1. Personal story
1.1. Studied in Spain in May, 2011
1.1.1. Went to see the protest that started in the main square
1.1.2. Observed that there was something new in this protest - the way it was organized
1.1.3. Was very impressed with the success of the protest
1.1.3.1. In less than a week, assemblies of thousands of people were formed, with success in discussion & even decision making
2. Spain
2.1. the message was "Real democracy"
2.1.1. there are problems in the government & parliament structure & representation there
2.1.2. the protest wanted to create an alternative
2.2. Principles
2.2.1. horizontal flat structure
2.2.1.1. no leaders
2.2.1.2. even if some people did led, they refused to take credit, & present themselves in communications
2.2.1.3. communication committee serving as channel to media
2.2.1.4. constant rotation in positions
2.2.1.5. example
2.2.1.5.1. when the TV invited them for a "60 minutes" show, they decided to refuse sending a person saying:
2.2.1.6. There's a base vocabulary in the Spain, extended in the US
2.2.2. wisdom of the crowds
2.2.2.1. influencing the decision making process
2.2.3. strive to concensus
2.2.3.1. the challenge of participants is not to convince others but to find the solution that will be accepted by all
2.2.3.2. assuming that everyone have the same goal, so if someone has objections, it's important to listen to him
2.3. The spaniards were very good in communicating the meta-knowledge of how to create this such protest
2.3.1. which influenced similar movements in the States &c
2.4. Step up, step back
2.4.1. US
2.4.1.1. If you are over-influential & represented outside the assembly (or in some issue), step back
2.4.1.2. if you are under-influential outside the assembly, step up
3. Comparison between the protest movements
3.1. Hands gestures
3.1.1. enable interaction with interrupting the discussion flow
3.2. Concensus
3.2.1. Spain
3.2.1.1. when preparing a discussion, listing arguments, suggestions & blocks
3.2.1.1.1. blocks aren't just con opinion, but rather veto
3.2.1.2. the policy was complete concensus
3.2.1.2.1. this made the general assembly incapable of making decisions
3.2.2. US
3.2.2.1. trying to reach full concensus, but if not reached, have a voting requiring 90% majority