Q# 5:  Would the needs of the alcoholic and the online community be better met if we break apart into different groups each having its own format?                     Why or why not?

Back

20 Responses

It is the current and increasing variety of membership that gives the newcomer or visitor the largest probability to hear what needs to be heard by him / her. If we were different or individual groups gaining access to that will be more difficult for any alcoholic.

I believe we're effectively evolving into different groups. The business meeting gets quite disrupted when it tries to involve itself in the relative autonomy of a meeting venue.  People who had no information on a given situation were being asked to make opinions about it, not informed conscience decisions. 

Most decisions in one meeting venue are not made by, often not even reported to, the group as a whole.  I just learned that the chat co-ordinator has changed, a decision made between the Group Secretary and a regular member who's a long-standing member but not presently an officer of the group. This is not necessarily wrong, but it's all evidence that the business meeting is becoming less and less relevant or effective for the group as a whole.

The business meeting in my opinion is really getting away from business over the past few months.

If it's working, why change it?

Break into different groups ?  I don't think I understand.  We're a great group with a variety of solid AA meetings and even good fellowship happening. 

Our business meeting tends to get a little disjointed 'cause there's not always good representation from all our different meetings, but we even manage to pull everyone in, when there are decisions that effect the whole group, being attended to. Why would we start new groups ? 

If someone is really unhappy within the group, they have ample opportunity to speak up, and if they're still not happy ... they can even start their own group.

Don't fix what is not broke.

no, we should stay together. more breaking up then not everyone is exposed to everyone & that part of e-aa is important. i don't want to be subcategorized. it leads to division & differences instead of unity and sameness. we drunks have a hard enough time being part of a group and not hiding in a corner & if we broke into groups it would be too limiting & suseptible to strange mutations & opinions. it should all be one place, one group. (unless of course that the meetings get HUGE then maybe we'll do "tables" w/ different meeting rooms, etc. But we're not there YET.

No. I do not think this is broke. Keep it the way it is.

e AA is the group, the meetings and venues are aprt of the group. Taht is oen fo the reasons for co ordinators isnt it ? to report back, as they do monthly, or the need arises, to the members group conscience part of e AA.

In f2f meetings run, the group conscience decides and then lets the meetings do their thing with the traditions of aa.

Again, I like the current setup that provides us with choices.

I think it is ok as it is.

No. It is working just fine like it is. I would think that different formats in the end would only be discouraging especially to members such as myself who are a part of several.

First of all - this is in error:

Quote:

I just learned that the chat co-ordinator has changed, a decision made between the Group Secretary and a regular member who's a long-standing member but not presently an officer of the group.

A problem arose, someone offered to serve and the secretary presented it to the group.

On to the question: No.

e-AA is often the first exposure folks have with AA. Having a variety of meetings greatly increases their chance of finding a comfy place - and greatly increases our opportunities for 12 step work.

Besides all that - how would we decide who is the "real e-AA"?

Nope. Works well as is.

I agree with Amy.
If it is working don't fix it.

I'm not sure I understand this because it sounds like the last question I answered. 

I do think each list should be able to use their members as a GC. This is especially true of the specific gender meetings.

In my home group we run a beginners meeting, a steps meeting, meetings at places of incarceration and rehab meetings.

I believe e-aa is like that except with many more meetings. It is great to be a part of the diversiveness of e-aa and I think if it was split up then it would lose its attraction. Also it is much easier to type in e-aa,org then it is to type in each group individually.

However having said that I do think that each meeting / forum within e-aa should be given the freedom to decide how they wish to run their meeting and then that response be taken back to the management group to check that is not going against any of the ideals of e-aa or AA.

This is a totally weird question.

If people want to go form a new group they're welcome to. 4th Tradition and all that. New groups start all the time. Moribund groups wither & fold all the time.

If we're doing God's work we'll be fine.  So why would we even entertain this idea?

I don't see a need at this time.

No.  At various times I have been a part of the different major communities here at e-aa - chat and live meetings, forums and email meetings.  I see multiple individuals who are also part of each of the areas.  If I was to be involved in 3 different AA groups, there may be a fractured sense of community and more than likely, I would only have ever been involved in just the chatroom (I came in search of an AA chatroom), thus truely missing out on the tremedous depth and bredth of sobriety I find in other formats.