Loomio
Sat 16 Nov 2019 10:23PM

Proposal: Massive re-structure of XR UK to empower local groups

LF Luke Flegg Public Seen by 58

Another reminder we're currently just experimenting with Loomio.

My teammate (from XR UK Strategy Stewardship Team) made this draft proposal, so it's early stage and certainly concerns everyone here, so I'm inviting anyone who would like to, to use Loomio to share thoughts, and respond to each others' thoughts on this here.

Then perhaps we'll try temperature checking our collective feedback on it to see if we can converge on suggestions to improve it / how we want to respond to it:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19VHPP4-292SDGf2EtBYxFqvbsX5sZ9qdEpEvsELfyMU/edit#

PS

Paul Sousek Sun 17 Nov 2019 5:42PM

Oh no, my lengthy comment has disappeared!
Can anyone rescue it if it is somewhere on Loomio?

PS

Paul Sousek Sun 17 Nov 2019 5:46PM

Basically, I think this model is too flat.
I would recommend introducing a third dimension: XR Interest groups and giving them much the same role as Regions.
XR Interest groups, such as XR Scientists, XR Doctors, XR Faiths, XR Atheists, XR Farmers, XR Vegans, etc

Each would need to demonstrate sufficient support, such as having say 500+ members

Each would need to encompass the whole sector, not just a subsection. So XR Faiths, not XR Jews, XR Buddhists, XR Muslims, etc

S

schekn Sun 17 Nov 2019 10:53PM

There is a serious problem with hidden hierarchy in XR UK, and I do not see how exactly the new proposal addresses it. It is very vague on resource allocation and decision making. This article has very good in-depth critique of the problem: https://libcom.org/blog/xr-pt-2-31102019

MC

Max CCT Mon 18 Nov 2019 2:10PM

Yet another critique that completely conflates Roger Hallam with XR as a movement, and thus fails to engage with XR as it actually exists and operates

S

schekn Mon 18 Nov 2019 2:19PM

Have you actually read the whole article? This is not about Hallam at all, it is about decision-making and accountability. At present, the process of deciding important strategical steps is opaque, and the information flow is one-sided: at best, people are asked to provide their suggestions and opinions, but how much they are incorporated and who makes the final decisions - is still a mystery. And when there are screw-ups there is no way to make the leaders accountable and to revoke their mandate simply because supposedly "there are no leaders".

BK

Ben Kenward Mon 18 Nov 2019 8:24AM

I'm instinctively in favour of this; as a local group coordinator I have had serious issues with the way in which local groups feed into XRUK. Having said that, this is a massive reorganisation, doubtless with many pitfalls that I haven't had time to think about.

DW

David Williams Sat 30 Nov 2019 12:56PM

Many of us, at local level, have little idea of how XR is structured. I realise that this is not a very constructive comment, but having read through the draft proposal, I can see the benefit of discussing structure and how improvements may be achieved. My main problem is that the local groups, that you wish to empower, are as 'clueless' as me, when it comes to understanding how XR works (as an organisation) and, therefore, are ill equipped to decide what changes can bring about improvement. What I'm really saying is that you, in XR Central (or National) have to educate us before we can assist in this. Hope that doesn't sound too blunt and, of course, it's only a personal reaction to Luke's original request.