In the governance document it says that the maximum duration of the EM phase is three weeks, however in the presentations we set the deadlines of the EM phase after two weeks. My experience is that two weeks is not feasable, and even three weeks is challenging for most. And except from really exceptional cases (taking several months), there is no one ‘complaining’ if we ask for consent to an EM applying to become AM, taking more than the foreseen duration.
The way we handle this is by asking the buddies around the deadline whether the EM are applying and if it’s a yes or a ‘maybe/i don’t know’ , ask what they need to be able to apply.
So my understanding of these deadlines/durations is that they are dates towards one (EM/AM) needs to try to work to. And if that date comes, certainly in case of AM, it is for both parties (AM/FM) to ask themselves: do we feel ready to take that decision or do we need more time.
So in my understanding setting the deadline of AM after 2 months would be: try to strive to apply towards that date, but when the date is there evaluate where you are and the FM will do the same.
For the EM phase I think what is going on is that the governance document has not been aligned yet with one or the other update to the R&O policy. I think the shift from 3 to 2 weeks was decided in 2024. Maybe you can find it back using the decision log, though I would personally not stress over it.
For the AM phase I personally don’t think a policy change is needed. I think it can be sufficient for now to update communicate that we would like people to apply by 5 December at the latest. At the same time I think it’s also important to communicate to Full Members that they will not be pressured into giving consensus to people that have only been there for a few weeks.
Before we organise a new meeting, can you please list the points that you would like to discuss? You can do it here or in the agenda document. If you choose the later, can you please give me a ping?
On a different topic: @els, would you feel comfortable sharing our evaluation of the outreach situation in the evaluation thread? No wrong answers of course.
Noting that the Board selection process might come up at the plenary of this week, would you be willing to have a look at the two proposals that you prepared and clean up the documents? TIA!
for the selection process: i accepted all things but i didn’t understand one : about moving it to the private space. It’s ok not to understand but then i prefer you to present it, as I don’t feel absolutely comfortable presenting other people’s ideas/proposals.
for the role description, 1 thing i don’t understand. Can you check this?
It’s just that I wouldn’t do the “I don’t want to do it” or “I don’t want to work together with X, Y or Z” in a closed meeting instead of in a full plenary.
In the meanwhile I have moved the proposals to the Team Reef folder.
Can I join Team G&WM ? If invited, I would be interested in clarifying the circle structure, and discussing whether it would be in the group’s interest to “double-link” the highest order circles to Team Coordination. (see MVOS section 2.4.3, p. 53) This section talks about how double-linking (having the leader and a delegate present at the general circle meeting) ensures the information transmitted up and down is of higher quality, and better ensures understanding.
I think October 29th might be used for a Sosim board meeting and I see there is also an NVC dance floor programmed in the agenda, so just checking if it’s ok to set our governance meeting to Monday 26/10?
You are welcome to join the team of course, but if it’s only to discuss the circle structure I would prefer you join a meeting where we discuss the issue. Would that work for you?
