Loomio
Thu 28 Nov 2019

Group membrane and gatekeeping agreements for new collective governance members

P
pospi Public Seen by 64

We need to formalise some decisions and processes as to how we bring new people in to the group in these early stages. It is assumed that eventually we want things to be completely open; but in this embryonic phase it may be better to lay a good foundation first.

P

pospi Fri 14 Feb 2020

In our call today it was decided unanimously by @pospi @Tom @Noah Thorp @Jean Russell @Lynn Foster @Sid Sthalekar & @Emaline to open up this group to public visibility and allow newcomers who might be interested to join us. So I think that's all to decide for now- we can talk about the specifics of inclusion processes and how to manage expressions of interest in another thread.

馃懁

Anonymous
Agree
Thu 23 Jan 2020

馃懁

Anonymous
Abstain
Wed 22 Jan 2020

Only abstaining because I don't know her. In generally, agree with growing the group, and am fine taking your all words for new people.

馃懁

Anonymous
Agree
Wed 22 Jan 2020

馃懁

Anonymous
Agree
Wed 22 Jan 2020

P

pospi started a proposal Wed 22 Jan 2020

Invite Carolyn Beer to participate in the collective, Loomio group & convening call Closed Wed 29 Jan 2020

Outcome
by pospi Wed 29 Jan 2020

Hmm, not enough engagement here to make a decision I feel comfortable with. We'll have to leave this for now.

For those who don't know her, Carolyn is a passionate and talented human who works with integrity. She works in managing the Holochain community and has taken on the job of stewarding HOLO's organisational culture, so there's a lot of intersection between her goals and our own.

Besides doing a lot of work to build community (especially developer community around Holo-REA), she also has an interest in being involved with academia, particularly in writing on the intersections between AI / race / class & gender.

For these reasons and more, and because I can see an obvious path where a "Holochain community technology commons" becomes one of this group's funded projects, I think we should bring Carolyn in as early as possible.

Agree - 3
Abstain - 1
Disagree - 0
Block - 0
4 people have voted (33%)
P

pospi Fri 20 Dec 2019

Aw damnit! The only options for Loomio are fully public, or visibility of the group and private threads (the opposite of what we want).

I guess I need to run another poll to see how people feel about being discoverable... at least I can configure Gitbook how we want to...

Readonly shareable Gitbook URL is https://economikit.gitbook.io/group-governance/-LwVmwtwlxCxHXJ5Brd8/

P

pospi Fri 20 Dec 2019

Heads up- I feel confident in going ahead and actioning this - there are some people I'd like to loop in on what we're doing. Everyone has now responded who has posted elsewhere in this group, so I think that's as good as "full consent" that we're going to get... (plus, one imagines, if you haven't added any content yet you have not much stake in its visibility).

Will probably refrain from sharing links until around this time tomorrow (when the poll ends), just to allow space for any final comments or objections.

BH

Bob Haugen Tue 17 Dec 2019

I'm good with playing it by ear for awhile.

P

pospi Mon 16 Dec 2019

@Bob Haugen see https://www.loomio.org/d/YyVlaxkz/formalising-voting-and-validity-of-decision-making-processes/1; maybe we can define the logic for how to interact with a few variants, and when they might be appropriate?

BH

Bob Haugen Mon 16 Dec 2019

you don't necessarily need to have the abstain / block. Perhaps this is a pointer that we should always include those options?

Not necessarily, I'm good with experiments. In this case, I would have abstained until @Tom explained what it meant, so maybe that was good...?

T

Tom Sun 15 Dec 2019

Hey Bob, it just allows us to share links on different votes or conversations with people outside this group but unlisted also means these links/pages don't get indexed by search engines.

P

pospi Mon 16 Dec 2019

Sorry for the bad wording, Tom is correct! (below)
Also, in Loomio 2.0 there are choices for the proposal options... you don't necessarily need to have the abstain / block. Perhaps this is a pointer that we should always include those options? I thought ommitting them would result in quicker cat-herding, seems I was quite wrong about that ><

BH

Bob Haugen Sat 14 Dec 2019

I don't see the usual Abstain or whatever. I don't object, but don't understand the proposal. Does

"unlisted" for readonly sharing聽

...mean readonly sharing is allowed as long as somebody gives the reader a link? Or it means readonly sharing is not allowed?

And what is the list where it would not be listed?

E

Emaline
Agree
Wed 18 Dec 2019

Still agree

BH

Bob Haugen
Agree
Mon 16 Dec 2019

FI

Ferananda Ibarra
Agree
Mon 16 Dec 2019

T

Tom
Agree
Sun 15 Dec 2019

I agree for a grass roots approach, people need to see how decisions are made and if someone questions why the economic toolkit is taking a certain stance or direction we are able to send them the unlisted link.

D

dhtnetwork
Agree
Sat 14 Dec 2019

P

pospi
Agree
Sat 14 Dec 2019

I think this is fine so long as we each commit to providing adequate context about the group's status and maturity.

SS

Sid Sthalekar
Agree
Sat 14 Dec 2019

P

pospi started a proposal Sat 14 Dec 2019

We should make the Gitbook and Loomio group shareable Closed Sat 21 Dec 2019

Outcome
by pospi Mon 23 Dec 2019

Gitbook is now publicly shareable via a secret link: https://economikit.gitbook.io/group-governance/-LwVmwtwlxCxHXJ5Brd8/

Loomio group still private since there is no "secret link" version of visibility on Loomio. To be put to a vote in the new year (:

So that we can start to share these discussions with potentially interested parties.

Note that this would be like an "unlisted video" on YouTube in that the links to the Loomio group and Gitbook would not be publicly discoverable and can only be accessed by those we explicitly share them with (and who they share with, and so on).

Agree - 7
Disagree - 0
7 people have voted (6%)
JMR

jean m russell Thu 12 Dec 2019

Oh, I missed this somehow. I am a yes.

P

pospi started a proposal Mon 2 Dec 2019

We should make the gitbook and Loomio group "unlisted" for readonly sharing with interested parties Closed Thu 12 Dec 2019

Outcome
by pospi Sat 14 Dec 2019

Since I started this before everyone had accounts set up, makes sense to run it again

Ideally I would like to be able to send this work-in-progress documentation to potential collaborators who might have an interest in what we're doing. So I think it makes sense to have unlisted URLs which are readonly for those in the group in order to enable us to share.

There does however need to be a clear indication given when sharing with others that these discussions are a work in progress.

Not sure how others in the group might feel about this... let's find out!

Agree - 0
Disagree - 0
0 people have voted (0%)
P

pospi Thu 28 Nov 2019

For this particular issue I'm specifically talking about bringing people in to be part of the decision making process of the collective. Feel free to open threads on the other topics!

SS

Sid Sthalekar Thu 28 Nov 2019

It could also include organisations who wish to align their protocol with the VF language (i.e. contributing to the commons)

SS

Sid Sthalekar Thu 28 Nov 2019

Would we bring in new people to be part of the decision making process of the collective? Or to contribute person-hours towards a task, or both?

P

pospi Thu 30 Jan 2020

hmm, maybe. Probably being overly cautious. I don't think we're the types to create any autocratic situations... but then again, I bet that's what a lot of autocrats said :P

SS

Sid Sthalekar Thu 30 Jan 2020

@pospi Reg your post about not taking a decision on not inviting Carolyn: Do we need to have a quorum? Might be too early to set those minimum limits, and instead we just roll with what we have?

P

pospi Mon 9 Dec 2019

Also would be great to bring in Carolyn Beer 'cos she is doing similar work on HOLO's code of conduct

P

pospi Thu 28 Nov 2019

Just noting that once decided, I would like to discuss bringing in Susan as another tech ethicist