Should we introduce an annual Opt-in for Connectors?
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
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.
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.
Yabed Contreras Mon 4 Sep 2017 3:35PM
Estoy de acuerdo, ...disculpas, llegué un poco tarde para la votación.
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.