Saturday 'Consent Decision Making on our Charter'

Quick recap The group discussed the consent process, the structure of the process, and the importance of diverse perspectives in the decision-making process. The team also discussed the implementation of backup buddies and durations for roles in their volunteer program, the content of the charter, and the process for continuous improvement. Additionally, they introduced the concept of pitches for group activities and discussed the process for presenting and clarifying pitches.

Next steps

• Governance Team: Create a process/system for capturing ongoing feedback and tensions about the charter

• All Members: Review charter implementation and effectiveness in 3 months

• Michael & John: Work together to build role rotation review into future meeting agendas

• David & Team: Create a skills inventory system

• Tech Team: Evaluate ways to minimize and simplify the number of software tools being used

• Michael: Develop a pitch template that includes recommended structure and components for future pitches • Michael & John: Plan and structure a dedicated meeting for pitches with appropriate time allocation

• Michael & Charlie & David: Move items from the bottom of the charter to a separate document for future reference while preserving the information

• Charlie: Refine the constitution pitch to be more concise with focus on output and goals • Natalie: Create and send out a Doodle poll to determine the best weekly meeting time slot for all members

• Michael & John: Configure Decidim meetings to make the link more accessible using previous GPC techniques

• John: Set up and coordinate the proposed book club initiative

• Michael: Find a solution to manage the cat's presence during meetings without disrupting the proceedings

• John: Receive meeting transcript from Natalie and produce meeting summary

Meeting Agenda and Team Updates In the meeting, Michael outlined the agenda, which included a check-in round, a discussion on the consent process, and a potential look at a pitch idea. He also emphasized the importance of artful participation and monitoring the chat. The team agreed to have Natalie send the meeting transcript to John for summarization. Catherine shared her concerns about her grandson's reading development and her search for instructional videos. David expressed his appreciation for the efficient work environment and his ongoing struggle with meeting access. Charlie shared his experience with a group of people discussing Trudeau and Carney, and his plans to work on a tax issue project.

Global Issues and Political Solutions The group discusses various personal and political topics. Dana shares her experience attending a political event and reading Mark Carney's book, expressing cautious optimism about potential political solutions. Kim talks about the interconnectedness of global issues and the importance of international law. Michael expresses frustration with his rowing club's fundraising efforts. Natalie celebrates a successful local campaign for transit-oriented development. Robin shares a positive encounter with volunteers making sandwiches for the homeless. John recounts a conversation about political messaging, highlighting concerns about the spread of misinformation and the importance of truth in politics.

Sociocracy Consent Process and Hand Signals Michael led a discussion on the consent process, focusing on the Sociocratic approach. He explained the structure of the process, which includes presenting a proposal, addressing clarifying questions, reacting to the proposal, and testing for consent. Michael also introduced three hand signals for participants to use during the process: a thumbs up for no objections, a hand with the palm down for concerns, and a hand with the palm up for objections. The group was asked to review the charter, which was presented as a proposal. Michael emphasized the importance of diverse perspectives in the decision-making process and encouraged participants to share their insights and concerns.

Campfire Working Group Structure and Roles Michael shared his screen to present a document to Charlie and David. David explained the document's structure, including comments, ideas, and a holding area for discussion. They discussed the Campfire working group's purpose, membership, and issues. They also touched on the need for results, self-governance principles, and new roles. Michael clarified that some comments were transposed from Catherine's suggestions. Kim raised concerns about Google's use, suggesting it might be revisited later. John asked for clarification on the term "experiments champion," which was initially called "pitches champion." Michael checked for any further clarifications needed before moving on to the next step.

Implementing Backup Buddies and Durations Michael and John discussed the implementation of backup buddies and durations for roles in their volunteer program. They agreed to include these features in the role definition process. Michael also mentioned the possibility of integrating a forced review into their meeting agendas. Dana raised a question about the concept of "good enough" and "safe enough" in their operations, which Michael acknowledged as a valid point for further discussion. David suggested reviewing the remaining items in the document, but Michael decided to focus on completing the agreement section first.

Charter Content and Improvement Process The team discussed the content of the charter, focusing on its clarity and specificity. They agreed that the current form of the charter was sufficient for now and did not need to be overly detailed. They also discussed the need for a process to address any issues that may arise in the future. The team expressed satisfaction with the charter's content and the process used to create it. They acknowledged the need for continuous improvement and agreed to establish a process for submitting suggestions for improvement.

Consent to Charter and Continuous Improvement The group successfully consents to the charter, with all members giving thumbs up or palms down. John and Michael raise concerns about the process for continuous improvement and capturing tensions. They discuss the need for tools to facilitate asynchronous discussions and evolve the document before the three-month retrospective. David suggests that members can pitch projects to move specific sections forward faster. Kim expresses a desire for simplifying the number of software tools used. The meeting then moves on to discuss pitches for the next 20 minutes before the closing retrospective.

Pitches for Group Activities Discussion John introduces the concept of pitches for group activities, using a book club as an example. Michael emphasizes that pitches should not require unanimous agreement and that participants can choose to engage based on interest. The group discusses the process for presenting and clarifying pitches, with John suggesting a brief verbal presentation followed by clarification questions. Kim raises the idea of asynchronous breakout sessions to allow everyone to participate in multiple pitches without missing out. Michael suggests planning a dedicated meeting for pitches to ensure adequate time and structure.

Book Club Proposal and Governance Rules Michael acknowledged the absence of some participants in the meeting and suggested a review of the best weekly time slot for the group. John proposed the idea of a book club for the group, which would be led by someone else and would primarily be asynchronous. Charlie suggested starting a book club focused on relationship building and governance rules, drawing from his experience with the GPC. He offered to write a constitution for the group, based on his previous work on the GPC's constitution renewal commission.

Pitching Ideas and Project Structure The group discusses the process of pitching ideas for projects. Charlie presents a concept for organizing the group's structure using circles, which John uses as an example to explain how to refine pitches. John advises focusing on the output and impact rather than details of the approach. Robin then pitches an idea about examining the use of certain social media for group mobilization. The group discusses the importance of identifying the target audience and scope for such projects. Michael suggests having a template and collaborators to help develop pitches further.

Refining Meeting Process for Efficiency The team discussed their meeting process, expressing satisfaction with the step-by-step approach and the group's dynamics. They also discussed the importance of consent over consensus and the need for more rapid decision-making. The team agreed to continue refining their process and to push themselves to be more efficient in their meetings.