There’s a lot of ongoing exchange in System architecture and Marketing threads, so this will not match up with what’s current by the time we meet tomorrow or Thursday . . but here is a slide deck that attempts to map dimensions of agile, distributed work organisation and governance design. On one hand, with a view to what meet.coop might be aiming for. On the other hand, with reference to immediate urgent matters including
- circle work organisation and agile executive action
- a meet.coop assembly and members’ voting rights, and
- contribution accounting
The slides adopt a basic perspective, that governance and work organisation in meet.coop have two simultaneous frames:
- an operational, transactional frame (‘the green box’ in the schemas, on the left) which is inter-organisational, involving accounts, account management, service levels and payments; and
- a practical, collaborative frame (‘the red box’) that is made up of the specific individuals who in fact are doing the work of making meet.coop work, in the short- and long-term, via a number of kinds of contributions, contributed in a number of circles which take agile-executive action (within limits to be agreed).
Then, handling governance overall, across both frames
- an assembly which makes rulings and agrees commitments of meet.coop, via formal voting rights based on contributions not shareholdings, allocated to various constituencies. The circles bring matters to the assembly’s agenda, including stuff they can’t resolve or is too big. The assembly sets the frame for the circles, between assembly meetings.
The present ad-hoc weekly video forum is unlike any of this, so what its ongoing role will be is unclear. Its contribution will change, once there are circles. This here Discourse forum has a relevance to how circles might choose to operate (fast feedback from interested parties?) but can’t be the mechanism of overall steering, which needs to be a designed, facilitated, ‘democracy event’ of the assembly, on some scale (probably using Consul or suchlike, with prep work done in Discourse and in circles) @petter .
The slide deck has a summary slide - an ‘ontology v0.1’ - which contains terms and relationships that will need to be named and defined in a formal governance agreement.
Depending on what tomorow’s meeting makes of this, I can put some of this into the wiki, where others can hack it?