How democratic was the decision to reduce General Assemblies at Occupy Melbourne?

I think the decision itself was reasonable as one GA had already been cancelled due to insufficient numbers and there is likely to be an ongoing decline at least while we continue to accurately introduce each GA as being part of a process that is frustrating and time consuming. When we start to get our act together and can have functional and well attended GAs it will be easy enough to increase the frequency again.

On the other hand, from my close observations, the situation in the facilitation WG is far worse than Davey imagines. The dominant conception is EXPLICITLY anti-democratic.

After 50 people turned up in response to a promise to review their process, they have had a series of meetings aimed at avoiding any recognition that the GA itself rather than its moderator or facilitators has the sovereign authority to decide how to conduct its own business. Nearly all the new people who turned up have given up and stopped intruding on the meetings so they are settling down into establishing some mechanism for a "safer space" in which they will not be subject to "aggressive behaviour" such as for example telling them that their anti-democratic "process" will not be tolerated at future meetings.

At the meeting of 50 the proposal that GAs are "sovereign" was first put on the whiteboard as "be more flexible" and when that was objected to as not reflecting sovereignty, it was changed to "consultation". They simply do not "get" the concept of a meeting deciding for itself how to resolve procedural issues with a quick simple majority vote rather than being "facilitated" by trained experts.

This is not something accidental. What they actually MEAN when they say "consensus" is that unlike standard meeting procedure there should be NO mechanism by which a majority vote of the meeting can overide the facilitators as to how the meeting should be conducted. Standard meeting procedure would, from their point of view, be "mob rule". (That expression was actually used).

What they actually MEAN when they say non-hierarchical is that the "moderator" should play a far more important role than the chair of a standard public meeting. Instead of being a neutral umpire presiding over speakers for and against proposals, the moderator, together with the team of facilitators, is INTENDED to be proactively central to a process of forming some sort of "collective will", (ie group think). That is why such a large proportion of meeting time is spent listening to the moderator or waiting as spectators while the moderator consults with facilitators. The rest of us being an audience is what they MEAN by non-hierarchical.

Thus it is INTENTIONAL that they never simply ask impartially for "those in favour" and "those against" but always ask instead whether we have consensus or whether anyone is "strongly against" or "dissents". It may be unintentional when they sometimes announce whether or not there is a consensus without having asked for speakers or even whether anyone is against. But it definitely WAS intentional at the RMIT meeting when the chair announced that the facilitators had decided the only possible consensus was to split with those wanting to stay at RMIT staying and those wanting to leave leaving, a few minutes after the meeting had UNANIMOUSLY rejected that proposal from the moderator. Those responsible for that sincerely believe that it is appropriate for the facilitators to put forward "solutions" for "consensus" through the "moderator" despite not actually PAYING ATTENTION to the discussion at the meeting and despite the UTTER ABSURDITY of describing a split as achievement of consensus.

When they say that consensus ensures all voices can be heard they MEAN that unlike standard meeting procedure where the chair is supposed to call speakers on each side on a first come first served basis, the facilitators SHOULD actively "filter" speakers by asking people who want to speak to first explain to them what they want to say.

I have heard references to "the audience" (quickly corrected) and "we value your input" (said quite unself-consciously in EXACTLY the usual manner of corporate speak).

I wouldn't call it "power hungry". It seems to be based on some sincere belief that this "guided democracy" approach is best for the movement as it avoids conflict (by substituting frustration and time-wasting). I get the impression they are genuinely puzzled and somewhat outraged that people end up shouting at them after they have explained the "process" and repeatedly, patiently and politely asked people to comply with their anti-democratic process.

My impression is that they have never actually experienced a democratic mass meeting and are only familiar with the sorts of "facilitated" meetings held in NGOs etc. Perhaps they usually deal with "clients" rather than equals.

There will be another facilitators WG meeting at 11am this Saturday to draft a "mandate" to present to the GA at 4pm. I strongly urge everybody concerned to turn up and keep coming back instead of just accepting that there is no way to fix the problem.

Also lets get together immediately after the facilitation WG and develop some alternative proposals to present to the 4pm GA instead of giving them any mandate at all.

The idea that Occupy Melbourne is democratic at all is a simple furphy.

Democracy requires certain things. By it's nature, it requires good faith. It also requires fair representation.

Since Occupy Melbourne moved to Treasury Gardens it has become a small group of committed activists, rather than a broad based group reflecting the aspirations of many.

If a group appoints itself, if any group appoints itself, then it is hardly representative. This is the nature of the beast. If you have one or two thousand people at a general assembly then you have some authority to say "this is a representative sample of opinion." But when you don't have this, when you have the few, then you have ceased being a representative sample.

Occupy Melbourne is being marginalised. The one time I was at a general assembly I was shooed and bullied away. This was the 8th general Assembly, held on the Tuesday after our eviction from City Square. I oughtn't to say it is my only general assembly, because I was also present throughout Friday and Saturday the 21st and 22nd.

The moment we were forcefully evicted from City Square we became directionless. The fact that we occupied the streets of Melbourne on Black Friday was not so much intent, as a failure of options. We had no fall back position.

Being present in the heart of the city, being visible to people as they walked by, engaging with people who are not themselves activists or radicals, but who are simple men and women who desire something more from their government, their society, was what focused media and public attention on us. Since that eviction we have lost momentum. We have been forced to a place where we are not visible and cannot erect structures or tents. We no longer get one or two thousand people to general assemblies.

The organisational structure is not what it ought to be. When I walked back home on Saturday the 22nd a person walking in my direction engaged in conversation with me. He is a worker who wants to be involved in some way, without necessarily having the time or availability to be there for occupation, working groups etc.

On Indymedia I have seen the Draft declaration for Occupy Melbourne. It disdains organisational structures. But not all organisational structures are bad. Representative democracy requires structure of some sort, otherwise self-elected activists direct the group, rather than it being organic and representative.

The Occupy Melbourne website ought to be a place for information and activity. Whoever is running that site is failing to inform and engage. NOT ONE PHOTO OF THE EVICTION HAS BEEN PUBLISHED. I don't understand that. That site ought to be colourful and informative. Most general assembly minutes have not been posted. When you email contacts there they do not reply. When you post comments they do not get published. And THERE IS A LACK OF INFORMATION. If you want to engage broadly with the public then use the media available to you, and don't despair over a lack of interest if you have failed to engage the public. The Internet is now a platform of engagement. But it is not being properly exploited. The other types of informational tools we have is an sms system. Most people today have a mobile phone. If we were actively engaged in a database of names and numbers we could contact people at a moments notice when there is something important happening, such as the eviction on the 21st. These are only two ideas. But these ideas require a level of organisation, a structural base for change. If no-one is "in charge," then no-one takes responsibility. Organisation is not an evil.

I have said elsewhere that we ought to have a platform of policies we endorse. One of these has already been endorsed, a treaty with indigenous Australia. But if we disdain at parliamentary democracy, then how can we have policies to improve that democracy? This country needs proportional representation, and we should be demanding that form of democratic representation alongside a treaty for the first Australians. Each of these things is necessary. With proportional representation never again would this society be governed by one party. There would be twenty green members on the floor of Parliament. Don't disdain at democratic institutions. Rather get them to work for us, the people, and not just the people of Occupy Melbourne, but of the 99%.

We need policies on Social Justice and Egalitarianism. These are no brainers. We need a super profits tax, the abolishment of negative gearing, the establishment of death duties. These types of things provide for a more equal society.

Where are our policies? Why aren't we representing sound policies on social justice and a more equitable society? Those are the types of things that erode the power of the 1%, along with proportional representation. If you can't convince the general public about what you believe in, then you have no right to claim that you represent them. This means engagement. It means getting the Occupy Melbourne website working. It means getting back the media's attention, with specific aims.

I could write on and on, to no purpose. The reason I have not been to more general assemblies is because I do not believe in the democratic processes there. When someone tells me to move on and shut up, like the police, then I lose faith in the process. Sorry if I don't always play by your rules. But if you want it organic and authentic, sometimes you have to accept that not everyone is a sheep.

The idea that Occupy Melbourne is democratic at all is a simple furphy.

Democracy requires certain things. By it's nature, it requires good faith. It also requires fair representation.

Since Occupy Melbourne moved to Treasury Gardens it has become a small group of committed activists, rather than a broad based group reflecting the aspirations of many.

If a group appoints itself, if any group appoints itself, then it is hardly representative. This is the nature of the beast. If you have one or two thousand people at a general assembly then you have some authority to say "this is a representative sample of opinion." But when you don't have this, when you have the few, then you have ceased being a representative sample.

Occupy Melbourne is being marginalised. The one time I was at a general assembly I was shooed and bullied away. This was the 8th general Assembly, held on the Tuesday after our eviction from City Square. I oughtn't to say it is my only general assembly, because I was also present throughout Friday and Saturday the 21st and 22nd.

The moment we were forcefully evicted from City Square we became directionless. The fact that we occupied the streets of Melbourne on Black Friday was not so much intent, as a failure of options. We had no fall back position.

Being present in the heart of the city, being visible to people as they walked by, engaging with people who are not themselves activists or radicals, but who are simple men and women who desire something more from their government, their society, was what focused media and public attention on us. Since that eviction we have lost momentum. We have been forced to a place where we are not visible and cannot erect structures or tents. We no longer get one or two thousand people to general assemblies.

The organisational structure is not what it ought to be. When I walked back home on Saturday the 22nd a person walking in my direction engaged in conversation with me. He is a worker who wants to be involved in some way, without necessarily having the time or availability to be there for occupation, working groups etc.

On Indymedia I have seen the Draft declaration for Occupy Melbourne. It disdains organisational structures. But not all organisational structures are bad. Representative democracy requires structure of some sort, otherwise self-elected activists direct the group, rather than it being organic and representative.

The Occupy Melbourne website ought to be a place for information and activity. Whoever is running that site is failing to inform and engage. NOT ONE PHOTO OF THE EVICTION HAS BEEN PUBLISHED. I don't understand that. That site ought to be colourful and informative. Most general assembly minutes have not been posted. When you email contacts there they do not reply. When you post comments they do not get published. And THERE IS A LACK OF INFORMATION. If you want to engage broadly with the public then use the media available to you, and don't despair over a lack of interest if you have failed to engage the public. The Internet is now a platform of engagement. But it is not being properly exploited. The other types of informational tools we have is an sms system. Most people today have a mobile phone. If we were actively engaged in a database of names and numbers we could contact people at a moments notice when there is something important happening, such as the eviction on the 21st. These are only two ideas. But these ideas require a level of organisation, a structural base for change. If no-one is "in charge," then no-one takes responsibility. Organisation is not an evil.

I have said elsewhere that we ought to have a platform of policies we endorse. One of these has already been endorsed, a treaty with indigenous Australia. But if we disdain at parliamentary democracy, then how can we have policies to improve that democracy? This country needs proportional representation, and we should be demanding that form of democratic representation alongside a treaty for the first Australians. Each of these things is necessary. With proportional representation never again would this society be governed by one party. There would be twenty green members on the floor of Parliament. Don't disdain at democratic institutions. Rather get them to work for us, the people, and not just the people of Occupy Melbourne, but of the 99%.

We need policies on Social Justice and Egalitarianism. These are no brainers. We need a super profits tax, the abolishment of negative gearing, the establishment of death duties. These types of things provide for a more equal society.

Where are our policies? Why aren't we representing sound policies on social justice and a more equitable society? Those are the types of things that erode the power of the 1%, along with proportional representation. If you can't convince the general public about what you believe in, then you have no right to claim that you represent them. This means engagement. It means getting the Occupy Melbourne website working. It means getting back the media's attention, with specific aims.

I could write on and on, to no purpose. The reason I have not been to more general assemblies is because I do not believe in the democratic processes there. When someone tells me to move on and shut up, like the police, then I lose faith in the process. Sorry if I don't always play by your rules. But if you want it organic and authentic, sometimes you have to accept that not everyone is a sheep.

Awesome Arthur.

So you simultaneously are encouraging people to come to the meeting at 11am to share their thoughts on the mandate... which, if its up to your usual standard, will consist of you interrupting and screaming at people, not offering anything constructive in the way of consensus, and taking up an hour or 2 insisting on an agenda that only suits you, so no constructive discussion can happen.

And then, after people have been through that fun time... you will have a separate meeting in which you will work out how to dismantle the group that has had to put up with you yelling at them for the last week.

So we can ensure a really negative vibe at what will hopefully be the largest GA for a week. And maybe you can take up heaps of time with attacking people who are trying to improve whilst important conversations about structures, and nonviolence and ways of keeping people safe in the event of another brutal police eviction get delayed, and people eventually drift away. High fives!

I love your idea of constructive and reflective direct democracy!

PS - please feel to rinse and repeat previous accusations again below. In case I had forgotten what a manipulative, undemocratic, inexperienced ignoramus I am.

PPS - If anyone else has constructive suggestions or facilitation skills you will be warmly welcomed at the facilitation meeting - people are actually trying to improve the process, despite various commentary otherwise.

Arthur - I don't listen to what you say at all anymore. I shut my ears and hum. You are by the far the most undemocratic person attending the GAs. And no, I'm not from the evil Facilitation team.

You and Davey probably get along.

Thoughts from Eire/Ireland

Occupy - the assembly process is the revolution

by Andrew Flood (WSM)

As we prepare to enter the 3rd month of the Occupy movement a commonly heard criticism targets both the lack of clear demands and the related complex and often drawn out decision making processes being used at Occupy General Assemblies. These criticisms however miss the point, against the traditional left with its package of pre-set answers (best before 1917) what makes Occupy different is that process of decision making through assembly. The assembly form is not just a way of making decisions but also a different form of doing politics. The Assembly is in embryo the different world we seek to create. I’m not arguing that the process is everything or especially the only thing that matters. Of course the questions asked and decisions reached will also determine the direction of the movement. A perfect process that led back to parliamentary politics, banks with a kinder face or the imposition of Brehon law would get us nowhere good.

But right now the successful development and expansion of the assembly process is what is transformative about Occupy with regards to the old left. For sure students of history will tell you these are old methods being re-discovered or reinvented but all the same it is exciting to see them being taken up by a new generation.

Occupy Wall Street started 17th September and in the month that followed copycat Occupy camps sprang up in more than 1100 cities across the globe. Solidarity demonstrations were held on all continents, even Antarctica. In London, England the state church was thrown into crisis as it debated evicting the camp on the door step of St Paul's and in Oakland, USA the violent police eviction of the camp there led to a mass assembly of 3,000 which called the Oakland General Strike of November 2nd.

What is the assembly?

What characterises all the Occupy’s is that at the heart of the movement is an open assembly of everyone who identifies with it. Potentially open to all of the 99%- which is the appeal of the form to those who are used to having politicians and the 1% speak for them. At these assembles proposals are put, concerns are debated and decisions are made. These decisions are seldom by a simple 51% majority but rather made using variations of consensus decision making, a process that makes it hard if not impossible for a majority to simply force a decision on a minority through numbers alone. This slows the process down but it also prevent premature splits arising from controversial decisions being forced through by narrow majorities.

Much of the conventional left in both its reformist and revolutionary forms is openly frustrated with that aspect of the Occupy movement. In Dublin as in other cities the approach that has all too often been made by the already organised left to the Occupy movement has a strong resemblance to the biblical legend of Moses coming down off the mountain with the 10 commandments. The approach is that the wise ones arrive with the pre-packaged answers and seek to find the quickest route to get the multitude below to adopt these answers as their own. People are lectured, browbeaten and even bullied into accepting the accumulated wisdom of decades, decades the left has actually spent wandering in circles.

This approach of the left is wrong for several reasons. The first one is that it is simply counter productive, a return to an educational process that most resembles that in place when teachers were also allowed to beat the answers into students. It is not surprising that the ‘we are here to tell you how things are’ tends to elicit a strong negative response from those who are to be schooled. Elsewhere I've blogged the specifics of these problems in Dublin so I don't intend to repeat this argument here. (blog 1, blog 2)

The positives

Instead I want to highlight the two strongest points of value in the assembly process

The first is that to anyone paying attention in the last decade it is very clear that despite the deep crisis of capitalism the left does not have the answers. In fact it often appears that most left groups don't even have many of the questions that need to be asked. Sure there are some general broad answers we can claim to have but in particular those organisations and individuals who insist that all that is needed is the correct interpretation of scripture as laid down 130 years ago by Misters Marx & Engels are profoundly unconvincing.

The old style pursuit of needed new answers (and questions) for the left would be to retreat to the British Library or some other Ivory Tower for a couple of decades to formulate some new set of answers. There has been some 'flash in the pan' attempts at this, some have even briefly seized the imagination, Hardt & Negri's Empire did so for a while back in 2000 as the summit protest movemetnt peaked and now and again others have briefly done the same since. The truth is though that this process of relying on smart individuals to formulate answers is itself flawed. It is reflective of something that was perhaps possible back in the 14th century when a single person might have some hope of consuming the accumulated sum of formal human knowledge (in western Europe). Today when 48 hours of new content are uploaded to youtube every minute such a task is an impossible one for an individual or small group to even hope to approach.

The generation of questions, never mind answers can only be part of a collective process involving tens of thousands of people at a minimum, with a huge range of experiences, not just of bearded old white dudes in the British library. At one point people might have expected this process to emerge from the universities but even apart from the narrow range of experience they contain today they are increasingly designed as factories to reproduce the current system, even in those sections that imagine they exist to challenge it.

The internet and in particular Facebook & Twitter have been focused on as organising tools by many analysts who are trying to understand the emerging movement. But actually they are much more than tools to call people to protests, the circulation of links and the discussions taking place under 10 million updates about Occupy are also a massive, if informal and unstated, collective educational process.

It is in the 1100 assemblies of the Occupy Movement scattered across the globe (and the earlier assemblies in Tahir, Barcelona and Syntagma) that this collective process of identifying the questions and in time the answers is starting to take form. For sure it is a process that is messy, slow and that at least on the local level often takes a one or two steps back for each 2 or 3 leaps forward. But it is a process that is discovering itself, that is essentially self-organising, a path to knowledge that we are finding by walking. The left has had a program (or rather conflicting program's) for over 100 years, programs that any reasonable person now realizes are quite incomplete. A little patience with this Occupy movement taking 1, 2 or 20 months to create something better is not so unreasonable.

Another way is coming into being

The second reason the assembly model is not a barrier to be overcome, to be replaced with a more traditional committee of wise (mostly) men, is that the assemblies are the different way of doing 'politics’ we need. For a long time politics has mostly meant one particular model, the model where the politician's present us with their program and our role is simply to chose between these program's either with ballots or rifles (or even one in each hand). A methodology that inevitably replaces one hierarchy with another when one set of politicians successfully replace another.

These is however another less visible model. That is the assembly, not as a way of controlling the politicians but of replacing them. And for politicians here we can also substitute employer or landlord because democracy in the streets means little without democracy in the workplace and in our housing. We don’t want to change who the 1% are, who among the 1% rules us we want to take the 99%, all of the 99% into power. Not some 1% selected to represent the 99% and make decisions for us but once more and forever the 99% directly deciding for ourselves how our world should be run.

The idea of a political process that has at its core decision making meetings where all of us can bring suggestions, make critiques and take part in the final decision is what makes Occupy revolutionary far more than whatever demands are formulated. It is the process itself that is potentially transformative, even in the most weak and dysfunctional assemblies. If the assembly can be the mechanism by which we organize a camp or organize a general strike then why can it not also be the mechanism by which we organize our workplace, our school or our neighborhood. And when the assemblies spread and meet up where then is the room for the politicians who instead want to represent us.

The assembly v the politician

This is not a new concept, the assembly is as old and almost certainly older than the politician. The two have in fact been in conflict with each other for many long years. It was the assemblies that liquidated the power of the Czar in Russia in 1917 only to be liquidated in turn by the Bolsheviks who formed the new government of politicians. In Chiapas in Southern Mexico hundreds of Zapatista communities have used the assembly as their root method of making decisions since (and before) they entered into rebellion in 1994. The Zapatista assembly model that will be 18 years old this new year. When Argentina went into crisis in 1999 and the people said of the politicians that 'they all must go' the assembly emerged in both workplace and neighborhood as the way to keep society functioning as government after government fell.

The assembly and the politician will always be locked in a combat to the death, regardless if that politician is of the right, left or center. The two models are incompatible, either the people rule or the politicians rule and that applies as much at the small local level of an Occupy assembly as at the national or regional level. And let us be clear, the politician is not simply someone who embraces that term in some formal way. It is also the person who informally declares that they should have a special right in the making of decisions because of who they are or what they have done - because in other words they know better. The politician is the one that seeks to flatter those they think can be won to their side and to browbeat those they think can not rather than engaging in open and honest debate. The politician hates the assembly process as constituting a barrier to ‘what is to be done’ and seeks to either abolish it or restrict just who is allowed to take part.

The Occupy assemblies are a long way from forming the new world in the shell of the old. Only a very few have had a major local impact, Occupy Oakland being the most obvious of the bunch. Most are small and isolated, a cluster of tents in the vast cities of the disinterested. In many places the General Assembly & the processes and dynamics it contains are quite dysfunctional - all too often as in Dublin due to the attempts by the old left to quickly push its answers through. But for all these problems this scattering of 1100 assemblies across the globe is a start, a start in the process that is not about reforming banking laws or tweaking constitutions but building a new world.

Sorry to be a naysayer, but the GA has very many limitations, and is unworkable on any large scale.

It is certainly a useful tool for small crowds, but the idea that the "99%" could possibly be represented by such a form of democracy is ludicrous, to say the least. Perhaps if we all had twitter accounts (which I have been heard to refer to as "twitter is for twits") then we could simply do all this GA shit by twitter. The moderator twits an idea, any objections to the idea are twitted, the facilitators twit back to the twitters, a general consensus is called for after the concerns have been twittered away, and everyone twits for either aye or nay. This could potentially reach millions. If you want a true platform for democracy then make sure everyone has a twitter account!

But that is just a demonstration of how ridiculous the idea is.

It's a novel approach, but it is ultimately unworkable. Which is not to say that it is not appropriate for the Occupy movement. It is appropriate for the Occupy movement because the Occupy movement is unrepresentative. And this is the problem for Occupy. I have stated elsewhere that they are like how during the Russian revolution the Bolshevik's gave themselves that name, as if they represented the majority position. The occupy movement does the same thing, pretending to represent the 99%.

You don't!

But that won't stop you saying it. And really, it is like the bleating of sheep, if we all say it it must be true. But we are not all saying it. Maybe we are the 1%. And we are so jumped up about our own self-importance that we pretend that we are the 99%. Certainly the General Assembly is a decent way for the 1% to carry on. The do it also at shareholders meeting, only there the majority of voters don't usually represent the majority of shareholders, and everything is decided before you walk into the door.

I'm not saying the Occupy movement hasn't performed well under the circumstances. But it is "under the circumstances." My biggest worry was when I realised that all over the world the same chants are being used. This says to me that rather than being authentic, organic, it is controlled, it is being manipulated.

Very many of the organisers are socialists. This is not a bad thing, but socialists don't leave their agenda behind when they become Occupy protestors. To say that the Occupy movement has no political affiliation is a furphy. It is a broadly based anti-capitalist, left movement. At least I fucking hope it is. But the idea that you are open to anyone is foolhardy, if not plain wrong. I would hate it if you were open to fascists, for instance, or racists, or other unmentionables. So don't say you are open to everyone. Or if you are, say we are open to fascists and racists etc.

The GA is not a workable platform for democracy. Representative democracy can be, when it is proportionally based, and when you have a free press and a more open dialogue within the community, where there is a more egalitarian approach to society, and people are educated not just about how to read and write but how to understand and appreciate. Educated people demand more. But education that does not critically anlalyse is not the best type of education, and yet that is the education most of us get.

The GA is a good platform for mob decision making on a low key scale. But for anything bigger than that you need organisation, and you need a platform for basing your decisions upon. You need goals. Otherwise the media loses interest, people lose interest, the movement becomes obsolete.

Hey all -given the critical nature of my articles so far on the FWG, I thought it only fair I also share my positive observations of the GA on Saturday -November 12th in the Treasury Gardens. In my opinion this was an immense improvement on some of the earlier GA's I have written about. What a great effort by Paul, Tal (sorry if the spelling is wrong) and the team!

I thought they did a fantastic job given both the level of conflict involved and the difficulty in making a decsion over structures.Things I loved about their facilitation -

-Paul explained the processes of the GA in simple jargon free language
- they put the revised agenda to the meeting to vote on at the start (very transparent) and actually read the agenda to us
- whenever there was a difficult decision to be made as to where to take the meeting - Paul and Tal spoke to each other through the microphones so we could all hear what they were thinking.
- They were open to and non-defensive about all procedural points that were made.
- When a of lack of confidence motion was moved against the moderators both Tal and Paul were totally calm and just put it to the meeting where it received virtually zero support - then the meeting moved on.
- When we couldnt reach consensus they did not try to force a compromise through - instead facilitating us breaking up into small groups twice - worked brilliantly
- all decisions about meeting procedure - should we continue discussing an issue, should we extend the meeting time, should we close the meeting etc were simply put to the meeting for a 2/3 vote. This worked so well.
- They clearly were neutral on all major positions put to the meeting and this is why they maintained the support of the meeting.

Personally I felt this was the best faciliated GA I have seen so far - hats off to a three hour epic effort. I plan to write an article for Indymedia about it trying to sell the GA's as the best free show in town! Wow great theatre - and we all felt good at the end! Consensus and democracy at its best.