CG+NOTES+Tracey,+Lise,+James


 * JAMES' SMG**

James, Mike, Chris, Jess, Tara, Emilia
 * frustration in SMG led to impatience in Town Halls and community deliverable prep time
 * Chris and Mike had high participation
 * Tracey talking about "trust" in first town hall meeting sparked Mike to consider "trust" so took more risks to increase trust in their SMG
 * there was frustration because of inaction around trust-building
 * he was edgy and withdrawn
 * everyone seemed "in their own bubbles"
 * Chris wanted to discuss what happened in her CG but the group resisted this
 * Emilia was sent to the project group even though Jess wanted to go
 * the group experienced frustration with Emilia
 * Seeing Sophie crying in her CG affected Tara a lot. She was in shock over how Jim drilled Sophie down
 * CG affect on James: increase of risk-taking in SMG, more interventions


 * LISE'S SMG**

Lise, Karen, Klajda, Amelie, Sophie, Sabrina
 * Sister's of Mercy: themes of caretaking & flight (conflict avoidance)
 * at end the group was productive together
 * high trust
 * during first fishbowl on Saturday night they were told to cuddle like naked puppies and "words confuse"
 * they had different check in styes so to increase trust they experimented with using hand signals to check in
 * Sophie said she was glad Jim had intervened in her CG: it was good to cry to increase trust and safety, vulnerability, it changed how diversity was dealt with
 * Klajda was sent to James' group for the visitor exchange
 * they had a big discussion about who to send and why, what they wanted to offer to James' group, asked her to observe and ask certain things, they also had a big discussion about how to welcome the visitor that came to their group
 * Klajda was shocked by James' group's reaction and she told her SMG they were "cold and unwelcoming"
 * it made Lise appreciate the warmth and trust that was found in her SMG
 * eye contact/eye rolling incident: caused frustration and conflict, but it was dealt with quickly and resolved.
 * they seemed to be stuck in accommodation mode
 * Sabrina suggested something twice and it wasn't honoured


 * RELATION TO COMMUNITY DELIVERABLES**
 * how connected were you to the 6 points that our SMG came up with? I didn't feel connected to my point: ombudsperson. I thought I was, but it ended up that I wasn't.
 * James' group brought 1 point per person: 6 points. They worked in silos. The points felt like high quality but more personal and emotionally charged, like each person in the group wrote out their frustrations in their point.
 * Lise's group worked with collaborative togetherness, but the points they came up with felt watered down and uninteresting, with nothing really high-quality


 * PERSONAL RELATIONS OUTSIDE OF GROUPS**
 * Chris, Mike and James were quite close outside of their SMG
 * it seemed to have a negative affect on the SMG: others felt they were cliquey, but he feels they weren't: they were managing the boundaries between work and personal
 * they developed more closeness due to their similar work backgrounds, having worked together in previous SMGs and social gatherings outside of school


 * IN OUR CG:**
 * we were productive and proud of the points we brought to the community deliverable
 * we worked fast and harmoniously together
 * in our CG their was little caretaking, which contrasted Lise's SMG experience
 * Lise felt like an accommodator among James and Tracey who seemed to communicate similarly: quickly, powerfully
 * Lise questioned if there was a power imbalance-- she was feeling it in our CG.
 * Both James and I felt confused by this because Lise had a high degree of influence on our CG