18th May 2006
From Chelsea Wiki
Critical Practice meeting 18th May, 6.15pm
Present: Manuela (second name?); Trevor Giles; Isobel Bowditch; Wayne Clements; Corrado Morgana; Ian Drysdale; Neil Cummings; Darrel Stalden; Mary Anne Francis (minutes), Wei-Ho Ng and Tom Neill.
Apologies: Tim O’Riley and Stefan Shankland
Please note: due to the dilatory nature of this discussion (no criticism implied), it was very hard to minute it. These notes are not so much minutes as an attempt to identify the salient points of the discussion.
Agenda Item 1. Discussion of how to decide how we can make decisions
Darrel presented a quick summary of the last meeting – which generated the need for this ‘crisis’ meeting’ - and the issues that arose
a) Could the people there make decisions about funding without ‘institution’ CP people there?
b) Could they commit other CP people to getting involved in a project when they weren’t there to say if they wanted to get involved?
Corrado observed that NODE.London had the same problems i.e. when key people weren’t there they felt they couldn’t make decisions.
Neil suggested that they key question for us is:
1. Who is empowered to decide and how?
There followed a discussion of Open Organizations in response to OO guidlines circulated by Neil. Corrado wondered if the OO literature ever exemplifies instances of an OO: i.e. is it all very well to talk about Open Organization, but perhaps difficult to put into practice. OO itself tries to be an Open Organization… (MAF)
MA wondered whether we need to agree first on what CP is about before we answer Neil’s question. In response, Neil read out the Aims and Objectives for CP (as stated in the ‘Core funding’ application) We wondered.
1. Can we agree that the Chelsea Core funding document offers a way forward (i.e. we’ve committed to it?)
Thus the commitment to transparency and openness is central as this is one of our Aims.
Ian suggested it was important that people took roles e.g. treasurer as transparency of the funding management is key to any good organization.
Manuela asked who put together the Core funding bid’s ‘Aims and Objectives’. Answer: Neil.
Discussion of whether or not we understand these. Also what do we understand by ‘research’?
Do we need to have our own definition of what ‘research’ is for CP?
MA’s summary of agreements arrived at by this discussion:
• Aims and Objectives are a useful reference point – though Ian and others has issues with the Aims (could be improved / rewritten) and Ian thinks they’re not punchy enough. Ian would like to see the Aims clearer.
• Issues of who makes decisions can ‘hang’ upon an agreement about Aims and Objectives?
I.e. if we’re more confident about what CP is about is the issue of who can make decisions less difficult?
Action point: everyone to review the Aims and Objectives (on the Chelsea wiki) By next Friday (Friday 26 May).
Question: Are meetings decision making bodies?
We didn’t agree about decision making processes as these will follow from discussion of Aim and Objectives.
But Neil suggested that we invoke OO’s idea of rough consensus to decide on Stefan’s project.
Trevor suggested that we can proceed (at this meeting) if we make our decision making process transparent i.e. give reasons and account for procedure.
Agenda Item 2. Discussion of Stefan’s project – the ‘ATP Protocol’
S wants us:
• to brainstorm the ATP question of what is a ‘fundamental frame’ – in person & via website. He needs £150 a day – for 7 days = £1050 –to pay Dr S Bourne at Imp-actes to formulate / develop the questionnaire. It then gets ‘tested’ out with BA students / CP members? Then S designs the space for the Parade Ground.
• To put ATP on CP website and pay for this: CP web pages @£150 for 3 days £450
• needs space for having a meeting
S expects that his proposal would be modified in his engagement with us – it’s not just a project that we enact.
What does he mean by ‘Protocol’ in this project? Protocol = questionnaire and the information that is derived from it.
Ian identified the issue for us as being ‘do we want to get involved in this’? Do we want to get involved in working on the questionnaire and subsequent work? I.e. the development of a text about interrogating practice.
Do we want to pay to be involved in this? (Trevor) It seems that we must pay for the extra work of our participation. The context of the proposition and Critical Practice participation was unclear (various agencies, groups and events are implicated). There was some confusion as to how, or indeed IF, the Critical Practice 'protocol' would influence the form of the ATP structure.
Corrado identified a problem with SS’s website request – mechanism and tools are not in place. Thus an amended offer was put to the vote
i.e. that we offer Stefan the £ for the questionnaire work, and the Open Congress website for his on-line space, with the possibility of transferring that material to the CP site when it’s up and running (there are issues of labour costs in this which we didn’t discuss).
The meeting agreed this. It was agreed that this support did not commit CP personnel to the brainstorming session though several indicated that they were keen to get involved (Trevor,...).
Other business: Mary Anne presented a request for £150 for payment to Corrado for help with her research bid on very technical questions to do with websites.
Manuela presented the 3rd Year’s invitation to Critical Practice to be interviewed by them (3rd years). And a request for money to print flyers and to purchase items for this event.
Corrado presented ‘Critical Congress’ idea and request for £150
It was agreed by the meeting that all 3 requests would be considered when a written bids were received.
Date of next meeting:
Thursday 1st June 6.30 pm Morpeth Arms = Millbank
go to Aims and Objectives or back to Critical Practice
