firstly, i think this is an EXCELLENT thread. i can kinda / sorta see where each of you is coming from in your opinions. my primary observation is this is a conversation that needs to be continued in a "policy / philosophy" context rather than a GA next obstacle in front of us context.
i will give a caveat that i have only read the posts once, though thoroughly, and will revisit them. some things did stick in my mind. in no particular order:
psychojediboy - i believe it was you who said "The most basic tenet of democracy is that all people have an equal voice and no one is more or less valuable than another." i whole heartedly agree. in regards to the progressive stack, having each say his piece before one gets seconds only makes sense. isn't that what you would do at the dinner table?
as to different demographics being "preferred" in the stack (ie an economically depressed, specific social group) and getting more weight to their ability to comment, i must honestly say i have a problem with that. i will also freely admit that i don't have a complete comprehension of the "progressive" stack.
one possible solution to any of this ambiguity, especially the individual having their say, would satisfy the short term and benefit the long term. we have established the mission critical working groups. although all of us would admit it has been overwhelming, the next phase needs to be considered. i could see working groups on a myriad of issues: basic human rights being one, subsets of women and or people of color to throw out a couple important ones; i would like to see specific lines of corruption developed for individual sectors of finance and industry. i could go on for days.
bottom line is we are moving to fast now to get consensus on a lot of important things, which in a perfect world would be discussed and resolved before presenting them to the world. no one is to be excluded. however, the group as a whole needs to develop enough trust to give some degree of autonomy to different elements (tech especially. who the hell knows what they're talking about anyway
so, my big idea? a "blind" stack. each working group would have x amount of time to deliver a report. ask for dissent. if dissent, ask dissenter to get with the working group, get clear on the issue, move on with the agenda. when it came time for the "blind" stack, pass some shoe boxes around the crowd with random letters / numbers. let it be known that if you don't have anything to say, pass your number to the person nearest you with their hand up. it's a rough idea. one concrete plus is this would make the facilitator's call on speakers absolutely transparent.
as to some concrete, it is happening now reality. psychojediboy's comment "The most basic tenet of democracy is that all people have an equal voice and no one is more or less valuable than another." was used as the ammunition of choice in several scathing reports out of atlanta last sunday.
i won't bore you with the details, but you might have heard about congressman lewis being "dissed" by the atlanta occupation. fox spun this as hard as they could, using exactly psycho.... words. alternative media reported that the congressman, being a veteran of sncc, completely understood what was going on and respected the group / process.
i am firmly convinced that some, though not all, of the media is seeking any crevice in our foundation which they can expand to a fracture. do not be fooled. everything we do is being dissected by all sorts of pundits around the world. the "1%" is not only becoming aware of the pending tidal wave, they are becoming afraid. glenn beck recently announced to bankers, the wealthy, the main stream media "they will drag you out of your houses, into the streets, and kill you" repeatedly in a broadcast. we have skin in this game now. we are up against the best in the business of spin, slander, and manipulation. we must stand united.
sorry. my two cents.