Decision-Making Beyond the Representative Board

A common group can decide for itself whom they want to accept as members of the group.

This might prevent trolls, but could be destructive too.

A group stalls, should the number of members fall below 3. It then looses all privileges of a group until the number rises to or above 3 active members again.

What privileges does a group have?

I suppose we need to define an "active member" too.

It is pretty obvious that this treasure group is pretty much the same thing as the current board

I like the idea of a group that could help us transition to our board-less organisation. Perhaps with another name though?

If we do this, then the group should have a more explicit definition of its power. Otherwise we might as well call it the oligarchy group.

I have thought of a common group as being modelled after the three-pirate-rule. So if we think that three pirates that meet in a pub are a group that can plan actions in the name of the party, then we sure would love to see these three pirates seek wider support in the membership and invite other pirates into their circle - but we also acknowledge that they are not obliged to do anything like that.

It is very important that this is in contrast to groups recognised as essential, where the membership must have more control and can define the rules of their existence.

What privileges does a group have?

At the outset:
* a collaboration and publishing platform in terms of access to the Pirate Party infrastructure
* a named speaker with possibly privileged access to essential groups
* and I am sure that once we decide on such a model and discuss the details we will recognise more...

I suppose we need to define an “active member” too.

Yes, that is a tricky one. There is a clear case of activity and inactivity, but what exactly makes one status to change to the other is a very tricky one. But we may not need razor blade sharp definition. For now we could just go with the rule and say that a group with no posted comments in the last 6 month has ceased (e.g. The Engine Room?) and a group that has not had vivid discussions over the last 6 month anymore but a couple of members are still posting a comment with a link to interesting resources every now and then is pretty much stalled.

we might as well call it the oligarchy group.

If we decide to go forward in this or that direction I will argue that Funds and Secrets (Treasurer and Secretary) must be dealt with a group of elected people that have agreed to a defined term of attendance. I find the name 'Treasury' pretty much perfect; maybe 'Guardians of the Taonga' may be better? We would have to ask for that, though.

The problem of the group as outlined is, that - for practical reasons - I have added the burden to guarantee for the persistent existence of essential groups to the Treasury, where this role doesn't really belong to. It is just that we realistically cannot afford to build up a second elected group at the present point in time. But this obligation should be removes from the Treasury at the earliest possible point in time.
This is why I don't think we should give it a name signifying the broader power. Instead using one that identifies clearly the intention of the containment of some powers.

Anybody else having some thoughts?

I am asking to discuss how we want to proceed. We should hold a conference meeting for this.

I have put up a new event for a mumble meeting on Wednesday 22nd.

Wednesdays are bad for me, as I have two social activities I intend to regularly attend on Wednesdays. Of course I don't expect the meeting on the 22 to be changed on my account at such late notice, but if it would be possible to choose a new day for future meetings, I would be much more likely to attend.

I have started documentation of our proposed horizontal/ networked structure here:
http://piratepad.net/OezvwsyBUl

Edits welcome.

Well, I have another committee meeting on thursdays, and their newsletter labelling is on a monday.
I would suggest that tuesday might be better to hold meetings, as fridays are usually a night at the pub for @zl4bv and @hubatmcjuhes and I am sure other members would also be busy on friday nights.

Not sure what makes AMcP think that I am 'usually' having a night in the pub on Fridays - but Tuesdays is fine with me.

I mean in the context of afterwork-week relaxation that Friday is not the best day for meetings @hubatmcjuhes and @zl4bv will probably agree.

It seems like Tuesdays are the most suitable day to have mumble meetings.

Can we confirm this?
Tuesdays, 20:00, in our mumble channel, weekly for the next six or so weeks?

Even if only a subset of us manage to attend on any given week it should still help us get things moving a little faster.

Sounds good to me @zl4bv . Can I suggest you test consensus on that by putting it up as a proposal, where the outcome is clearly visualised, and easily found? Might as well make the most of the features Loomio offers :)