Loomio
Mon 13 Mar 2023 5:51AM

Working group turnover time?

NS Nathan Schneider Public Seen by 216

TLDR: This is an attempt to start a discussion about changing the membership in our working groups.

Particularly with the large membership growth, I think it's time to more intentionally orchestrate turnover in the working groups. Our bylaws don't specify any requirements for how working group membership is chosen. Typically we have done it through ad hoc elections. I am starting this thread to start a discussion about doing this better and more inclusively.

Toward that end, I will offer a series of initial suggestions:

  • Starting this year, we should instantiate annual working group turnover on May Day (May 1).

  • Consider the following method, to be carried out by the Community Working Group: Each year, there should be an open call for any member to volunteer for any working group, via a Loomio participation poll. Each working group should announce how many slots it is opening, aiming to have a balance between continuity and new participants. If there are more volunteers than slots, new working group participants will be chosen at random (by sortition). An opportunity will be offered for any member to block a new working group member based on serious concerns. If the block has a second from another member, another volunteer will be chosen. The process should be completed by May 1 each year.

  • We should add language to the Bylaws specifying the annual working group turnover process.

Thoughts? Based on the discussion, I'll start moving toward developing more concrete proposals.

MN

Matt Noyes Tue 14 Mar 2023 8:31PM

TWG operates on the open community of participants model. The CWG Ops team is a set of specific, elected, members. There is no functioning Community Working Group.

D

Dynamic Wed 15 Mar 2023 3:30PM

@Matt Noyes

When you say the CWG Ops team is elected, what does it mean?

Are there at-large elections where members are selected on a first-past-the-post plurality basis?

@Nathan Schneider said something about ad hoc elections. If we're using at-large elections, it feels like the minimum for reasonable democratic process would be regularly scheduled elections. I much prefer the idea of sortition, however.

MN

Matt Noyes Wed 15 Mar 2023 5:10PM

The elections are at large and follow procedures in the bylaws. They have been ad hoc simply because it takes time/effort to organize elections, which is important to consider as we talk about possible procedures: somebody has to do the work.

NS

Nathan Schneider Wed 15 Mar 2023 6:10PM

@Matt Noyes The Bylaws don't actually specify an election process to my knowledge: https://wiki.social.coop/docs/Bylaws.html

Also, Matt, could you please update the community wiki to reflect the actual structure of the Community Working Group? https://wiki-dev.social.coop/Operations.

I would argue the "ops team" should just be regarded as the Community Working Group so there is uniformity across the different groups in terms of nomenclatures.

MN

Matt Noyes Wed 15 Mar 2023 6:41PM

@Nathan SchneiderThanks -- I updated the wiki. We do need to clarify our terminology. The interesting thing is that the TWG operates as an open community of participants (the original working group idea, I think) while CWG operates as a closed ops team. It might be okay for us to use different forms for different types of work?

NS

Nathan Schneider Thu 16 Mar 2023 3:15PM

@Matt Noyes Yeah. It's strange. I don't know where I got the idea that working groups were supposed to be elected. Maybe I am delusional. But we just need clarity in a public place, and some logic. I am worried that while we have had a bit influx of members, the operational folks have remained largely the same.

WM

Will Murphy Fri 17 Mar 2023 9:25PM

@Nathan Schneider huh yeah I've been watching for the next elections in order to volunteer, but I guess I'd be waiting a long time...

Seems this thread is very much needed, then. What do you need for next steps?

NS

Nathan Schneider Sat 18 Mar 2023 7:48PM

@Will Murphy Thanks. I am a bit unsure about how to proceed, particularly with another discussion happening about rethinking our governance structure. I've just inquired with the organizers of that thread about the extent of overlap: https://social.coop/@ntnsndr/110045962325972267 @Matt Noyes @Matthew Cropp

I also resonate a lot with @Darren's concerns about ensuring we govern and manage through open, rather than closed, processes. It seems to me that the goal right now is to find a balance between:

  1. Open, participatory culture that invites voluntary involvement

  2. Clear lines of accountability and ladders of engagement for new members, against tyrannies of structurelessness

Currently I see some potential paths forward as being:

  • Create a structure to choose an annual coordinator role for each working group (perhaps by sortition of self-nominees), and integrate them with a spokescouncil body to integrate the different parts of the community

  • Clarify the nature of working groups and their respective ladders of engagement in the wiki

  • Clarify in the bylaws or elsewhere the structure of permissioned groups, such as ops teams, is more visible and participation is more accessible

Thoughts? Other things emerging?