Mandate WorkAround Jedlet

Thanks Mic, I will save any further comments for the Jedlet and any other Jedi/Jedlet (i.e. process stuff).

I feel I have respected members different points of views and disagree with your comments here- unfortunately there has only been a few comments made (which favour one side/view/perspective). I feel all that is trying to be achieved is clarity. Looking forward to listening and discussing more at the Jedlet.

Thanks for the post and sharing your perspective. Always good to have your input.

I'm not sure of the purpose of this contribution and I'm a bit tired of feeling like I have to defend this Jedlet. If you feel there is something missing in the process of forming a Jedlet, please take it to the Governance Jedi or CI Jedi for a review.

Otherwise can you please respect that some members have a different point of view about the mandates and trust that the conversations they have and suggestions they have to make will be bought to the membership for consideration.

Apologies for the long post. I had some thoughts and time to reflect on this thread- trying to make sense of the thread/comments/purpose/intentions. This is what has come to me (and some future ponderings):

• Supporting members to be heard- we have practices, processes and frameworks to assist individuals to have a collective voice (four fold, pillars, circle practice etc). I see it is our collective responsibility to assist all our membership to feel confident and comfortable to have conversations and their voices heard- even if they are difficult conversations. I feel talking between each other and one/two people representing those discussions is not useful, productive or helpful- I feel this creates an environment for rumours, assumptions and divides. How do we create an environment or container for everyone to be heard- we have feedback that we are a Psychologically Safe organisation and members feel heard- why are we not encouraging members to talk up? Have we successfully done this for this tread or leading up to this topic being put up on Loomio (my feeling is no- from both perspectives)?

• Emotions v's facts- this is a very emotive space for everyone- no matter what side of the fence you sit on. There are also very clear facts. Both of these are important and need equal weight in a exploring possibilities. This thread has certainly surfaced the polar opposites but not the grey.

• Transparency (going back to some of our fundamental practices/process and pillars)- this links to my first reflection. When there is ambiguity and not enough open discussion prior to a Jedlet forming, this can create suspicion around intentions (either explicit or implicit). I see this thread as attempting to gain clarity of purpose (which has not been defined)- the solution I see here is that all those members who were having these discussions could have brought the topic to the Risk Jedi for further exploration and conversation- then a Jedlet formed when it was ripe.

• We are developing the Ethical Considerations Framework (through the Jedlet at the Governance Jedi) which will provide us a framework to start exploring some of these topics and challenges. In the absence of this, we are all doing the best we can. I am going to propose (in another proposal but after discussions at the Risk/Governance Jedi first) that I host a space where we can openly discuss the Mandate topic (I have been open that I have some questions I want to pose to the membership but they are not ripe yet). If anyone is interested in helping to develop these questions, please contact me or attend the Risk Jedi.

That's all for now.

Actually Jason the topic came up at the Nest where, when I said I have discussed this option with a number of members that were interested in forming a Jedlet. I was advised to take it through the risk Jedi. I'm not sure how much more can be discussed seeing the group has not come together to define a purpose or what it wants to do. Just to be clear, there is no agenda for Challenging the Mandate at this point. The purpose of the Jedlet needs to be defined by the members that join it, not in these discussions. This Loomio post was to invite people into a discussion about what is possible in Working Around the Mandates. I think I was clear about that in that in the description. The purpose and the piece of work will be clarified in the first few meetings of the Jedlet. It is still important that only members that are interested in discussion possible work arounds attend as this is not a space to discuss the ethics or the right or wrong of the mandates or vaccinations.

If you feel there is another conversation needed for starting a Jedlet process then that maybe a Jedlet in itself or sit under another Jedi, your decision.

Thank you for your perspectives, I hope my contribution has given some clarity to you and others.

Yes, the Jedlet is under the Risk Jedi but the way it came around could be explored more. The piece of work did not come from the Risk Jedi itself it came from Michaela (via Nest discussion). Michaela attended the last Risk Jedi for the purpose of informing the Risk Jedi she is calling a Jedlet around Challenging the Mandate- I felt there was no room for discussion to clarify purpose or the piece of work. Maybe this is also in the learning about the "how".

Thanks Dee, yes this Jedlet is doing it's work under the Risk Jedi, that is why the thread is here. How it does it's work and where it goes from here is yet to be determined and we will keep everyone posted and informed.

The only constructive thing I will add here is that Jedlets, by definition, are a "piece of work" within a Jedi so, I'm assuming this was developed at the Risk Jedi?

Snapshot Definition:

·       Jedi – a working group for members to collaborate and share around an organisational function for growth

·       Jedlet – a space for Jedi members to work on a specific “piece of work” within a broader Jedi

·       Pod – the Leads of a working group, role or function

·       Team – geographically or interest based member groups

The group will decide how it will share the conversations.

@Michaela Kennedy do you plan on recording the Jedlet so others can watch it later if they cant attend? It would be good to get some clarity on the groups purpose and mission.

No problem Jason, I will add amendments instead of changing anything. I thought when someone else harvest what a person is saying and it is harvested incorrectly, that person has the right to change it. Either way is fine, for transparencies sake I will only add an amendment.

Thank you for stating no one needs permission. I'm sorry you don't understand my perspective. If there is anything I can do to help your understanding please let me know.