Roles at the organisation: How traditional/revolutionary is this going to be?
So as far as I understand it, Mutual Interest is going to have an elected board that makes some decisions as well as having this loomio group to vote on stuff?
What do people think about creating some roles that are made in the image of current news organisations? I'm thinking of stuff like editor-in-chief, sub-editors, section heads, columnists, readers editor, etc. (I've been reading this great article by Jay Owens: http://www.jayowens.me/blog/the-press-and-the-public-mood )
My own position is that it's better to try things than not to try them, and enabling people to act without having to seek permission is usually good, so I'd be in favour of creating some tasks and giving people the autonomy to get on with them.
Obviously a democratic paper is not going to have the same structure as an oligarchic one, but we're doing a lot of the same activity, in that every article is part of creating a coherent world view.
At the moment we have I think 3 categories of people: founders, writers and members. A very good start but maybe it could be developed some more?