Using Sociocracy in the mini-WGs (aka circles) for consensus-based decision-making

[mwherman2000]

Checkout: https://www.sociocracyforall.org/content/

Sociocracy combines consent decision-making, a decentralized system of authority and intentional processes to improve our decisions and processes over time into a governance system that supports effective and efficient process while increasing connection, listening and co-creation among members.

Sociocracy is used in businesses, communities, nonprofits, cooperatives, grassroots groups and in education. 

[mwherman2000]

In Sociocracy terminology, a mini-WG is called a circle. Each category of DID methods (cluster of DID Methods) would be managed by its own independent circle. A circle member can belong to more than 1 circle. Circles are connected to a parent circle for administrative purposes. The parent circle would correspond to the DID Method WG (co-chaired by @peacekeeper).

[mwherman2000]

If you'd like to learn more about Sociocracy, I recommend downloading a copy of Many Voices One Song: Shared Power with Sociocracy.

Many Voices One Song is a detailed manual for implementing sociocracy, an egalitarian form of governance also known as dynamic governance. Sociocracy means governance by those who associate together. This book is based on the Sociocratic Circle-Organization Method (SCM) developed in the Netherlands by electrical engineer Gerard Endenburg, based on earlier work of educator Kees Boeke.Many Voices One Song includes step-by-step descriptions for structuring organizations, making decisions, and generating feedback. The content is illustrated by many diagrams, tables, examples, lists, skits, and stories from the field. The book includes a glossary and index, and an appendix summarizing processes in easily reproducible form.The book covers four major areas:Sociocratic organizational structures based on linked teams (circles) that distribute authority from the top of organizations to the most frontline teams that are appropriate. These teams are linked by both top-down leaders and bottom-up delegates to ensure that influence and power are shared in a circular rather than linear hierarchy. Organizational diagrams illustrate different ways to structure organizations in an egalitarian way.Decision making by consent, defined as no one having an objection to a proposed decision. Consent is a participatory and inclusive approach to decision making, in contrast to win-lose voting and most forms of consensus. Decision-making steps (understand-explore-decide) detailed include proposal generation and the proposal to consent decision-making process.The book also outlines the steps for selection of people to roles in open dialog processes. The insights of compassionate communication (Nonviolent Communication/NVC) are integrated into the context of decision making.Meeting format and design, including facilitation skills and processes that ensure that all voices matter in decision making.Feedback processes for evaluating the effectiveness of meetings, policies, workflows, and role performance support an ongoing learning cycle and continuous improvement, not just in production and delivery but in the embodiment of equality itself.The intent of this book is to contribute to the spread of sociocracy by making information available. Egalitarian self-governance needs to be simple enough so everyone can share power in a healthy way.

cc: @kimdhamilton @peacekeeper

[mwherman2000]

Each circle has a specific set of 4 roles filled on a rotating basis by members of the particular circle:

• Leader
• Facilitator
• Secretary
• Delegate

[kimdhamilton]

(Answering procedural questions as ED of DIF)
This may introduce more complexity than needed, but it is possible to dedicate a small amount of time to proposing this at a future meeting for consideration by the WG and its chairs.

My recommendation is that we hold off on this discussion until we are closer to determining which methods to focus on.

UPDATE: Per call between Kim and Michael on 11/25, we agreed that Michael would present a summarized view of this when he presents #3

[mwherman2000]

This may introduce more complexity than needed

Not true. There has been no opportunity to present, discuss, nor agree on this point.

Background

Yesterday I met with Ted Rau, the founder of https://www.sociocracyforall.org/, to specifically discuss our project. We developed a light version of Sociocracy that has a gradual approach to being used in context tuned for our project.

However, if the ED has already ruled that it's "too complex", there is no point in preparing anything for further discussion.

proposing this at a future meeting for consideration by the WG and its chairs

...is equivalent to burying the topic. If it is to be properly vetted, the time is now.

[kimdhamilton]

Hi Michael, as we discussed on our call yesterday, and I believed (at the time) that you understood my perspective, it was about timing of introducing this topic.

We agreed on our call that you would present a summarized view of this when you present #3, and at the time, you agreed. Please let me know what has changed in between, or let me know if you would like me to share the notes from our conversation.

[mwherman2000]

@kimdhamilton Apparently we need to start recording our conversations for authentication.

I expressed my disgust with your unilateral move on the call (unilateral with no prior consultation). Nothing from my perspective has changed.

You didn't change your post - so nothing appears to have changed from your side either.

[kimdhamilton]

HI Michael, remember I always prefer to resolve concerns on a call before escalating. Please call any time.

I recall that we had, and always have, a positive, constructive conversation. There was no mention of "disgust" -- on the contrary, I found you to be very sympathetic in my explanation of DIF procedures and practices, and we came to a compromise that pleased us both. I'm sorry I didn't understand that you wanted it captured here as well, and I will address that immediately.

Recall that direct outreach is, in fact, encoded in DIF's Code of Conduct, so let this function as a reminder of the expectations of DIF's Code of Conduct. Attempting to resolve directly -- not on a public channel -- is level 0 of the code of conduct.

Why does this matter? In general, potential community members are deterred by behavior that can be construed as public dragging. And it probably does not make anyone happy, especially you and me. So let's just keep the direct line of communication open and let everyone else get on with their day.