Social.coop "Regeneration Team" Formation
Matthew Cropp
Public
Seen by 66
Had a long and productive call with @h, @gimcgrew, @emido, @mattnoyes, @loppear & @fabianhjr tonight, and one next action is to get things moving on the formation of the "Regeneration Team" to oversee our co-op's restructuring of operations and organization onto sounder footing.
There are two piece to the process: the scope and powers of the team, and how the team will be s/elected to ensure that it is a intentionally diverse group. At the end of the call, we felt comfortable advancing a proposal defining the former, and wanted to open discussion on the latter, as there were a few different ideas for how to approach it.
So, please contribute your thoughts on this element in this thread, and, depending on the ideas advance, we'll advance the second part of the proposal if a single strong idea emerges, or take a poll if there are a few options that all seem workable to decide among them.
Poll Created Mon 3 Sep 2018 1:45AM
Formation, Scope, and Powers of the "Co-op Regeneration Team" Closed Sun 9 Sep 2018 1:02AM
With 16 Disagree, 14 Agree, and 8 Abstentions, the Regeneration Team proposal failed to pass.
As the proposer, I will step back for two weeks to see if a credible amended or alternative approach is advanced in that time. If one is not, or if one is, but fails to pass, then I will make the following proposal (or a slightly modified version of it) that will result either in a new plan for the co-op being adopted, or the forking of social.coop into up to three new co-ops:
- Social.coop solicits proposals from the members for cooperatively-governed successor instances with a deadline of 2 weeks. Proposals much include an identified founding team, an operations plan, a code of conduct, and a clear statement of purpose defining the scope of the intended membership/community and reason for the instance's existence.
- Proposed instances are put up for an anonymous dot vote for a six day period in which each member has three dots to allocate.
- At the conclusion of dot-voting, the top three vote-getting proposals are identified.
- The top vote-getting team is given the opportunity to implement their proposal as social.coop, restructuring and running it in alignment with their proposal. If it does not want social.coop's existing infrastructure and name, they are offered to the next-highest vote-getting team.
- The second and third top vote-getting teams may choose, by a majority vote of the team members, to either accept the outcome and continue participating as members of social.coop under the new framework, or receive a pro-rata share (their % of the total dots received by the top 3 vote-getters) of social.coop's Open Collective balance at the conclusion of the vote to use as start-up funds for the launch of their proposed instance under a different domain.
This proposal authorizes the creation of a team of of between 5 and 9 social co-op members (preferably between 7 and 9) that will be fully empowered to make unilateral decisions concerning all aspects of the operational sphere of social.coop for a six month period following the selection of its membership. The team is tasked with overseeing operations and building out the necessary policies and infrastructure to put the co-op on sound footing in alignment with the Co-op Principles at the time of the expiration of its mandate.
Note: The process for intentionally selecting the members of this committee to ensure its diversity is under discussion, and a proposal will be advanced soon.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 34.4% | 11 |
|
| Abstain | 21.9% | 7 |
|
|
| Disagree | 43.8% | 14 |
|
|
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 75 |
|
32 of 107 people have participated (29%)
Ian Smith
Mon 3 Sep 2018 9:12AM
"sign away your right to participate, and give it to a currently unformed committee that will be chosen somehow". No thanks.
Miloš
Mon 3 Sep 2018 9:25AM
I don’t think the structure and decision-making process in the team are well presented. The main reason why I am here at social.coop is because it’s a direct democratic cooperative. I don’t see a reason why the same mistakes of the coop movement (or the self-managed socialist tradition) need to be repeated.
Jeff Hardin
Mon 3 Sep 2018 10:59AM
I'm enthusiastically committed to solving the inclusivity issues of the co-op and am in alignment with the spirit of Michele's letter. However, I agree with Ian that the process articulated here grants too much scope. We'd be doing this committee no favors by granting them this much power.
Michele Kipiel
Mon 3 Sep 2018 12:43PM
Works for me, but we need to add that the task will not only be that of putting social.coop "on sound footing in alignment with the Co-op Principle" but, most importantly, to introduce the necessary tools and processes to foster and protect diversity in the cooperative
Matt Noyes
Mon 3 Sep 2018 3:23PM
Disagree with love and respect -- a radical re-boot is necessary and healthy. Why not ask the team to redesign the coop without the burden of running the existing system? When they're ready, they propose new structures or practices and the members vote. No need to create a hyper-centralized body with unilateral powers, even for a limited period. It would also put a huge burden on the team - think of all the time/work it took to create even our very imperfect system.
Thomas Beckett
Mon 3 Sep 2018 3:49PM
Agree with Matt Noyes.
Robert Benjamin
Mon 3 Sep 2018 9:11PM
As is the proposal seems to vague and open ended. A lot of details that have been offered are not actually in the proposal. I agree 100% with what I believe the intent is but don't think we will have another chance at making things work. Taking a moment to fine tune as well as allow members to catch up and formulate their own reactions seems also warranted.
muninn
Tue 4 Sep 2018 12:58AM
Changed my vote to disagree upon reading the concerns of people who want to slow this down a little bit, and think the scope might be too broad. It is a pretty huge change to make without a ton of warning.