be seen as a good and positive things rather than trying to hold on to how things were before. If we try to do that then we will necessarily create a hierarchy of people who were there in the first place and people who weren't. And that's not what we want! In terms of talking about how we have done things, I think just talk about what we have done and show our own evaluations of those projects.
The group is not a fixed thing, as the discussions show; if we were more fixed in what we are or what we do, then decisions would be much easier because we would have 'policy' to check things against. But we don't, we have people's opinions, so with new people, the framework will change.
I think each group has to be able to make it's own decisions, and if splinter groups want to comment on stuff going on cool, but decisions have to be able to made quickly adn easily. The best decision making happens in face to face meetings, and we have demonstrated that the blog just doesn't do the same job.
To be honest, the group has changed for me from something I found really exciting and challenging, to being just on the blog it feels like lots of administrative tasks, and working out how things should work. I check it at work and it feels like work! For my interest to stay up and happening, it is crucial that we get back to real people and real projects.
I also have a sense and this may be because of the blog as well or just not having a hot current project to drive us, that we are becoming kind of self referential; like just thinking about what we are doing and how we are doing it. I strongly feel that the way we learn about collaboration is either by doing it, like doing something, making a project happen, or working with other people to do that. And then we need to analyze that process very swiftly after it happens; the debrief on CAMRU has taken us all so long to get round to that by now lots of the learning will have been lost.
I reckon we maybe need to rethink what we want to be doing and why we are doing it; do we want to do projects ourselves which are collaborative and analyze how they work, or do we want to trial different methods of collaborating, or do we want to facilitate collaborations with other people and then get feedback on what worked or didn't? To me the things I am interested in are the practicalities of how to make things sucessful and work well. And to look at how you actually do it; different ways of making art collaboratively maybe? Who does what?!
Sorry for the rant; it's long and windy but hope it has some useful stuff to start some conversations!
Sian
Hi,
Some stuff from me:
- TAC definitely needs new members in order to re-energise, start new projects, and further develop our exploration of collaborative processes.
- I don't think however that we should see the past months as a failure, but more as an exercise and one which has revealed some interesting stuff about TAC, collaboration, geographical distance, and technology.
- Am continue commence testing the feeling on the ground for a Christchurch-based TAC, in keeping with the discussions we had at the last meeting. In practical matters, as I'm not going to be in Christchurch for too much longer (6 more months?) and I will need to gauge the energy levels, potential projects to see whether this will be a worthwhile idea.
- I think that this blog should become a central tool in order to have different TAC groups up to date with activites, by decision making processes will be made autonomously within each group.
- If TAC in Christchurch doesn't take off, then I would still like to be involved as much in Wellington as possible :) In whatever capacity I can from far away.
great thoughts Sian and tom.
makes me remember what a great bunch of women i get to work with on this project. will post some thoguths too.
Yeah, great comments. I am really in agreement with the simplicity of maintaining the consensus and no hierarchy and letting it go from there.
It'd be wonderful for every new project to work like a new start. New people to work with is the best thing to reset old patterns.
The angle I am coming from is one of inclusion. I thought this would be an important discussion to have because those of us in places where there aren't people to collaborate with might feel cut off, left out, restructured.
But I am happy to be wrong. Very happy. And I realise that if people want to be involved then they are the ones that will find a way to be involved. And that is way better than someone else doing it for them.
And so that makes it simple again. And thats good.
I was trying to engage everyone in the process of a consensus discussion here - in commitment to the principle of everyone bringing their views to the table, because I want to make sure that this decision is consensus.
But.
What can we do if not everyone is present to bring their views to the table? Well, thats how we ended up here in the first place.
So, I will be really happy when we can get on with things. Yay for that.
Hello all,
Yep, I agree that blogging really doesn't cut the mustard... and I'm definitely looking forward to catching up with Welli folk face to face soon! And new members for this core sounds like a good idea - we have always talked about a level of 'porousness' to the group when it seemed appropriate.
But I think one of the main contributing factors to our communication difficulties is not having a clear task or project - we are all such busy people that without defined necessary outcomes, we perhaps lose focus.
Also I think it is a common result/ problem for groups without a definite structure or hierarchy that we naturally all feel less responsible... there must be ways to structure ourselves that share the responsibilities around? A month each of driving things/ caretaking communication? Hey, maybe we should have an AGM?
Anyhow, I'm afraid I'm not sure what we are trying to reach consensus on here so just really saying I'm back...
Thanks,
M
Welcome back Melanie Oliver!
I like your suggestion for distributing the caretaking between members, it sounds very pragmatic and functional.
We did something similar in the last meeting we had where the agenda items were divided amongst those present (this is mine). Paula , Sian and Tom should be communicating on theirs soon.
The core of this discussion is about the proposal to make decision making autonomous within each tac 'regional' group.
That would mean that projects initiated by the groups could be carried out (face to face) without the requirement for consensus to be made amongst the wider association (the process which we all agree isn't working on this blog format).
How do you feel about that?
ok, i just re-read your comment mel. so you are suggesting that we should have a AGM to talk about this stuff? That you think we are better to work on our communication procesess before changing our decision making ones?
Also: tasks and projects currently on the go:
*Wellington Tac, under the initiative of Sian, has put in a proposal to get tac posters made and distributed
*Andie has presented documentation of tac and camru as part of a project in Melbourne and proposed a collaborative writing project
*Tom is spearheading a revival of the clubs project
*Paula is caretaking an initiative to rescript our association manifesto, post prospect, for inclusion in a new members pack
Hello!
wow I dont know how I missed this post- i've been checking the blog fairly recently but had no idea that all these comments had been made out in the depths of blogland...
i just wanted to say that i agree with all of the regional tac business. It sounds like a great plan, i've got a feeling the wellington tac core might be the ones to lead the way on this one. Maybe it just feels harder to start up a collaborative group on your own. I agree with what has been said - that we're all busy people - and like Tom I'm not sure how long I'll be in Melbourne...although at least another year I'm sure.
At the same time - I'm not sure that I have the motivation/energy right now to start up a Melbourne TAC. Is it going to be possible to keep in the loop with what's going on in regional TAC groups through this blog? Will we stop using this blog altogether? If so can we keep its dignity? can we somehow lock it to prevent it from being spammed? This feels awfully morbid to write, I know I'm jumping way ahead but I guess this is something we should agree on before it happens?
hi all,
my favorite opinions above to agree to are sian's. words right outta my own mouth.
yes new members!
i agree that we should take on new members and rely on face to face communication more.
independence
lets get energized. lets make projects, lets have independence in each regional group. We have a strong, straight forward idea of what we are trying to do. It is pretty straight forward. Test out collaboration. lets allow each group to recruit how they see fit, while ensuring that consensus decision making and flat power structures are maintained.
The diaspora
as discussed in meeting (17 sept), new projects must be mooted, must get going.
it seems like people who have moved away from Wellington generally still want to be involved, but are also commenting on the problematics of blog and other non-direct communication.
I see this as a double bind.
to be frank, Wellington TAC had been kinda held up by distant members. We only had two meetings, september one included, because it felt like we could not do projects or meet to discuss ideas without all being present. To actually get a project going, we have had be more independent.
I think having a diaspora working group do every project as a whole is practically impossible and will lead to un-level structures, where some people become ‘thinkers’ and others ‘thinkers and doers’.
i suggest that diaspora members contribute to a discussion on how projects can be communicated, rather than purely critiqing current forms.
The current situation has caused us to become a centralised system (around wellington) with some remote mebers feeling that their input is token, or addenum. I feel this is antithetical to a collaboration.
I am gonna start putting up the minutes for ‘new members pack’ or 'orientation kit' soon.
It was great during the last meeting how different members took charge of certain go-do-it tasks. Sian did funding application, liz is making sure new members get debated, while i manage the orientation kit. can't remember what tom is doing - sorry tom!
i agree with tom, that their are positive learning experiences to come out of the last few months.
and she said "I think that this blog should become a central tool in order to have different TAC groups up to date with activites, by decision making processes will be made autonomously within each group." which i also agree with.
i think mel has got a great point here "Also I think it is a common result/ problem for groups without a definite structure or hierarchy that we naturally all feel less responsible... there must be ways to structure ourselves that share the responsibilities around? A month each of driving things/ caretaking communication? Hey, maybe we should have an AGM?" but i have to say, i do not feel less responsible, just less able to do stuff.
and i know liz had ben reading about groups that have ways of ensuring admin tasks are dispersed. maybe i should ask her to post those readings.
i like working with you all. we need a positive go forward strategy.
Brief Summary:
Wellington needs more independence to develop local projects in a way that is easier and more rewarding.
Diaspora members don't have enough energy and/or longevity in their current locations to develop their own local collaborative projects.
Diaspora members still want to continue contributing to "testing collaborative structures and processes" from your locations.
What ways can diaspora members think of to continue "testing collaborative structures and processes" across distance?
CONSENSUS:
YES: new members.
YES: Wellington group independence (M.Oliver: "sure Wellington should be independent". Tac email communication, October 10.)
CONTINUE: Processes of consensus within groups, no hierachy, use open call process for new members.
SPIN OFF CONVERSATIONS: Diaspora to talk over how to maintain rewarding involvement from distance (new topic, new post needed).
Post a Comment