Adapting recruitment till we have clarity on the left-over units

els · February 03, 2026 21:01

Team recruitment has been working on a proposal to adapt the recruitment in light of the current situation.

This proposal will be brought to the PM of 5/02/2026.

→ can somebody review the proposal?

Sterre · February 04, 2026 08:16

Not sure how a review is being done (never did it before for the Reef), but I read the proposal carefully and took out some minor typo’s. It looks clear and well argued to me.

els · February 04, 2026 08:37

Thanks Sterre

A review - for me - is

see if it is clear and understandable (for every reefling)
if things mentionned are correct (as far as you can judge)
judging whether if it’s covering it’s purpose
seeing whether you have already possible concerns, objections.
if it’s not too much for one proposal, if so better to divide it into several proposals
checking if the decision level is correct (if possible)

The overall goal is having a second pair of eyes by somebody not part of the team/helping circle to check if it’s a well prepaired proposal that is ripe to bring to the PM because we want to avoid big discussions/loads of concerns in the PM as PM time is precious.

Lee · February 04, 2026 17:50

Hello @reef-recruitment,

Thanks a lot for that proposal.

I personally don’t see the coherence between “we will organise the next two presentations” and “we will not organise any after that until it’s clear we are.” I will not object, but my concern is that bringing in people at this moment might be counterproductive, because it may give a false impression on the risks of our project. My personal advice would be to put everything on hold until the PV of the réunion de projet comes in, but I’m happy to go with the collective wisdom.

One point where I would like to bring in a concern is about the plenary meetings. I think it is a really good idea to make it explicit that we may have quite some “full members only” plenary meetings. The reassurance that I would like to get is that there won’t be any pressure (like we have had in the past) à la “we need to invite them because we owe it to them”. As soon as one person has a preference for a full members only setting, I think we should follow through on that. So I would like it to be made clear to the new members that we are not in a regular working methods mode, and that we won’t consider like we owe them access to the plenary meetings.

We are possibly going into the most difficult moment that The Reef will go through in its entire history, and I would like to have all the energy and liberty to take care of the current group without having to worry about Associate Members for whom we might not have a space anyway. Writing down my thoughts like this I am realising that if I’m really honest, taking on new Associate Members is actually a tad outside my range of tolerance. Thinking back of how difficult things have been 12 months ago when we were working on the plans, my appetite for doing that with people who might not even be able to join is close to zero. It’s risking to get really difficult, and I personally think that the benefits of pausing for two months are well worth it. I won’t be there tomorrow, and I reckon I’m a minority view on this topic, so I’m happy to stand aside as long as we can re-evaluate as soon as there is the slightest sign that the new members come at the cost of the current group coming to conclusions on the new plans.

JuliaS-D · February 05, 2026 15:46

Fully hear you and understand the need to stabilise the project that so many hours have been invested in @Lee with the established group at this uncertain moment. @reef-recruitment As the latest explorer-associate what I have said to @joannes (who buddies me) is that I am quite happy to wait around observing a while longer than usual until the permit issue & therefore remaining available units (if any) becomes clearer. I will trust that good decisions are ones taken by everyone together already and no problem if some plenaries are designated for full members as needed. Hopefully I can meanwhile bring some quiet optimism in the resilience of the Reef

els · February 05, 2026 21:11

@reef-external

Would it be possible to remove the ‘available units’ section on the website, and add some info about the current situation
Update the timeline info on the website (moving in in 2028) (and probably going through all info published to see if nothing else needs updating…)

MariaAM · February 07, 2026 09:58

Will create a card with these tasks.

I have a question for @reef-recruitment : for the next presentations, do you think we should spread the word and actively promoted them on social media, or do you think a low profile makes more sense, given the circumstances?

What is the new expected date? We have 2028 on social media.

els · February 07, 2026 15:12

Diffucult to say now.

Leave it out for now and update it once we have more clarity?
Say 2028-2029?

@Lee what’s your feeling/opinion?

Lee · February 08, 2026 10:31

I would need to look it up and I don’t want to make time for that now. If someone wants to do it (of the top of my head) it is in the Stekke Fraas folder > Project management > Planning > line +/- 130 => add 6-8 months. Or maybe easier: go to the 2025 proposals folder and look for the update on the planning => add 6-8 months.

From the top of my head I think (second half) of 2028 should still be feasible (but don’t take my word for it).

els · February 08, 2026 12:51

Thanks , i wanted to have your opinion on the delay to be added. I can find the planning files back.

So the outdated planning would have lead us to a move-in around 01/07/2028.

@MariaAM Adding 6-8 months lead to first trimester of 2029

els · February 08, 2026 13:39

hi @lee,

Thanks for sharing your concerns and sorry for the late reply.

Adding a bit my personal vision on things + what was said in the plenary and related to what you write…

As Lucia said when presenting the proposal:

there is some energy spend in getting the registrations we have (flyering, some time from R&O), energy we don’t want to waste.
the goal is to have a bit of a reserve of AM, but not exaggerate it neither. We want to create a small pool of AM. The AM phase takes 3 months and I am confident by the time they can apply for FM, things will be clear.

I personally am questioning if the pv will give us more insights in which units will be left over, because knowing if we will have one unit left over or 3 doesn’t say much yet for the EM or AM (about which units now are left over). There is also the risk that some of the current FM won’t be able to say in the Reef, creating extra left-over units.
EM/AM joining now, means them applying in 3 - 4 months, which is still right before the holidays, which is - to me - better than having to consent to FM during the holidays

I follow you on this. There should be no pressure on not limiting a PM to FM only. A proposition from Sarah in the PM, is to make the PM by default FM only. So the message is in a way ‘more positive to AM’ when they can join, and the pressure that we need to invite them because we owe it to them becomes less. I propose we launch - for each PM - an anonymous poll where we ask all FM to indicate if they prefere it to keep FM only.

Julia proposed another idea, of opening all PM to FM and AM but say that in certain meetings the AM don’t take part in the circles, but in that way they can learn how we work.

I am not sure if Julia’s proposition would work with all FM. R&O will check with all FM whether this could be an option. If one FM doesn’t feel good with this approach, we will stick to the original idea.

Personally I don’t think there will be so many ‘full members only’ PM. (I might be overoptimistic). I don’t think we can compare this exercise with the one we did a while ago. The first exercise learnt us a lot and this knowledge will make this time better.

No problem for that, if you or any other FM think the new members have a negative impact on the current group coming to conclusions on the new plans, please signal it to R&O, so we can discuss and adapt.

Does this work for you?

JuliaS-D · February 08, 2026 21:18

Maybe a small clarification - my thought was a response to the idea floated in a round that by default the plenaries are made FM for now. I was observing that one benefit of making the full members only a choice for specific meetings, is that in the meantime AM get to know everyone and vice versa by participating, and get familiar with governance. I was not meaning there should not be FM only plenary where there is a clear sense of need for that.