This is a discussion around how open we want to be with this forum. These decisions can change and evolve over time.

Currently, Paul and I are admin which means that only we can invite people to join the group. This is how we have set it up initially just while people are getting their heads around what loomio is.

I quite like the idea of full transparency. Perhaps we could have a system where people become admin once they are fully engaged with and using the tool?

I think that being admin should come with the responsibility for introducing people that you bring onto the loomio team in a thorough way so that they know how to engage with the tool.

I think at the very least eventually all co-ordinators nationally should be admins.

I'm definitely for transparency but timebanks are high trust networks where people are exchanging personal information in exchanges. We have to be careful that the security of community weaver is reflected in loomio so people can feel safe coming on board.

Believe strongly in bottom up and full transparency, think its really important that all TBs are engaged, feel valued and have ownership of the "national journey."
Definately no techo (but will get better with time), with all rights should come responsibility so all good with the mentoring.

This touches on the issue of what is "all" Timebanks. Is it just TB's on CW2 or does it include any group who says they are for Timebanking who has their own principles and different software? So I am in favour of some level of monitoring and moderation. Becoming admin after a person is fully engaged and using the tool and restricting to just coordinators of TB on CW2 would be comfortable for me. Observing what has happened on our TBANZ forum where anyone with any vague interest or beliefs about what timebanking is or isn't can have input is a good example. Maintaining the feeling that its safe to say whatever I think and feel and knowing that will stay within this group is important to me. Also that changing my mind based on what others say is also encouraged. I think also its a good way to see and hear all sides of the argument before accepting proposal.

The what is "all" Timebanks is really a tough one, I don't want to limit it to just CW2 because community weaver is just a tool and Timebanks are (in my opinion) the philosophy in practice.

I am actually quite interested in the alternative approaches to timebanking and I want to engage in those conversations but that might need it's own space within loomio

One thing is we do have "subgroups" in Loomio, so each local timebank could be a subgroup within the TBANZ loomio group.

From there the answer is simpler because... each timebank can nominate their own admins and a decision can be made from there? Flips the problem into a bottom-up instead of top-down approach.

@Paul
Let's keep in mind that Tbs are primarily F2F networks, where the active people will see each other through time trading, social events, committee meetings etc. I think a Loom.io sub-group for each local TB might be overkill.

It's country level at which decision-making has been a challenge, not so much the local, and I think what would be more useful is Loom.io sub-groups on things like; tech, funding, Tbing guidelines, hui etc