Loomio
Fri 17 Mar 2017 4:29PM

Adopt Version one of the governance charter: "Working Principles of the ECA"

NL Nicole Leonard Public Seen by 118

WORKING PRINCIPLES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMONS ASSEMBLY (Version 1)

  1. We conceive of the ECA itself as a commons. We are a community (of activists, researchers, students, teachers, citizens etc.) who steward our shared space for trans-local collaboration on commons which is the European Commons Assembly. Here, we outline our governance.

  2. The ECA is a non-hierarchical, peer-to-peer space for collaboration, rather than a body of representation.

    Individual participants cannot legitimately speak “on behalf of” the Assembly as a whole.
    They can however claim that ideas or work “emerged from” the ECA, or identify as members or “part of” of the Assembly.

  3. We work through self-organized Assembly Groups that hold responsibility for carrying out initiatives, or "actions".
    All groups should inform, communicate and share their actions with the broader ECA.

    At the beginning of an agreed-upon action they should clarify and document a mandate that describes and contextualizes the action and provides relevant information for the rest of the ECA.

  4. We strive for consensus when making decisions and taking actions at all levels - individually, within Assembly Groups, and for the ECA at large.
    All initiatives and decisions should cohere with the following principled criteria:
    Be recorded "publicly" before executed (i.e. on loomio or on the list - not in private email conversations)
    Minimize harm
    Enhance freedom – opens up more rather than closes possibilities for the Assembly

If adequately communicated and in line with the criteria, they can proceed unless someone explicitly objects.

In case of objection, discussions should take place to try to resolve the issue. The issue should be formulated to the whole ECA via the mailing list; if email exchanges are insufficient then a call should be set. The conclusion of the talks should be sent to the list for reaction. If there is no further objection, a decision can be adopted – if not another call can be arranged, or it should be considered that the issue should be dropped.
We expect that decisions that directly affect the ECA at large seek out broader and more in-depth input and discussion than those that affect a smaller swathe of the community.

NL

Poll Created Fri 17 Mar 2017 4:30PM

Adopt Version 1 of our governance charter: "Working Principles of the ECA" Closed Fri 17 Mar 2017 4:33PM

WORKING PRINCIPLES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMONS ASSEMBLY (Version 1)

  1. We conceive of the ECA itself as a commons. We are a community (of activists, researchers, students, teachers, citizens etc.) who steward our shared space for trans-local collaboration on commons which is the European Commons Assembly. Here, we outline our governance.

  2. The ECA is a non-hierarchical, peer-to-peer space for collaboration, rather than a body of representation.

    Individual participants cannot legitimately speak “on behalf of” the Assembly as a whole.
    They can however claim that ideas or work “emerged from” the ECA, or identify as members or “part of” of the Assembly.

  3. We work through self-organized Assembly Groups that hold responsibility for carrying out initiatives, or "actions".
    All groups should inform, communicate and share their actions with the broader ECA.

    At the beginning of an agreed-upon action they should clarify and document a mandate that describes and contextualizes the action and provides relevant information for the rest of the ECA.

  4. We strive for consensus when making decisions and taking actions at all levels - individually, within Assembly Groups, and for the ECA at large.
    All initiatives and decisions should cohere with the following principled criteria:
    Be recorded "publicly" before executed (i.e. on loomio or on the list - not in private email conversations)
    Minimize harm
    Enhance freedom – opens up more rather than closes possibilities for the Assembly

If adequately communicated and in line with the criteria, they can proceed unless someone explicitly objects.

In case of objection, discussions should take place to try to resolve the issue. The issue should be formulated to the whole ECA via the mailing list; if email exchanges are insufficient then a call should be set. The conclusion of the talks should be sent to the list for reaction. If there is no further objection, a decision can be adopted – if not another call can be arranged, or it should be considered that the issue should be dropped.
We expect that decisions that directly affect the ECA at large seek out broader and more in-depth input and discussion than those that affect a smaller swathe of the community.

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 100.0% 2 NL BL
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 189 SJ EP TK IS VN KF ST JD AT MM SH AP JR DK JAR AM BT JA STV DA

2 of 191 people have participated (1%)

NL

Poll Created Fri 17 Mar 2017 4:37PM

Adopt Version 1 of our governance charter: "Working Principles of the ECA" Closed Fri 24 Mar 2017 4:00PM

The text is attached and also in the thread context.
If the charter is adopted, we will post this on the ECA website.

Note we can of course hold a call in the future to reflect on this, and if necessary edit and revise the charter (e.g. create Version 2). So feel free to add comments in the thread over time so we can keep track.

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 82.9% 29 SJ IS ST JAR AM JL FS M MJ PA PA NL RVD H G MD IS IS LGS AT
Abstain 17.1% 6 STV SG JS A GL FT
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 156 EP TK VN KF JD AT MM SH AP JR DK BT JA DA PG AJ E AH J NR

35 of 191 people have participated (18%)

PA

Panayotis Antoniadis
Agree
Fri 17 Mar 2017 10:08PM

I am only afraid of the overload in the e-mail list which should be really guarded like a precious commons :-)

SJ

Sophie Jerram
Agree
Mon 20 Mar 2017 3:34AM

Congratulations on this.

IS

Ivor Stodolsky
Agree
Mon 20 Mar 2017 3:17PM

This works as a first sketch. For the 2nd version, we should clarify and elaborate points 3 and the resolution process outlined below it. Thanks all.

SG

Simon Grant
Abstain
Tue 21 Mar 2017 12:13PM

I really like all the ideas expressed, but would welcome explanations of why a charter? and what role will it serve?

MD

Martin Dennemark
Agree
Thu 23 Mar 2017 5:10PM

I agree but would join Jacobs statement, that consensus is not always best way to go. Open source communities show directions - forks should be allowed, subgroups should be able to split up and the better concepts/communities evolve.

H

Hanne
Agree
Fri 24 Mar 2017 8:45AM

Thank you for the work on the charter, however I would proposed to further reflect on a 2nd version as I agree with the comments questioning what ECA membership is about, maybe something to discuss during the next ECA meeting?

JS

Jacob Stanning Sun 19 Mar 2017 6:20PM

I would warn against going too far in glorifying consensus decision-making. Some notes on the problems with it here: http://preorg.org/against-consensus-for-dissensus/

GL

gerald lindner Tue 21 Mar 2017 1:44PM

Interesting. I agree and have posted some (hopefully useful) feedback on the site you linked us to > http://preorg.org/against-consensus-for-dissensus/#comment-818588

Load More