Given that the details about how we run the decision process about membership applications is a bit scattered, here’s a short post from Team Governance that brings together the main elements.
Common elements for associate and full membership applications
For associate and full membership applications there are two common elements:
-
The interest of the group is the key measure
-
Only informed opinions are welcome
Associate membership applications
For associate membership applications we decide by online consent (level 3 decision). This means that we are looking for an application that is within our range of tolerance. Said differently it needs to be “good enough for now, safe enough to try”.
Possible reasons for an objection could be prior knowledge about the people who are applying, or the non-respect of the application process (though other reasons are possible too). If an objection arises, we go back to the usual three ways of addressing an objection:
-
Amend the proposal
-
Shorten the term
-
Measure the concern (i.e. how will we know that the concern is materialising?)
Full Membership applications
Full membership applications are a level 5 decision and are taken by consensus, ideally in an in-person meeting. If there are concerns, they should be flagged as soon as possible, so that they can be passed on during the so-called “mutual feedback dialogue” and there are no surprises at the last moment.
A distinctive element for full membership applications is that we all have different experiences with certain people just because we are all different (age, gender, teams, level of involvement etc). It is therefore possible that only one person has had experiences with the applicant that they only had and that makes them worry about the wellbeing of the group. Because the decision is made by consensus, this makes it possible for one person to “block” an application.
Finally, it is important to note that preference can only be taken into account when there are two applications for the same unit for which there is consensus. In this case, as foreseen in the proposal of June 2025, we will do a selection process to unearth the collective intelligence (i.e. two rounds to hear all voices), and make the decision on that basis.