Policydocs

Page format

Dan: I'm proposing this page is a little more formal than others, given the nature of the subject.

It's broken into two main sections - final and draft, which are heading level 1. Within these at heading level 2, documents should be named. Level 3 should then be:

1. Proposed purpose stated / Final agreed purpose of document
2. Log: who first proposed, and comments and amendments made / comments on final version (this should be at the bottom of a section.) The WIKI already does this, but this makes it a little more open.
3. Draft document, with level 4 headings if needed

Is that everything? Not sure. Let's try it in practice.

These will all be kept here because they'll be easily accessible via the TOC.

Draft documents

Decision-making

Purpose of this document

Trust is vital to the success and sustainability of local social forums. This is not just fluffy thinking. For example, Leicester Social Forum got two groups together in a room, addressing the same question, for the first time ever - because of slowly building trust, and because the forum itself was not a vote-taking body.

For most of the time, these issues will not be needed - but it is necessary to get them agreed before problems happen.

This is particularly the case when it comes to the document on financial control. Money equals power. This is sadly not a problem yet for us! But one day it may be. The central goal here is to make sure that process - and finance - remain transparent and democratic.

Log

First proposed: Dan.

[Could I suggest that ways to access or comment on this excellent project are better explained? Nobody will dare to "edit" on the wiki itself (being in evidence and so)... Perhaps an extra page for comments like these?]

Draft document

The Seeds for Change consensus decision-making chart to be adopted as the SSF model.

NOTE: This document includes an option for voting, but it doesn't encourage it. Before voting becomes an option, SSF should work through the following:

Any issues that cannot be decided should not be forced. It can carry on being discussed while the social-forumites get on with other things it can be doing.

This will also apply to cross-roads] issues: anyone who can’t make a compromise will have to break off to resolve it. For example, two people totally opposed must work, perhaps with neutral mediation, to do this.

The background reasons why this is needed: the specific model of democratic action; the local context; the threat from flooding meetings; filibustering.

[Amp Could I make a suggestion that some colloquial or jargon-like terms, eg "filibustering" and others are listed in a glossary with a "plain English" explanation if necessary?]

Facilitation skills are vital to making this work. Facilitation guidelines and training will be provided to support this. (Cutting off people remains a problem: such cutting off would need to be supported by the group.)

Any grouping within the social forum space can work on whatever they want together, as long as there is no objection. Objections must be met before anything is done in the name of the social forum.

[Amp Could I make a suggestion that this last paragraph is explained in more detail in the final draft? eg Do all objections need to be met? Or just some objections and not others? Do objections sent by email have the same value as "from the horse's mouth" objections?]

"Any grouping within the social forum space can work on whatever they want together, as long as there is no objection. Objections must be met before anything is done in the name of the social forum."

Financial control

Purpose of this document

To guarantee that, if ever large amounts of money arrive in the coffers, that budget control is participatory and democratic.

Log

First proposed by: Dan

Draft document

• Control of spending is done following the SSF guidelines for decision-making [yet to come out of draft stage!)
• Affiliates / donators will get no extra say because of moneys donated

[Could we get a clearer definition of "affiliate" and "donator"? What rights or benefits will they have then if no "extra say"?]