On the need for transparency

This is great. More considered commentary to follow.

First point: there appears to be a conflation of OST and practices of consensus democracy.

The Open Space practices have not been widely used in the project in quite a number of years, and are a quite specific format and ruleset. Consensus democracy came to Xchng in a quite mongrelized manner from G8 protesting, anarcho-punk, and Rainbow gatherings, but has remained quite isolated from other organizations and cultures who form the worldwide community of practice.

(For instance, there is a fully-consensus based organization 5 minutes from Exchange with a long history in the area - spolier, it's the Quakers on Eustace Street.)

This makes clear an issue which is dear to me, in relation to adequate consensus culture and facilitation. I would argue that there is currently a largely ad-hoc meeting culture, with poorly-defined structure. Vide the opinions of experienced facilitators such as Pears on procedure. The ad hoc nature of our decision-making and implementation is also key expressed concern from Brendan Kenny et al.

Second point: I would not agree on the reason for multiple reps to meetings, or rather I would consider the reasons given as partial, and focused on the negative and fear-based. Multiple reps was, to my memory, and as with the early model of shared responsibilities across space functionalities, based on a shared belief in collaborative practice, the advantage of differing competences and perspectives, and inspired by the inclusionary desire to bring in as many as wished into processes. It was also an attempt to provide organizational continuity in communicating with vertically-organized entities.

The primary reason outlined above is one based on mistrust, and a quite specific account of power and accountability. It's one I'd rather not share, or prioritize, and I would dissent from the view that it is 'the reason'.

At the point where ones focus is on mistrusting members of the collective, I believe process is always-already broken in some manner, whether due to interpersonal disputes or animus, or a breakdown in the facilitation of consensus within the group.

Similarly, in relation to representations (whether formal or informal), there exists a necessity for trust - so a criticism we have received is that without some consistency in either the people standing forward as representative, or the agreed decisions and actions of the collective, it is difficult to have any trust that what is an apple today is not an orange tomorrow.

There is not, to my understanding, currently a high level of trust flowing towards DCC officials, or from DCC towards us. I would view this as a definite problem, and one to be solved.

On comprehensive reporting, when reps are sent in a formal capacity, I would regard this as good practice. If the intent is to seek to extend this to informal contacts and such, it's a recipe for witch-hunts, of which I believe there has been more than enough. What becomes deeply problematic is crossovers or blurred lines between formal and informal contacts. This occurred with reporting in formal meeting of informal communications in relation to leadership and suitabilities, and perhaps again last night.

Good practice, I believe, is if one thinks that one was representing, one should report.
Key problem: if applied stringently, this designs out the capacity to speak in confidence.

(A partial hack for some of this, which came up in convo with Ed, would be named accounts with an auto-forward to archive for formal correspondence and communication as a rep of the institution.

This came up in relation to making direct contact to a large number of possible-allies to sound them out on participating in the hopefully-forthcoming process of using the premises for on-site review and reorganization)

I would also add that transparency is not necessarily a monotonic good - eg use of Chatham Rules for negotiation - and as with many values that it is a far easier value to pay lip-service to than it is to practice, much easier to criticise than to deliver.

To be fully-and-completely curmudgeonly, it is quite a simple to talk about the values of consensus, transparency, inclusion, and so forth, but to poorly-quote Goethe 'grey is all theory, but lifes tree grows ever-green.'
To follow the organic analogy, my view would be that what is required more than disinfectant, and would be a better use of available sunlight, is some healthy growth from all the individuals for the project, and a movement towards the light.

Agree wholeheartedly with -'What becomes deeply problematic is crossovers or blurred lines between formal and informal contacts.'

So you agree that we have a general lack of consensus practice and are too ad hoc? and that it is an area we have been explicitly told to get better in.

Well quite apart from mistrust we like our decisions to be reached by consensus? And are we saying that no issue of accountability arises where an individual is acting in an ad hoc way. A person can trust but disagree with representations made by another on their behalf.

I also thought that the descriptive account of process is informed by the normative/ aspirational.

I think you are the one conflating/ eliding a need for accountability with the collapse of process.

am in work now will deal more comprehensively with points when I get home.

tldr but:

"I agree that is the way it is but would invite any comments on whether it might be useful to ask people to comprehensively report to the collective the content of representations on behalf of the collective and any representations made to the collective."

this is already the case; if you want neo-Exchange more transparent you will have to build something into its structure

Wire-tap on all volunteers - not just their phones, their heads...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology