We have enough items that I created a draft MOU. Please continue the discussion here, including comments about the draft.

Joel pretty much captured it. How groups launch, credit, promote their projects--that should not be dictated ahead of time without the input of all contributors. <-- something like that I could see being put in the MOU.

So if we are at the point of drafting an MOU, it seems like we are probably ready to see how the rest of the Hack Night community feels about becoming a brigade. We could, for example, gather feedback around a few questions and see how opinions correlate with the concerns and recommendations we've been discussing so far.

I don't think it would be in the MOU, but the way it works at CfA is that if our Marketing / Communications mentions Brigade work we reach out to the Brigade before it gets published to check to make sure it looks ok.

To set expectations, I think the MOU would have to come from us. I'd be putting CfA in a bad spot if we had 80+ versions of an MOU instead of one or two standard ones. I am working feedback into that MOU however.

For the Brigade branding, I want to split that into the two points. The first is that we're pretty flexible on how people present themselves as their own orgs. https://beta.nyc/ doesn't mention CfA or Brigade at all on their website and Noel is on the NAC. (It's a civic organization) So, I don't think anyone expect CfA to slap "A Code for America Brigade" on the website.

That said, the program has been called Brigade for the past 5 years and it's not going to be a sudden shift to drop the Brigade branding itself. We'd need to slow-walk it and make sure there's buy-in from the whole network. I personally want to rebrand, but it's going to take awhile to do correctly.

@kristileach @joelinwood I am in agreement with your thoughts about ownership lying with the project and, with it, choices for promotion. Could one or both of you specify what language you would like to change and suggest new language?

@christopherwhitake how would you change the language to reflect those two points? I'm in favor of the first point and, depending on the language, may agree to the second.

@kristileach, I agree completely that this needs broader consensus than just those few who attended leadership council. I'd like to see
* an announcement that we are considering this with a link to the Loomio discussion
* a draft that those of us working on, agree to and consider complete, before taking it to the entire body.
* an entire presentation time to presenting it and getting feedback from the entire body. (I would be willing to facilitate this)
* time and an on-line capability for participants to further suggest changes after the week we present it
* a follow up a week or two later that gains consensus on the final draft

While this sounds heavy, I believe that the decision is a key one and needs a maximum amount of input.

I'm in agreement with this outline. I can suggest some language in the next day or two.

So, the way I'd work it is having this line in there:

Code for America recognizes that [organization] is an independent operated organization; member organizations are responsible for their own management, branding, and action plans.

I think that line makes it pretty clear that each org runs themselves in what projects they work on, how they structure themselves, and how they present themselves to the public.

I don't think we're expecting everyone to slap a "We're a CfA Brigade" on their website or refer to themselves as a Brigade. BetaNYC doesn't and Noel is on the NAC. For the moment, I think the preferred language is "we're part of the Brigade network"

For the marketing discussion, the policy is currently that anytime we mention a Brigade in out-bound communication we generally check-in with the Brigade first. I think the line in the draft MOU would be something to the effect of (Organization Expectations:) "Work with Code for America marketing staff when using our marketing and communication resources to amplify the organization’s work." A good example of this is here: https://www.codeforamerica.org/news/code-for-boston-unites-local-organizations-to-address-youth-employment-challenges

The way I'm writing up most of the resource offerings is a "if this, then that" statement.

Example: > If using Code for America Branding; abide by Code for America brand standards and messaging , alerting Marketing team with any questions or press inquiries.

If you're not using CfA's brand, then our guidelines wouldn't apply. Which seems fair.

Similarly, > If using Code for America’s in-kind resources (Meetup, AWS), abide by Code for America’s in-kind guidelines.

Again, if you're not using our Meetup Pro or AWS accounts - then we don't need to bother with anything more since it's doesn't apply.

I don't think we could accept an MOU that's going to require a change in branding on CfA's side with regards to the name of the program since that's a much bigger and drawn out decision. There's a lot of moving parts and a lot more people involved. If for some reason that the larger Brigade Network wants to keep the name of the network the same then that's the way it'll be. Personally, I'd like to change from Brigade to something else (Germany uses the term 'labs' but it's not something I can do unilaterally. Again, Chi Hack Night doesn't have to refer to itself as "a Brigade" just that it's part of the network.

I also don't think the idea that the NAC is 'overseen' by CfA HQ is accurate. It's an advisory group that's elected by the community. The NAC was set up after an 8 month community design process. It's not something that was setup by HQ in isolation. HQ works with the NAC members to decide when we meet, what we do, and use their guidance to help steer the program. I don't know how much more independent they could get unless you're talking about spinning the Brigades off completely from CfA which is not on the table.

There's a few reasons why this isn't an option at this time

1) The Brigade program currently has a budget of about 500k, but as we provide more resourcing (staff) those numbers going to increase. That number becomes way higher when you have to add resourcing to pay for finance, marketing, infrastructure, travel, and the budget required to hold events like Congress.

2) In a traditional association, the above expenses are paid for by membership dues. We don't have that and if we moved towards that it would be a huge shift - a shift that would require a lot of time and community input before doing so. Personally, I think membership dues are a smart thing since it allows for independence from funders - but that's outside the scope of what the MOU is trying to do.

3) The #1 problem that the NAC has identified when they did their interviews with every Brigade was burnout. We're working on proposals that would help bring additional support to Brigade projects - but we're in the very early stages of that. In order to get those big grants, it takes a well established organization and everything that comes with it. In the event that we get it (and I'm confident that we will), it'll be a scenario where groups would apply for funding and there'd be a contract. It would be separate from this kind of MOU which is just designed to include groups into the network.

@kristileach @joelinwood @steveediger good points re: credit on projects. I agree it should ultimately be decided by the project leads themselves, though I would strongly recommend a good default (maybe like the one I wrote, maybe another version) be specified to reduce overhead and set a thoughtful standard we think is fair.

@christopherwhitake based on how this conversation is going, it seems like Chi Hack Night will want to finalize our MOU for CfA to consider. You stated that the MOU must be the generic one that CfA uses for all the Brigades - we need to resolve this.

The relationship between CfA & CHN is not a typical one and a generic MOU will probably not suffice. Considering the effort we at Chi Hack Night are making to work through this process, it seems reasonable to me that CfA be willing to do the same on their end.

So far there are 6 people who have weighed in on this thread. As a next step, I'll plan on pinging the leadership-council channel tomorrow to prompt others to weigh in. We should eventually get a broader consensus (let's talk logistics when the time comes @steveediger) when we have some of these outstanding issues worked out.

Right now we don't have a generic MOU; we have an older one we were using but it's outdated and one of the goals is to have the new one ready by the end of the year. I've written a revamped one, but I need Finance/NAC to chime in before I can share it out.

The issue on my end is that I can't have one set of agreements for CHN and a different set of agreements for 70+ other cities. So, the MOU that we end up signing will end up becoming the standard. (Which actually works out) I don't mind so much where it originates but we'll need to be able to re-use it in other places.

Tell you what, let's see what the draft MOU from CHN looks like and I'll send it up to the NAC/Finance. I'll also continue working on my draft (which I just need approval on) and if they end up in different places I can create a proposal that squares them. The MOUs on are end tend to be yearly, so it might not be that big of deal if this one isn't standardized. (Though I imagine the one we use for all non-monentary network members will be pretty similar)

As soon as I get green-lighted, I'll post a link for review just so y'all can see what my train of thought is.

I'm in favor of ChiHackNight joining the CfA network or alliance in whatever form it takes as discussed. Its well past time in my opinion. ChiHackNight is a great community and see no reason not to share that community with others and no reason to be a barrier for our community meeting and collaborating with the larger national and international communities. We are great but we are not so unique that we should turn our backs to the world around us. From what I've seen meeting people in other cities, there are similar folks everywhere. Lets acknowledge and engage in the world we live in.