(this might be a decent way to publish minutes, i dunno)
(BTW, if you'd like to be put on the e-mail list for the network, just send a message to email@example.com)
date: Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:35 PM
subject: Steve Shelburne's house next week...
Thanks to all of you came last night. It was a very useful meeting.
Steve, we missed you, but it's good to know you're feeling better today, and thanks for letting us try it again next week. Got that everyone? Steve has graciously offered his house for next week. So far, at least, we're on for the same time: Monday at 5:30.
For those who couldn't attend last night, Skip Peel joined us, and talked about wanting to find a group or network or organization that would serve as a "vehicle" for which different people could borrow the keys to when a purpose arrises. I talked about Murray Lloyd's idea of a hub, and Leia Lewis' and my ideas of connecting people to each other who working in compatible ways for the community, and Jeff Wellborn's idea of a having a safe forum for the free and open exchange ideas. On the content side, Charles Gerard talked about his passion and interest for Highland as a priority, Jeanne Hamming and Jon Soul for gardening and "digging," Ian Webb and I for bike paths, and Robert Trudeau and Stephen Holloway were seemed generally supportive of all it.
After stating Jeff's and my desire that we have a sense that our meetings, blogs, and e-mail are safe spaces, we generally agreed that we should maintain a respectful, friendly atmosphere that encourages open discussion. (No big surprise, perhaps!)
But we also seemed to agree with Charles and Jeanne's view of our network: that it is trying to balance two things:
1) to be broad, out of a desire to facilitate networking; to enhance people's sense that they can change their city, and that there others out there who want to change it in the same way;
2) to be specific, out of a desire to achieve something concrete in a certain area, which may vary depending on the interests and passions of the person.
Given those differences, could it be that we end up having different roles on different "teams"? And there may be different meetings held by and for different teams?
For example, if one team needs help on a grant, that team could ask to "borrow the keys to the bus" and use our meeting(s) for their grant application.
Or, if a team working in a different area thinks a voice needs to be heard in support of, or against something that is happening, they could also ask for "the keys" to draft a letter to the editor, for example.
Anyway, Skip, I'm not sure that's what you had in mind, but that how I was thinking of it, given what you said last night. But I could be off base. That may not be what we should try to be. Maybe it would subdivide us, distract and disperse us, makes us loose focus, etc.
But hey, there's bonding experiences in those little teams concentrating efforts on an immediate goal, right? Anyone want to bond over that EPA grant? I'm game.