Using consensual do-ocracy as a guide, I propose to explicitly adopt the advice process and the conflict escalation process as a philosophical basis for Kiez Burn

Advice process

issue

We have had our fair share of polls and issues with people either rushing too hard to make decisions that were not supported by the community, or stuck in indecisiveness and reliance on “democracy” and “polls”

Borderland inspiration

The Borderland is not a democracy. Voting isn’t the purpose of all these processes, collective intelligence is.
Indeed, the Borderland runs on an even more radical notion than democracy. In a radical democracy, no single person can decide anything without a majority vote. At the Borderland, which is a do-ocracy, any single person can decide anything (yes, really) as long as that person asks the advice of stakeholders. Democratically run events have procedures based on voting to decide, do-ocatically run organizations run differently, and the Borderland is run on a system called the Advice Process, check it out!
http://wiki.theborderland.se/Advice_Process

Consensual do-ocracy

• Anyone should be able to make any decision regarding Kiez Burn.
• However, before you make a decision, you must ask advice from those who will be impacted by that decision, and those who are experts on that subject.
• Assuming that you follow this process, and honestly try to listen to the advice of others, that advice is yours to evaluate and the decision yours to make.

The formal advice process

see: http://wiki.theborderland.se/Advice_Process

conflict escalation process

issue

We had our share of conflicts this year, what to do in these kind of situations is still unclear. Given that we are an active community, conflicts will happen again. The challenge is to handle these in a productive way and have processes available for both coming to decisions and nurturing relationships.

The process

1. Start with yourself. What do you need to take care of yourself in such a way that you can handle this situation in the most productive way? How can you better listen and try to understand the opinions and arguments of the other side?
2. Find an impartial mediator, a space holder who can facilitate the conversation. The role of this individual is not to have an opinion on the matter or try to make judgements, but to make sure that both sides listen to one another.
3. The third step is to bring in an arbitration panel to make the call. Arbitration is a form of ad-hoc community created court system, where each party in the conflict chooses one arbitrator to be on the panel. The two chosen arbitrators then chose a third member together, without the influence of the conflicting parties. These three parties will then interview the affected parties, as well as any experts that might have relevant information on the matter. The panel will make a vote and their decision is to be considered an authoritative, final decision.
4. If one of the conflicting parties at this stage refuses to participate in the arbitration process, or ignores the decision of the arbitration panel, the board of the non-profit organisation responsible for the event will make the decision. To escalate a conflict to this level is to be considered a complete breakdown of self-organization and something we hope to never happen.

Next steps

if adopted, this should be documented and referenced extensively to guide discussions

I thought this is an interesting contribution about Do-ocracy, including potential negative effects and necessary conditions:
https://communitywiki.org/wiki/DoOcracy
Necessary conditions
Do-ocracy typically evolves spontaneously in groups where:

• Stakes are low. Typically, if job X or task Y didn’t get done, or got done poorly, it’s not a life-or-death situation.
• Authority is non-coercive.
• Work is plentiful. There are lots of jobs to do, and lots of people to do them.
• Effort is rewarded with recognition.
• Culture of participation. Each member of the community feels a right and a duty to take on responsibilities.

Dangers
- Burnout. People can get too attached to the do-ocratic system and volunteer for too many jobs, or too much work, and tend to have a low TruckFactor?.
- Despotism. A person who’s doocrat’d themselves into control of a very necessary system (network, food pool, etc.) can get heady with power and demand rewards or tribute for their work.
- Frustration. Some people don’t have the time or means to do something, but they do have (real or imagined) expertise. In a doocracy, they will feel overrun and perceive the situation as slipping out of their hands. This can cause frustration. And remember: “Fear is the path to the dark side…”
- FairProcess. Doocracy is not always explicitly defined, so there are diverging perception dangers about “fairness”.
- Resentment. If only a minority of participants in the community do-ocratize themselves into the hard jobs, they can resent others who don’t take on responsibility.
- The Martyrdom Complex. Some people have a psychological need to work strenuously most of the time, perhaps because they are seeking persecution and suffering, motivated by a desire for penance. In do-ocracy, people with these psychological needs tend to take more responsibility and sometimes make strict rules to impose on others.
- Complacency. If a minority of people take on jobs, the others can become complacent and ignore new tasks, since “someone else will do it.”
- Social Exclusion. People who can’t do things, or choose not do things, are often marginalized in decision-making, which compounds social divides.

Some interesting guidelines around philosophy...

Think about these criteria when evaluating if a value is part of the Philosophy:
- First, is it a prime principle or value?
- Second, does it guide “how” we do our work?
- Third, is it a source of our distinction?
- Fourth, is it derived from our core team or the ideals that drove the organization’s creation?
- Fifth, if changed, would that alter the character of the organization?