@reef-recruitment would like to propose a new recruitment process tailored to the new needs if we were to purchase a site in the near future.
There are still some question marks and challenges that we will be facing, but this proposal for a new recruitment process is a starting point.
We would need certainty and clarity about all this by the time of the next presentation, that will take place on 29 May (to be confirmed). We will present this proposal at the plenary of 26/05 at the latest, but we would really appreciate receiving suggestions and concerns ASAP.
I have to say that for me this next phase is crucial, because we will have to select about half of our final group if I count well, which will have a massive impact on group dynamic. So I want to think about it very carefully.
I have a some questions and concerns:
What is the rationale behind shortening the length of associate memberships?
I feel that it is the most crucial part as it is the one that gives us a chance to get to meet people and make a decision on whether we are comfortable with them being part of the group.
If I am counting right, we will have 3-4month during which the architects finish the project and then 8-12mo to get the permit (right?). So that leaves us quite a bit of time, and I feel we could afford taking a bit longer to select people (at least initially, if we feel like we are not making enough progress, we could then shorten things a bit).
What is the purpose of the full membership phase?
Why are we scrapping the buddy system? It might be a good idea to have a shared Q&A, but I donât see why we wouldnât do both.
I think that at that point in time, we wonât have so many things that will need our attention (no more scouting, Sosim ready to go, no building in progressâŚ), which means that more of us will be available, and that we should put all our efforts into recruitment.
I think personal contact is the best way to address questions and concerns which is important for people to be able to take their decision quickly and confidently. It also gives a better chance to sound out people, see what their motivations are, see how we relate, etcâŚ
i share a bit the same concern as sarah. I think âthe groupâ is (one of) the main reason(s) why i will vote yes on Jette, and having to double our current group in a hasty way, makes me concerned. And i also agree with Sarah that personal contact is the best way to interact with future reeflings.
I like it, except I would keep the buddy system instead of two-on-eight. We adopted the buddy system because it was difficult to reconcile diaries of newlings. How about strengthening the buddy pool, and then buddies can and should try to get more than one newling to meet with him or her at the same time⌠but in the end, this is down to the people in question.
We created the proposal when we still thought that we were in a terrible rush, so I guess we can re-assess this. Personally I would like to shorten the time a bit for associate members who are dragging their feet. So far itâs always been relatively clear early in the process whether it was a âhell yesâ from both sides. So maybe it can be enough if we just look at this? If then it turns out itâs a âhell yesâ, then it would be ok with me to prolong the associate membership. Otherwise I would rather make space for somebody on the waiting list who can give it a hell yes.
The reasoning is that Full Members get to participate in level 3 decisions, but not yet in the 4-5s. So this would allow us to get to know them better during decision-making processes, while the level of commitment is still relatively low.
I agree. This means that we can only take in a limited amount of households at the time, because for now we donât have enough capacity to buddy a whole lot of people.
After we created the proposal, the entire picture has significantly changed, so I guess weâll come with a revised version after our R&O meeting on 19/05.
Here are some further thoughts on all the challenges we are facing:
It will take 2-4 months before weâll have more clarity about the common spaces and the delineations of the units, which will make it more difficult for the new households to decide whether they want to commit or not.
We are not yet fully clear on how we will select and prioritise the candidate households, which is something we should ideally fix by mid-June at the very latest. What we do know is what are the key needs, which in my view are these:
Family and friendship: prioritise friends and family over people we donât know
Harmony and safety: âgarder dehors les chieursâ will only get more important
Diversity: to the extent possible it would be great if we could increase the diversity in our group, if only a little
Are we sure that the âfirst come first serveâ thingy will not lead to a toxic competition between the newlings? Also: how can we take care with families with little children, who just have less time to be present?
How will we feel comfortable ourselves that we had enough time to get to know the newlings?
How will we organise the Full Members meetings? Will we maintain the same frequency? Will we organise extra online meetings to just discuss membership applications? �
How will we deal with the âorder of priorityâ to chose a unit? For the housholds who are at the end of the list, the choice that is left may not be something that satisfies their needs. Will we therefore have a waiting list?
How many households can we take in at the same time? How many can we buddy at the same time?
If so many people come in at the same time, should we invest more in onboarding? If yes, how?
@reef-recruitment, following up to our last meeting I have created a âResourcesâ folder (internal link). In there youâll find the questionnaire that was used in Casa Nova, and also an early proposal of ours, where there is a section that says something like âhow was this done in other groupsâ.