Integrating new members via existing households

[ChrisM]

Hi @reeflings !

Until recently, all the Exploring, Associate and Full Members arrived in the group in pretty much the same way, and followed the path set out in our Onboarding Manual. As such, questions relating to documentation, finance, decision-making, etc. have all been clarified by our onboarding process.

The arrival of the wonderful Manoj has led to a discussion in Team R&O about how to adapt to different scenarios. As well as the new partners of current Reeflings, in the future there will also be the tenants of the inclusive units, and perhaps renters or long-term flatmates.

I think there are three areas that will eventually require some policy-making. At some point we will need a proposal about decision-making from Team Governance, and some clarification about financial and legal implications for different scenarios from Team Finance. And of course we will also need onboarding strategies that can be adapted to different situations from Team R&O, both for group cohesion, on the one hand, and for being as welcoming as possible, on the other. I imagine that all of these things will change and adapt once the group is complete, and again once we move in and start living together as a community.

I don’t think any of the above is particularly urgent, but the reason I’m getting this discussion going is because of the aforementioned wonderful Manoj. The ‘new partners of current Reeflings’ is perhaps the most straightforward scenario. In terms of onboarding, there are the practicalities regarding Signal, Edgeryders and Nextcloud, all of which are done. Observing a plenary and attending an NVC session: done. Onboarding docs: almost done. In terms of financial and legal implications, this is something for the household in question to discuss with Team Finance. In terms of decision-making, once a new partner is a Full Member, they are part of the process leading to both consent and consensus decisions.

For as long as we have different levels of membership, the only pertinent question is at which point does the new partner become a Full Member, and subsequently a part of the decision-making process. It’s possible that some people may disagree with this, but the position of Team R&O is that it is the moment that the household in question affirms it. It seems reasonable to expect that this would come after an appropriate period of time integrating into the community, and unreasonable to expect that the group would have any right to veto such an intention (coming, as it is, from a fellow Full Member).

Sophie and Manoj have asked that he become a Full Member, and in light of all the above, I would say that he now is. Are we missing anything? Does anyone think that we need to formalise this in any way? Do we need to formulate a policy to safeguard against future scenarios where someone much less wonderful than Manoj might become a part of the decision-making process in this way (however unlikely that might be)?

Thoughts and feedback welcome…

[alberto]

@ChrisM

Do we need to formulate a policy to safeguard against future scenarios where someone much less wonderful than Manoj might become a part of the decision-making process in this way (however unlikely that might be)?

Hmm. What would that look like? Any policy I can imagine feels a bit intrusive, but that might just be because I have never thought about it.

[ChrisM]

@alberto

Any policy I can imagine feels a bit intrusive

I completely agree…

In which case, the informal policy, by default, would be that the new partner is a Full Member from the moment the household in question indicates that they would like this to be the case. Everything to do with onboarding is an expected norm, and the related practicalities are between the household and the relevant team.

I haven’t thought this through, but I imagine that once we are living in the Reef, we will need two levels of “membership” to distinguish between owners and tenants, however we choose to define the latter. With some sort of distinction between the different levels of decision-making. It would be folly to have temporary tenants participating in level 4 or 5 decisions, but also exclusive to not have them participating in day-to-day decision-making (whatever that may look like).

I forgot to mention in the post above that one of my tasks on behalf of Team R&O is to check in with other cohousings and cohousing organisations regarding how they have approached this subject…

[Lee]

@ChrisM

I haven’t thought this through, but I imagine that once we are living in the Reef, we will need two levels of “membership” to distinguish between owners and tenants, however we choose to define the latter. With some sort of distinction between the different levels of decision-making. It would be folly to have temporary tenants participating in level 4 or 5 decisions, but also exclusive to not have them participating in day-to-day decision-making (whatever that may look like).

I forgot to mention in the post above that one of my tasks on behalf of Team R&O is to check in with other cohousings and cohousing organisations regarding how they have approached this subject…

I think it’s good to have this on the backlog, but it’s not something I would spend energy on right now. We need our attention and energy for challenges we are facing now. We’ll figure out how to do this when we get there, in 2028.

That said, what we know from Okelaar is that they have a monthly meeting where everybody who lives there is invited. They mostly discuss day-to-day issues.

Legally we will be obliged to have a meeting between owners at least once a year. If need be we can have more of them - formal or informal - but I wouldn’t worry about this kind of issues right now.

@ChrisM

For as long as we have different levels of membership, the only pertinent question is at which point does the new partner become a Full Member, and subsequently a part of the decision-making process. It’s possible that some people may disagree with this, but the position of Team R&O is that it is the moment that the household in question affirms it. It seems reasonable to expect that this would come after an appropriate period of time integrating into the community, and unreasonable to expect that the group would have any right to veto such an intention (coming, as it is, from a fellow Full Member).

I agree.

[Sarah]

@ChrisM - I’m ok with the suggested pathway, although I think we want to keep a formal onboarding, to make sure that the new partner is well aware if the way we do things, and we get a more official period of mutual adjustment…

@Lee

I think it’s good to have this on the backlog, but it’s not something I would spend energy on right now. We need our attention and energy for challenges we are facing now. We’ll figure out how to do this when we get there, in 2028.

I agree it’s not urgent, although I suspect we might want to do that earlier than moving day, as we probably need to give clarity to prospecting oak tree tenants on how they will be integrated in the project. But indeed no rush.