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.
@h
Tue 4 Sep 2018 9:00AM
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..
Sam Toland
Tue 4 Sep 2018 10:05AM
While I think this could be iterated further, I think the overarching aim is correct and that a 6month limit limits potential unforseen problems.
Sam Toland
Tue 4 Sep 2018 10:24AM
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?
Jeff Hardin
Tue 4 Sep 2018 2:09PM
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.
Noah
Tue 4 Sep 2018 3:10PM
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.
Neville Park
Tue 4 Sep 2018 11:26PM
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.
John
Wed 5 Sep 2018 10:32PM
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.
