First off, the proposal that passed tonight about risk management and diversity of tactics is not intended to exclude autonomous action. I have ideas about how autonomous actions should fit in, but that is another conversation to have. I think autonomous actions should be carried out by affinity groups and they need not advertise ahead of time what their threat level is; however, I do think they should *know* what it is and have a clear idea of how that relates to a publicized event going on and separate it accordingly. (Again, that’s not part of the proposal, that’s my opinion).

Here’s a new proposal some of us are working on. It’s to establish a process for dissolving a committee, because not having one is causing maximum chaos.

Process for dissolving an active committee

For the purposes of this proposal, an active committee is one which has regularly scheduled meetings, posts minutes to the website, and does report-backs at the General Assembly at least once a week.

1) For the process of dissolving an active committee to go forward, the minutes of the committee meetings must show that those attempting to dissolve the committee have attended committee meetings and attempted to address the issues they are bringing forth as reasons for dissolving the committee. If no minutes are available, this requirement is waived but the committee members must be allowed to comment on the subject. If meetings are not scheduled and announced for more than two weeks, this requirement is waived.

2) Those who have concerns with how the committee is operating must announce the establishment of a working group to address those concerns. The working group must be publicly announced as well as its meeting times. The working group meetings must have minutes, and the minutes must show that good-faith attempts were made to address the concerns being raised.

3) Only at that point can a proposal to dissolve an active committee be brought.