Full Members meeting: refining its aim and organisation?

Hello @reef-governance,

I am following up to another issue of lower importance that I mentioned at the 2024 review (link to Edgeryders post).

I have been feeling uncomfortable about the Full Members meetings lately, because I need a bit more structure and clarity about its aim. More shared ownership, i.e. the idea that everybody feels that they can add an issue that they want to discuss to the agenda, is also something I miss.

After giving it some thought, I would like to propose that we turn the Full Members meetings into a fully-fledged Team (or circle). This would mean that it would have defined aim, a Coordinator, an agenda, a backlog and meeting minutes.

Compared to Team Reef (i.e. the plenary meetings), which we use for operational or policy decisions that concern the entire group, the aim of the Full Members meeting would be a bit like a “mission circle”. A Mission Circle in sociocracy can be compared to a Board. It pays attention to long-term planning and makes sure the organisation stays true to its mission and vision (see Many Voices One Song section 2.5.2).

Making it more concrete, the aim of the Full Members meeting could include the following:

  • Decisions on full membership (consensus)

  • Taking stock of where we are with the project, and where we want to go

  • Big or important decisions on things like governance

  • Very urgent decisions

  • Community: appreciation and frustration

Here’s a quote from Many Voices One Song (Ted Rau & Jerry Koch-Gonzalez) that resonated with me a lot:

An organization easily gets tied up in pressing issues. We don’t want to give in to “tyranny of
the urgent over the important”. There will always be something urgent to deal with – but without taking the time to reflect and set a direction, we will lose out in the long run. Not only does the organization need direction but also adjustment and steering because the outside world changes continually. It is false economy to omit time devoted to conscientious steering.

Happy to get your thoughts on this, and in case these would be mostly positive, whether you would agree that this could be a level 2-3 proposal that we could take to the next Full Members meeting.


Hello @reeflings, and in particular @reef-full,

Above you can find my proposal to bring a bit more structure to the Full Members meeting. Under this proposal everything stays the same as it is now. What changes is that the aim is made explicit, and we will now have a Coordinator who takes care of the agenda. The agenda in this case will be less about going through a “to do” list, but more about creating space for more fundamental issues that people would like to discuss.

Shall we talk about this at the next Full Members meeting?


Yes :slight_smile:


Follow-up: if this proposal goes through and we strive for perfection on process, then the role of Full Members Meeting Coordinator (what a title :sweat_smile:) needs a role description.

This needn’t be complicated and could look like something like this:

  • Prepare the agenda

  • Keep track of the backlog

  • Make sure we get meeting minutes

  • Make sure that everybody feels that their voice can be heard on fundamental / feelings and needs kind of matters

1 Like