Hi @reef-recruitment ,
Here the cleaned up proposal with the integration of the remarks of our meeting this afternoon (20/06).
Can somebody review it, so it can be shared with the rest of the FM and presented on the PM of 25/06?
3 Likes
Reviewed 
3 Likes
Here a prososal that Recruitement and Onboarding wants to bring to the PM of the 25/06. (link in first post of this topic).
3 Likes
I had a little look and would stress the fact more that we want to avoid a race/AM feeling they are in competition, people not taking their time to make an informed decision. Otherwise great proposal
2 Likes
Hello @reef-recruitment,
Thanks a lot for preparing this draft proposal. I think itâs a great start, but Iâm not sure itâs generic enough to make it until the end of the process. The way it is written up now, it is written based on the current members, but doesnât say much about what we will do when we need to attribute the very last unit.
So what I was expecting was something more generic, that we can publish online on top of what we have in the Governance Document, so that everybody gets clarity about how things will work.
To start with I would isolate the case of former Associate Members who are coming back. Letâs give them the possibility to fast track, but otherwise letâs not adjust the rest of the process to their case.
Then I would be looking for simple processes and rules that would meet the need of fairness and predictability (for Associate Members) and speed, diversity and harmony (for us).
It could be as simple as this:
-
All Associate Members can apply for Full Membership two months after become an AM.
-
If at the first next Full Members meeting to discuss the membership application, there are two households who want the same unit, and if both get consensus from all Full Members, the Full Members will based their decision using a sociocratic selection process (which is like a vote based on arguments, done in two rounds).
I have also introduced some comments in the document, but the essence is in this post.
Question: this doesnât look like material for a plenary meeting, more for an online Full Members meeting. Can it be an option to move the proposal to the meeting that Ugne was proposing for next week?
3 Likes
hi @reef-full
this proposal will need to be reworked, so wonât be presented at Wednesdayâs PM, and probably neither on the online FM meeting.
3 Likes
-
i saw this as a âgood enough for now , safe enough to tryâ proposal. What for me is the essence/important message of this proposal is what sophie mentionned above: we donât want to work any more with the application date and avoid a race/ a competition between the AM + we will try to group applications so everyone has a feeling that they were âconsideredâ and this is a message for the near and further future. As I have noticed with the recruitement, our assumptions (based on what mark expressed) needed big corrections. So I would just work with the near future and revaluate after a couple of months. And personally (not a R&O opinion), if we would want to have a âfarâ future proof solution, I think we first need to have the contingency plan and then align this proposal to it, I see possibly (not 100% sure) a dependancy.
-
(the comment above doesnât mean i wonât rework the proposal)
-
i also replied to some of your comments in the doc
Hello @reef-recruitment,
Given the urgency of this matter, and the fact that I know the recruitment process inside out, I took the liberty of putting a couple of points together as an input to the proposal. I saved it in your âdraft proposalsâ folder: https://c301.nl.tabdigital.eu/f/234058
In sum I would insist to keep things as short and generic as possible. Based on the points I listed, there would barely be any need for changes. All this proposal would do is bring some more clarity and tweak a couple of things here and there.
Would it please be possible to give an indication of when you would be ready with the proposal, so that we can schedule another meeting and get this out of the way? TIA!
2 Likes
hi @lee,
we had a R&O meeting yesterday before the online fm to discuss this proposal, based on your remarks, as we do realize the urgency of this proposal.
Our goal was to have this proposal finalized this week so this could be discussed in a meeting next week. Does that work for you?
1 Like
I read what you prepared, but donât really see what still needs to be changed/modified.
I did some title changes and added the proposal admin to the doc.
It basically is aligned what with we discussed in yesterdayâs R&O meeting, apart from
-
the payback of the 125 yearly fee: we have noticed that some EM are hesitant to become an AM when a couple of other AMs are already on the unit they would like to have, and thus feel it might be a waste of money. We said you could have the 125 yearly fee back if you would âfall outâ because of a unit being attributed to an am applying for full membership and you havenât been an AM for less than 2 months and you are not applying yet for FM . But that might get complicated about when and when not to pay back this yearly fee. And with the limitation of the number of AM for a specific unit/unit type, this issue might be solved, so i didnât add it
-
the limitation of the number of AM for a specific unit/unit type: we didnât add a limitation, but i am ok with that as there is some liberty that R&O can take here. (i added a comment in the doc related to this point)
So for me good to go.
PS i put you as author and propose you will be the presentor of this proposal, ok for you?
2 Likes
Thanks a lot for picking this up, I really appreciate it!
About the paying back the 125 euro in case there are no more viable units: I donât see why this would be very complicated, and I think itâs actually a nice incentive to get people to sign up.
Iâm ok to present the proposal. Letâs discuss it at the next online full members meeting.
3 Likes
125 euro payback added to the proposal
2 Likes
here is the adapted proposal for the last remaining units, that will be discussed in the next online full meeting (ongoing poll: Online FM meeting - #16 by ugne)
5 Likes
Hello @reef-associate,
On 13/07 we will be discussing the proposal linked above. Itâs mainly about tweaking our membership process a little to make it fit-for-purpose for this last stage.
As this will concern you, your feedback is very welcome. If you would have anything, please feel free to add it in this thread.
4 Likes
Dear all,
Clear
Understood
No remarks
Have a nice evening
3 Likes
Hello all, nice proposal thanks. It seems clear and fair to me, I would just ask my buddy what precisely is a double feedback dialogue. P.S.: I will be back to Brussels from the 15th included
3 Likes
Hi all, thanks for the proposal! Some initial thoughts:
- The decisions from the past make sense: 2-3 months seems to be the sweet spot range to finalise a decision in my opinion
- The proposal is transparant and seems fair
Not sure if it is a relevant question for now, but could an Associate Member have multiple preferences of units? Take into account their priority unit and put them on the priority waiting list for the other units in case the priority unit gets taken - whether or not these âsecond option unitsâ are currently available? In that case they wouldnât have to drop out or start over again but qualify for one of the âsecond option unitsâ they were interested in.
Any thoughts?
2 Likes
hi @roxanne,
thanks for your feedback.
Yes! Like you, and some others, itâs perfectly fine to be interested in several units. If you want to apply for full member, you give all the units that you are interested in/open to buy, with an order of priority.
We keep an overview of all the AM and EM and their unit preferences in this file, allready indicating their order of priority (figure next to the names). (link to the file). Could you indicate your order of priority in the file?
4 Likes