# Collective Governance and Distributed Leadership Practices

The formal or informal systems that structure how we are able to hold each other to account for how we act in relation to others within given spaces/projects are sometimes described as [collective governance](https://hackmd.io/@Teq/SkG18auHF) practices. *How* we act out these structures matters. These structures impact how leadership practices emerge within groups - with some structures enforcing centralised dominance practices while others support efforts to distribute power and responsibilies.

Within colonial contexts, capitalism pressures us to unintentionally default to relating to each other within oppressive structures. One way to resist these pressures is by being more intentional about the governance structures we choose for ourselves. While our choices for collectively governing ourselves are constrained by these broader contexts, making our governance choices explicit can help to [open up space](https://commonslibrary.org/prefigurative-politics-in-practice/) within which to co-create more just futures together.

In my explorations of different approaches to collective governance practices, I've found that *guidelines* and *agreements* are being used to detail specific expectations around participation within collectively governed spaces and projects. In some cases, formalised *statements* are also shared publicly to communicate existing guidelines and agreements with new participants (and broader audiences).

When and how the effort of identifying, calibrating, and articulating shared expectations around a given aspect of participation depends on the a range of factors including the how many people are involved, how stable the collection of participants are, how long the given collective space/project is expected to last, and so on. For example groups [practising commoning](https://commonslibrary.org/practising-commoning/) may need additionally considerations that allow for regularly revising agreements to allow for shared expectations to change as new considerations emerge within a dynamic collection of participants).

There are numerous ways to group different aspects of participation together through these processes. The following broad categories are my attempt to sort examples of guidelines and agreements that have been shared as public statements.
- **Identifying values & articulating principles**, examples of efforts to identify and articulate how the groups values align (and, where relevant, how these inform their guiding principles, vision, etc.,)
- **Decision-making practices**, examples of efforts to identify and articulate agreed decisions-making practices within a group
- **Conduct statements & participation agreements**, examples of declarations about what a given group considers acceptable behaviour for contributors/participants within a given space/project.
- **Accountability processes**, examples of agreements about how to navigate conflict as a group and/or how to hold people accountable for harm or abuse occurs within the group
- **Communication processes and documentation practices**, examples of explicit agreements on how to communicate what to whom on which platform (to ensure clarity, transparency, etc.,), as well as what kind of documentation is needed for decisions/processes, how often these are reviewed, and who is responsible for keeping them up to date in the interim.

## Identifying Values & Articulating Principles
The process of identifying a shared-understanding of the values that set the standards of behaviour within a given context/group/space can be a useful foundation for participatory governance practices. For example, periodically engaging in an explicit process of [calibrating values](https://hackmd.io/@Teq/values-calibration) motivating a project can help highlight when/how different assumptions are contributing to misunderstandings. Once identified, a given set of values can be used to help articulate a set of values and/or principles for guiding decision-making and conflict resolution practices, informing the direction of a group, and determining the ways in which individual actions align with collective agreements.

The following offer some examples of clearly articulated values as they relate to an organisations guiding principles, mission, purpose, and vision:
- The Enspiral handbook's [statement of values](https://handbook.enspiral.com/guides/values) that all members are expected to share.
- The *guiding principles* emerging within the collection of open-source projects building on the Scuttlebutt protocol, as agreed in [2018](https://scuttlebutt.nz/docs/principles/) and [2020](https://scuttlebutt.netlify.app/docs/principles/)
- Black Coop's [guiding principles](https://docs.indexcoop.com/our-guiding-principles)
- Ouishare's [manifesto](https://www.ouishare.net/manifesto), includes a statement of the five values guiding their actions and decisions.
- Embasssy Network's Sigal House's [values statement](https://embassynetwork.com/locations/sigil/values/) and La Choza Del Mondo House's [vision statements](https://embassynetwork.com/locations/choza/vision/)
- Loomio's [purpose and vision](https://www.loomio.coop/our_cooperative/purpose_and_vision) agreement, and [value statement](https://www.loomio.com/about)
- Mondragon Cooperative's [mission, vision, & values statement](https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/somos#global)
- rOpenSci [mission statement](https://ropensci.org/about/)
- Design Justice Network's [principles](https://designjustice.org/read-the-principles)
- A list of [mission statements from some of the world’s leading digital campaigning groups](https://commonslibrary.org/mission-statements-of-some-of-the-worlds-leading-digital-campaigning-groups/)
- [Kiev Burn's Principles Statement](https://kiezburn.org/11-principles/)

## Conduct Statements and Participation Agreements
While used in different ways, codes of conduct and participation agreeements broadly function as statements of the **explicit expectations** for acceptable/unacceptable conduct within a given space/community, and often detail the consequences for those who fail to meet these expectations. Accepting this agreement is often positioned as a condition of participation in a given space/community (where acceptance means agreeing to take responsibility for meeting these expectations, accept the stated consequence if/when relevant, and follow the conflict resolution processes as needed). Note that there are also examples of interpersonal agreements that combined conduct and participation expectations with explict accountability processes, as detailed in the following section.

Some examples:
* The FLAC (Frontline Action on Coal) [Blockade Adani Participation Agreement](https://frontlineaction.org/participationagreement/)
* Reef Defenders [Participation Agreement for Saftey](https://actionskills.au/resource/participation-agreement-safety/)
* Degrowth Network Australia's [Participation Agreement](https://degrowthnetwork.au/participant-agreement)
* Random Acts of Kindness [Code of Conduct](https://actionskills.au/resource/code-of-conduct/)
* The Open Source Communities' [Contributor Covenant Template Code of Conduct](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/)
* Scuttlebutt's [Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct](https://scuttlebutt.nz/docs/code-of-conduct/) for the collection of open-source projects building on the SSB protocol, and the related [SSBC_JS Code of Conduct](https://github.com/ssb-js/ssb-js/blob/main/code_of_conduct.md) and [Scuttlebutt.eu Code of Conduct](https://scuttlebutt.eu/documents/)
* Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science's [Code of Conduct](https://aimos.community/code-of-conduct), including process for reporting unacceptable behaviours and resolving conflict
* rOpenSci OzUnconference [code of conduct](https://ozunconf19.ropensci.org/coc.html)

## Accountability Processes
Statements that articulate accountability processes function to make explicit shared agreements about the responsibilities each participant will take for specific aspects of their conduct within a given group, and the processes for holding each other to account for not meeting those responsibilities.

Regardless of other forms of expected participation, having explict accountability processes can be helpful to clarify expecations about how to navigate conflict within the group, as well as how to hold people accountable for harm or abuse occurs within the group.

These accountability processes often rely on the group having articulated shared-expectations about how individuals conduct themselves in relation to others (sometimes within the same statement, sometimes as a seperate agreement - see overlaps in the conduct statements participation agreeements).

For example:
* Embasssy Network Sigal House's [shared agreements statement](https://embassynetwork.com/locations/sigil/shared%20agreements/) and [accountable space guidelines](https://embassynetwork.com/locations/embassysf/accountablespace/). This group also practices [transformative approaches to conflict resolution](https://commonslibrary.org/transformative-approaches-to-conflict-resolution/).
* Enspiral's [personal conduct agreements](https://handbook.enspiral.com/agreements/personal_conduct), that are supported by [Conflict Resolutions Guidelines](https://handbook.enspiral.com/guides/conflict-resolution), and guidelines for responding to [Harassment and Abuse](https://handbook.enspiral.com/agreements/harassment_and_abuse).
* TacticalTech's [accountability statement](https://tacticaltech.org/accountability/) extends the agreements within their [Code of Conduct](https://cdn.ttc.io/s/tacticaltech.org/Code_of_conduct_2021.pdf).

## Decision-Making Practices
Articulating explicit decision-making guidelines and agreements can help to clarify participatory governance practices. Without this clarification, assumptions can emerge about who needs to participate in decisions that impact the whole group based on implicit governance structures.

The less centralised and autocratic the group's approach to leadership the more important it is to identify a shared-understanding of the group's intended governance structure, and intentionally choose appropriate decision-making and communication practices.

The following examples of explicit governance agreements highlight a wide range of options - for example, some groups use [consensus](https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus) decision-making, others use some form of [distributed leadership](https://youtu.be/o0Hu5ntP61U), others have chosen decentralised technically-mediated hybrid decision-making processes, etc.,

* [Anarchic Agreements](https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/anarchic_agreements)- example guide co-written by Seeds for Change and researchers from the Anarchy Rules research project.
* Enspiral's [Agreements for Decision Making](https://handbook.enspiral.com/agreements/decisions)
* Greater Than's [Decision-making Agreement](https://handbook.greaterthan.works/agreements/decision-making-agreement), [People Agreement](https://handbook.greaterthan.works/agreements/people-agreement), and [Financial Agreement](https://handbook.greaterthan.works/agreements/financial-agreement)
* Loomio's [governance](https://www.loomio.coop/our_cooperative/governance) and [cooperative principles](https://www.loomio.coop/our_cooperative/cooperative_principles) agreements, and [working together](https://www.loomio.coop/working_together) guidelines.
* Embassy SF's [evolving doocracy agreements](https://medium.com/embassy-network/an-evolving-doocracy-3a6123f9b170)
* Ouishare's ['Our DNA' statement](https://www.ouishare.net/our-dna) that includes a description of their doocratic approach to decision-making processes.
* Scuttlebutt.eu's [Collective Documents](https://scuttlebutt.eu/documents/)
* [Keiv Burn's Consensual Do-Ocracy Statement](https://talk.kiezburn.org/d/M91bKpBo/consensual-do-ocracy-short-definition)
* Design Justice Network's governance [structure](https://designjustice.org/structure)
* Degrowth Network's [Draft purpose and participants agreement](https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1U_mN0ZSP3pkisDmjgJug1bnm7SZX5___lw_WuAZBpUI/mobilebasic)

## Communication Processes & Documentation Practices

### Communication & Working-goup Guidelines
- Enspiral's [Communication Guidelines](https://handbook.enspiral.com/guides/comms_guidelines)
- Example [Working Group Guidelines](https://hackmd.io/@Teq/working-groups)
- Scuttlebutt.eu's [Growing a Peach](https://scuttlebutt.eu/DIY-Peach!/) working-group guidelines

## Further Resources:
- Loomio templates for [Advice process](https://help.loomio.com/en/guides/advice_process/index.html), [Consent process](https://help.loomio.com/en/guides/consent_process/index.html) and [Consensus processes](https://help.loomio.com/en/guides/consensus_process/index.html).
- [Aligning our systems of collaboration with our purpose and values](https://efficientcollaboration.org/aligning-systems-with-purpose-and-values/)
- [Creating Safer Spaces](https://actionskills.au/resources/safer-spaces/) resource list by Action Skills
- [Queering Safe Spaces: Being Brave Beyond Binaries](https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/queering-safe-spaces-9781793618832/)
- [Cultures of Care](https://convergencemag.com/articles/a-culture-of-care-the-secret-to-building-organizations-people-want-to-stay-in/)
- A pathway to help [align our decisions, policies, practices, processes, and procedures with our purpose and values](https://efficientcollaboration.org/aligning-systems-with-purpose-and-values/) developed by The Center for Efficient Collaboration.
- [11 Practical Steps Towards Healthy Power Dynamics at Work](https://www.thehum.org/post/11-practical-steps-towards-healthy-power-dynamics-at-work), The Hum
- Advice on a [Minimal Organisational Scaffolding to Get Out of Emergency Mode](https://www.thehum.org/post/minimum-viable-structure), The Hum
- [4 Decision-Making Methods for Decentralised Teams](https://www.thehum.org/post/decision-making-methods-for-decentralised-teams), The Hum
- A strategic plan by a research institute that positions values in relation to time-specific goals in the context of a specific context by [AHURI](https://www.ahuri.edu.au/about/what-we-do/strategic-plan), (the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute).
- The [Leadership Resource Toolbox, curated by Greater Than](https://www.greaterthan.works/toolbox)
- The [Vibes theory of organisational design](https://www.thehum.org/post/the-vibes-theory-of-organisational-design), The Hum
- A set of [discussion prompts](https://hackmd.io/30-3tvjBTRqlKmofyyE4Pg?view) for those interested in developing their own governance practices.

## Further Resources
- https://govarch.ecologies.info/database
- https://communityrule.info/templates/

---
###### tags: `resource-sets` `collaborative-practices` `participatory-governance`

Date created: 2021
Version: 3.0 (2024)
Attribution: created by [E. T. Smith](https://hackmd.io/@Teq/Bio) on unceded lands of the [Wurundjeri people](https://www.wurundjeri.com.au/).
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/4.0/88x31.png" /></a> [CC BY-NC-SA](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)