Team Facilitation moving forward (2023)

[ChrisM]

@Lee

I heard that you are planning to organise a 3x2 training on a Saturday, just amongst the three of you.

Nobody ever said that, so I think there’s been a misunderstanding. The idea was never to do this with just the three of us. As I said when I messaged you, the plan was to make sure there was a time when all three of use were available, and then invite all the other Reeflings to that…

@Lee

It’s is really important to me that as many people as possible go through these trainings.

This has also been the position of Team Facilitation for quite some time now.

@Lee

I hear the need for meeting up IRL and not having to attend another online meeting, and at the same time I would like the points that raised above, which are in the interest of the entire group, to be considered too.

Nobody is putting their own interests ahead of the group. It’s quite possible that there are a number of people who would be available for a full day IRL. It’s also not certain that doing all three sessions on a day during the weekend would result in more or less people doing most of the course, but having done this course twice with the group now, there are very few people who end up coming to all three sessions…

@Lee

I appreciate your offer to make space and adjust to other people’s preferences. Organising a poll however goes a bit against the principle of sociocracy.

When it comes to trainings (as opposed to plenaries), there is a strong overlap between people’s preferences and availablitliy, and we conduct polls on the latter all the time…

@Lee

If we want to go for perfection, what is happening here is that I am asking you to consent to dropping your proposal and see whether we can move forward with a new proposal. If this would be acceptable, then the new proposal can still be subject to amendments, shortening of the term and measuring the concerns.

As I’ve said privately, I don’t have a problem with dropping the full day IRL proposal to try the three evening online proposal. But let’s avoid assumptions about people’s motivations. This was a proposal that was considered good for the community and based on a sociocratic focus on needs.

@Lee

If we want to go for perfection, what is happening here is that I am asking you to consent to dropping your proposal and see whether we can move forward with a new proposal. If this would be acceptable, then the new proposal can still be subject to amendments, shortening of the term and measuring the concerns.

Perfection is subjective, but as I said above, I’m happy to run with both your assessment of needs relating to this, and your approach to meeting them…

[mieke]

Hi Lie, I feel uncomfortable with your reaction and the fact that you believe we didn’t take into account the best interest of the group. We did this proposal with the best intentions. You did a counter proposal and because you asked our opinion, I replied that I would prefer to stick to our first proposal. I also suggested to hear the opinion of the others because I could live with a counter proposal if it is better for the group. I am just not convinced that this is the case. That is why I suggested to do a poll, to hear people’s preference: IRL, online, one weekend day or 3 weekday evenings. I don’t see why this poll would be problematic. I understand that sociocracy is not about everyone ending up with their own preference, but in this situation, this info could lead to a better result. It could also show us that we need to do both for example. In sociocratic terms, I assume that people could live with both proposals. So far training evenings haven’t been successful at all so that is why I would prefer to try it on a weekend day now. A poll is just a good way to see people’s preferences and if it turns out that they prefer 3 weekdays, then I have no objection to go with your counterproposal.
No problem to pick it up when we have time to discuss, but I would prefer to discuss this with the team.