A temporary working group was formed during the 2024-02-01 General Meeting. The volunteers included Harpreet, Adri, Reilly, Chris, Paolo and Basma. It is tasked with creating a process for managing our public facing material (social media, blog posts, official statements, flyers, sign-up forms, emails, etc.). Members in good standing may attend all of the temporary working group’s meetings, and they can also ask questions, present their own ideas and provide feedback in this thread. Follow below for updates.
The first meeting of the Temporary Working Group on Public Facing Material was held on February 18, 2024.
Link for details: 2024-02-18 Temporary Working Group Meeting: Public Facing Material - #2 by collectivestruggle
At the 2024-03-07 General Meeting, we designated flyering and [creating the process for managing our] public facing material to be the topics of the Monday 2024-03-25 Working Meeting.
There’s no recording for the Working Meeting, but I’ll try to remember to have us record the next one. If I mischaracterize or misrepresent any of the thoughts and opinions expressed during the meeting, feel free to correct them below.
2024-03-25 Working Meeting
Attendance (*Attendees arrived and departed at different times.):
@chima
@aleiva01
@Adri_Martinez
@Turcotte
@HipGnosis
Meeting Notes
-This meeting stretched from about 6pm to 7pm and then from 8pm to 11pm (4 hours).
-Our online working meetings are usually general purpose meetings, but this one was meant to be centered around flyering and creating a process for managing our public facing material.
-No discussion took place around flyering.
-During the first hour, Harpreet shared some of his ideas for a side-quest before hopping off. Alyssa joined the call for a few minutes, at the bottom of the hour, before also hopping off.
-Adri entered the Zoom chat around 8pm, followed by Chris and Reilly. The rest of the time was devoted to continuing the discussion on what the process for managing Working Class Unity’s public facing material might look like.
-We have been working off this Google Doc: Processes & Guidelines for Creating & Approving Public Facing Media - Google Docs
-Chris also worked on data table stuff.
-I asked Adri and Chris, if they could have it their way, from start to finish, what would the ideal process for managing public facing material be for them; I can’t recall their answers
-I put links in the chat box to the bylaws of three DSA chapters that deal with social media, technology, etc.; one chapter had a Technology Committee managed under the Secretary; if we decide to go in a same direction, we should first ask Roby if these added responsibilities are things he’d be willing to take on and if they are things he thinks he’ll be able to manage.
-Adri mentioned something about maybe having all approved content go to one person solely responsible for formatting/publishing content onto our website/accounts; This person would not be involved in creating the text or substance of the proposal. Their job would be to format the post to our agreed upon standards (templates), to publish approved content or take down material as voted on by the membership. It’s unclear if this would be an entirely new position or if the position would be elected or appointed; Reilly mentioned the possible downside of an appointed position versus an elected position is that an appointee may be beholden to the individual or group who appointed them and not necessarily the entire membership/organization; think Reilly may have said that having only one person who can publish could cause a bottleneck. But I think the process may also be more simplified and streamlined.
-There were differing views on if we should have just one committee with the power to approve public facing material OR multiple committees.
-We reiterated our shared desire for uniformity, in the appearance of our posts, through the use of templates.; If the expectation is that graphics be completed upon submission of proposals for things like social media posts, then the templates need to include instructions that are detailed enough for people with no experience in graphic design to be able to create content. Otherwise, we’re creating an insurmountable roadblock where the ability to create content rests in the hands of the few who possess the technical skills. And if we’re not going to be able or willing to take the time to teach other members who are interested, then that creates a stronger case for Adri’s suggestion that we have one neutral person in charge of formatting/publishing approved content.
-Reilly proposed giving each committee (Examples: the TU Focus Campaign Committee, a Free Palestine Focus Campaign Committee, Membership Committee, etc.) the ability to post things once approved within those committees. And instead of sending it to a designee (as suggested by Adri above), the approved content would be published by the specific Steering Member charged with overseeing that respective committee.; I expressed that this could cause friction because we could have situations where a Steering Member is outvoted by the committee and is forced to publish content he or she disagrees with. And partly for that reason, I find Adri’s suggestion above to be more appealing.; Like with the previous meeting of the temporary working group, recalling Steering Members who refused to publish approved material was brought up again. I stated that it always seems that we’re going to the extreme of “do what we want or we’ll vote you out of Steering” and that I wish there were other steps we could take before we get to that point; Reilly asked what those other steps might look like
-I said I wasn’t committed to any one approach at the moment. There are a lot of ways we could do it. We’ve all acknowledged that bringing everything to the General Membership for approval is unfeasible. So, whatever method we take outside of that is gonna potentially allow for things to slip through that might be problematic and not actually have the backing of a majority of our members. And the one thing I am most adamant about is that if we make it quick & easy to put something up, then it needs to be quick and easy to take something down. An example I gave was: If a Free Palestine Focus Campaign Committee somehow managed to get a post through that had something like, “There’s no such thing as an innocent settler,” I would want to have a process to quickly bring that issue to the membership on the Discourse Forum to have it voted to be taken down. Because waiting for a General Meeting is too long. It won’t matter that it got taken down if it was up for 3+ weeks as we waited for the first Thursday of the month to roll around.
-To help move things along for the next meeting, I talked about having us vote for things. (Example: Should we have a single committee dedicated to managing our public facing material? YES or NO)