20.07

Check-in

  • Max: everything good, missed the dgov governance. Happy to have energy to resolve tensions

  • Anja: miss dgov talks. had conversations with ethereum community. brought a lot of learnings. Happy to be here.

  • Grace: haven't been to the weekly calls. Have our group calls. What do we govern? Regret that we have so much politics. Maybe i'm wrong. If I want to be a member, what's the process.

  • Ela: second the governance call idea. Rainy Baltic, going to be a nice event next year, received the funding for the disaster fighting event. Happy to be back. Follow the conversation in the telegram group, couldn't comment.

Questions

Ela / Format of these calls

Let go centralized core team initial idea.

holacracy > distinction between tactical and governance calls. Tactical = status, KPI, what do we do. Governance = setting the rules, policies, roles and everything connected to governance calls. Usually, these are separate calls, tacticals are happening more often. We pose questions and tensions we would like to propose. With governance calls there is a specific process (policy proposed by anyone —> clarification questions).

Max: process proposal

  1. The tension and policy is proposed

  2. Clarifyng question

  3. Round of feedback

  4. Whoever proposed can answer feedback

  5. Check for objection

  6. If ok – passed.

Ela: like the idea of the format. Tactical we used a lot before. The weekly meetup with the focus on the community. How we can setup Code of Conduct, how people can map the expectations and needs. Governance is not just about decision making. Think it's a big task ahead. Realized that Liliana leaves the community. Do we have a protocol for offboarding. See it in other groups as well, interested how we can tackle that.

Grace: not sure about what was the complaint. Actually like her. She didn't tell me, other people did. Wasn't active in the channel. Other people might feel that (unsafe) too. Feel responsible. Played a big role, would like to "unfuck".

Ela: don't have an instrument, nobody's in charge. Can we do a better job in solving that. If a conflict comes up it's a systemic thing. Would be interesting understanding the systemic issues behind. Maybe has to do with who does what under the name of "dgov". Who's visible and not. 1 thing doesn't work – we don't have a process for conflict resolution. Thought to do off the group, had a mediation offer from Anja (appreciate). Role of the mediator can be so hard, especially if the environment isn't supportive. Haven't thought about that. Put things in the perspective. Was sad when read it. Felt Grace is under pressure. Know i want to solve tensions ASAP, and was sour.

Grace: Anja was generous but also busy. Requested somebody with availability. No support for the moderator.

Anja: this isn't communicated correctly. Was postponed because of the inconvenient time. We could do doodle, but could be same. Didn't feel most suitable. Wasn't meaningful before, same with Tim. Word hypocrite felt bad. We can go with the tension resolution without the core team, 2 other lawyers proposed to help. The way they introduced the idea – we can discuss on the separate and use this 3rd party for resolution.

Ela: brought me to think about the subjectivity. Not sure 3rd party is best. Can imagine you're a perfect person fro mediation, though you still need the process and culture. Also each of us is depending on whether dispute speaks to us. Ideally, people want to step up. Can sit with you. Out of experience, they can provide the space. Would like to see the community that can self resolve those conflict, engage people more. Conflicts show a lot of interesting information.

Grace: particular process is appropriate for more complex issues. This was more simple. I want to apologize, probably hurt her feelings. I don't think i'm right about it. Maybe process was too formal, ready to take blame though. I just want to hear her side. Maybe we need to find best practices. Need a tollkit anybody can use. If we have a goodwill.

Anja: if we're not addressing this as formal, would like to understand when 3rd person needs to join. In other cases community can text or call each other. Not the way we want to be perceived, handicapped the communication. Otherwise relied on everybody understand and get emotional. Call could be easier, but sometimes may be not enough.

Ela: true, for me what happened – was in the way a cry for help. No other possibility to resolve. Raising a flag is a valid thing to do. In 99% it has a point. We should allow people to do that. Asking off the channel, as written comms doesn't allow easy resolution. Whole thing was escalated through the written language. Could be better and earlier if people knew this way. Conflict resolution culture is smth to talk about.

Anja: was a bit established with "carambola" word. We saw the tension, maybe we need a telegram group for that. And find time immediately. Who is the steward? we took some time off, was hard to find time quickly. Could avoid in the future gossips and camps.

Grace: for me when people text i try to assume nothing, but other people might not think that. Should assume that if there's no call it's not resolved.

Ela: understood carambola as a safe word against escalating. Negative emotion in the community interaction with gut feeling. The tensions couldn't be handled well. Have a hope it would be possible to learn on conflict. Otherwise leaves everybody with heavy heart in the case of blame. There's more to it. Like Anja's proposal to think of the pathway to put conflict to in the other group.

Grace: have a weekly call on communications skills, can create a regular facilitation every week. If there're no conflicts – can practice comms. No harm done. Anybody who wants to join welcome. Need facilitators, alternative as well. Conflicts came in Brussels but we solved them on the spot or 1:1 calls. Can build in the structure.

Ela: interesting, initial idea of the council. Whatever comes up – comes up. With collective wisdom can resolve. We call ourselved the council, but in councils it's just a space.

Anja: every council we had such need. Suggested on the last council – can leave the possibility to review the silt for potential problems with specific people. Suggested we have an open dialogue before, in and after. Speak openly about it. Even for this call – it was open, still just 4 of us. The frequency can be to high, energy for once a year. Looking back, not more than 5 events a year. Weekly basis can be too much. Again basing on the observation.

Grace: chicken and egg problem. We have 8-20 people on the call weekly. People rotate. When you have a regular event, nobody needs to plan. Select the facilitator every time. Don't have any conflicts. Depending on the organization. In Brussels somebody wasn't reimbursed, felt conflict. Weekly meeting had no money involved. Liliana and Aeon were involved in financial questions.

Grace / Feedback on the stuff i'm doing

Leave or stay in the dgov boundaries

Max / Use of brand

Grace / What org is making the decision

Is there a structure in place?

Ela / Code of conduct and governance, precondition

Reflection

  • Max: happy to talk. Thanks for perspectives

  • Ela: my heart warms up, nice to talk to you. Still a lot of work to be done. We tend to see conflicts as bad, but i see them as signals. Don't want to be let alone with the problem. Coming back to the idea of council, look deeper in this.

  • Anja: was super useful, got a lot of insights, hope to have some software for notes. There's an underlying truth about conflicts making us stronger. Don't see as just politics. Having the possibility is admirable, elevate the conflict situations and come stronger. Not just see polarities.

  • Grace: enjoyed the conversation, felt a bit slow. Not urgent though, let that be. Shared a lot of perspectives. Definitely found some new perspectives. Regarding my platform, don't feel comfortable to decide without Tim. When I think about inclusion need to talk with everybody who opposed it. Would like to m specifically on this topic.