The definition is simple and clear, thanks! I agree with the need to have a longer review period for implementation, 1 year is better. Following Andy's post, if there is a separate 6 month review period for training resources production and testing that would seem an adequate time-frame for that action, especially if we are looking at 1 year for implementation. If there are two review periods, I don't think its too much because there is a review for each of the two statements in the policy.

Thinking about it - I rather like that a policy statement also includes a plan of how the policy will be enacted - even if that enactment is time-bound - so, ignore my comment about operational detail in policy docs - now I think it is a good idea - then we could have a policy that would say, 'no policy without an action plan ...)

I wonder if it would enhance the acceptance of the policy, if we provided a brief statement of the circumstances (issues and problems), which the policy aims to address?

I support the idea that the policy references related documentation such as principles, definitions and implementation plan.

Hi Ed - thanks for that - I wonder if the whole CoLab (policies, VMA, etc) would benefit from a 'declaration' that sets out the context of why CoLab is being formed (enhance permaculture's effectiveness, disconnected movement, shift from individual pioneers to collective action, global crises needs us to scale up, opportunity to work better together with new online tools, etc) This would then work to contextualise all the policies.

I agree with it needing to connect to principles, definition etc - I see this as coming soon once we have agreed all the "parts" - at that point I think we can create a CoLab doc which pulls it all together - declaration, vision, mission, aims, policies, definitions, implementation plan.

If declaration and coherent document structure were in place, would this existing policy work for you?

Hi Andy,

Yes a statement such as that would enable practitioners to understand and more readily adopt a sociocratic style of leadership.

Would it be best to avoid the term “declaration” (implying authority) in favour of a more collaborative term? A strategic plan, developed by the interim stewards, (based on analysis of the fact and data (such as the recently published survey), could be more defensible than a declaration.

In the interest of moving on, could we vote to adopt sociocracy, philosophically, pending supporting documentation and resources?

Thanks Ed

A few points of contribution to this clarifying conversation so far:

The sociocracy method referenced in this proposal is the Sociocracy Circle-Organisation Method (SCM): this is the foundational practice of sociocracy specified in the 70's by Gerard Endenberg, the originator of modern day sociocracy.

The IMPLEMENTATION PLAN might look like this:
(i) For 12 of our regular monthly meetings (equating to a 12 month trial), the CoLab core team use the four-part SCM meeting agenda structure and the three basic SCM meeting processes (elections, consent to proposal, proposal generation). To be reviewed at the end of 12 meetings using SCM.
(ii) At the beginning of the 12-meeting trial period, a training program is provided to the CoLab core team by sociocracy trainers, organised by the Proposals and Decision-making group, to support the broader understanding of philosophy and practice of SCM/sociocracy. This would likely take the form of the Sociocracy Foundations Training, developed by The Sociocracy Consulting Group (international team of sociocracy practitioners/trainers) and a standard of entry-level training (at least in the english speaking world). To be reviewed after 6 meetings using SCM.

Sociocracy's core purpose is to provide a framework for EFFECTIVENESS, TRANSPARENCY, & EQUIVALENCE within organisations/groups. It is much more than a decision-making tool; more akin to an operating system based on 'integral' principles (like permaculture) supporting the organisation of workflow, areas of 'authority' or influence, and collaborative decision-making about working group specific decisions.