So far all of the decision-making on Karrot groups happens offline, except for when you want to expel someone from the group. Would it be interesting to make a broader discuss-and-vote feature? It could work in a way similar to the conflict resolution process (Issues on the Karrot’s sidenav-menu). Anyone (or should it be only those with enough trust?) could start a discussion and make a proposal for people to discuss for 7 days and cast their vote on it. Whether and how to make these decisions binding is up for each group to solve on their own.
Another idea related to the conflict resolution feature is to develop it further so people could implement less drastic sanctions. For example, to freeze a person from the group for a certain period of time or to ban them temporarily from doing pickups at certain places.
Would any of these ideas work well in your group? Do you have any other ideas that could be useful, taking into consideration the experiences you have in your group? Let us know! @karolina@danveg@Teddy@tiltec@djahnie@nicksellen
Hi,
thanks for raising the topic!
I think the second aspect is more interesting - other less drastic sanctions. I think both could work - freezing or baning from a place. Maybe it could depend on what was the problem. For example picking too often at one place (e.g., a very rewarding one like a fancy bakery) → ban for a month from this place, but not taking everything and cherry-picking → freezing in general. What do others think?
Karolina
Hello together,
I agree with Karolina; I also find less drastic sanctions quite interesting. Banning somebody temporarily from the group would be a valid alternative to kicking them out. Banning somebody from certain places might become quickly complex. How are these places selected? Maybe a maximum number of pickups per determined time interval (e.g. per week or per month) could come in handy as one of the more soft sanctions.
A broader discuss-and-vote feature would need to fit to the group’s decision making process. In our group, we use sociocracy for instance. I would see such a feature as nice to have, especially when meeting in person is difficult, but I would welcome different kinds of sanctions more as conflict resolution mechanisms are lacking in many groups’ structure.
Best greetings,
Daniel
Thanks @karolina and @danveg for your input on this - me and @bruno have been working on a general method we can use to develop ideas further into actual changes, and involving users/community/etc in the process (perhaps will be called a Community Design Process, or similar, kind of a modified version of Googles Design Sprint more suitable for community projects).
Hopefully that will be ready in the next few weeks, then we’ll be very keen to try out the process for this topic - improving the governance features
Thanks @karolina and @danveg! I was talking to @djahnie the other day and she’s been involved in a very broad process to solve conflicts within Foodsharing and to create a nice democratic organizational structure, so that such conflicts can be more easily avoided. I thought it was so interesting and similar in some ways to what we experience in our group in Gothenburg so I suggested we have a call to talk about it, so they present their case in Foodsharing Germany and exchange experiences.
Would this be a call that you or anyone in your respective groups would be interested in participating? We thought we could arrange this the earliest for next month, maybe later.
It could be a nice warm-up to start later a community design process that Nick mentioned, more specifically about features in Karrot.
Yes, sounds good! Maybe @mzpawlowski could be interested from Warsaw. I have now hard time being online, especially in the evening. But in general - yes, we are interested.
Let us know!
