Loomio
Mon 3 Sep 2018

Social.coop "Regeneration Team" Formation

MC
Matthew Cropp Public Seen by 330

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.

MC

Matthew Cropp started a proposal Mon 3 Sep 2018

Formation, Scope, and Powers of the "Co-op Regeneration Team" Closed Sat 8 Sep 2018

Outcome
by Matthew Cropp Mon 10 Sep 2018

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
Agree - 14
Abstain - 8
Disagree - 16
Block - 0
37 people have voted (18%)
MC

Matthew Cropp
Agree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

FHM

Fabián Heredia Montiel
Agree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

SH

Steve Hanson
Abstain
Mon 3 Sep 2018

I am pretty out of the loop on all of this.

M

muninn
Agree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

GIM

G I McGrew
Agree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

S

spudboy
Agree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

@

@h
Agree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

A

Alan (@alanz)
Agree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

IS

Ian Smith
Disagree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

"sign away your right to participate, and give it to a currently unformed committee that will be chosen somehow". No thanks.

ED

emi do
Agree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

M

Miloš
Disagree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

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.

JH

Jeff Hardin
Disagree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

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.

MK

Michele Kipiel
Agree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

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

L

Lara
Disagree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

MN

Matt Noyes
Disagree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

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.

TB

Thomas Beckett
Abstain
Mon 3 Sep 2018

Agree with Matt Noyes.

AS

Arini Suhono
Agree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

RB

Robert Benjamin
Disagree
Mon 3 Sep 2018

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.

GSF

Gil Scott Fitzgerald
Agree
Tue 4 Sep 2018

M

muninn
Disagree
Tue 4 Sep 2018

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.

ZL

Zach L
Disagree
Tue 4 Sep 2018

AT

Ana TA
Agree
Tue 4 Sep 2018

@

@h
Agree
Tue 4 Sep 2018

Completely surprising that a few of our members have used words like 'undemocratic' and 'Junta' and have called for a delay in all actions when a working group with a focus on diversity is attempting to be assembled..

ST

Sam Toland
Agree
Tue 4 Sep 2018

While I think this could be iterated further, I think the overarching aim is correct and that a 6month limit limits potential unforseen problems.

DM

David Mynors
Agree
Tue 4 Sep 2018

ST

Sam Toland
Abstain
Tue 4 Sep 2018

changing vote - agree with intention, but the proposal isn't clear enough. On second thoughts while I am ready to trust a committee to move things forward, I think an ill-defined mandate will cause these individuals a lot of problems. Let's iterate this proposal - can all the disagrees offer to help? We can't leave everything to others to respond to - @robertbenjamin @mattnoyes and others?

JH

Jeff Hardin
Abstain
Tue 4 Sep 2018

Upon reflection I am changing my vote to abstain - please count it as a no-vote, as that is my intent. This is a governance question related directly to the future scale, success and operation of the instance. My only concern relates to matching the language offered with the specific problem(s) to be solved. Others who have worked much harder on this than I and have much more experience in organizational development will be leading the charge.

N

Noah
Disagree
Tue 4 Sep 2018

I'm sorry, I just read the related discussion thread and I don't think there's enough clarity here about the proposal. I'm in favor of correcting course as quickly as possible, but I'd like for those corrections to be a little more clearly stated when the question is raised, so that people can feel confident in their decision. To delegate so much authority under a very vague mandate, immediately following a crisis, does not sound like a recipe for sound footing to me.

DM

David Mynors
Abstain
Tue 4 Sep 2018

DU

[deactivated account]
Abstain
Tue 4 Sep 2018

NP

Neville Park
Disagree
Tue 4 Sep 2018

In my opinion, this just perpetuates the extremely slow, bureaucratic, and legalistic approach that turned a lot of people off in the first place. I think we need to re-examine everything, including the by-laws and governance structure.

M

mike_hales
Abstain
Wed 5 Sep 2018

J

John
Disagree
Wed 5 Sep 2018

This seems too vague to me as presented. From the comments, many seem to have reservations with the proposal and need more information. I concur with Matt Noyes suggestion, but I don't know how practical that is.

RU

Rory (as User)
Disagree
Thu 6 Sep 2018

I’ve stayed out of the conversations (too much like the Life of Brian). I’m a co-op governance specialist and it strikes me that there us far to much attention being given to structure talk, and far too little given to how the governance system will benefits members. Until members have a sense of what the offer is (by way of services) I think the diversify and experiment argument made earlier is stonger. For now, refocus energy on agreeing what the coop will offer to benefit members.

RU

Rory (as User)
Disagree
Thu 6 Sep 2018

I’ve stayed out of the conversations (too much like the Life of Brian). I’m a co-op governance specialist and it strikes me that there is far to much attention being given to structure, and far too little given to how the governance system will support members. Until members have a sense of what the offer is (by way of services) I think the diversify and experiment argument made earlier is stronger. For now, refocus energy on agreeing what and how the coop will support members.

RU

Rory (as User)
Disagree
Thu 6 Sep 2018

I’ve stayed out of the conversations (too much like the Life of Brian). I’m a co-op governance specialist and it strikes me that there is far to much attention being given to structure, and far too little given to how the governance system will support members. Until members have a sense of what the offer is (by way of services) I think the diversify and experiment argument made earlier is stronger. For now, refocus energy on agreeing what the coop offers to support members.

BH

Ben Harris-Roxas
Disagree
Thu 6 Sep 2018

DVN

Dave V. ND9JR
Disagree
Thu 6 Sep 2018

ELP

Edward L Platt
Agree
Fri 7 Sep 2018

AS

Arini Suhono
Abstain
Fri 7 Sep 2018

AW

Aaron Wolf
Disagree
Fri 7 Sep 2018

I support most of the proposal but do not see the need for powers to be so broad as "unilateral decisions on all aspects". Without such power, anything clearly positive and aligned with Co-op Principles should be readily accepted by members anyway.

I might otherwise support a high-bar for any check on such a team's decisions, e.g. that their decisions may only be blocked by a written statement explaining why a decision violates Co-op Principles or similar high-bar.

JB

Jake Beamish
Disagree
Sat 8 Sep 2018

M

Michael
Agree
Sat 8 Sep 2018

It is imperative that we really do put our co-op "on sound footing in alignment with the Co-op Principles" and as such I support the formation of a focused team dedicated to doing just that, with the understanding that the shortcomings we have will be explicitly addressed.

NS

Nick S
Disagree
Sat 8 Sep 2018

Have been struggling with this proposal. I may misunderstand the vision, but as worded it sounds like a small team would be asked to run everything and create new rules for vague ends without the need for consultation or consent from the membership, and that makes me feel uncomfortable, even, or especially considering the current crisis.

DU

[deactivated account]
Abstain
Sat 8 Sep 2018

I have waited until the last minute because I am so torn and I still see good arguments on both sides here. On one hand we need to do something fairly radical to address our issues. On the other, I am not sure I agree with this particular proposal. So somewhere in between is where I land. I wish I could have felt a stronger pull to one side but honestly people have made very good arguments on both. I would support this if it were to pass but it’s not my first choice.

DU

[deactivated account]
Agree
Sun 9 Sep 2018

I have waited until the last minute because I am so torn and I still see good arguments on both sides here. On one hand we need to do something fairly radical to address our issues. On the other, I am not sure I agree with this particular proposal because I think it’s broad enough for me not to be sure what I’m agreeing to. But I worry about trying to have productive conversations after all this with something like status quo. Maybe a reboot is what we need. Changed vote from abstain to agree.

MC

Matthew Cropp Mon 3 Sep 2018

One potential approach for the selection process - credit to @gimcgrew for the word-smithing of the diversity language:

The team shall be selected by a "selection committee" consisting of [7?] co-op members who do not themselves intend to offer to serve on the “Regeneration Team,” and who will be elected by the social.coop membership via approval voting. The selection committee will solicit candidates for seats on the Team, and will be empowered to appoint its members. The selection committee will prioritize assembling a highly diverse Team representing many perspectives and identities. Diversity shall be taken to include -- but shall not be limited to -- race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, (dis)ability, and geographical location. This will be to avoid the formation of a Team in which a majority of members dominate as a highly privileged group.

RB

Robert Benjamin Mon 3 Sep 2018

Just to make sure what this proposal covers (paraphrasing)
- Is this the proposal that would actually suspend the Bylaws and allow for a Regeneration? Or is that a different one?
- The entire membership would vote on a 7-9 Members Selection Committee (Board of Advisors?)
- The Selection Committee would then form a Regeneration Team (Board of Directors/Management Team) with the above diversity mandate who would serve a 6 month term. During that time they would be empowered to restructure the Organization including amending the bylaws/incorporated/policy creation/directing the use of funds?

Some questions;
Does this mean all previously passed proposals will be null and void during that time?
Will Loomio member participate governance be suspended during that time?
Will the Selection Committee have any role during the regeneration time (like continuing as a BOA?)
Will the SC instance be running (as is/improved) during that time?
Will members be expected to pay subscription fees during that time?
What happens at the end of six months? Some kind of re-launch with opt to the new and improved cooperative for existing/new members?

FHM

Fabián Heredia Montiel Mon 3 Sep 2018

As I understand it from the talk today:

Is this the proposal that would actually suspend the Bylaws and allow for a Regeneration? Or is that a different one?

Bylaws wouldn't be suspended but a provision for them changing operational structure would be grated. Any change to the bylaws would still be ratified the the whole coop.

The entire membership would vote on a 7-9 Members Selection Committee (Board of Advisors?)

Yeah

During that time they would be empowered to restructure the Organization including amending the bylaws/incorporated/policy creation/directing the use of funds?

Not the bylaws nor funds, they would be empower to redo all the policy.

Does this mean all previously passed proposals will be null and void during that time?

Not really, but they could decide to override decisions and amend documents like the approved CoC.

Will Loomio member participate governance be suspended during that time?

No, but the group would have veto power. (Or be able to enact something without running the proposal trough the coop)

Will the SC instance be running (as is/improved) during that time?

Will keep running, signups closed until we fix the structural issues. Mastodon upgrade scheduled by the Tech WG for tomorrow (from 2.1.3 to 2.4.5)

Will members be expected to pay subscription fees during that time?

I hope this will be a vote of confidence to fix the inclusivity problems of the coop; membership remains voluntary.

What happens at the end of six months? Some kind of re-launch with opt to the new and improved cooperative for existing/new members?

The Regeneration Team is disbanded and operations continues as per the bylaws of that time.

RB

Robert Benjamin Mon 3 Sep 2018

Ah thank you for detail. Very interesting. Would be helpful to include much of that in the proposal to make sure it's super clear what the scope is.

MK

Michele Kipiel Mon 3 Sep 2018

I'd like to address the concerns of those who see this as a request to be "signing away [our] rights" by stressing the temporary nature of this committee. After six months in office (or as soon as the cooperative is put on the right course) the group will self-dissolve and the usual democratic order shall be restored at once.

TB

Thomas Beckett Mon 3 Sep 2018

That sounds more like what a Junta would say after the coup. Are we really suspending democracy or are we makeing a hot patch on our democracy?

MC

Matthew Cropp Mon 3 Sep 2018

In the discussion last night, one key piece of discussion was on the scope of the power of this group. My initial proposal included the power to unilaterally change the governing documents, which, as I reflected on it, did feel like it was moving into that territory.

So, this proposal still requires any governance document change to run through the ratification process, but gives it full operational authority to make the necessary "hot patches," which isn't more authority than most co-op boards have, but for a far shorter term.

Happy to set up a time to do another group video call in the next few days to discuss...

RB

Robert Benjamin Mon 3 Sep 2018

If it's just hot patches the 6 month term seems too long? Why not 3 months? There seems like there is a lot more calderas just below the surface that would need addressed to make SC truly diverse, sustainable, and responsive to all its members. Maybe those could be worked out through the collective governance as is. Maybe not. Addressing complex entrenched problems doesn't seem like the strong suit of the current system. (Not against a heavy dose of direct democracy either).

MC

Matthew Cropp Tue 4 Sep 2018

@robertbenjamin My hope is that much of the work that needs to get done can be accomplished sooner than 6 months, but that time frame feels, to me, long enough to have the space to deal with some of those unexpected "calderas" without the team needing to feel rushed, but short enough to aim to have things on a new footing soon. TBH, my 6 months is on the short end of what would feel comfortable to me.

MN

Matt Noyes Tue 4 Sep 2018

Hey @thomasbeckett - would you be willing to edit your post? I share your concerns but the bit about sounds like what a Junta would say is unnecessary, right? Suggests people who disagree are plotting an attack on democracy instead of trying to solve a tricky problem of governance?

LS

Leo Sammallahti Mon 3 Sep 2018

6 months is quite a long time in my opinion.

What exactly is included in "overseeing operations and building out the necessary policies and infrastructure to put co-op on sound footing in alignment with the Co-op Principles at the time of the expiration of its mandate"?

The Code of Conduct has been approved by an overwhelming majority, the upgrade is right now being implemented.

Don't think anyone has bad intentions, and am not generally opposed to this, just not sure what this includes :) .

FHM

Fabián Heredia Montiel Mon 3 Sep 2018

The CoC and specially the Reporting Guidelines have sever shortcomings on inclusivity. There are other ops related stuff we need to fix like the Federation Policy etc.

MN

Matt Noyes Tue 4 Sep 2018

The CoC was overwhelmingly approved. Some important changes were suggested, so there is a new revised draft you can see here that addresses the weaknesses. (Feel free to make suggestions.) https://pad.disroot.org/p/Social.Coop_Code_of_Conduct_V3.1

MN

Matt Noyes Tue 4 Sep 2018

The Reporting Guidelines were passed with the CoC, but generated stronger concerns that call for bigger changes. (A proposal to reject the Reporting Guidelines was passed by a smaller number of voters after the documents were approved.) Please see the new revised draft here (feel free to make suggestions). https://pad.disroot.org/p/Social.Coop_Reporting_Guide_v3.1

FHM

Fabián Heredia Montiel Mon 3 Sep 2018

This does not include changes to the bylaws.

RB

Robert Benjamin Mon 3 Sep 2018

(Please excuse the long post - many moving parts to what is being proposod.) A follow up call at minimum would be helpful to go through the plan/proposal to make sure what is being put forward has the best chance for success. I agree 100% with what I believe the intent of this is but it really feels like this is our one chance to get it right given the level of attrition the membership and org is under.

One concern is that the level of minutia and time commitment that may be required by the "Regeneration Team" to unravel and fix all the organizations ills (which goes far beyond just the CoC/reporting guidelines) may exclude many volunteers and make the diversity sought unattainable.

One cleaner alternative approach could be to simply elect a Board of Directors (7 - 9 members) with a 6 month term, with the Diversity Mandate that delegates to a Committee tasked with the Regeneration work. The committee could still have a diversity mandate but also have flexibility to pull talent as needed depending on the project and areas of expertise and availability. The Board would convene once a month to track progress and approve. The advantage of this is it would give the leadership level (board) a much greater chance of getting the diverse mind-share needed as the commitment would be overall less. After the initial term the Board of Directors could then transition to a Board of Advisors if less hierarchical management structure is desired by the Membership.

MC

Matthew Cropp Tue 4 Sep 2018

@robertbenjamin, under this proposal the regeneration team will have the full power to delegate work out to existing working groups, ops teams, etc., as they so choose, so I think it might functionally look much like the "board" role you outlined. How hands-on or delegating they need to be can be judged by the group as they address challenges, rather than trying to predict in advance.

D

Darren Mon 3 Sep 2018

Slow Down ????

I've been trying to keep up with whats going on in SC over the last week. Its not been easy - I've spent A LOT of hours trying to read the various threads on Loomio, the discussion on matrix and posts on Mastodon by people involved or commenting on whats been happening.

Luckily I'm in a position where I could afford to spend all that time. I feel I've got a pretty good understanding. Lots of users/members' will not of had that time. Many probably havent logged on at all, and may be completely unaware of the issues going on. Email notifications have arrived very frequently and I imagine many will be overloaded & ignoring them.

I understand that people want to take action to stabilise the situation. Its been sad to see lots of people leaving.

I think we need a bit of time to allow people to get somewhat up to speed with whats going on and to think about what may be a good way forward, before we make a major decision like this. The scope of the proposal isnt clearly defined but will give a small group a lot of power and a heavy responsibility & (largely voluntary) workload.

I also note that comments people make when voting get somewhat lost compared to comments to the thread.

Lets give a bit more time for people to digest what has happened and some more time for some different voices to be heard.

IS

Ian Smith Mon 3 Sep 2018

Do we really think that the only way to fix this is through 6 months of dictatorship? What does that say about our commitment to cooperative decision making?

I propose a different solution. Instead of creating hierarchies and committees and secret lists, we diversify, focus, and experiment? There's no reason we can't have many different small groups, all trying to solve these problems and sharing their successes and failures. Small, dedicated instances can be created for them at little to no cost, and could even be under the social dot Coop domain: for example a.Social.Coop b.Social.Coop and so on. These could work out their own best practices, codes, rules and infrastructure while still remaining part of the leather coop, which would become a co-op if coops, if you will. This would allow us to iterate faster, have more input from greater numbers of more diverse groups, and would not require temporary convenient oligarchy,

RB

Robert Benjamin Tue 4 Sep 2018

In agreement there are probably other options to accomplish the goal of this proposal if it is not to tackle operational/structural/governance drag issues and only to re-boot CoC/Reporting/Moderation especially as a version has already passed and and a Community Ops Team (yet to be formed) has already been empowered with a lot of latitude to set policy in these areas.

Probably on a different thread (in Goverance) I'd be interested in learning more on your perspective that putting any hierarchy in place goes against the "cooperative" ethos. All cooperatives I am aware of with more than a handful of members have Representative management in areas that are critical to providing accountable value to their membership with a healthy mix of direct democratic governance.. This is the area that I see SC as most failing.

MC

Matthew Cropp Tue 4 Sep 2018

Ian, I think the idea of potentially spinning off multiple co-ops is an interesting one that I brought up in my recent purpose post, and is one that I will support if the proposed team is unable to accomplish its charge.

In the meantime, I believe social.coop as a coherent project/instance is worth the try to salvage. In light of the recent experiences and the items presented in @michelekipiel's open letter, I think our existing process have been moving things for the most part slowly in the right directions, but have been too diffuse and informal to be able to cope with the increasingly high stakes of both the growth of our instance and the larger Fediverse. In order to be able to move from our progress being driven by reacting to crises to something sustainable and intentional, I've come to believe we need this process.

My hope is that one of the outcomes will be strongly participatory systems that work in ways that the current ones don't, as well as solid operational roles. My fear is that, if we don't act with some urgency to create a structure with a clear mission and the power to achieve its mission, that the natural redirection of members' attention elsewhere following the quieting of the crisis will lead to a stall-out that will set us up for the next crisis, which is an existential threat.

GIM

G I McGrew Wed 5 Sep 2018

CW: somewhat angry/frustrated response to reading some salient comments by @iansmith and @robertbenjamin, not just in this thread :

1 - At the moment, we have a critical safety to community and trust issue within the fediverse that should be taken seriously.

Cooperative decision making in such a large group is great for business-as-usual, and it is good for slow change and stuff non-radical to the community. On the other hand, S.C is in a crisis of needing fast and radical change, yet stuck having critical decisions bogged down by bikeshedding and polite (and often white, male, and privileged) naysayers, including yourself. People who would prefer to re-frame the necessity to delegate (yes, delegate, collectively, by the membership community) to a smaller, swifter-acting team requiring intense legwork -- with a mission that will impact our reputation and our very existence -- as advocating for a dictatorship or Junta.

2 -
a - Echoing @horatiotrobinson here, it sure doesn't sound like you trust a diverse team of chosen representatives to do a good job (why is that?). But will dragging in a lot of the community who may be ill-equipped to do this, who may not have time, and most importantly, who are not cognizant of their privileged worldview, to decide these critical matters via majority votes and polite methods of silencing dissent in the interests of incremental, non-radical change... will that truly bring a more equitable result? Because I guarantee you that most (hopefully all) folks here believe in making S.C the best it can possibly be, safe from harassment and abuse, and a successful model of a cooperatively-operated, federated,non-corporate online community that empowers, rather than silence, marginalized voices sounds pretty great. But checking one's privilege means NOT chiming in about how they think it should be done if they don't have some level of experience, expertise, awareness, and ability to actually do this.
b - For example. I am a scientist, and while I can collaborate with a novice undergraduate student about some matters and perhaps delegate some tasks, the undergraduate student has a lot of learning and listening and reading to do, regardless of how hard a worker and how well-meaning they are. For deeper, more effective, and creative discussions, I collaborate with a peer doctor professor in the same field (but not necessarily the same sub-discipline, since we'd think too alike, also a danger).
Trust. Trust in a team chosen to be better suited to do this than many copies of you. That is what is being asked for.

3 - As stated in 1. above, small groups will by nature have different dynamics than larger ones (this is non-negotiable scientific consensus), so one cannot assume that a successful experiment at small scale will scale; this is actually a large part of how S.C got into our current dilemmas. How many of these sub social.coop instances need to get de-federated and cause personal injury before the winners emerge?

ED

emi do Tue 4 Sep 2018

I really like this idea @iansmith !

The concern and rush at the moment is that right now all of the admin is being done by @matthewcropp. Originally the meeting was to figure out how to put an ops team in place for greater accountability (more ppl making moderation decisions) and to take the load off of Matt. However, with the re-boot taking place, it seemed necessary to address this first as it would influence how ops would function.

It's not fair to expect Matt to continue shouldering this process on his own, and it's clear the instance needs an efficient way of dealing with issues as they come up in the present. We want to have a new system in place within the next two weeks. I'm really sorry my minutes don't reflect these points, I'll see if I can put some time in when I'm back ar my computer later to better sum up discussion.

MC

Matthew Cropp Tue 4 Sep 2018

I have time to do a call at 8pm EDT on Wednesday to facilitate an hour of discussion on the current proposal. I'll create a check poll with an embedded call link for RSVPs.

MC

Matthew Cropp started a check Tue 4 Sep 2018

RSVP for Wed., 8pm Call to Discuss the "Rejuvenation Committee" Proposal Closed Wed 5 Sep 2018

I will be available between 8pm and 9pm EDT on Wednesday 9/5 to discuss the "Rejuvenation Committee" proposal in this Google Hangouts Room. Please check 'yes' on this poll if you intend to attend this call.

5 - Yes
14 - No
MC

Matthew Cropp
Yes
Tue 4 Sep 2018

I'm hosting... :)

CW

I’m gonna try to join this call.

RB

Robert Benjamin
Yes
Tue 4 Sep 2018

GA

Gabriela Avram
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

MN

Matt Noyes
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

M

muninn
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

M

Michael
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

NS

Nick S
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

Sorry! That's 0200 my timezone.

@

@h
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

The Undemocratic People's Junta stands by awaiting instructions resulting from this bikeshedding event to take place on Wednesday, so that everybody including the hyperpumpered, the overprotected, and the superprivileged feel safe and all assurances are in place that the revolution won't be burning the endangered insecure majority at the stake. LOL

MK

Michele Kipiel
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

This is 2am CEST for me... Can we please consider more CEST friendly options in the future? Thanks! :)

G

Graham
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

Crazy timing for anyone in Europe

M

muninn
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

If folks come away with a proposal for the "regeneration team" that's a bit more responsive to the concerns raised in this vote, I personally would be fine if an amended proposal were put to a vote right away, then at the end of 6 days time, whichever one got more support (either the one we have now or the one which may arise after this call) goes forward. No idea if that's doable with the bylaws etc but it might be a good compromise??

M

muninn
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

If folks come away with a proposal for the "regeneration team" that's a bit more responsive to the concerns raised in this vote, I personally would be fine if an amended proposal were put to a vote right away, then at the end of 6 days time, whichever one got more support (either the one we have now or the one which may arise after this call) goes forward. No idea if that's doable with the bylaws etc but it might be a good compromise??

M

muninn
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

If folks come away from this call with a proposal for the "regeneration team" that's a bit more responsive to the concerns raised in this vote, I personally would be fine if that amended proposal were put to a vote right away, then at the end of 6 days time, whichever one got more support (either the one we have now or the one which may arise after this call) goes forward. No idea if that's doable with the bylaws etc but it might be a good compromise??

J

John
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

DU

[deactivated account]
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

I am unable to participate in coop business at this time of day.

NP

Neville Park
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

I'll be working :(

J

Josh
No
Tue 4 Sep 2018

FHM

Fabián Heredia Montiel
No
Wed 5 Sep 2018

Sorry, too much in my plate.

GIM

G I McGrew
Yes
Wed 5 Sep 2018

Unsure if I can make the time, but I hope to attend.

GD

George Dorn
No
Wed 5 Sep 2018

N

Noah
Yes
Wed 5 Sep 2018

I may be a few minutes late but will try to be on time.

MN

Matt Noyes Tue 4 Sep 2018

I think what we need at this point is better understood as a "Social.Coop Regeneration Working Group" -- a specially selected group of people charged with reviewing the Governance, Finance, Community, and Tech operations of Social.Coop and proposing reforms up to and including a complete dissolution and re-founding of the Coop. The proposals they make -- like any others -- would have to go to the membership for discussion and approval. In the meantime, we continue operating the Mastodon instance through the existing Working Groups (as we did today with the upgrade to Mastodon 2.5).

@

@h Tue 4 Sep 2018

NOT SO FAST, I want to make sure that these so-called "diverse" people JUNTA aren't going to be doing bad undemocratic things to OUR coop.

Let's make sure we REALLY slow improvements for even longer, and we REALLY do our best to keep their demands unheard for as long as we possibly can. Let's take back what's OURS alone, we don't really need to acknowledge that our total utter failure is what brought our organization to a halt.

(Are THEY really going to be messing up OUR coop for six whole months???? Now, that's something that should last for a significantly shorter period than our year-long feet dragging! Make that three months! Or better, no months!)

I was happier when we were really democratic (without these "diverse" people) and on the brink of ceasing to exist! :slight_smile:

(j/k)

PS1: Have you noticed that these things, however strange they seem to you, are being set up for a vote?

PS2: WARNING: Some of THEM may speak languages other than American, that's the reason I'm using the Spanish epithet "Junta" as a loan word here. Also signalling that they may be very bad people with mustaches! hahahahah

IS

Ian Smith Tue 4 Sep 2018

Yes, if you're not in favor of our hastily thought out and poorly articulated proposal you must be against progress! And probably a racist! :laughing:

JH

Jeff Hardin Tue 4 Sep 2018

(Deleted comment.)

MN

Matt Noyes Tue 4 Sep 2018

I may be misreading this -- but this humor seems unhelpful. Sarcasm and irony are open to misinterpretation, so can we stick to dialogue?