Loomio
Thu 24 Aug 2017 8:34AM

Should we introduce an annual Opt-in for Connectors?

F Francesca Public Seen by 443

Dear Connectors,

I would like to make a proposal today for making what I see as a critical update to OuiShare’s processes and practices around the role of Connectors: having an annual opt-in if you wish to stay a OuiShare Connector. I got this idea after seeing how this works in Enspiral and think it would make a lot of sense for us.

Why have a Connectors Opt-in?

The role of Connectors has evolved over the years, with what I observe as a growing gap in types of engagement. We currently have a growing amount official Connectors who are disengaged. They are not active on any of our communication channels, don’t attend summits etc. Many active members are a lot more active than these (disengaged) Connectors. This fact not only makes it hard for us to know how many active Connectors we actually have, but also de-values this role and title as a whole. In my opinion, if we intend to maintain the role of Connectors, this annual ‘housekeeping’ on reviewing who wants to stay active should be mandatory.

The reason we are currently at this state is that at the moment, there is no recurring process and space for Connectors to 1) reflect on their involvement 2) become an Alumni in a low-friction way.

Some background:
In 2014, part of the “global coordination role” I was given included "mentoring Connectors" - which translated into doing calls with each Connector once a year to assess whether they want to continue in their role. With a growing network and 80 Connectors, this support work turned out to be unamanagable for one person, was too centralized and reinforced having a passive mindset - so this role was eliminated.

That is why at the moment, the only way to become an Alumni Connector is by voluntarily deciding and announcing it to everyone, which requires a decent amount of proactivity and courage from the person doing it.

How to do it

Please give your vote on my proposal, to see whether there is consent on introducing an annual Connectors Opt-in process that also includes a moment of retrospection on our role for each of us.

If there is consent, the next steps would be to:

  • Validate a first version of an opt-in process, which I have created here, and estimate the work needed to run it
  • Agree on a small budget for this role (to be funded as part of the global budget)
  • Find a person for the role
F

Poll Created Thu 24 Aug 2017 8:39AM

Let's introduce an annual Connectors Opt-in Closed Fri 1 Sep 2017 9:02PM

Outcome
by Francesca Fri 8 Sep 2017 3:18PM

There is full agreement to adopt a Connectors Opt-in.

The process for running and implementing this will be reviewed at the international summit in Munich next week and then put up for final feedback on loomio.

We're also looking for the person who would like to run this process annually (see job description in proposal). If you're interested, get in touch!

I agree that we should introduce a Connectors Opt-in that takes place 1 per year which:

  • gives each of us a moment to reflect on our past and future involvement as Connectors
  • offers a low friction and clear way to become an Alumni

Check out the MVP for the Opt-in process here, which will be validated in a second proposal, if this first one passes.

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 100.0% 31 BT BJM AJ DW AG AK SC AC JL A LH JM DL KB TD LT MB M C AAT
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 51 MB ADG DDB JK JS EG B PR MT SR ASB CG CR FB P EB AM JI EM

31 of 82 people have voted (37%)

DW

David Weingartner
Agree
Thu 24 Aug 2017 9:10AM

I like the process - also gives everyone an opportunity to reflect. Maybe this could be combined in a good way with personal update rounds?

HG

Hugo Guyader
Agree
Thu 24 Aug 2017 12:30PM

Makes a lot of sense!

AB

Alexandre Bigot-Verdier
Agree
Thu 24 Aug 2017 1:06PM

Very good idea, thanks Francesca

MH

Manel Heredero
Agree
Thu 24 Aug 2017 1:37PM

Yes, it would be very useful to know who is active

TD

Thomas Dönnebrink
Block
Thu 24 Aug 2017 1:45PM

Sorry 1.time I block. Not out of opposition to the idea, which I like, but due to the procedure: IMHO you can't start a vote & then want to precise what you have voted on later. Do other way around. Would AGREE if enough pre-time & reminders ensured.

AK

Auli Kütt
Agree
Thu 24 Aug 2017 2:38PM

As a still not-opted-back-in Alumni connector, I totally agree :-)

Precision: should the opt-in message be also sent yearly to all Alumni connectors in case they want to re-activize?

AC

Albert Cañigueral
Agree
Thu 24 Aug 2017 3:50PM

Good description of the status and important to work on this issue + reflecting about this is already valuable!

TD

Thomas Dönnebrink
Agree
Thu 24 Aug 2017 10:21PM

Misunderstanding concerning procedure - leading to my initial hand raising - resolved. As mentioned before like the idea. Like also Esra's suggestion to incorporate it as part of onbording (and maybe offbording as well)

A

Ana
Agree
Fri 25 Aug 2017 6:54AM

Happy to keep exploring on this gap between "disengaged" connectors and highly active members like @esra is proposing.

LT

Luis Tamayo
Agree
Fri 25 Aug 2017 10:22AM

It´is time to explore the new role and meaning conector

JL

Jennifer Leblond
Agree
Fri 25 Aug 2017 2:06PM

Great idea ! :-)

SC

Simone Cicero
Agree
Sat 26 Aug 2017 7:09AM

I think it's an important thing to keep meaning in the role of connector. I would add the possibility to re-optin for alumni and more clarity of what you lose with losing the status of connector (like e.g.: access to certain groups etc...)

AJ

Amanda Jansen
Agree
Thu 31 Aug 2017 8:55PM

Good to see how connectors connect over time and how infrastructure of relations gets maintained. Also good to consider how someone who steps back perhaps will have ideas about that.

MB

Myriam Bouré
Agree
Fri 1 Sep 2017 9:12AM

I like that proposal !

BJM

Bernie J Mitchell Thu 24 Aug 2017 8:39AM

YES. YES. YES. :-) I'd like to know who to be able to count on and where I stand with people. Also this gives people the option commit to 12 months and then opt out.

MG

Marguerite Grandjean Thu 24 Aug 2017 9:58AM

If I understand well @francesca, doint the Opt-In survey is what makes you remain an active Connector for the next year ? Or are there other requirements ?

F

Francesca Thu 24 Aug 2017 10:01AM

What I propose is that to stay a Connector, you fill out the survey and then click "Yes, I want to stay a connector" on loomio (using the check tool). So basically there are no requirements other than that, and it is more about the process of actively saying you want to keep going and us putting up criteria that give you the right to stay a Connector.

If we want to become more strict on what requirements you need to fulfill if you are a Connector, that should be a larger, separate discussion, I think (maybe a topic for the Munich summit?).

ET

Esra Tat Thu 24 Aug 2017 12:07PM

I am a 100% in favor of this process, thanks for proposing it.
When I came back this year in Europe, what struck first in our community is exactly what you describe with this gap between "disengaged" connectors and highly active members. Surprisingly, some highly active members do not even think of becoming "connectors" for a set of reasons that are a bit unclear to me at this stage (lack of time, no incentive in becoming a connector, no clear knowledge of the process...).
I agree that there might be a more general discussion to have later, and I was actually telling earlier today to @manel2017 that onboarding and members' engagement are a topic we'll need to dig into at some point (as a sort of revamp/followup of both the fellowship program and OuiShare Hello efforts on the levels of involvement). I will be interested in joining forces on this :)

AC

Albert Cañigueral Thu 24 Aug 2017 3:52PM

@thomasdonnebrink if i am not mistaken the proposal is to agree or not on the relevante to discuss this topic / idea + look for resources to properly work on it. The proposal about how to implement the process will come later on. ping @francesca for clarifications

F

Francesca Thu 24 Aug 2017 4:08PM

that is correct Albert!

@thomasdonnebrink I was suggesting that we first agree in this vote whether we want to have an opt-in process or not (while already starting to discuss my concrete idea for the process in parallel).

If everyone is ok with creating an opt-in process, then the next step was going to be a second vote to agree on the exact process we use. Does that seem ok Thomas or were you proposing something else?

By agreeing to the current vote, you are not agreeing to the process I propose yet, but to the general idea to have an opt-in.

TD

Thomas Dönnebrink Thu 24 Aug 2017 10:13PM

@francesca @albertcanigueral oh, if the idea was to do a vote first, then precise the conditions for the vote and then do a second vote on the conditions discussed, I have no objection to this procedure. I would even consider one vote is enough, it would just have to be the one after the precisioning of the conditioning and not the one before, but if you had planned one after anyhow, then that was a misunderstanding from my side, sorry. In this case no objections/veto from my side.

KB

Khushboo Balwani Mon 28 Aug 2017 12:28PM

I think it is a very relevant point. However I feel the requirements to be a connector need some fine-tuning to make it more explicit. This will also clarify the difference of motivation to be a connector and a member. As Fran suggested, this should be a topic of discussion at the summit.

YC

Yabed Contreras Mon 4 Sep 2017 3:35PM

Estoy de acuerdo, ...disculpas, llegué un poco tarde para la votación.