Hello @reeflings,
Given that we have enough (important) topics to at least fill two plenaries, and that the 5th of July falls on a Sunday, I prefer to do a broad poll in advance. Can you please fill in your availabilities (not preferences) by Sunday 21/06 at 7 pm?
The poll has spoken: 05/07 at 7 pm it is. Let’s see closer to the date what the weather is like, so that we can maybe combine it with an outdoors potluck.
@reef-facilitation : is it clear who will be facilitating this PM?
Hey Els
Lee and I will be facilitating.
hi @reeflings
The Outreach proposal is ready, it consists of 2 documents which can be found in the agenda of the PM.
Here is the link to the edgeryders topic where you can express remarks/concerns beforehand, if you want: How to join forces on Outreach
Hello @reef-full ,
on Monday’s plenary we consented to the proposal Resetting the financial contributions after the unit reattribution.
Please could you check the figures next to your name in the table and, if all is good, continue to the bottom section To Do and then pay the SoSim in case you are up for a payment. Reimbursements will be actioned by end of next week.
Any questions, do let me know via Signal 
Ping @marcelh: see post above, you will get a refund because your unit got smaller.
Hi @reeflings !
The facilitators asked for some feedback on the agenda item about outreach at the end of this plenary, so here’s my two cents on the subject. To be absolutely clear, this is a non-judgemental attempt to be constructive and learn from our experiences. And if I’m honest, not spending almost an hour and a half of our future plenaries in that way is also a motivating factor…
Initially we were told there would be selection process between the two proposals. As far as I know, sociocracy does allow for this but it’s not common, partly because it’s so much more difficult than using a selection process to fill roles or decide between two dichotomous options. In the end, we discussed both proposals at the same time, which I think led to some of the “messiness”.
Ideally, as was mentioned at the time, the communication process leading up to the plenary would have resulted in one proposal, with caveats regarding certain points that needed to be clarified by the group. This would have been a much more straightforward agenda item to facilitate. As there were two proposals, we could have had rounds on each one, leading to a temperature-taking moment to decide on how to progress. And in light of the complexity of the situation, more rigorous attention (from everyone in the group) to the nature of the rounds (clarification questions, etc.) and the purpose (finding a solution that is in the best interests of the project). Obviously the many feelings that were generated by this situation need to be addressed at some point, in one form or another, but it was impossible to do so while at the same time arriving at a good decision.
The eventual decision was for Team External to rework the proposal and present again at the next plenary. Presumably, the changes will have to satisfy Els, Lee and Team R&O, as the ones who have expressed their dissatisfaction and championed an alternative course of action. It was briefly posited that if the new proposal was not satisfactory, then Team R&O’s proposal would automatically be the path forward, but in terms of sociocracy, we would still need to consent to it (even as a formality).
I see that there is some constructive dialogue on the relevant thread leading to a new proposal from Team External. At the end of the day, as someone pointed out in the closing round, disagreements are not something to be avoided, but to learn from, and the process they unleash is fundamental to us refining our working methods and strengthening our group dynamic, in order to be evermore prepared for some of the difficult decisions ahead of us…
Gee, I wonder who that might have been 
The wisest of words mon ami 
Will do it tomorrow!