In the GA of 23/08/2025 the mandate of the board of the Sosim, consisting of Lee, Alberto, Richard, Sophie and Els, was prolonged to October 2026.
Current situation
Some of the current full members indicated an interest in possibly wanting to join the board of the Sosim by starting the leadership track. @Wenwei@GaultierDWM started the track on October 10th and already joined the board for a first board meeting, while @AlinT started the track on October 15th.
A leadership track takes 6 weeks more or less.(more info on the leadership track)
Sophie is currently on a time out and Richard will also be out at a certain point in the coming year.
Proposal
The proposal would be to prolonge the current mandate of the board members till the GA of January 2027 at the very latest, in order to let the reeflings who have started up the leadership track finish this track. This will allow them to give it a full ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to be on the board if they would be selected.
Deadline
For the FM only: this message if you consent, otherwise share your concerns/objections by replying to this post by Thursday 22 October 19:00.
Irrelevant for this proposal, which I support, but :
I like what was said in the last plenary, that “heart”-ing a message means “READ”, not “I agree.”
I would love to consent to a proposal like this through a simple binary poll, “Okay for now, safe enough to try” or “Objection”.
Yes, that’s true, but it raises an issue regarding the discussion we had during the last plenary session about using the “heart” icon as a “marker to indicate that a post has been read.”
Ideally, we should have two different reaction options on ER: a heart, and another icon to signify “read.”
In the meantime, a good compromise would be to establish that the “heart” reaction signifies “read”—EXCEPT for posts that explicitely ask for a consent; in those cases, the heart signifies “consent,” as stated in our current Governance Document.
The lack of being able to make the difference between ‘i have read this message’ and ‘i like your message’, creating unclarity/confusion what the ‘hearter’ means by his action. That is how I understood the need, brought up in the last PM. This - for me - goes for all er posts not requiring online consent.
Online consent where it is clearly indicated in our governance document and where the ‘legend’ in the post clearly indicates what ‘hearting’ means. I don’t see the confusion or unclairty for this post. For me, the online consent doesn’t need any change as the heart clearly means ‘i consent’, not ‘i read’, nor ‘i like’. If you want to object, you will need to explain your objection anyway, just indicating that you object won’t do.
And for point 1, it would be great if we could have a function on ER with two types of reactions to a post. If not, we will just need to remember that on a classic post (not one requireing an online consent as in point 2), heart = read.
this message if you consent, otherwise share your concerns/objections by replying to this post by Thursday 22 October 19:00.
