Proposal

Term: one month, to be revisited at (to be filled in when consent is given)

An integration of what we've discussed so far:

• Proposals will be placed on the wiki (form TBD but this isn't bad) and linked from Current Proposals on the Front Page
• A decision facilitator will volunteer/be volunteered to
  • Mind the clock
  • Make preliminary judgements as to the validity of RPOs
  • Moderate and limit public RPO discussion
  • Periodically (daily?) flag status of the Proposal to the list
  • Give final warning of the decision pending
  • Announce the Proposal final status: Adopted or Not Adopted, and move it to the By-Laws page.
• we broadly follow Holacracy's shorter integrative decision-making process, but using a simplified version for online use (where it's harder to nod :)) shown in the diagram.
• Both "Reaction" and "Integration" will have a 48 hour limit. That cycle is important to make sure that important perspectives don't get left out.

Discussion

• Venita (9 Dec 2006)

Gary (9 Dec 2006)

I have a reasoned objection to a 24 hour time period: It's not enough time for me to fully read, understand, consider and think through proposals, especially with how busy we must all be. I'd prefer a longer time, perhaps 72 hours to a week.

• Venita (9 Dec 2006)

As for turn around time for ideas and proposals. I'm cool with 48 hours. 72 feels like it is stretching it for me but i'd like to hear from others on this. A week seems far too long. I can't imagine waiting a week to hear if anyone objects to everything we put out. I'm not saying we have to make a decision in that time or come up with a finished product, i'm saying we should weigh in with an opinion. If all agree quickly then we move on to the next action step. If all don't agree quickly then we take more time, possibly send someone or a couple of people out to deliberate but we keep it moving. Would like to hear from others.

Gary (10 Dec 2006)

Because of the nature of an online space, If there are reasoned objections, it may well take longer than 48 hours to discuss and sort those objections out (this is a perfect example). It's not like a meatspace context where responses and objections can be talked out on the spot, so here's another suggestion:

• Proposals are submitted with an expected response/discussion of 48 hours.
• If there are no reasoned objections within 48 hours, the proposal is approved by consent.
• If there is a reasoned objection, an online discussion is to take place, not to exceed one week.
• A decision may be revisted at any time.

• Simon (10 Dec 2006)

• Venita (12 Dec 2006)

I would like to request that anyone who is in this SLC be actively responding to e-mails and giving input on a regular basis (we can define this if necessary) in order to be a member. We need each others voices and input. If someone is silent, then we dont benefit from their skills and experience and energy and since we are limited in size, we are prevented from someone elses input.

• Lynne (12 Dec 2006)

• Robin (12 Dec 2006)

I think this is a good idea. But I would like to hear your definition of "giving input on a regular basis."

• Gary (12 Dec 2006)

• Gary (later)

By the way......if we don't respond, the consent process would automatically go to the time period provided. If everyone does respond with a "no objection," we could shorten the process dramatically, and be even more efficient. Should the person who puts forth the proposal keep track of that?

• Venita (12 Dec 2006)

• Gary (later)

I'm not suggesting that silence become an alternative as membership mode. I am saying that there will be times when we are all busy at the moment, a day, a few, and it may not be practical to remove ones' self, or take a leave of absence. I'm suggesting an alternative that will allow the group to continue to make progress when some are, inevitably, unable to participate at a given moment in time. It will happen.

And, yes, I heard you before when you said you thought a week was too long, and I'm fine with 72 hours as well, but we've seen already that even in three days time that someone can get caught up in personal stuff. I was unavailable for a few days, and I think it can happen to anyone, and they might not even have time to post it.

There may be items that require our immediate attention, but I haven't seen any, yet, that ouln't be held off a few days, in spite of how passionate we all are about what's emerging.

What does contributing on a regular basis mean? Sure, if someone is continually silent or not contributing, yes, but I think we need to cut each other some slack, too. Just as in the Core Group, sometimes people miss meetings and don't vote. As long as a quorum consents, and it's not the same person gone or silent all the time, I don't see a problem.

• Venita (later) **

Exactly. I agree with what you say (above). What i heard you and Simon saying is that who cares if someone is silent. I didn't hear any specific request for participation and i think that is important.