My view is that some level of hierarchy will always take a shape and at times is desirable and relevant and also can become problematic and create difficulty. I think the important issues have been said, it will be organic and it has and will continue to keep on happening and shaping up around structures, people and spaces, keep an eye on it for problems, talk about and identify it openly and compassionately, create space for everyone to have their say. This group is already modelling those approaches.

I love what has been discussed here.
I am keen to explore this and unearth the different ways we see this playing out in creative ways perhaps through roleplay. I love the idea of theatre sports (as Pete suggested) and/or interpretive movement to describe in a fun and light way what is happening and how we feel about it and if we desire it to change. I think as long as consent is sought after and we are transparent and explicit then we are on the right track. I agree with Patricia that it might be nice at some point to discuss how disagreements and conflict will be held/mediated by the community and resolved. I think it's important at this stage to surface a commitment to holding those involved through a safe process if it does come up (but perhaps that's another loomio thread).

Great question. Answer? Put it on the agenda of Open Space conversations at the next Hui.... and share some aspects of how it appeared to us at this just-completed one.

Re the proposal I've just put up: I have been wondering about the name "Shared-Holders", which represents the centre-most level of the community in the concentric circles diagram. It seems to me that what we exist for is to work on the commons of MfC, which is to serve the community and do work that serves people in the network. It's not about 'command and control' but more about sensing and responding into what would be useful and what opportunities exist. I would be in favour of renaming it to a "Stewardship" or "Kaitiaki" Group, and am in favour of a dual English/Māori name, representing that we are not a fully kaupapa Māori group but are dedicated to the principles of the Treaty.

In terms of power and hierarchy at MfC, this feels like a positive change for me because (for me) it implies that we have some power to make decisions, which is important on a practical level (that we don't have to refer to the community for every little decision). But it recognises that we draw our power from the wider community/ies that we're stewarding, so anyone from the community can voice concerns or objections to what we decide on. This has always been the intention of how we want to operate anyway, but the name seems to reflect that more accurately to me.