Loomio
Thu 23 Apr 2015 2:12PM

Structure/Struktur?

KMF Katy Momo Fox Public Seen by 167

[EN]

Which option do you support for the Luxembourg Transition Platform’s structural coming into being?

Three structural options have been identified so far. Which one speaks most to you? Are there arguments in favour and against each of them that need to be changed or added (see link below)? Do you see any other option that should be considered?

  • Option A: CELL is becoming legitimised to act as the Luxembourg Transition Platform.
  • Option B: A national Council will be established as governance organ of the LTP representing the various groups without being itself a formal organisation.
  • Option C: A new organisation will be created with the sole purpose to act as LTP.

For more information, consult this document.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lq5xTpGXid9o_EHrrDVcz0x2ac1aZymyPQskbvpLYiU/edit

[FR]

Quelle structure appuyez-vous en vue de la création de la Plateforme Luxembourgeoise de la Transition?

Trois options structurelles ont déjà été identifiées. Laquelle vous inspire le plus? Y a-t-il des arguments en faveur ou contre les différentes propositions qui devraient être ajoutés ou qui modifieraient les propositions (voir lien ci-dessous)? Y a-t-il d’autres options qui devraient être prises en considération?

  • Option A: CELL est légitimé à agir en tant que Plateforme Luxembourgeoise de la Transition
  • Option B: Un Conseil national informel représentant les différents groupes sera créé en tant que organe de gouvernance pour la PLT.
  • Option C: Une nouvelle organisation sera créée ayant comme seul but d’agir comme PLT.

Voici un document qui vous donne plus d'informations:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lq5xTpGXid9o_EHrrDVcz0x2ac1aZymyPQskbvpLYiU/edit

[DE]

Welche Struktur soll die Luxemburger Transition Plattform bekommen?

Die drei folgenden Optionen wurden bisher für die Organisationstruktur der LTP identifiziert. Welche spricht Sie am meisten an? Gibt es Argumente, für oder gegen diese drei Optionen (siehe Link unten), die geändert oder ergänzt werden sollten? Sehen Sie eine weitere Option, die berücksichtigt werden sollte?

  • Option A: CELL wird legitimiert, die Funktionen der Luxemburger Transition-Plattform zu übernehmen.
  • Option B: Ein nationaler Rat, in dem die verschiedenen Aktionsgruppen repräsentiert sind, der jedoch selbst keine formale Organisation ist, wird als Governance Organ der LTP etabliert.
  • Option C: Eine neue Organisation wird geschaffen, deren einziger Zweck die Koordination der LTP ist

Mehr Informationen hier:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lq5xTpGXid9o_EHrrDVcz0x2ac1aZymyPQskbvpLYiU/edit

MA

marko anyfandakis Thu 7 May 2015 9:40PM

Fusion of Option 2 and Option 1 makes a lot of sense to me for the following reasons:
-it is logistically the easiest option(no need to create a new organisation) while providing a legal framework to support the national council.
-it would be a natural evolution of CELL's purpose and honouring of its role during the previous years.
-The autonomy and openness characteristic of CELL's functioning allows for a non-hierarchical, inclusive national council that acts as an entity in itself rather than explicitly as CELL (option A)!

LS

Luis Santiago Fri 8 May 2015 6:47AM

better entering the discussion late than never: although i don't know the functioning of the transition movement for that long, i do agree on the importance of CELL on its dynamic. I could join Albert's suggestion of a fusion of both option's as it appears to be a very "natural" step to me. I even would insist on Marko's first point: let's not make ourselves more work than we already have.

GS

Guy Schaeffer Fri 8 May 2015 10:29AM

I'm member of the committee of the Luxemburg Initiative for Basic Income (www.Grondakommes.lu).
For me it's clear that this could integrate into the "Luxemburg Transition Platform".
It's not so clear if it integrates under "Centre for Ecological Learning Luxemburg".
For me Option A is Ok if Basic Income fits into CELL.
Else I would prefer Option C.
For option C: Perhaps CELL could be renamed LTP or migrate progressively to LTP?

FA

Frank Adams Tue 12 May 2015 12:31PM

Guy has a point, I guess. On one hand I see CELL as the initiative that "started it all off", on the other hand things evolve and we may need some adjustments along the way.
However, is there a way to get around option C, as this would involve a lot of work and too abrupt changes? I like the A-B fusion idea and/or a progressive shift towards something more up-to-date.
Anyway, I leave the final decision to people more competent than myself.

LS

Luis Santiago Tue 12 May 2015 4:52PM

Guy's intervention is very pertinent indeed. Final decision will be taken altogether, as every one is competent to express an opinion. We are trying to build a common (for everyone to identify him/herself with the project) and therefore anyone's opinion is important and must be taken into consideration (yours too Frank ;-) ). What i find mostly interesting is that along with this discussion we discovered a new option we didn't consider in the working group. We all seem to agree on CELL's important role in this process. That could be a good start for the following discussions. (somehow, this is the legitimization of CELL although an evolution seem to be necessary and desired…)