Hi Jeannine, I'm glad you've enjoyed the governance guidelines! http://collectiveagency.co/governance-guidelines/
All six of them were written iteratively and revised from a lot of feedback, and will be revised more if members have questions about them and/or want to revise them. The benefit of #4 is that freedom of speech is pretty cool, and if people don't view themselves as having the other freedoms, such as freedom of where to live, then they are likely to not be a member. So members supporting each other on all these things is rad. Recently, #4 was helpful for me, because a member asked why I'd been asking people not to whisper, and to talk in normal voices. And that got me thinking, after five and a half years, that if people want to whisper, even if I have reasons for thinking it's not as good, then those reasons don't matter as much as freedom of speech. So I've stopped myself from reminding anyone who's whispering not to whisper. The other guidelines could also do that too, but the specifics helped. Also I have a friend (not a member and not at a coworking place) who was working delivering kombucha via truck, and she was talking with a towtruck driver, and he thought he had freedom of travel on the job, and she thought she didn't. So that was interesting to hear. She ended up quitting that job a couple months later, she just wasn't as happy with it and the freedom of travel was how she defined her main issue with it. They both thought the governance guidelines would be neat as a kind of Glassdoor/Yelp way to rate workplaces and to recruit people to work there. You write about political parties; while we have (or at least aspire to) freedom of speech, the Community Guidelines are more core to the Terms of Service and members view the Community Guidelines as the day-to-day thing to look to. http://collectiveagency.co/community-guidelines/ #4 of those is "IF needed, confront with respect (how you’d like to be confronted)." and members agree that badmouthing anyone behind their back or who isn't here based on any label isn't within the guidelines. So that would block out political fighting and groups that do that, from doing that here, which is the main form of politics in the U.S., since most people in politics don't want to lose but want other people to lose, which isn't treating people the way you'd want to be treated. I think that the wording will vary from place to place. Accessibility and openness are important to members although not rated in surveys as the most important values. Radical inclusion, in my view and in the view of members who don't prioritize certain groups over other groups (when we checked in on that wording a few years ago) doesn't cover what we do. But I think whatever wording works for a community is the best wording for that community! The governance guidelines were helpful in another survey months ago in strengthening accountability, people making happen what they very much want, and the freedoms question. Having the option to answer anonymously or with one's name is how we do the surveys, for this survey so far 3 people filled out their name. Founders bias is the founder's biases affecting the group? I definitely have biases and love being aware of them. I also love when I want something and members don't want it. The first time that ever happened was when I wanted to throw out the plants, and we put a tally sheet on the wall of the kitchen with 'yes' and 'no' and I was the only 'yes'. We kept the plants and now they're five and a half years old and I've come to love them, although they live by members who are not me actively caring for them. I also love having written guidelines, such as criteria for membership, that is written and approved by members - people read it and can see whether or not the group is for them, and often sign up without ever talking with me. And the best is at our Division location, members have stepped up to organize events like a feng shui happy hour on their own, everything from the planning to the poster to the reorganizing, and now everyone I've heard from is super-happy with the new layout (I was going for too much of a 'ballroom' layout, and now the room has subdivisions because Sara suggested it and got members together who wanted to move things after drinking a little. Right now members are voting on proposals by members from February and March, and the governance guidelines being formally on the website is less important so far than more locations or LED lighting but more important than terms for member-hosted events. (Out of 7 people who've filled out the Google Form, I chose 'very much yes', and 3 members chose 'yes' and 3 didn't have a preference, and no one chose 'no' or 'very much no': "About 6 months ago I drafted 'Governance Guidelines' http://collectiveagency.co/governance-guidelines/ based on what seems to work well. Do you want these to be formally added to our website underneath the Community Guidelines tab?" (For perspective, as to whether members want a third location, 3 people chose 'very much yes' and 1 person chose 'yes' and no one chose 'no' or 'very much no'. And for LED lighting, a higher percentage of members chose 'yes' out of the total members who are at that location, and the original proposal is a 'very much yes' from the two members who suggested it. So LED lighting is wanted about as much by people who want it as are the governance guidelines, but twice as many people want LED lighting as want the governance guidelines on the website :) On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 1:16:35 AM UTC-8, Jeannine van der Linden wrote: > > Hiya, Alex! > > I have enjoyed very much your governance guidelines. I am very curious > about number 4 and why it is there. > > Individuals have freedom of speech and association, freedom of travel and >> choice of residence, employment, and education >> > > I am not sure I think that is actually a meaningfully true statement so I > would have to revise it a little. But as a practical matter, i am fairly > certain I would get a lot of blank stares if I included it in any kind of > communication to coworkers. Maybe there is a differnt line for what is > private and public between there and here; but I wil say that my coworkers > have clearly expressed that while they like having a combination of > business, nonprofit, clubls, and individuals, they do not want political > parties or political funding, lobbyists, or any kind of entity whose > purpose is explicitly to alter the political landscape. > > When I think about it it seems to me a question of accessibility over > openness when we look at the core values of Open Coworking; I think if I > substituted a statment about radical inclusion in the space they would go > for it. > > (Please see founder bias? :-)) > > But trying to apply that statement to a coworking space leaves me a bit > puzzled. Help me out? > . > >> >>>> >>>> -- Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
