Group membrane and gatekeeping agreements for new collective governance members
pospi
Public
Seen by 64
We need to formalise some decisions and processes as to how we bring new people in to the group in these early stages. It is assumed that eventually we want things to be completely open; but in this embryonic phase it may be better to lay a good foundation first.
Emaline
Wed 18 Dec 2019 2:05AM
Still agree
Tom
Sun 15 Dec 2019 11:49PM
I agree for a grass roots approach, people need to see how decisions are made and if someone questions why the economic toolkit is taking a certain stance or direction we are able to send them the unlisted link.
pospi
Sat 14 Dec 2019 5:33AM
I think this is fine so long as we each commit to providing adequate context about the group's status and maturity.
Poll Created Sat 14 Dec 2019 4:24AM
We should make the Gitbook and Loomio group shareable Closed Sat 21 Dec 2019 4:03AM
Gitbook is now publicly shareable via a secret link: https://economikit.gitbook.io/group-governance/-LwVmwtwlxCxHXJ5Brd8/
Loomio group still private since there is no "secret link" version of visibility on Loomio. To be put to a vote in the new year (:
So that we can start to share these discussions with potentially interested parties.
Note that this would be like an "unlisted video" on YouTube in that the links to the Loomio group and Gitbook would not be publicly discoverable and can only be accessed by those we explicitly share them with (and who they share with, and so on).
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 100.0% | 5 |
|
| Disagree | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 9 |
|
5 of 14 people have participated (35%)
jean m russell Thu 12 Dec 2019 5:55PM
Oh, I missed this somehow. I am a yes.
Poll Created Mon 2 Dec 2019 3:35AM
We should make the gitbook and Loomio group "unlisted" for readonly sharing with interested parties Closed Thu 12 Dec 2019 3:02AM
Since I started this before everyone had accounts set up, makes sense to run it again
Ideally I would like to be able to send this work-in-progress documentation to potential collaborators who might have an interest in what we're doing. So I think it makes sense to have unlisted URLs which are readonly for those in the group in order to enable us to share.
There does however need to be a clear indication given when sharing with others that these discussions are a work in progress.
Not sure how others in the group might feel about this... let's find out!
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 0% | 0 | |
| Disagree | 0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 14 |
|
0 of 14 people have participated (0%)
pospi Thu 28 Nov 2019 1:50AM
For this particular issue I'm specifically talking about bringing people in to be part of the decision making process of the collective. Feel free to open threads on the other topics!
Sid Sthalekar Thu 28 Nov 2019 12:55AM
It could also include organisations who wish to align their protocol with the VF language (i.e. contributing to the commons)
Sid Sthalekar Thu 28 Nov 2019 12:42AM
Would we bring in new people to be part of the decision making process of the collective? Or to contribute person-hours towards a task, or both?
Bob Haugen · Sat 14 Dec 2019 4:12PM
I don't see the usual Abstain or whatever. I don't object, but don't understand the proposal. Does
...mean readonly sharing is allowed as long as somebody gives the reader a link? Or it means readonly sharing is not allowed?
And what is the list where it would not be listed?