Hi Simon,
Thanks for your support to the proposal.
Il 17/02/22 12:07, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
* You mention that Decidim is not the only potential tool, and assert
that analysing the internal processes is more important than
evaluating which tool to use. I definitely agree that a
specification should come first. I wonder if you can tell us briefly
why you already picked Decidim over the other well-known tools
(specifically Consul and LiquidFeedback)?
As said in the proposal, the instance was already running at TDF for
nearly a year; members of the MC, of the BoD and the Team already
invested considerable time on it. It would have been a waste of efforts
to change the platform at this point and mostly unhelpful/unfruitful to
change it without a clear understanding of its shortcomings, with the
regards of our use cases; a knowledge we can achieve only having some
processes mapped in the platform.
We already have expertise in the Team about this specific platform, also.
Other platforms were mentioned and at least brainstormed, see for
example: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3251
* With only a few hundred Trustees our use case would be very small
compared with most of the tool's applications (although I am aware
that these tools have parts that are used by consultation groups).
Are there any useful examples of Decidim (or Consul) being used for
the tasks we are considering? I am not asserting a problem, just
wondering if there's an example inspiring you.
The Decidim community itself is using the same platform to discuss and
shape the framework redesigns: https://meta.decidim.org/
A fellow Director asked a similar question, and I failed to answer him
with a proper research. I hope this answer will suite him, too.
* Given the goal here is to widen participation beyond the current
insiders, have you considered including some Trustees in the working
group as well?
I surely have, and I am more than favorable about it in principle; but I
also see some minor flaws with this approach.
The proposal allows for 8 people to attend activities with the
consultancy; this should accommodate at least two people out of the MC,
two out of the BoD and two more people from the Team to participate to
the working group, but not limiting to 2 people out of each body.
If this holds true at the minimum, it will leave a very small space for
Trustees to be included in the working group, so we either:
1) ask the Trustees, and have to manage in the end to choose who is
included or excluded and on which (more or less) arbitrary basis do this
choice (not the most fair/inclusive outcome, honestly), or
2) ask directly to selected people to participate to the working
group, which is leaner than 1) but indeed arbitrary and not inclusive.
Widening the audience to the consultancy activities to allow for more
participation from the Trustees can be another solution, but
pragmatically we know smaller working group has the best chance to reach
their goals. And I am willingly leaving out considerations about the
economic impact of such widened participation.
I am more of the opinion that, once the working group has reached a
quasi-working setup, involving the community back is the right thing to
do, to run some simulations, possibly in parallel to the real BoD
decisions, to have some time to collect volunteers' and members'
feedback/improvements on the implemented processes, before the BoD
finally approves the use of the platform.
I hope this can be helpful.
Cheers,
--
Emiliano Vavassori
syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
