This sort of progression, is exactly what I feared would happen, but anticipated with some inevitability. Interim become permanent, and gradually participation becomes less, and less, and leadership polarised.

How can such behaviour ever be better than democracy. If this is Sociocracy, it looks very much like an Oligarchy.

It says "It is proposed", but this wasn't made into a full-blown proposal (Loomio feature). Given that my participation has been scarce... I was planning to agree if this was a proposal I could cast a vote on.

I would also agree. My objection to what I see as abject hypocracy, doesn't mean I can't bow to the inevitable with good grace.

Oligarchy btw 😃 - I'm wondering though Robert, should your scarcity also mean you should also have your right to vote revoked. Just sayin!

I don't feel my vote has been revoked. I took this thread and proposal as an invitation to participate and effectively "vote".

Truthfully, I don't really know what being part of the IMC entails... other than taking on some additional level of responsibility. And I can't really think of anyone better suited for this "position" than those who have already been actively participating and making things happen. (In the eyes of their peers) So, I'm sure if anyone feels like they or someone else has also been actively involved, and deserves to be included in the circle, then they will speak up here about that.

How would you have conducted this differently?

Hi Mark, Robert,
The last time Ben did a Loomio he attracted some criticism for going straight to a proposal. Therefore, here I've invited people to discuss the topic before we then distil a proposal to go to vote. I'll see if I can edit the opener here accordingly to avoid any further confusion. Cheers.

I look forward to seeing thoughts from other members in the thread, as well as in the forthcoming vote. The proposal seems reasonable, although I recognise the frustration that despite much work and hope, an alternative to the IMC has not yet been developed. I hope that February is a viable deadline for this, and that new members joining following our bigger launch this autumn can provide energy and wisdom around this.

In the meantime I wonder whether those working on governance could share more of their progress, and more importantly, learnings? Figuring out how an organisation such as the Collective can operate effectively is essential; we know it's an area some potential members have concerns about; and we know it is hard. From what I've heard we don't currently think that the 'obvious' existing options (such as holacracy) would suit us, and it would be good for more of us (within and outwith the Collective) could understand the thinking and benefit from it. I do not imagine we'll be the only large member co-op aiming to work with free and open technologies, and our experiences - good and bad - will benefit the wider sector as well as us.

Having a sense of progress and shared learning might also help those concerned that the IMC isn't the right way to do things (and those of us on the IMC who hope not always to be!) to have more confidence in the future.