PS -- this chart from @georgecheney poses useful problems for us:

I drafted a new version, at the top of the same doc you posted above.

On reflection, I think @mattnoyes' idea of a coordinating committee that would need to have decisions ratified by the membership seems like it's worth trying, and it sounds like it would be doable within the boundaries of the concerns raised by @darren4 and @davevnd9jr. That would be something that we could set (token) comp for elected members' attendence, and we would not need to do a bylaws change. Matt, you able to massage your idea into a draft proposal for feedback?

@darren4 Thanks for recovering those threads! (I see that I repeat myself. :astonished: ) I wonder if I should propose three things:
1) the creation of an elected Admin. Working Group that is tasked to coordinate the work of other working groups and do other admin duties (like finding an alternative for tech work, then putting it up for a membership vote).
2) that the minutes of working groups be posted (or linked) on Loomio so members can easily see what we are doing. Storage could be an issue, but, if possible, it would be great to record and share Zoom (or Jitsi) calls in the same way.
3) all working group meetings be open to members to sit in on, if they like, voice/no vote.
If we later decide to form an official cooperative, we will have to adjust our structures accordingly, but for now maybe this would be enough structure.

I pretty much agree with Darren, though I want to add that before the summer of 2018 we were a pretty open co-op with member participation. After that summer we went the other way and now a lot of the operation of this co-op is very opaque, to the point where I'm questioning whether I want to stay in this co-op (and continue to support it financially) for that very reason.

I think any BoD must ultimately be accountable to the members themselves, otherwise you get a situation with another org I'm involved in where the members can petition the BoD but the BoD can pretty much do whatever they want. And not just through BoD elections; that's how how my credit union (Veridian Credit Union in Waterloo, Iowa for the curious) operates and it hardly feels like a co-op at all. We the members will still need to vote on motions the BoD wants to implement if you want me to accept this.

I'm skeptical of any small team inside an organization like this as too often the members represent either only their own interests or the interests of a few people, and that corrupts the democracy aspect of an organization. But I also see how such teams can be beneficial. As long as they truly are accountable to all members of the co-op and we still get to vote on policies they want to implement, I can accept this.

Hey Matt,

I'd like to start by saying I'm genuinely appreciative of the energy you put into organising social coop. I know from long experience that it can be hard to find the time and energy to dedicate to moving projects forward, especially when its voluntary work.

It does however feel a bit like we've been here before (a number of times) e.g. https://www.loomio.org/d/Ve0NtQsT/board-steering-committee-high-council-for-social-coop-

And

https://www.loomio.org/p/Cd0yJlMe/straw-poll-opinion-on-a-social-coop-board-steering-committee-coordinating-committee

As I, and others, suggested during the call I think we are suffering from low levels of member participation in the organisation and running of social coop, and that we are heavily dependant on a few folks in key positions - which gives us a little resilience if they were to become unavailable.

I think that moving things into closed groups, with largely opaque operations (as I feel the community working group ops team (CWGOT) has become, and I fear an elected board would follow) acts as a barrier to greater member participation. Its difficult for folks to understand what's happening and why. It creates a pretty large barrier to participation as its necessary to commit to being part of the group, before you can see clearly what work the group actually does, and what you are committing to do.

I appreciate that some of the CWGOT work around moderation, or members concerns, is best handled privately. But I also dont see why CWGOT cant make basic minutes of its meetings available (I'm thankful that the minutes of the April meeting were made available after my request - but was sad to see that this didn't become a regular occurrence). I understand that this is a bit of extra work, but feel it would be a nice way of keeping the membership abreast of ideas and activities.

Finally I would like to suggest that we try to increase use of other modes of social coop organising. As I mentioned in the call video/audio calls dont always work so well for everyone.. eg. I often have poor internet (I lost audio a few times and missed parts of the call) and I'm aware I'm not the best speaker, or always easy to understand, when I'm sitting next to someone, let alone over an internet call. Also there can be timing issues, when trying to bring together international groups.

Trying to do more in the open on Mastodon and Loomio feels like it could draw in more membership participation. I'm happy to report Loomio has been under heavy development and theres a new beta web front end that runs much more smoothly. You can switch from the old to new interface (and back again if you wish) by going to

https://loomio.org/beta

Tried and true. Certainly one of the lessons I think we've been learning over the years is that the apparently boring governance structures that nearly all established co-ops use are not so unnecessary after all.

Thanks Matt C! I commented and added one line.