The UC liaison will be an employee of the United Church of Canada GC, and 99.9% positively it will be Aaron/Admin if approved as part of council  RevJohn does not apply.

In terms of nominations, there will be  athread specifically for that, so please keep your thoughts and bring them forward then.

Okay. I deleted the post with those thoughts and will save them for later.

Hi Pinga,

Well, we probably could take it outside.

At this point I don't see a reason to.  I simply am not going to take responsibility for what others imagine.  I think I have said that enough that it really doesn't need to be repeated.

I apologize for my part in derailing the thread.  I am not going to apologize for insisting that I did not attack any specific person when I have not attacked any specific person.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Kimmio,

I don't push save until I am very confident I mean exactly what I have written.

No.  I won't.

Why not?

I will not because I am not responsible for what you feel, felt or are about to feel.

I don't know how many times I need to say that.

I also don't know how many times you are going to insist that I am.

For the sake of the thread and the discussion that was intended I am not going to respond further to any entreaty of yours or others that I take responsibility for what I never said.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi John, do you see your post as existing within some kind of vacuum? I think Kimmio is viewing it within the larger context of the entire thread. If that is indeed her perspective, I can empathize with her feelings. Rich blessings.

WonderCafe2 governance is based on a council model. Council is responsible for day-to-day running of the site and consists of the administrators, moderators, and treasurer.

 My replies are posted in italics.

Composition

Council is comprised of:

3 Administrators
5 Moderators
1 Treasurer

Position descriptions for all three roles as approved shall be attached to the council model.

Shall be attached?  Are they not defined roles?  At this point in the planning process, I would have guessed that these roles have explicit job descriptions and time frames.  That is how charities and non-for-profit organisations operate.

Nomination Process

To form Council, the community is asked for nominations.  After a suitable nomination period of not less than 5 days, the nominations are closed and Council selects new members from the nominations.

Seeking nominations and then declaring that it is a selection process by Council means that it is not an election process.  Previous discussion upthread has already demonstrated that there is discord.  And it is very clear that cherry picking will take place.  So why even bother seeking elections of and by potential members of a community, when Council clearly owns the site and clearly states that a selection process is in place?

Council members shall be polled annually to determine if they wish to stay in their current role so that vacancies can be declared and nominations sought to replace them.
If at any time a council member is unable to fulfill their duties, they may step down or may be removed by the council. New nominations shall be requested to fill the vacancy.

 Council members shall be polled is the first difficulty.  Terms of sitting on Concils and Boards are set in place on boards and councils, to ensure decent oversight and fairness.  E.g. Condominium Boards, Charitable Boards and Not For Profit organisations, as WC2 is declaring itself.  It is not a polling decision that should determine the time spent in a position, rather, defined roles have a timeline.  With a selection vs election process and a polling process, this is an autocratic process.

The slate of nominated Council members shall be confirmed annually by a vote of the community.

 How does the community vote for pre-selected by Council nominees?

Eligibility for Council Positions

 The second difficulty arises with the following definitions of membership.

Council members must be registered users of Wondercafe2. They must have been continuously active on Wondercafe2 and/or Wondercafe for at least one year prior to being nominated.

 Fair enough.

• “Active” is defined as posting regularly, being involved in community activities, contributing in kind or financially, or other activities related to the community.

   A much more demanding level of membership than WC ever required.  I draw attention to contributing in kind or financially, which does beg questions, such as:

1. Operating a site costs money;
2. Out of pocket expenses are ponied up at first by people starting up the site, but down the road, it will be offloaded to members;
3. There has been no real long or short term business plan to present to potential members to support and run, in a day to day operation, the existence of WC2.  And the main reason that WC2 is important is that people care for each other, and a virtual community does exist.  Without seeing a plan, people become uneasy.

• “Continuous” is defined as having taken no voluntary breaks of longer than a month and having received no suspensions under the Code of Conduct during the 12 months preceding their nomination.

 It is proven and known that people who volunteer drop the volunteer gig when real life intervenes.  That is why volunteer management is important.  That is why understanding a three hour/week commitment is important.  And Volunteerism is task oriented, so it is good to know that a volunteer has a defined role.  Should also have time defined.

But not as defined as Continuous.  E.g. people become sick, or become involved in a care team situation, or have work demands, to name a few examples.  Voluntary breaks of no longer than a month?  Really?  And some people may read, but not post – what is Active or Continuous in that scenario?  Seems reasonable that reading but not posting is both Active and Continuous.

Members who have been banned at any time may not serve until at least two years after they are allowed to return.

United Church of Canada Liaison

In recognition of Wondercafe2’s historical connection with the United Church, the church shall designate a liaison who shall sit as a non-voting member of Council. The liaison shall act as a conduit between Wondercafe2 and the General Council Office of the United Church of Canada on matters related to the relationship between Wondercafe2 and the church.

There has been no evidence, or posting that UCCan will support this new site or wants to be affiliated with it,as provided with the exception that when “googled”,  WC2 will show up with a defunct WC.  If UCCan steps up and posts an official response, I believe it.  Otherwise, I am going to accept that Chansen, as one of the three volunteers, has stated that he does not want to have anything to do with UCCan.   If Aaron is going to sit on the Council as a non-voting member, then perhaps it would be wise for Aaron to state it.

Denominational Liaisons from Other Groups

At Council’s discretion, liaison status may be offered to other faith groups who link to, promote, or otherwise support Wondercafe2.

 At Council’s discretion is not an inviting, open invitation, which WC does offer.  Link, promote or otherwise support WC2 sounds like advertising and marketing at best, and exclusionary at worst.

Non-voting Members

Sub-forum moderators and denominational liaisons shall be non-voting members of Council. They may join Council discussions, present reports on their activities, and have input, but do not vote.

Chair and Secretary

Members of Council shall choose one of their number as Chair. The Chair shall be responsible for convening and moderating meetings of Council, posting the minutes of the meetings, posting communications from Council to the community, announcing the annual meeting to the community, and collecting and collating reports from the teams (Moderation, Administration, and Finance).

 Perpetuates control of Council. 

At the discretion of the Chair and Council, a Secretary may also be chosen to assist the Chair in these tasks.

 Chosen.  Again, selected, not elected.

Responsibilities

Council has oversight of the community following best practices for non-profit, small organizations and web forums.

 Clearly not best practises for not for profit small organisations.  Nor is it in the spirit of Council electoral process, that RevJohn proposed.  Much more the essence of a private corporation.

Council maintains appropriate records and minutes.

 Certainly – with Council members appointing a Chair, selecting a Treasurer, and selecting a Treasurer.  Transparency is clear.

Day to day activities and discussions are performed through the Wondercafe2 Council Forum, a sub-forum on the site accessible only to members of Council.

 Transparency certainly clear on this statement.

Quarterly reports are brought forward by the admins / moderators through the same forum.

 Again: transparency is clear.

A virtual annual meeting is held which is to include financial, moderator and admin reports and planning for upcoming year. This may be done using a forum or through other appropriate Internet media (e.g. Adobe Connect) chosen by Council. The date, time, location, and agenda shall be publicized on appropriate Wondercafe2 forums at least a month in advance by Council.

 This is the good news about transparency, although note: chosen by Council

Changes to formative documents

Any change to the formative documents of Wondercafe2 must be approved by 7 of the 9 members of Council and an 80% majority vote of the community.

 As above analysis indicated, why poll members?  As RevJohn stated – it is a done deal.  Control is in the hands of volunteers ramping up WC2.  It is not issues of trust, nor of faith, about WC2, it is about this:

1. It is about transparency, which is at the very least, confusing;
2. It is about community, and the proposed outreach, but based on this document, Council has control and community involvement seems complicated;
3. It is about carrying on the spirit of WC, which has a rich and diverse membership, and WC2, as outlined in this document, will not operate in a similar way;
4. And financially, the continuation of WC2 is a problem, as was the operation of WC (and so, this issue of finance does become an issue).  No organisation, from grassroots to big corporate vision, can work without a day to day understanding of operations and a long term vision.  In today’s language, that is called a business plan.  I am guessing that there is one in place, I just have not seen it;and
5. Finally, why people are interested in carrying on is because virtual contact and relationships are important, have helped through rough times, and meaningful, caring relationships are developed and cultivated.  It would be a shame to lose this virtual community because of poor financial planning and built in Council controls wherein decisions are made not on behalf of community, but in best interests of Council members.  That is how Council is structured at this point, and though comments are requested, comments and suggestions do not have to be taken seriously, voted upon, or incorporated.

Formative documents are: Mission Statement, “Who Are We?” Statement, Council Model (ie. this document), Position Descriptions, Code of Conduct.

 Understood- in its inherent confusion

Other documents may be added to the list by the same voting process as changes.

This statement does not make sense

I have read through the above post, and I believe all comments were made previously  and have been responded to with the exception of the last one.

For the last comment, wording could be "Other documents may be added to the list of formative documents through the same method as "changes" to the formative documents are both proposed and approved.

I believe that I answered the Liaison question already; however, let me summarize a few items in this one post.

The Liaison was included in the cuoncil model due to a negotiation with the united church of canada regarding usage of United Church of Canada material, resource support and information sharing and opportunities.    This proposal was worked out between the Admins (me as point) and the United Church of Canada (Aaron as point), with input and confirmation through Mendalla/Chansen and United Church of Canada General Council staff / leadership.    This has been an ongoing informal discussion for months.  By placing as a non-voting council member, it facilitates communication.

The agreement regarding usage  of the United Church of Canada items could not be proposed until such time as we had mission/vission, etc.  The finalization of the liaison cannot be done until such time as this council is formed.  I would like to have the council document amended & approved as if approved, he will be the first tester in the council authority model on the new site. 

So....yes, there is a liaison which has been worked out.  In fact, we have had an unofficial liaison for months as we have worked through to the site going live.

Given the nature and volume of feedback on this thread, would you consider another thread to discuss the "final" draft? 

My reommendation is go to vote on the revised document.

The community will show if they are in support or not by the vote.

So how does the voting process work?

Just asking for clarification.

The WC2 admins set it up on Survey Monkey, Redhead. This is the way all votes to date have taken place. 

Here is a sample of how he last vote was done. you would expect to see something similair for this one.

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/wc2-lets-vote-again-we-d...

Fair enough I suppose. 

Hi Redhead, As Pinga mentioned, we've been working out this arrangement over the past couple of months. The WC2 admin team is driving it, but I can say from the perspective of the United Church of Canada General Council, that we have asked for a formal connection because of the use by WC2 of some elements that the United Church holds the trademark on (including the name "WonderCafe" and artwork). Also because we want to support the WonderCafe community, the new WC2 site, and the admin who are working to create it by letting our audiences know about it and helping to promote it online. I think it makes sense from both the United Church and WC2 perspective to keep this historical linkage to help facilitate communication, responsibility, and community.

Thanks for that, Aaron. And I think the fact that you are the first liaison will go along way towards facilitating things given your long involvement here as both an admin and poster.

I did a first pass on a revised draft last night and will do another one today based on Pinga's review of it (which included checking on some comments like redhead's that I had not seen when I did my pass). My goal would be to have it up this evening unless I can steal more time from work than I think I can.

Thanks to all who have been contributing to the discussion.

Mendalla

I'm reaaalllly trying to stay on the technical side and ignore your posts, but you insist on dragging me back into this.

Do you read anything I write? Am I posting in my sleep? Because it looks to me like you just make shit up.

On one side of me, I just got through Jae saying that Pinga rules this endeavour and my posts about maintaining ties to the UCCan are because Pinga is UCCan, and that's bad because the site should be independent of the UCCan. On the other side of me, I've got you saying that I, as one of three admins, want nothing to do with the UCCan and the site will therefore have nothing to do with the UCCan because...I get to overrule Pinga and Mendalla, I guess?

Who the hell do you think you're fooling with this crap? Pinga has posted about her dealings with the UCCan. Do you think she is lying?

I initially skipped your post because I'm tired of you being massively incorrect about everything and being proud of it. Aaron's reply highlighted to me that you're now assuming I don't want anything to do with the UCCan, which is interesting to me, because I've never said that.

Try again. What other false concerns can you cook up?

A revised draft is now up for a vote. Please see the thread below:

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/wc2-how-are-we-governed-...