thread for the consensus check on creating working groups
Alyaza Birze
Public
Seen by 25
(this is partially a test to see how proposals merge into a thread when they're created before a thread they're merged into. turns out really well! already really liking Loomio.)
Poll Created Mon 23 Sep 2024 6:19AM
a consensus check on creating working groups Closed Tue 24 Sep 2024 6:15PM
it looks like we have a pretty clear consensus for the first two working groups, so i will go ahead with making them on the Loomio today (September 24). if anyone has late objections or things that we should consider for this idea though, i've set a review date of September 30 so we can cross our Ts and dot our Is.
I'm checking for consensus on the following idea:
formally establishing two working groups on here:
governance (covering the rules, regulations, and other stuff that will govern everything in the League; see for instance the code of conduct discussion)
technology (covering the technology, recommended tools, documentation, and other relevant back-end stuff of the project; see for example the ongoing recommended stack/software for federation discussions)
working groups would primarily serve as places to do deep research and discussion on ideas/proposals without bogging down the decision-making group as a whole. in some cases they might also draft proposals and bring them before the entire group.
membership would be voluntary, and League members can volunteer to be in one or both groups.
working groups will be obliged to provide any important research/discussion/ideas/proposals to the entire group. (i don't foresee this as being too much of a problem for now: people in them should also be—as needed—reporting to the main group anyways). we may also choose to delegate certain responsibilities to them (maintaining documentation as one hypothetical example).
How do you feel about this? If there are any complications or objections that should be/need to be hashed out in a proposal, please vote and/or state them below.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
No objections | 100.0% | 13 |
|
| Complication | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Objection | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 10 |
.jpg){kind=avatar}
|
13 of 23 people have participated (56%)
ruby
Mon 23 Sep 2024 6:19AM
Do we intend for these to be the only two working groups we'll ever have? If not, how do we establish new working groups?
Tenna
Mon 23 Sep 2024 6:19AM
I don’t see any issues with this, personally, as long as important issues are still brought up to the entire group.
ruby
Mon 23 Sep 2024 6:45AM
All good on my end.
oatmealine
Mon 23 Sep 2024 8:07AM
groups being voluntary and not mutually exclusive is good
vis
Mon 23 Sep 2024 6:19AM
the dragon
Mon 23 Sep 2024 2:40PM
seems reasonable to me. i think it's likely that the technology WG will end up further subdividing but we can do that later
Mori
Mon 23 Sep 2024 2:48PM
Voluntary + not mutually exclusive looks good to me.
kouhai
Mon 23 Sep 2024 8:09AM
central infra may require special handling, but that can be decided later
Alyaza Birze · Mon 23 Sep 2024 6:38AM
@ruby no, and i think for the time being these can be handled informally by gauging how often certain subjects come up and doing a consensus check when someone feels like there's enough activity and interest for there to be a new working group.
it's always possible these could be controversial and/or might eventually need formal structuring. but at least personally i don't think we should introduce a whole procedure for it now unless people really think we're going to need it in the near future. and imo we're not big enough or convoluted enough that we will.