Newcastle 2019 - Governance and decision making

# Newcastle 2019 - Governance and decision making [TOC] Ongoing process, fair amount of progress was done at [Sheffield 2019](https://wiki.coops.tech/wiki/Sheffield_2019/_Cotech_governance) Fund is joining the group because there is a need for a transparent process of spending it (questions raised before e.g. *Is it co-ops who contribute that decide how you spend?*. What problem does the fund money solve? Why do we need it and how do we spend money? The objectives - three problems emerging # PART ONE 13 December morning ## Stage one: 3 core problems ### 1. Lack of clarity regarding binding decisions Decision making process Legal form structure Specific – target a specific area for improvement. Measurable – quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress. Assignable – specify who will do it. Realistic – state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources. Time-related – specify when the result(s) can be achieved. How CoTech ### 2. Members do not know what each other are doing Passed on to Business development group - communication platform ### 3. Patchy and partial engagement - diversity How do we make policies in the co-ops and how CoTech would establish a shared policy, e.g. how CoTech makes decisions by respecting individual co-ops decision. ## Stage two: CoTech cordinator post? Proposal for establishing a paid post in CoTech to coordinate engagement between the co-ops and ensure accountability and decision making. We need an internal person to do the coordination. Later on, we can consider a coordinator to represent CoTech at the next stage. ### Layers of engagement What is the relationship between consortium and solidarity aspect of CoTech. It started from affinity and wanting to get to know each other, co-operation can be functional benefit and grow the businesses. Solidarity will remain at the core. There are initiatives that have been active, community unions, non profit consortiums e.g. Blue Stone Consortium What is our mission statement that could bind the governance. ### Questions Who are they responsible? What are the skills needed? Should CoTech be a co-op of co-ops? Do we have quorum to make any decision making capacity? Even loomio hasn't got clear guidelines, e.g. more than one person from a co-op votes. ### CoTech as a co-op? We need to answer what is the relationship between the co-ops , which will show us the path towards a structure. ### Mission statement Our mission could be positively captured to allow us to quote it everywhere and always look at it thinking if what we are doing is advancing this. ## Proposal ### Discussion To create a part-time CoTech coordinator post to scope the work. Currently have £3k in the pilot fund. If everyone pays £1 (given we ave 185+ individual members), you get ~£10k. Do we need to form a committee to run the CoTech. ### Draft 1. Use 3k in the pilot fund to scope out Network co-ordinator role 2. One member (of each co-op) one vote* 3. Membership of CoTech comes with a financial commitment 4. Membership of CoTech comes with benefits for each co-op Happy Devs have a coordinator. developing job description *Only one vote of FTE? To all who pay? (would there be a cap) # PART TWO 13 December afternoon Summary of the proposals. How can we treat this as action research, try something for a year and see if it works. In experimental trial, you need to specify what you do if it works (amplify) and what you do if it does not (dampen). ## Order ### 2. The co-ops will decide who is a member and they will pay the respective contribution. (as long as the person is a member of CoTech member). Modular and transitive. Safeguarding from largest co-ops taking over, we might need to cap it. How do we bring forward proposals? Should they first be brought to a CoTech Call? Can external members bring proposals? Currently we are trying to flesh out benefits of membership. #### Process A person interested in proposing can share the idea. Every voting member can make a proposal. Everyone can bring forward an idea to a monthly governance call but only a member can propose on Loomio for a vote. The proposal has to be S.M.A.R.T: - Specific – target a specific area for improvement. - Measurable – quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress. - Assignable – specify who will do it. - Realistic – state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources. - Time-related – specify when the result(s) can be achieved. ODS have a template for proposals, which they will share to help people. Maximum 3 proposals per meeting. The proposals suggested before the call are first served. CoTech call is something we already have and will use it to strenthen the proposals. ### 1. Coordinator #### Areas to be covered Skills group - Coordinator could encourage to take part - engaging guilds and involving people in them. Decision making process - coordinating CoTech calls - make sure proposals (agenda) are in order A new group is formed to work on scoping coordination role. # PART THREE 14 December afternoon Afternoon - finalising the proposals --- # Proposal - Day One & Two # :: DRAFT PROPOSAL ONE -- Bringing a Proposal to a Vote :: ## Abstract This proposal considers the importance of creating a clear decision making pathway within CoTech. It proposes creating a lightweight two step pathway embodied by an iterative Proposal Loop followed by a binding Voting stage to ratify proposals. ## Motivation Democracy and decision making are two sides the same coin. Making decisions within CoTech should be done in a democratic manner that enables individual members to receive appropriate support in making and understanding individual decisions, as well as collectively ratifying those decisions. ## Details Our proposal for making binding decisions involves two steps: 1. The Proposal Loop 2. Voting (Ratification / Binding) The *Proposal Loop* step is an iterative process of refining a proposal so that it may be taken to Voting. Any individual member or group of members may put forward an idea to refine into a proposal and they may make use of any communication channel to do this e.g. sending out emails to interested parties, collaborating over forums, etc. Once the individual or group is happy that their idea has matured into a meaningful proposal that requires a binding decision they inform CoTech that they wish the proposal to be discussed at a Monthly Meeting call (which are held remotely). The task of Monthly Meeting (as it relates to the proposal) is to engage with the proposal and decide if it is mature enough to send to a vote, or whether it needs to be iterated further. A mature proposal will embody the [SMART Principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria). It is the responsibility of the participants in the call to create a safe, welcoming, and constructive space in which to give feedback. Suggestions and questions may be made to the individual or group who made the proposal. The individual or group making the proposal may choose to incorporate the feedback and return the proposal at a later date; starting another cycle of the loop. Alternatively if they feel that the proposal is ready they may put it forward to Voting. To be taken to Voting the proposal needs to be seconded by any voting member of CoTech who was not involved in making the proposal. The purpose of this seconding is to provide a minimal check on proposal readiness before it goes to Voting -- if nobody will second the proposal perhaps it needs more engagement and iteration. *Voting* occurs using the Loomio platform. A vote on Loomio is created which links to the proposal details and members are informed via appropriate channels. A proposal is subject to the rules of the constitution. To pass -- a simple majority vote in favour of the proposal is required. Once a proposal has passed the Loomio poll becomes the documentation of the decision. Any actionable items outlined in the proposal should be assigned appropriately for implementation. ## Actions + Ratify the two-step model for decision making as outlined in this proposal + Document this process in the CoTech wiki + Produce and link to a lightweight, flexible, template to reduce the barrier to making a proposal (slightly) + Three months after this proposal passes, a retrospective on the process held via the Monthly Call # :: DRAFT PROPOSAL TWO -- Voting Membership of CoTech :: ## Abstract This proposal considers the importance of determining appropriate criteria for voting within CoTech. It puts forward a model of "Voting Shares" in order to provide a first attempt at facilitating binding decisions-making. ## Motivation Democracy and decision making are two sides of the same coin. It is generally agreed that voting within co-operative organisations is a way to enable democratic participation; however the differences in scale and structure of CoTech's member organisations makes it difficult to understand what voting inside CoTech could look like. In order to make binding decisions in a democratic manner criteria must be set out to determine how voting works within the organisation. ## Details This proposal puts forward the model of "Voting Shares". A Voting Share is held by an individul when ALL of the following are TRUE: + They are a member of their own co-operative + Their co-operative is a member of CoTech + Their co-operative contributes £1 per week for their individual voting share This encourages direct participation within the collective and utilises mechanisms and technologies that individuals will be familiar with from their own organisations. One concern that members of CoTech may have is that larger member organisations may have disproportionate representation within CoTech; however this level of individual participation from members of these organisations would represent a deep organisational commitment to CoTech from these co-operatives. This would only be a good thing for democracy within CoTech as the benefits of a large number of individuals being so committed to CoTech currently outweigh the potential negatives which could be addressed in this event. It also stands true that to acquire more voting shares an increased financial contribution is required. ## Actions + Ratify the rule of "Voting Shares" + If passed, the proposal will come into effect on the 28th of February 2020. Co-ops will be asked in the meantime whether they wish to be voting members. + Distributing closed Loomio invites to all voting members --- CoTech circle call: https://wiki.coops.tech/wiki/Circle_Call_2019-09-25