Loomio
Mon 3 Oct 2016

Recruit an initial leadership team

CW
Chad Whitacre Public Seen by 477

Forming a cooperative of users to #BuyTwitter is a huge undertaking. We need leadership. Who is willing to step forward and commit to spending time on this effort? At this point the specific ask is somewhat undefined, because we are bootstrapping. The requirements are open to debate and revision, but probably look something like the following:

Do you meet the above criteria? Do you know someone who does? Let's gather names, run them through a quick vetting process (simple thread + proposal for each), and then make them coordinators on the project!

Background

The timeline of how we got here鈥攁s I (@whit537) am aware of it, please chime in from other perspectives:

2016-09-29 @ntnsndr published "Here's my plan to save Twitter: let's buy it"
2016-09-30 Robin Chase indicated that there is "a multi-sectoral alliance of NGOs with shared guiding principles" who is leading the charge. That was a mistake! 馃槷
2016-09-30 @whit537 created this Loomio group to facilitate open organizing, and invited Nathan Schneider (@ntnsndr), and the others Nathan originally credited, as coordinators: @arminsteuernagel1 @tommcdonough and Robin Chase.
2016-10-03 A ticket about onboarding @bonniefoleywong as a coordinator makes it clear that we need to take a step back and proceed in a somewhat more orderly fashion. :-)

TAM

Timothy A McDonald Mon 3 Oct 2016

I am happy to help lead the social media effort. I was the Director of Community at Huffington Post and am on the Social Council for #NoKidHungry plus was director of communications for SMC Chicago. Will need s few others to help grow our community, but willing to take the lead on that.

CW

Chad Whitacre Mon 3 Oct 2016

Picking up from https://www.loomio.org/d/VnSE63pT/comment/1143654 ...

Has Bonnie been asked about the role, and accepted in principle?

No. Sorry to be presumptive, and thanks for being a good sport, @bonniefoleywong. :-)

I think making an "onboarding" ticket ("recruiting"?) is okay, but we should wait for agreement from the person in question before starting a proposal on that ticket. Does that sound right?

BF

Bonnie Foley-Wong Mon 3 Oct 2016

No worries. I'm multi-lingual in corporate hierarchies as well as self-organized groups, amongst other languages :-) Truth is, I'd rather be an information resource and possibly an advisor, whilst we figure out what there is to coordinate. I'd also happily be the friendly translator of institutional M&A and devil's advocate. I tread a line between the traditional capital markets and social impact markets.

MC

Matthew Cropp Mon 3 Oct 2016

I'm happy to be part of these conversations; my day-job is with the Vermont Employee Ownership Center, where much of the work we do is educating about, and providing technical assistance to, groups of workers seeking to purchase their workplaces from retiring owners as an alternative to sale to outsiders. Most of the deals I work with are under $1m, but I am very familiar with co-op structures, values, education, and community capital campaigns.

CW

Chad Whitacre Mon 3 Oct 2016

Awesome, thanks @timothyamcdonald @matthewcropp! I've made tickets for each of you:

https://www.loomio.org/d/broxYG43/onboard-timothyamcdonald
https://www.loomio.org/d/EbpMV4qw/onboard-matthewcropp

I think at this point we should be fairly liberal with "coordinator" status to help in building momentum. With that in mind, I'm setting 24 hour timeouts on proposals on the onboarding tickets. If we don't get any blockers in that time then I'll be happy to add you as coordinators! :-)

ST

Sam Toland Mon 3 Oct 2016

My advice, as I have posted elsewhere, is that we should focus on driving discussion and membership - sharing resources, knowledge and opinion.

I think the focus on leadership etc. is crucial - but this will take a little time to feel out. The idea of co-ordinators is a good one.

Building the infrastructure of a project like this is more important (and a great undertaking) than getting into discussion about specific roles etc.

NS

Nathan Schneider Mon 3 Oct 2016

Just to be clear, @whit537, Robin sent that tweet to us by mistake. She was actually referring to a coalition related to car-sharing.

CW

Chad Whitacre Mon 3 Oct 2016

Ah! Okay, that explains that. :-)

CW

Chad Whitacre Tue 4 Oct 2016

From @ntnsndr at https://www.loomio.org/d/EbpMV4qw/comment/1144924:

I would like to suggest that we should aim for gender parity among coordinators. There are active, engaged women in this group, and we want to make sure the group leadership reflects that.

CW

Chad Whitacre Tue 4 Oct 2016

@ntnsndr It's pretty brittle to have to vote everyone in and out of coordinatorship. I think we want more open, inclusive, and fluid leadership. What if we separate leadership from the Loomio "coordinator" role? If we had three or four coordinators to act mostly as administrators or secretaries, then we could encode leadership in other ways.

NS

Nathan Schneider Tue 4 Oct 2016

That's fine with me. I was just concerned seeing that the active proposals for coordinators all referred to male names. I think for any role with authority and visibility, gender parity is important. Especially when we can certainly achieve it within our community.

PG

Priscilla Grim Tue 4 Oct 2016

I totally agree with Nathan. The group needs racial and gender identification parity from the beginning, or it will be lost in the long run.

ST

Sam Toland Tue 4 Oct 2016

To speak to @ntnsndr point - I think we will need to have generated a minimum number of active participants in their various channels of discussion before anyone with a real leadership role can be chosen.

I would advise that we stick with the 'coordinator' role, which is limited to getting the discussion channels up and running, and being prepared to hand these over once we hit a critical mass.

NS

Nathan Schneider Tue 4 Oct 2016

Agreed. And the longer we put off inclusivity, the harder it will be to accomplish. And I am happy to step down from the coordinator role and operate more as a supporter and advocate for this effort. Whatever y'all think. As I said elsewhere, I think others' skill sets are better suited for making this work than mine, though I'm happy to be of use wherever I can be.

ST

Sam Toland Tue 4 Oct 2016

@ntnsndr I think you are uniquely placed to be a co-ordinator, in the minimalist sense I suggest. Given your profile in the movement in general, and that you really shot the starting gun on the #buytwitter idea.

This role might really come down to encouraging and recruiting as diverse a range of individuals to come join the group, and take up leadership roles. :)

CC

Chris Cook Tue 4 Oct 2016

Hi. I was introduced to this fascinating initiative (and to Loomio - so bear with me) by Suresh Fernando in Vancouver.

I'm based in Scotland, and have thrirty years experience of development & regulation of markets & finnancial instruments including six years as a Director of what is now the biggest global energy exchange. But I'm better now, and am a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Security & Resilience Studies at University College London.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/isrs/about/fellows/ChrisCook

Here I am conducting action-based research - at the request of the ISRS founder, a former UK Defence Minister - into how to create a networked financial system that does not come two hours away from the ATMs being switched off, as ours did in October 2008.

I believe firstly that a Platform Co-operative - a Co-op of Co-ops, if you like - provides an optimal solution for all utilities with the correct funding instrument (which is neither debt nor equity as we know it), and secondly that Twitter 2.0 potentially has a major and unique role to play as part of the generic market utility/payment infrastructure I think of as 'NewClear'.

Anyway, enough from me. I think I can help with global legal architecture, and with transitional/transformational (development) finance, followed by long-term stakeholder funding which will give existing investors an optimal exit should they wish.

Apologies for going on at such length.

SF

Suresh Fernando Tue 4 Oct 2016

Welcome @chriscook1 ... glad you're here ;-)

CC

Chris Cook Tue 4 Oct 2016

My pleasure @sureshfernando

CW

Chad Whitacre Tue 4 Oct 2016

And I am happy to step down from the coordinator role and operate more as a supporter and advocate for this effort. Whatever y'all think.

I think that's a terrible idea. :-)

As I said elsewhere, I think others' skill sets are better suited for making this work than mine, though I'm happy to be of use wherever I can be.

What you have is the vision. That's the crucial piece that ties together everyone else's skills and Megazords them into a mightier-than-the-sum synergistic whole. Don't underestimate that.

I think you are uniquely placed to be a co-ordinator, in the minimalist sense I suggest. Given your profile in the movement in general, and that you really shot the starting gun on the #buytwitter idea.

This role might really come down to encouraging and recruiting as diverse a range of individuals to come join the group, and take up leadership roles.

Yes! Let's be clear: "coordinator" is just Loomio's word for the group secretary. Sorry for distracting us by focusing on that. IMO, the key ingredient to this group's success is relational leadership, not positional authority.

Personally, I am looking to you for direction, @ntnsndr. "Objective journalism, this is not." ;-)

NS

Nathan Schneider Tue 4 Oct 2016

Okay, well I won't belabor it. And I'm all for not dwelling on leadership stuff and getting to work. But to the extent that we do have leadership in any explicit way (such as Loomio coordinators), it needs to be diverse.

CW

Chad Whitacre Tue 4 Oct 2016

to the extent that we do have leadership in any explicit way (such as Loomio coordinators), it needs to be diverse.

馃憤

I'm all for not dwelling on leadership stuff and getting to work.

馃憤

HC

Hailey Cooperrider Wed 5 Oct 2016

I reckon the group needs someone with a facilitator's skillset and mindset, who can suspend their own perspective and help the group think clearly together. Ideally someone fairly senior, who is looking for a new challenge. Anyone have someone in their network who might be willing to show up and play?

MC

Matthew Cropp Wed 5 Oct 2016

@haileycooperrider I can think of a person who might fit that bill and will invite her to the project.

RW

Rikkie Wells Wed 5 Oct 2016

After Nov 8th I'd be down to help with the build and promotion of a competing platform or buying Twitter. Personally, with enough of us, ideally we could build our own site and mass recruit users and push the fact we respect privacy rights....Paying 17+ billion because a site has a lot of users seems excessive. We are literally the content....A co-op social media platform interests me greatly. I won't be available to consistently and actively contribute until after the election. This is @zbanshee on Twitter.

BF

Bonnie Foley-Wong Wed 5 Oct 2016

The people who seeded this community play an important role - inviting people to your village, being the inaugural mayors until others are identified or you figure out a better way of ensuring everyone in your village has access the resources they need to survive, thrive, and be happy. This co-op or whatever it is, is a microcosm of the future you'd like to see. As like any other village in the world, it ain't that easy to join as a newcomer (there are exceptions...)

AI

Alanna Irving Wed 5 Oct 2016

Really great contributions emerging on this topic so far :) I'm wondering, does anyone have a sense for the conclusion we're converging on around leadership for now? I'd suggest a proposal summarising what's been heard and clarifying the approach we want to take, to test for agreement.

I heard a few people say that it's still early and we might want to hold off naming specific leaders for a while. I also heard that it's very useful to name specific leadership to help a movement coalesce (and that we need to be conscious of who we pick in terms of things like diversity).

ST

Sam Toland Wed 5 Oct 2016

I think the issue of leadership does really need answered just yet (though just my opinion). More important to getting a broad discussion and inclusive debate started about what can and should be achieved.

Plenty of chats on Loomio and Slack about what the whole buytwitter thing really means - I posted a summary as a separate thread.

AI

Alanna Irving Wed 5 Oct 2016

Great - since you have a clear view, how about raising it as a proposal? Proposals help us hear from everyone and test agreement. Even if we don't all agree with it, we'll at least know where people stand and surface some important issues. And if the group does generally agree with that approach, then we can stop debating it and move forward.

ST

Sam Toland started a proposal Wed 5 Oct 2016

Stick with Co-ordinating Leaders for two weeks. Closed Mon 10 Oct 2016

I am proposing that we refrain from discussing 'leadership' in the executive sense for a two week period.

I think that we are at an emphermal stage in this project's development - and that crystalizing leadership could lead to;

(i) an early narrowing of the debate
(ii) stop us from recruiting a leadership from the broadest number of people possible - both in background, skillsets and experience (this is still a very small group of people)
(iii) might discourage people from joining, if they think that their is already an established structure to 'deal' with, in our to get their views aired.

I do think that what @whit537 called 'relational leadership' is what is needed. And I believe that this should continue to develop organically, as has happened to date.


I would clarify that I think that strong, executive leadership (democratically accountable of course) will be needed to get a project like this off the ground - but I don't think there is enough urgency (Twitter's not even 'for sale' yet) to outweight the demerits of establishing such a leadership at this time.

Thoughts? :)

Agree - 8
Abstain - 8
Disagree - 8
Block - 8
19 people have voted (7%)
TE

Thomas Euler
Agree
Wed 5 Oct 2016

Good leadership will emerge. Plus, it should remain situational and fluid anyway.

NS

Nathan Schneider
Agree
Wed 5 Oct 2016

Yes, I think we need to have some open space for clarifying goals before moving on to roles.

CB

Chloe Beelby
Agree
Thu 6 Oct 2016

MC

Matthew Cropp
Agree
Thu 6 Oct 2016

CW

Chad Whitacre
Agree
Thu 6 Oct 2016

Works for me. Now that it's clear the other coordinators are paying attention, the pressure is off to find more. I just didn't want to be the only one! :)

HC

Hailey Cooperrider Wed 5 Oct 2016

Gratitude to Alanna for showing up to support good Loomio practice!

One technique I've often used in contexts like these is to create a google slideshow which is primarily internally focused, which organises all of our strategic thinking so far. Simple slides like:

  • what is the original idea and background?
  • who is here?
  • who is leading?
  • what key questions are emerging?
  • what's next?

The slideshow format keeps the information modular and visual, and easily rearrangeable

OF

Olivier Frey Thu 6 Oct 2016

Hey everyone, I'm a coop expert from France and I'm glad to join this group. I'd be happy to help spread the word to French speaking people as I've been tweeting about creating buying Twitter and make it a coop for months now ;-)

PG

Priscilla Grim Thu 6 Oct 2016

We need programmers, not just theorists and coop people, honestly, I'm not sure how to find them, especially when they are looking at 6 figure starting salaries.

ST

Sam Toland Thu 6 Oct 2016

This is the problem with developing a platform coop. This is a systemic problem - won't be solved overnight (though there are some of us beating the system here :) )

The solutions discussed in the community are (i) raising the necessary capital to pay similar salaries as the corporate world and/or (ii) raise the consciousness of programmers/developers regarding the long-term benefits (personal and communal) of owning the platform and investing in this with a reduced salary (in the short-term).

One way of recognising such an investment is https://app.timefounder.com/ - I am hoping to get one of the founders @asolache to this group to discuss this (on another thread, or maybe slack - this isn't the place to discuss I think).

AS

Alvaro Solache Thu 6 Oct 2016

Hello @samtoland thanks for the invitation, hi all. Yes we are developing a platform for fairshares distributions. The platform we are developing allows to give shares to any person that does "value contributions" to a project. We like the exemple of the Farishares model, as a legal basic framework were all stakeholders can have ther shares according their value contributions and were the governance is more democratic and the capital investors are not the only ones that are allowed to have shares and voting rights. We could share our experience and invite anyone interested and helping us keep on developing the platform.

JG

John Gieryn Thu 6 Oct 2016

I like the proposal that was put forth as a two-week leadership decision moratorium. As many have indicated, creating a clear, mutual language to make the naturally emerging leadership accountable and create a spiral of engagement that's openly accessible and easy to understand (and emboldens people to "move up move up" both from vocal-roles to active listening roles & from participative observation to vocal activity).

A sense of relational leadership, from what I've read, is a good formative language for empowering fluid stepping into and out of roles that have mandated power/accountability. Here's a resource: Relational Leadership by Cunliffe & Eriksen.

And a paraphrase from Richard Bartlett of Loomio, "In any situation there will be people who will be responders; if we draw all the [Buy Twitter] members on a map, we could even put a circle around these responders. That hierarchy isn't inherently bad, but it does demand that we put some accountability around it"

KL

Kirsten Lambertsen Fri 7 Oct 2016

"Priscilla Grim agreed:
It is my preference that as this team is built, a commitment to racial and gender parity on the team 50% women & 50% POC at the very least."

+1

D

Devin Fri 7 Oct 2016

I'm with @bonniefoleywong on this one. In my experience leaders emerge out of productive groups - they aren't recruited. My recommendation is that people work with peers to produce useful outcomes and then it'll become obvious who is good at performing broader "leadership" type functions. I also think we'd need to unpack the terms and explicitly define "leader" and "coordinator" before declaring people as such.

NS

Nathan Schneider Sat 8 Oct 2016

I think we need to start鈥攑erhaps now鈥攐utlining roles. Like who is responsible for making sure what gets taken care of. That way, even if there isn't a CEO, we at least know who is responsible for what. That will help with on-boarding as well as helping to prevent weird power dynamics. Projects are starting to take shape, like the legal/organizational structure, the website, and the manifesto. Roles can start to form around those now.

Already I've been told several times that I'm a de-facto leader. I'm trying to hold that space responsibly, but honestly I'm not comfortable with it at all. I wrote an article, but lots of people here know a lot more about how to make this a reality than I do, and they come with equal or greater motivation. So I would like to see my perceived role diminish with time, or be replaced with an explicit role.

Further, I want to make sure that we are visibly, consciously, ensuring that key roles and positions of voice and leadership are being held by a greater diversity of participants. I was troubled by the all-male participation in today's call. To me it is non-negotiable that platform co-op efforts need to operate with diversity as a forethought.

AI

Alanna Irving Sat 8 Oct 2016

@ntnsndr as you know, the pathway out of defacto leadership is not vacating the leadership space, but using it to proactively build an explicit alternative - ideally a collaborative, distributed system of roles, and solid co-leadership among diverse committed people, as you describe. I believe you will further the goal of not ending up the leader by stepping up now and delegating, rather than stepping back and hoping it will work itself out.

I think the same thing can be said about the diversity challenge... if the first people naturally taking up leadership roles are all men, then the answer is not for those men to refuse to step up, but to get in there and make diversifying the leadership their task. Diverse leaders need diverse invitations to leadership. Creating vacuums does not serve, in my opinion, even if the intent is toward diversity or sharing power. Leadership flows like water - you can't argue with it, you need to work with it and direct it where you want it to go.

I believe the proposal here about it being too early seemed right because there weren't yet clear roles emerging. But if there are now, then let's name them. If they are in action, better to name them and then change them later, rather than allow a hidden structure to emerge without acknowledging it clearly. We can always change roles and people as we go. The key is to keep things fluid and responsive.

By the way, everyone, if you're new to Loomio, keep in mind that you can change you position as long as the proposal is still going on. That's a key part of the process: listening to others and allowing your perspective to evolve.

NS

Nathan Schneider Sat 8 Oct 2016

Thanks, @alanna. I definitely have no intention of vacating; in fact, in recent days, I've been becoming more and more deeply involved (partly thanks to your masterly guidance). Far from creating a vacuum, I decided to disagree with the proposal so that, as projects form, we can begin identifying and clarifying roles in a collaborative, appropriate way. In part, this is selfish. I'm finding myself assuming leadership in certain aspects of this effort, and I'd like to make sure that is transparent and okay with everyone.

NS

Nathan Schneider Sun 9 Oct 2016

@alanna and others: Any suggestions of how best to register assigned roles? We can create proposals in this thread (or another), but where should we put them so that they're clear to all participants and newcomers? Should we add it to the main text for the Buy Twitter group here on Loomio?

JG

John Gieryn Sun 9 Oct 2016

Great points Miss Alanna; wondering what you and others would think about naming "interim roles" now, with a pre-readied action of removing the "interim" as soon as coordinator roles are filled by 50% women & 50% POColor.

@ntnsndr RE: process, i wonder if dialogue might not continue under the current proposal, and then a new proposal be formed in this thread for continuity (otherwise, if point people/ roles need forming sooner, perhaps that would best occur in the pertinent thread e.g. a point person could be named for the manifesto in that thread).

AI

Alanna Irving Sat 8 Oct 2016

@samtoland or a coordinator of this group may want to extend the timeframe of this proposal, as the discussion is getting interesting.

ST

Sam Toland Sat 8 Oct 2016

@alanna I have added an additional two days to the proposal.

@ntnsndr - we had a consensus forming in one direction (not crystalizing leadership) but I have added two days to the discussion.

I suggest that people engage with @ntnsndr argument for leadership (below) - and remember they can change position on this issue.

"*I think we need to start鈥攑erhaps now鈥攐utlining roles. Like who is responsible for making sure what gets taken care of. That way, even if there isn't a CEO, we at least know who is responsible for what. That will help with on-boarding as well as helping to prevent weird power dynamics. Projects are starting to take shape, like the legal/organizational structure, the website, and the manifesto. Roles can start to form around those now.

Already I've been told several times that I'm a de-facto leader. I'm trying to hold that space responsibly, but honestly I'm not comfortable with it at all. I wrote an article, but lots of people here know a lot more about how to make this a reality than I do, and they come with equal or greater motivation. So I would like to see my perceived role diminish with time, or be replaced with an explicit role.

Further, I want to make sure that we are visibly, consciously, ensuring that key roles and positions of voice and leadership are being held by a greater diversity of participants. I was troubled by the all-male participation in today's call. To me it is non-negotiable that platform co-op efforts need to operate with diversity as a forethought.*"

JG

John Gieryn Sun 9 Oct 2016

Ive used "point person" (or sometimes "bottom-liner") mechanism in several consent-based/ horizontal collectives, with the understanding that it doesnt necessarily reflect the person who is going to accomplish the work, but represents the person who is making sure the work gets done by somebody. I like how it carries connotations similar to contact person- "point person" can make evident who to contact for a given process or task.

NS

Nathan Schneider Sun 9 Oct 2016

Thanks @karuncowper and @coopchange. I agree with the framing of "point person" or "bottom-liner." That's pretty much what I mean when I talk about "roles."

Would someone like to make an alternative proposal on this thread for how to go about this? I think we're getting to the point where the current proposal is slipping.

JG

John Gieryn Sun 9 Oct 2016

Draft language for proposal after ^ ends:
"Accept [consenting nominee] as point & [consenting nominee] as co-point of legal/organizational structure, [" "] as point & [" "] as co-point of the website design & maintenance, and [" "] as point & [" "] as co-point of the manifesto (including its distribution), with an understanding that all above will be considered "interim roles" until the diversoty criteria of 50% women & 50% people of color in point positions is met. Once the condition is met, the points will automatically move from "interim roles" to "roles".

I suggest co-points so that an interested party who wishes to grow in the skills of a point role may learn that skill from someone more experienced, start spreading intelligence from the get go. However, perhaps there's not yet capacity to recruit/call-out or deliberate on it.

I wonder, also, if the role of responding to emails, queries, noteable comments (both inbound & external) might be best served with a point? Or could that be wrapped into one of the above categories that @ntnsndr suggested. I believe someone suggested a Comms lead in another thread?

Next steps IMO is making direct but open call-outs for people to grab these, perhaps with them to outline a Colleague Letter Of Understanding -like job description? Others could draft this too.
I could dreg up the article detailing Morning Star's CLOU method if someone asks.

NS

Nathan Schneider Sun 9 Oct 2016

Thanks, @coopchange. This sounds reasonable to me. So far the roles that I've seen emerging include (and I'm not sure the people would necessarily want to keep them):

  • Financial/legal structure: @sureshf @bonniefoleywong @tommcdonough

  • Manifesto campaign: @ntnsndr

  • Manifesto video: @trizcs

  • Public website: @kirstenlambertsen

  • Coordination: @alanna @coopchange

  • Internal infrastructure: @whit537 @samnabi

  • Next conference calls: @sureshf @thomaseuler1

Does that seem right-ish? Who else is doing what other roles?

I just created a public, editable document where we can keep track of roles:
https://slack-files.com/T2JLJFUH1-F2M71NN8N-81d4b3d7e7

Could you go ahead with proposing something along the lines of what you described?

TM

Tom McDonough Sun 9 Oct 2016

Is the role of Evangelist or some such already embedded in one of these roles? i.e. Someone to lead the recruitment of participants through social media.

JG

John Gieryn Mon 10 Oct 2016

I'm happy to propose something in coming day or two, but two thoughts:

:: Nomination Process ::

How about we get consent from the nominated parties, as well as at least a two sentence description from them as to what they commit to do for the network & how their efforts may be observed. This will enable us to get a feel for time-capacity per @thomaseuler1 's comment.

I created a Nominations google-doc with some rough formatting that should be revised as participants see fit, please and thanks! I'd suggest people give consent to their nomination in this Loomio channel, but 2nd best might be using a "comment" in the doc in case the nomination/ responsibilities was written by another.

:: Financial-Legal Structure (and) Working Groups ::

IMO, a Financial-Legal Structure bottom-liner only would be necessary if: 1) There's a measurable goal with a deadline, OR 2) A working group is needed as this work is only of interest to a few & the discussion is creating too much noise for the network (e.g. we hope a few will go off and come back with a detailed proposal for the network to review).

For the latter, is there the critical mass to justify subdividing already? Concern would be that people who would otherwise be interested in contributing to this subject find it less accessible (however, with a good facilitator/ Working Group Bottom-liner putting up signs in #announcements & relevant Loomio threads, & with these tools in general, this is mitigated, as @sureshf suggest).

I'd like to keep in mind people's feelings 鈫抇 keeping this open for emergent leadership _as well, and not rushing some of these things so as to allow for fluid co-creation...

Beyond the website & the social-media campaign, there are several other tasks that @bonniefoleywong (towards acquisition) and @thomaseuler1 (towards general strategy) have put forward; the acquisition does stand out to me as requiring a bottom-liner facilitating those ^ tasks, if we hope to purchase Twitter & not just form this Acquisition Co-op.

The formative organizational decisions, like decision-making structure, vision/mission, etc. seem to be wider pieces that would best be dealt with as we go by the whole network- keeping in mind, alos, @samtoland 's suggestion to "focus on driving discussion and membership".

If people feel keen to recognize folks doing internal-infrastructure/coordionation/comms facilitation & set up, I put those roles in there, but I could also see this as a task best left to everyone (kinda like recruitment & outreach, everyone able should do a bit of this IMO)

TE

Thomas Euler Sun 9 Oct 2016

While I'm against the introduction of any kind of hierarchical structure I'm all for defining roles & responsibilities more clearly.

As a first step, however, I think it would be reasonable to get a precise idea about the time commitment people are actually able to make as this gets more serious. I, for example, are very interested in supporting and advancing this project but my time is currently rather limited. I assume many people are in similar positions thus I believe being clear and transparent about this would make a lot of sense before appointing points persons or introducing similar concepts.

What would also be super helpful is a clear documentation of current workstreams and people contributing. As this group gets bigger and new people join having this at a central, easy-to-find place is essential to be accessible and inviting.
As long as the slack auto-invite isn't working I'd suggest to use a Google Doc and put it in a sticky note here in loomio.

What do you think?

SF

Suresh Fernando Mon 10 Oct 2016

Clearly we need Leadership and, it seems to me, that the this emerging somewhat naturally.

I'd suggest the following Structure and priorities in terms of organizing...

WORKING GROUPS: organize activity into Working Groups.
-Working Groups are to be distinguished from Committees in that they aren't permanent and that mandates can be somewhat fluid. A Working Group is formed to explore a particular challenge, and might dissolve once the challenge is completed. Others will be more permanent.

Each Working Group should draft a Scope of Responsibility

BOTTOM-LINERS: Have one or two people bottom-line responsibility ensuring that the Scope of Responsibility within the Working Group remains the focus. The bottom-liner can draft the Scope of Responsibility. The responsibility of the bottom-liner is to ensure the work gets done... not to do everything.

TRANSPARENCY AND INCLUSION
Let's keep the boundaries of the Working Groups permeable by having them...
-Extend Invitations to participate and remain open new members and input
-Create threads on Loomio
-Create channels on Slack
-Ensure all major decisions are expressed via proposal on Loomio to the wider group

REPORTING AND INFORMATION FLOW
I'd suggest that all of the bottom-liners participate on the Skype calls... and take it upon themselves to ensure that what is transpiring in the Working Groups is communicated widely.

This is really important at this stage of the process where both the Objectives/Goals of the Group are in flux... as are the Process and Structure for how they will be realized.

STARTING WORKING GROUPS
Everyone should feel comfortable starting new Working Groups to address challenges or advance initiatives they deem useful or necessary for the collective.

Most of this is happening naturally already, but it doesn't hurt to make the structure explicit...

In Solidarity

-

SF

Suresh Fernando Mon 10 Oct 2016

@tommcdonough Please join the Finance and Structure Working Group. If you could send your email to @samtoland he can add you to the Slack channel.

TM

Tom McDonough Mon 10 Oct 2016

@sureshf I'm new to loomio and slack. Nathan got me into slack last week but how do I find the Finance and Structure Working Group?

TE

Thomas Euler Mon 10 Oct 2016

While I can't formally change my vote anymore, I think what @sureshf & @coopchange proposed makes sense.

My only remark/addition regarding process: Once working groups have been set-up and started working on their issues, I believe they should be able to handle their respective bottom-liner in an autonomous & fluid way.

And @coopchange, you wrote: "the acquisition does stand out to me as requiring a bottom-liner facilitating those ^ tasks, if we hope to purchase Twitter & not just form this Acquisition Co-op." <- In my mind, a positive decision to use the popularity of the Twitter storyline in order to drive the project has been made; it would be great if @ntnsndr could clarify this. If the case, we should definitely add both work streams/groups to the document.

TM

Tom McDonough Mon 10 Oct 2016

@sureshf I just joined the #fiancestructure channel in slack. Is that what you wanted me to join or is there something else?

JG

John Gieryn started a proposal Wed 12 Oct 2016

Let's use this INTERIM election process & get consent from nominees Closed Tue 18 Oct 2016

I agree we should elect INTERIM Bottom-liners by using this Nominations-doc and the process contained therein, summarized as:
1. Nominations掳
2. Nominees write a commitment to the network掳
3. Qs & Concerns, Resolutions掳掳
4. Final Proposal of Nominees掳掳

掳 in Nominations-doc
掳掳 in Loomio


Below is not the exact procedure above, but may be useful as a sample consensus process for people to get a sense of the process I'm suggesting, for lack of any formal decision-making procedure, yet, here.
Example consensus process

Agree - 7
Abstain - 7
Disagree - 7
Block - 7
9 people have voted (3%)
NS

Nathan Schneider
Agree
Thu 13 Oct 2016

I agree and just added my commitment.

TE

Thomas Euler
Agree
Thu 13 Oct 2016

D

Devin
Abstain
Thu 13 Oct 2016

I think it'd be more useful to have someone take responsibility for keeping track of what folks are doing and then writing/publishing summaries for everyone to read. Leaders will emerge from transparent work and outcome production.

JR

John Richmond
Agree
Thu 13 Oct 2016

ES

Eugenia Siapera
Agree
Thu 13 Oct 2016

AP

Aharon Porath
Agree
Fri 14 Oct 2016

JV

Joshua Vial
Agree
Sun 16 Oct 2016

JH

Johnny Haeusler
Agree
Sun 16 Oct 2016

AI

Alanna Irving
Abstain
Mon 17 Oct 2016

I trust the group

JG

John Gieryn Wed 12 Oct 2016

I noticed @samnabi was not in the Slack, so I thought I'd alert them here :) All the other nominees outlined by Nathan Schneider & others have been alerted in Slack.

Also note, IMHO we should refrain from proposing working group coordinators/ bottom-liners until those working groups have a specific scope of work that needs doing outside of the public channels, OR is measurable work with a specific deadline.

DU

[deactivated account] Wed 12 Oct 2016

I think you're looking for @samtoland? I'm just a fly on the wall here.

ST

Sam Toland Wed 12 Oct 2016

Always easy to confuse us Sams @samnabi :)

AI

Alanna Irving Thu 13 Oct 2016

Very easy to set up subgroups in this Loomio group for working groups. Can make the content private or transparent to members of the main group.