So, the comments seem to have stopped. I wonder if it makes sense to stick with the original deadline of Feb 26, or just put together a revised proposal now and open a round of voting so we can practice objecting and determining which objections are valid in this framework.

Again the purpose is both a) to think about adopting integrative consent and b) to practice the integrative consent process.

@mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

@Matt_Noyes 1of3
Responding here not loomio so as to be more lightweight. I find I don’t have much enthusiasm for formal group ‘democratic’ process. I’m happy to be guided thro by a skilled facilitator with goodwill, but have reluctance to internalise and be bound by formal group process of any kind, for any purpose. That’s just temperament - not a large group person, a pair or trio person, responding to actual dynamics of that actual pairing.
@michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

@mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti @SocialCoop

So it turns out that splitting the conversation into two threads, one on Loomio and one on Mastodon, makes it more difficult to document the process and respond to the concerns. Because you have to work through two threads and because the thread on Mastodon broadened beyond the original proposal. So, it seems that good practice is for discussions of proposals made on Loomio to be carried out on Loomio.


I broke out of Loomio into Mastodon bcos I wanted to be more informal, to chat and extend rather than to DEBATE in a formal polis/demos, formal for/against kind of way. I guess I don’t believe in binding decisions (as distinct from straw polls), certainly, not in loosely bonded collectives. And don’t wish to contribute to expectations of that kind of process. So here I am, in Mastodon 😉
@michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti @SocialCoop

@mike_hales @Matt_Noyes
I am finding both discussions to be at least "interesting" but the mastodon one moreso (so far).

(By "interesting" I mean that both interest me, I have been paying attention, and that the differences between the discussions suggest something interesting about forms of organization.

@michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti @SocialCoop

@mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti @SocialCoop


Interesting -- it's true that the shift to discussion here generated a looser, more extensive, and freer dialogue about issues raised by the proposal. That reveals something about the integrative approach, which assumes a set group of people (like a team or working group) and a particular type of discussion that "stays on topic" that is on the proposal. But we may want to broaden the topic, or go "off topic."

@mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti @SocialCoop


The integrative approach is not intended to be a formal yes/no debate, nor is it intended to generate decisions that are binding on members who oppose them. It is about arriving - or not - at consent so that members can take initiative.

So my model proposal may not be a great example, since it suggested some kind of "thou shalt" imposed on SC, instead of an "I'd like to." (The amended proposal does not do that.)

@Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop This aligns with what I've experienced with IDM in my workplace: it is less conducive to deep / wide conversation, and instead focuses the interaction around some action or decision that the proposer wants to get consent for.

(In the context of my workplace, "consent" seems like a weird euphemism for "permission", but that's another conversation.)

@anaulin @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop

Your workplace experience of this is really interesting. Assuming your workplace is not democratically organized, it seems like IDM could be problematic. Consensus and consent without equal standing become something like soft coercion and seeking permission?

@Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop Yep, I consider it somewhat problematic in my workplace. I sense that it was introduced as a way of being "biased to action" and to "encourage experimentation", but without much analysis of power dynamics. There's something in there also about wanting to "be efficient" and not wanting to have long consensus-seeking conversations.

(Scare quotes brought to you by my exhaustion with corporate speak.)

I do suspect that
>long consensus-seeking conversations
(or actually, collaborations, and protracted mutual 'labours of valuing'?) may be the only way generate a consensus that 'binds' in the face of other (tacit) bonds. The prior bonds that existed 'in the first place', 'in society' - class, colour, gender, temperament, etc etc - are hard to match with token process?
@Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop

@anaulin @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop

Really interesting. So IDM needs to be used in a context of equally shared power and accompanied by other types of discussion in which consensus can be cultivated?

> other types of discussion
Uh huh. But maybe, *collaboration*? Back again, to the question: what is our core common project here? Among the "small number of active members"?
@anaulin @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop

@mike_hales @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop "What is our common project here?" is a really good question.

Do we even have a "common project" here? Do we need to have one?

If was simply a Mastodon instance governed by those of it's members who care to engage in governance, that would be enough for me. But I sense others yearn for more active cooperation and experimentation.

I know that subsets of the population do work together in different contexts.

I would be interested in more collaboration among the subsets.

@mike_hales @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop

@Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop I do think that IDM needs to be complemented by other practices that foster relationship building, mutual understanding and alignment (which is not quite the same as consensus, in my mind).

@mike_hales @anaulin @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop

So this is one current. And for operations we also want something like consent, right?
Do we need both?

I don't hold any sense that "thou shalt" behaviour is going on here! I just don't believe that formal processes for consensus - or a formal consensus result, for that matter - are necessarily worth the labour that they exact from participants, or can in fact be expected to be binding. I'm not experienced in this kind of practice (no surprises there!) but have a hunch straw polls might be somewhere around the optimum.
@michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti @SocialCoop

@mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti @SocialCoop

Thanks! I find this discussion really educational.

About formality: Right now we (SC) practice a mixture of loose consent (ops teams in synchronous zoom calls), small turnout votes on Loomio, and general reliance on a small number of active members. That is a kind of formality of its own, just not very intentional, and it involves a lot of unevenly distributed labor. Can/should we alter our de facto formal processes?

It is important for any organization to routinely return to the visioning board, with a strong "why", you can do almost any "how". To gain momentum we need a strong mission and vision statement. What are our aspirations for this platform?

@Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti @SocialCoop

@Matt_Noyes @Jon_Envisioneer @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop

I get the sense that folks are interested in experimentation with democratic governance, but I wonder if at this stage something like IDM or a retreat are solutions in search of a problem.

Is there an actual problem we're trying to solve in this conversation? A project we want to move forward?

Jon, @emi can tell you more about previous efforts to clarify members' aspirations for, FYI.

Thanks Ana, I would love to learn more about these aspiration efforts if @emi would like to tell me.


I'd be happy to share, and maybe we can use that as a launch point for future brainstorming and new ideas for future engagement?

@anaulin @Matt_Noyes @Jon_Envisioneer @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @SocialCoop @emi

Gathering information about co-op governance and trying out different approaches could be a project aim in itself. I joined partly to see what could be adopted as a model for other online collective ventures that I'm thinking of attempting.
The search started with this 3-way typology: representative, participatory and deliberative...

@johnkuti - apolgoies, mastodon is not a great way to get my attention, I mostly join and skim it once a month or so.

@Matt_Noyes Maybe we can have mini retreats with each other who already in our region, I know a full global would be best but that is expensive. The product of Guerrilla translation is material translations, although our "Service" is a mastodon instance, I think we all want more than just maintaining a mastodon instance. We want a real solidarity community. But we do need a process for gaining clarity on our mutual visions. It would be hard to do virtually, but we can try something.

It would be interesting to hear everyones' vision. My vision would be to create a social networking platform that embody the solidarity economy values and a platform that can help manifest . I don't really want an alternative to twitter, I want a new paradigm shifting tool that empowers us to have relationships where we truly care for one another and collaborate to build a world that transcends the for-self economy.
@Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @anaulin @SocialCoop

Chapter 8. Developing a Strategic Plan | Section 2. Proclaiming Your Dream: Developing Vision and Mission Statements | Main Section | Community Tool Box (

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.