A feature? Transgroups?

Way back in December 2016, @richarddbartlett noted, discussing Loomio and the problem of deliberation, that “somewhere within the Loomio vision there is something that goes beyond groups of a couple of hundred people”. He was talking about the situation with political hierarchies in Podemos in Spain, with regard to “connecting the Circles to the institutions of power”. Interesting.

Rich also said “I personally do not believe in large groups, I only believe in small groups”. I’m pretty much in the same place on that - a couple of hundred (frequent, active) people is pretty big for the kind of deliberative practice I engage in. But I wonder whether there’s Loomio thinking about different groups being able to create common space - a transgroup - within which threads may be viewed in both groups (and maybe responded to)?

A case I’m thinking of is a group I’m a coordinator of (with limited participation, up to 100 members, basically, British), which discusses and develops thinking on ‘the civil economy’, and the Commons Transition group, which has transnational membership of around 200. These domains overlap. What’s the view: could it be helpful to have a facility for a ‘transgroup’ here (an intersection of sets)? Or pragmatically, should interested persons just post in both groups, and furnish crosslinks?

Rich mentions a labour intensive lash-up - a group providing references to activity in multiple independent groups - that began to be implemented for Podemos but was abandoned (the political situation went pear shaped). I can’t make full sense of what that fix was. Would this still be the recommended way to deal with this kind of intersectional or superset issue? Not a hierarchy, but a sharing between autonomous groups.