The Team Reef organigram, namely the way in which the different teams are structured and their mandate (role), is currently up for review. After input from Team Coordination, Team Governance & Working Methods and Team Conflict Management, there are two proposed changes to the current structure, outlined below.
Proposal 1 - that Team Support is created to be a meta group that includes Team IT, Team Communications and Team Logistics.
Proposal 2 - that Team Community is created to be responsible for the well-being of the Reef community as a whole, as well as developing connection, clarity and resilience between its members.
We are hoping to put this proposal on the agenda at the plenary on Wednesday, and all Reeflings are invited to have a look at it and provide feedback. This is particularly the case for @reef-conflict, @reef-governance and @reef-coordination.
The first proposal is connected to a post by Lie (Team Support?). I don’t see a lot of feedback on that thread, so if anyone from @reef-comms, @reef-it or @reef-logistics feels strongly that Proposal 1 is not the way you want to move forward, now is the time to say something. Proposal 1 can easily be dropped or amended if you prefer other ways of approaching the issue of more efficient and manageable Team Coordination meetings…
One of the suggestions made at the Team Coordination meeting the other day, is that proposals be reviewed by two or three people outside of the teams responsible for them, so that things that are not clear or not well expressed can be addressed before it gets to the plenary. The idea is that we ask specific people to help out in this way, and not necessarily the same people each time. So @RichardB has already offered to be one of the reviewers for this proposal, and I would like to ask @leonard and/or @BarbaraG to have a look at it please. The main question is whether or not it is clearly expressed and understandable in its current form. Suggestions can be made here or within the document itself. Thanks!
I’ll spend some time addressing the comments towards the end of tomorrow, to give others time to get involved as well. There will still be time for some final feedback on Wednesday morning, for those that are keen to play a part in this proposal, so that a final version can be available Wednesday afternoon, for those attending the plenary…
Sarah is already responding to some comments, and I will do the same tomorrow. Love that everyone is stepping up and getting involved to move this forward…
I inserted a couple of comments too, mostly details and semantics, but nevertheless things I thought were important enough.
What I didn’t manage to insert is the concern that I feel about investing the limited time and energy that people seem to be able to dedicate to The Reef will be dedicated to talking about the cohousing rather than to doing some actual work to build it. I’m turning it a bit into a caricature, but I do have a concern about becoming a therapy group rather than a cohousing. Doing work together is an equally valid strategy in my view to establish connection. I also believe that building a sense of connection and community is an individual responsibility that shouldn’t be completely turned into a service delivered by a Team. Why not invite somebody for a coffee? Organise a social event? Etc
To be clear: I’m not opposed to the proposal, I just worry a little about finding enough time and energy to build the cohousing as soon as possible.
Thanks for your comments Lee, here and in the document!
I’m sure there are others in the group that share this concern. However, there are a significant number of people in the group who see developing a sense of community and discussing the type of cohousing we will be in the future just as important as building it. I would go as far as to say that some people’s commitment to the project depends on it.
I’m not sure how building trust, sharing concerns and aligning values counts as therapy, but if this is what it seems like, then that is a discussion worth having.
We may discover by putting forward this proposal that different members of the group have very different conceptions regarding the word ‘connection’.
I think it’s both an individual responsibility and something that can be enhanced working on it as a group. For those that are interested in the latter, I’m comfortable assuming that it would feel less like a ‘service delivered’ and more like an opportunity to engage with something meaningful.
These are just as important, but I don’t think they achieve the same thing.
To be honest, it may become clear when discussing this proposal at tomorrow’s plenary that many people share your views/concerns. If it turns out that most people would just prefer to ‘build the cohousing as soon as possible’ and find the general vibe of the proposal an unnecessary distraction, then it won’t be consented to, and that will be a valid sociocratic outcome. It will be food for thought for those that thought it was needed…
You’ve basically said all the things I would’ve said, @ChrisM What I can add in response to @Lee 's concerns and questions about investing time and energy in this topic/team: personally, the things that would keep me from commiting financially to the reef or any other cohousing project, is a lack of reassurance that we have a clear and stable vision of what we’d like our actual ‘living together’ to look like in a more social or community regard. Of course the actual building matters, but I wouldn’t want to live in the any building (however perfect it is otherwise) if the way of living together would not satisfy my wish for community in any way too. It’s hard to say at this time how many people feel the same way, but just to say: there’s people whose commitment is more tied to the immaterial aspects than the material aspects of The Reef.
Feel free to ask me about this, because I recognize not everyone will be able to relate.
What I can add in response to