Community update on Community / November Ed.

Thanks @jocelynibarra for starting this discussion, I will take time to reflect on it and provide some personal opinions :-) Just two clarification questions : in point 1 third * what do you mean by "these decisions" / which decisions do you speak about ? And is there a place that explains intentions / aims and frame of Community Hangout so far ? Thanks a lot :-)

@maud1 thank you for the reply :)))

Info:
- "these decisions" refer to answers to:
"What should we do with the Connector and Welcoming processes?”, "Is the current process, with the 333 rule, still relevant?", "Is it necessary to become a Connector in order to participate in OuiShare activities?"

• The frame of the HO is the same as the frame of Community so far: "Community in OuiShare is a container in the process of being shaped. It is shaped in a third space, meaning that it's a space of co-creation, not just a space where we meet to fulfill tasks."

If this is too abstract let me know and I can explain differently; what I'm trying to avoid is going into detail or actionable items, because then we aren't in co-creation, we'd be starting from what only I think we should do.
Once we are in co-creation, and we've figured out a shape, then I (and anyone) can bring ideas to fill such container.

If anyone is curious, this is coming from the work of Homi Bhabha, and inspired by Federico Campagna's empty signifiers.

Thank you!

As this is a very critical topic which has kept coming up over the past 2 years, I would also like to give a brief background on why we originally designed the current Connectors process as it is, which has often seen as slow, blocking and often taking a lot of energy from people:

In OuiShare, we have many open spaces: anyone can become a member, can get involved, be part of projects etc. Once you've become a Connector, you basicaly have full flexibility to do whatever you like with the means available to you. People often ask how we can guarantee that the "quality" of our work is consistent without having endless rules and guidlines that need to be followed. And so the way we wanted to get around having to create too much bureaucracy for people who want to do things, was to create one strong barrier to entry, after which all doors open once you have passed it.

Once you have become a connector, you are by default fully trusted to act as you see fit in your local context, can use the brand and speak for ouishare publicly (something that is quite rare for many people in an organization to be permitted to do). We adopted the "3 pirate rule" from the pirate party to simply ensure that Connectors ask 2 other Connectors before making smaller decisions, and for all larger decisions that impact the ouishare brand or financial resources on a large scale, we use loomio. Projects like OuiShare Fest, POC21, Sharitories etc. basically have full autonomy in decision making, the only thing that is clarified beforehand is the relationship between the project to ouishare global.

In addition, now that we use loomio and launched the participatory budget, Connectors also have voting power on budget allocation, which actually gives even more importance to the Connector role and the need for people to take seriously (and embrace the responsibility that comes with it).

These are the reasons why we originally created this somewhat complicated barrier to entry to this role. But we consistently run into the issue that people cannot be part of important discussions or have a harder time getting involved because they are not connectors, so this hinders there engagement, which is really not what we want!

So what I am thinking really is that maybe the problem is not that it is too hard to become a Connector, but maybe we need to simply find a way to enable members to have access to our resources and discussions, and only define a very limited amount of information that is sensitive and should not be open to everyone?

For instance, Enspiral contributors, which are something between our members and connectors, all of access to one big loomio where most discussions go, but then there is another special loomio only for the core core members, who are the 31 official foundation members you have here: http://www.enspiral.com/people/

To me it seems like the main reason people ask to become connectors at the moment is because they ask for something, and then we say "sorry you can't have access unless you are connector", so the problem mainly has to do with information flow.

How do others see this so far?

Thanks @francesca for these context info;
I feel many important questions are being asked in this post, and it's difficult to get back to all of them.
In my own opinion, I agree we experiment today a tension, or gaps. One between the process as it is written and what experienced some people in the process, where it wasn't that clear where they were in the process and who was in charge of helping them making the next move, and the lack of fluidity in it.
And one between this process which as you say Fran answer some needs, and the evolution of our organisation and needs; and which, I share this analysis, seems to have a lot to do with the information we share (or don't share) with newcomers, and our tools.
I'm just wondering what would be our "secret" information, I don't really see anything we should really hide ? Maybe indeed all informations and tools could be open to anyone making the demand, but taking a role in the organisation, like voting or having some budget through participatory budgeting would require a specific "admission ritual" ?
I recently learnt (from Université du Nous) about the different steps in a group, in a “WE”. We first have the pseudo-WE, where we all are a bit akward, not knowing each other, trying to organize ourselves. Then we have the “symbiotic-WE”, where we have this feeling of all “belonging” and where differences between people are denied, we all want to fit in the collective we. It feels good but can’t last, we then have the “conflicting-WE”, where the differences need reaffirmation and reassurance, it’s a difficult but creative step where we can feel a need for internal structuration. and then we can move forward to “mature-we” and even “the team”; but in order to do so we need to define the “security framework” of the group : how do we managed “entrance” in the group, how do we manage people leaving the group, and how do we manage “exclusion”, if needed. Learning about that made me think a lot about OuiShare, and I had this feeling that after last summit we were in this “conflicting-we” and working our way towards mature stage, or at least trying! Maybe we need to work more on what it means to be "in" OuiShare, what accountability goes with it and how we "hold this space" ?

Concerning the idea of a community Hang Out, I'm totally in but divided. On one hand I really like this "empty space" where something unintended can emerge, on the other hand I see our community with many busy people, it's already hard to find a time to virtually meet when some work needs to be done, I'm afraid no one will show up if it's too free and unspecified. Maybe a mix can be find, defining an intention for them without specifying how we do it? Or defining what it shouldn't be ?

I hope many more will join this conversation,

Take care

Maud

Some comments from my experience in Bordeaux/Paris and OuiShare as a hole :
- I don't think it's too hard to become a connector, I would have even said it's sometimes too easy. The 333 rule is needed and could be adapted to ensure future connectors get to know other people already in OuiShare (need to find a connector outside your region/with different favorite topic among the 3 for instance).
- I'm quite against HO as it's always frustrating for me when several people talk at the same time, and I don't feel confident to really contribute to the discussion behind my computer. I would advocate for longer and more open summits.
- In Bordeaux, I see the necessity to identify some people between member and connector status to make the community alive again. Danger with established connectors (and I have my responsibility in this) is that they become focused in their project and no more or not enough on community.
- For anyone new approaching OuiShare, I think nothing is better than one-to-one oral discussion. We had built a document like OuiShare Hello Bobut my feedback is that it didn't work too well. You have to take time with people to make them involved for real. So I'd suggest to spend more time with less people.

So in the end, I have this question in mind, already set on the table but still relevant to me : is OuiShare to be enlarged ever and ever or should we get to know each other deeper before welcoming new people?

Happy to debate,

Sam

Here is what I think from my experience:
-Becoming a Connector is not so difficult but the status is important in itself for all the reasons stated by Fran. I would say the only things that are restricted and available to connectors are: making internal decisions for OuiShare, participating to budgeting and these leading to the sense of co-owning the organisation (we don't realize but this is an important one and keeps the motivation going). At the same time, I don't think that the information flow is limited to only connectors and in case it is I think we don't need to. As for projects and local community building we want anybody motivated with right skills to join in and so the information flow should be open.

-On the process of becoming a connector: I don't think we need to change anything but what could be interesting is not to rush into it. If we open the information flow and let the "potential to-be connector" carry out their activities/projects within OuiShare without limiting it to 3 months period and making this as a path to become a connector. Who knows with open flow of information the "potential to-be connector"might not feel the need to become a connector and would be only interested in the specific role/project within OuiShare.

-Important issue raised by Sam about established connectors not able to devote enough time to local communities. Hence we really need teams in every city with not only connectors but an active team of Connectors and members. I don't see why we need a "status" in between Connectors and members. Maybe "active members" ...

Hope my thoughts were useful :)

Very good points raised here. I personally think that the main reason people often want to become connectors is because not being one inhibits the information flow and thus their involvement, so I think if we change this, we don't actually need to change the Connectors process and can give more value to this role.

However some comments on communication channels and sensitivity of information:
* in general, I would say that about 95 % of all information we share could be shared openly with everyone. However there is 5 % which for instance has to do with partnerships and financials, which we cannot simply be shared "publicly". What we could do for these discussions is have these in a Loomio group only for Connectors (where we could also agree on the participatory budget etc.), and have all the remaining discussions in a group that anyone can join.
* there is a question about paid tools such as slack: at the moment, only Connectors are "full" members on slack, because this is a tool where you generally pay per full member. We currently have a special free version since we are a non-profit, but only for up to 100 full members. If we change the policy and start adding a lot more people, we need to renegotiate with slack to make sure we can keep the free plan with so many members
* Emails policy: we get many requests from non-connectors to get a ouishare email address. This is often necessary, but also associated to costs.

Enspiral for instance charges its contributors (which are sort of like our members) a small amount to be a member of such tools. I am not saying we should do this, but that we should take into account that having access to all this information and getting an email address etc. does also have costs associated to it. So if we decide to open to everyone at no cost, we just need to be conscious that this would be an investment of OuiShare global to cover them.

Quick note, everybody: I'm noting all this down, and thinking about it.
Silence in this case doesn't mean disinterest!

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

Love.

-

jocelyn ibarra

@jossbot ( http://twitter.com/jossbot )
everyoneonlinetogether.com ( http://everyoneonlinetogether.com )

adventure starts with a language we share; find some communication protocols here ( http://everyoneonlinetogether.com/protocols ).

oh! this too. ( https://slack-files.com/T03K9TS1Q-F0CM4GRHS-1c3745ba8f )

Just a quick share, "en passant".
I would be interested to know what are our different representations of a community ? what is our common intention behind building and nurturing one (if we have one?) and so which roles are necessary, and how do we make people accountable for these roles ? Is money a pre-requesite to be accountable for something? I don't think so but often the question comes back. Is money the solution for all that we point out that doesn't run as smoothly that we think it should? I don't think either but I may be wrong. Or maybe community is an organic process were no rules are required ? (but actually organic doesn't mean no rules, nature has a lot of rules we're not fully aware of). Are we looking for quality or quantity? What would mean "quality" in this community? How could we evaluate that ? How important is it for people? And about the different roles in the community (today connectors, core connectors..) how do we identify them? fulfill their needs? We have written processes on the Ouiki but who is holding the place to make sure we're following them, and what means do we gave them to do that? We can't be behind everyone but still... If we feel there is a gap how do we deal with that ? I have no answers to that today but I admit my head is full of questions, which doesn't prevent my heart to be full of OuiShare Love. And I wonder where my will and energy is, not sure about that :-)

Something more to add. I was this morning at a conference about working in remote teams (in an agile world). Some of the tools sounded really good, I wonder how we could try to use them in our context. oh, warning, by tool I don't mean another trello or loomio, I mean "social" tool or methodology to work together. The Hapiness Index sounded a really great way to "feel" the mood of a team or organisation (through a spreadsheet where everyone fills in how happy he is on a scale from 1 to 5 (in his project or in the organisation / community) like every month, saying a few words about what feels best and what feels worst, and what could be done to improve the "happy score", and also some space to express thanks / gratefulness to someone else of the community by pinging him/her. Of course to make it work we need someone to take care of it, reacting when someone index is low, trying to help identify small steps to move things forward... But I feel we miss that kind of tool ? I also liked the agile retrospective that sounded really good to help team move forward, do we use that kind of tools already in our different projects ? I have no experience of it yet. Sorry if it moves a bit away from "welcoming" in the community, but feeling welcome in a group isn't just at the beginning after all and I think this kind of tools can help feeling welcome along the way!

this sounds very interesting to explore :)

this is an excellent discussion and I'm glad that it takes place. I personally was not sure if the 333 is still in place, and I also couldn't find it - because there is no search for that. And to find information if you don't know or forgot where it was is hard. So thx Fran for helping me out :)
Tal approached me because he would like to become a connector. What I did was, I encouraged him, answered his questions (as good as I could, mainly based on my own experience), but I was not sure if the 333 guidelines are still in place. In Tal's case he wants to build with a few other people the Ouishare community in Israel. So i told him that he finds himself already in the middle of the process of becoming a connector. We skipped, I told him about our Summits and many more little or bigger things. What I realized was that Tal was looking for someone to interact with, to connect with, and I felt that this is a critical role to be filled in itself. I remember that until today Fran is kind of my "contact" or "mentor" when it comes to asking question about Ouishare - and sorry for bothering you all the time Fran ;)
But actually I find it a very important process. And I personally like to help and support a new friend like Tal to become a connector. It is a lot about personal availability and interaction to onboard a connector I think - independent of what (s)he is doing to become a connector.
And this leads me to the next point: the various ways to become a connector. I would see the Connector as a role - a mutually inclusive rather than exclusive role. Again taking myself as an example I started by volunteering at Ouishare Fest and organizing the Agora part of the Summit in Berlin.
Then I started to organise GETD, becoming a track leader for the last OS Fest, being involved in the Backfeed experiment and now applying for becoming a member of the next OS Fest curation team. So what I want to say is: I have quite a few roles, and I'm not sure if putting everything under the umbrella of the Connector is really helpful simply because it becomes less clear what a Connector does.
Sam points to the process of being a Connector focused on community work/building towards becoming a project person or maker. And again I don't feel that we cannot or should not cover multiple roles - in the contrary - roles should be flexible and driven by e.g. motivation, need, responsibility, accountability, etc. So why not have a role of contributor (maybe another word is needed), maker, connector. When I act as a Connector I want to serve the community, connect people, connect people with knowledge and awareness. When I organise a GETD I'm acting as a connector but also as a maker/producer of the event. But I decided clearly to be not a contributor during the events.
So a question would be will it help people to have more roles - to identify/position themselves and be better recognised for what they are actually doing? Could this help also in terms of accountability?
And then last and for me really important is: community building is a personal process that involves connecting, bonding and belonging all part of a dynamic process. So we need interaction to share knowledge and we need also common language/understanding/awareness of what we are doing, which roles we are taking on, so we can communicate clearly.
Unclear communication can lead easily to a conflict of motivations vs expectations.
I hope that this somehow adds sense to this discussion and to the community development process.

@francesca and @jocelynibarra I like the proposition you made concerning access to tools! But I lack some informations of who is in charge of what in this proposition ? For exemple, who is in charge of introducing higly active members in slack ? And I'm not totally confortable with the first part of the proposition "Keep the connectors process as is" ? I don't mean we need to change it but I feel we need to be more specific (and clear) of which role is in charge of what in this process. For example, "Step 1: Future Connectors express their intent to start their 3-month take-off period, by choosing activities they want to be involved with. These intentions are shared among the Connectors group during the weekly global coordination updates;" : how do they express these intent ? what are those global coordination update and who is in ? Who share those intentions from FC? the "mentors" ? The community connector ? Who is in charge of keeping track of the timing?... I think updating the process with a cleared vision of who needs to do what when in the process could help when sometimes people fall in a loop in this process.

Another thought link to community, we don't know much of it. Is there any project somewhere to better know who we are ? some example how many people having a main job and OuiShare being just a side community / activity, how many people "using it" to have access to some jobs, networks, develop its professional connections, how many people active on one or more OuiShare projects... and having also some datas on the tools we have and their usage, how many people read and comment on loomio, how many people propose and facilitate discussions... that kind of indicators would be really nice to assess how distributed we are, and may also give inputs while working on projects or governance. What do you think ?

Hej hej @maud1
I'm working on a new flow (or system) to help us move after this discussion and the motion/decision; which I want to share late this week. Your questions are right on point, and they are meant to be addressed along others I, and other Connectors have, but a round of actions needs to exist after the questions from November, before we keep adding questions.
How fantastic, since I'm usually the one asking questions to no end jijjiij Thank you for thinking about this enough to point out improvements.

There's a higher narrative in your questions that I want to address right away, though: updating processes and systems should make things more clear, but, in my opinion, all the answers to "Who...?" should be answered with actions: whoever feels that a system could be improved, whoever knows a solution to a roadblock, whoever shows up, that is the person who should take care of things and go for it.

Of course there's the issue of peeps being paid for community work, but based on the budget decision made earlier this year, it all restarts in January, no? ( @francesca can give us a hand and clarify pls?).

Regarding your second comment– yeah, that'd be fantastic, but, to me, that's an activity made of analysis, time and reflection, and in my opinion, should be done by someone who knows what he/she is doing, and should be remunerated. I'm sure there's a few in this group who know more than I about it.
Thanks Maud!

I fully agree Maud that we need to improve some of the formulation of the process on the wiki and be more precise about who is supposed to lead the process. I guess it was not clear, so I will propose a formulation that is hopefully more clear.

In terms of modifying the process, I do agree that the 3 month kick-off phase for instance is not fully working and is often skipped because people have already been involved for a while, however I would suggest that we wait for further modifications of the process until we have put in place the new membership information access I propose, and used it for a few months, because I suspect that this change may affect behavior overall and require other changes to the process, which we cannot anticipate now. Does that seem ok?

Thus I would say: Make the first change to membership information access, and then in 3 months (so at the summit!) review the Connectors process based on our experience after this change.

Regarding your second point, I can only say the same as Joss: this would be great to have, but it's a lot of work, so it would be needed to be funded, by participatory budget or other.

thanks @jocelynibarra and @francesca for your answers. If you need feedback on the formulation of the process and the "who" thing, happy to help you on that. I also agree on your second point Fran about not changing everything all together and learning from our experience at the summit.
Concerning the second point, yes I was just wondering if it seemed important just to me or if other persons feel the same way. I agree it's a lot of work for someone who know how to get and analyse data (not my speciality either!) and that should be funded somehow. Let's keep it in mind and see if anyone reacts on that need.

I really agree to change the process to integrate new connectors. My experience here in Flanders is that I didn't succeed to involve two interested connectors, because of the complexity of the process

Angelo, the motion is actually to leave the process as is for now; revise at the summit.

If you're speaking about Lieven and Thomas, we need to chat, because they need supporting-sponsoring connectors to be able to make it, and I can't do it alone: we've been needing you!
Find me via email if you wish? jocelyn@ouishare.net ( jocelyn@ouishare.net )

jocelyn, thanks for your reaction. I'll contact you soon. regards, angelo

@francesca thanks for opening the access! It would be great to plan a "public" update on that to inform the whole community? :-)

Maud, can you be more clear as to what you mean with "public" (including the " ") ?

I meant informing our communities through our community channels (facebook community groups and newsletter), which is half public.

@maud1 Definitely. We've done one HO to discuss the rest of the Needs and To-dos, which I'm in the process of doing.
I have to close 2015 in a few days, so I'll make a Loomio post once that's finalized.
Thank you for the reaction, Maud.

As a beneficiary of this change (I'm not a connector but have been invited into this group now), I want to say thanks to everyone for all the work and thinking that went into this decision, and the development of all the processes before that. It's very interesting to see OuiShare evolve in ways that resonate a lot with how we work at Enspiral, but are also different and unique to this community.

Alanna,

You posted your message the first day of the year, how symbolic :p

I feel like we've been saying this forever, but Welcoming keeps changing and we get lost in the change at times; however, I've enjoyed the tone of your comments and want to say Hello and welcome and happy new year, and now Feliz Dia de Reyes since I'm in Mexico and we go crazy with this.

I am glad to have you here :)
Jx