[Organization] Weekly coop-wide updates

Editorial subgroup - Update 20aug18

• I moved the "official social.coop account" discussion to the editorial group to better focus on its development in the wake of the influx of new users

[WG] Finance reporting thread.
Please post updates using the REPLY button

[WG] Governance / Legal reporting thread.
Please post updates using the REPLY button

[WG] Reading reporting thread.
Please post updates using the REPLY button

Update 1 - 31/07/2018
1. We picked "Values at Work Employee Participation Meets Market Pressure at Mondragon" by G. Cheney as our fourth reading group book

1. A time poll to decide when to meet to comment the book is under way

Update 2 - 27/08/2018
1. The reading group will hold a call tomorrow at 9pm CEST to discuss the latest book.

[WG] Tech reporting thread.
Please post updates using the REPLY button

Sooo. I'm concerned that this effort to organize the SC governance activity may increase the deluge of content and further reduce engagement. Some questions are;

1: Are the updates going to allow for comments? If so what is to stop the update thread from becoming the conversation its self and just duplicating the content already out there?

2: What exactly is the volunteer members going to be posting as updates: Loomio already has organization system for active and completed votes, polls, etc.

3: Shouldn't this effort be part of the service the Community Working Group Admin Ops Team performs? (Which still needs to be formalized.)

4:: Is Loomio the right place to have updates on Loomio activity? Wouldn't the SC instance (if and when there is an official SC handle that is manned but he CWG be a better place to post updates as a lot of members are active on the instance but are not on Loomio?

5: If it is, might it better be its own Sub Group so that it is optional to subscribe to?

6: We still aren't addressing an overriding issue of low engagement and information overload which seems to be compounded by the erratic and open structure of posts on the main SC Loomio page (Outside a Working Group) which gets blasted out to every member in the form of separate emails. My sense is that a lot of the frustrations with navigating SC governance stems from this.

Hi,
thanks for the feedback, allow me to address the points one by one.
1. This is meant to be a plain journal, a list of updates for all members to read in order to stay updated with the lowest possible effort

1. A great deal of what happens in the WGs is only visible to those who are part of the groups themselves, which makes them appear as black boxes from the outside. The goal of this thread is to enable those who are not engaged in any of the groups (for whatever reason) to get a glimpse of what's going on.

2. I believe delegating the whole thing to just one WG would be unfair (we all have fingers and keyboards...) and produce an unreliable journal (as not all community WG members have the skills to understand all the details of each group's efforts). I believe that, in the spirit of co-operation, it makes much more sense to be doing this all together.

3. This is a valid point, it might be worth to consider using Loomio's RSS feed options to publish whatever gets published here on the instance as well.

4. That would go against the whole point of giving visibility to what's happening in other WGs.

5. This thread is actually meant as a direct action to fight lack of engagement: by giving people a quick, recurring overview of what's going on in each WG, it might improve member's understanding of what each WG does and, hopefully, foster inclusion.

Just wondering if there is any particular reason why WG subgroups are private? Might it be easier if they're visible to social.coop members to allow them to spectate when they feel they need to - without getting notifications on every new post? Assuming that's possible! This might allow people an intermediate level of engagement, which isn't all or nothing.

Also, is there any way of making the different subgroups more distinctive visually? It's easy to forget which group you're viewing, or recalling, and who therefore is a party to the conversation. In fact, even when I know which group I'm a bit unsure who is party to the conversation and who needs to be contacted explicitly (say, with regard to financial discussions about tech, or vice versa).

Do mentions within private subgroups of someone not in that private subgroup work normally?