Thank you, this is indeed a seed advice process for the advice process. I updated now with one extra question:

"Do we want to continue with the current model of AP or do we want to implement a new one and How?"

I guess there are two main issues here:

-The AP itself which needs to be reviewed, modified, or changed

- Newbies and oldies who just dont like Talk or platforms of the kind. They are willing to put in the work but not willing to engage in platforms of discussions (name it Talk or any other I think).

I personally also find the AP somewhat blocking. I am very enthusiastic about doing things and like the radical-doocracy approach...I find it hard to understand when have we reached a consensus when we dont even know who has even read a proposal.

I also have some input not directly about the AP itself, but somewhat related as a response to a few points you mentioned in your comment:

How it was in 2021:

• As no one checked realities we have given teams a spreadsheet that contained the most relevant links to talk threads ( incl how we work together group), names and contact of people, docu, and all they needed to move forward. E.g. the sheet I gave out to the Dreams team which has evolved over time, added a bunch of new links and materials as they moved forward. We didn't make any special focus on AP itself. That is true.

• They have used the file as a master sheet; this worked fine-ish with teams. But not so well with individual Realizers.

• In 2021 we had a very short prep time and we didn't have anyone committed to properly educate in our tools and processes. People were recruited at meetings, then we had a video call about the role & resp korgis did a follow-up. This could be improved if the orga team had more time.

• Point a bit off-topic: I am a pro team and believe every role should have a team. When having more than 2 people on a role, even if ONE person signs up as "Lead"; oftentimes, the "natural" lead stands out and moves forward with the support of the rest of the team members plus, is more likely that at least ONE member is willing to check out or get more involved on Talk.

Recruitment and onboarding 2022:

• The Korg has talked at the retrospective about having one or ( I d say a few people) focused on recruitment and Onboarding, one of the tasks is to do a more extensive onboarding about our tools and processes. So education is to be taken care of, hopefully by recruiters 2022.

• Another idea was to require all realizers/teams to present a "plan" how would they like to do what they intend to do in the form they like, google doc or Talk thread ( maybe with the AP template). Still, this doesnt really enable a great process for decision making and the problem of how to gather input from experienced people is not really addressed if they used a google doc. But at least a way for Korgis to spot and flag things, problems, or controversial decisions which should be more open. Still, a drive doc could be shared via email, enable comments, put it out on facebook, however they like. We aim for transparency, but we cant reinforce it. At the same time, if we dont give teams an alternative to Talk then the Korg might not be able to follow up and be able to flag issues.

Other possible changes that might (or not) impact the current AP:

• Reading what @walto wrote down in the comments, maybe the AP is also missing those exact words 😆 : "please be nice & take others into account when doing something" lol

• I recognize all the weak points @Saskia and think that we could at least try to make clearer some points especially regarding times for decision making.

• Talk Guides: For the experts part, we could rely on Talk Guides and moderators and Korgis to tag relevant people`s names. The Korg has a list of realizers of each role from 2021 (at least). We need more guides though.

• As the Korg is a touchpoint with all and different teams/realizers, there should be a Korgi touchpoint with Talk Guides. Decentralized yes, but working closely together will help keep things more in line.

• Realities: Im also keen to ditch realities. It is proved that people engaged more with a regular master sheet than with the Realities platform, it is easier to share, update, and pass on to future realizers.

• Realizers: I dont resonate with the Realizer definition. As I said, there could be teams, and the lead/realizer could be called by the team itself at the end of the term as a recognition and appreciation of the efforts taken hohoho ( this can be controversial, though), its just an idea that This could make things easier for recruitment. To let people navigate and do things without trying to fit in their own understanding of the concept of leadership.

About a whole new process/methodology: Would you @Kris share here other ways to make decentralized decisions if you know any? im curious.

Disclaimer:

I am aware im touching on a lot of different points, apologies. I believe that because of the nature of Kiez Burn many implemented systems/platforms and processes, requires time, testing, trial, and error, and a lot of work in adapting and adjusting them and ourselves to them, again because of the way we work, these changes dont come quickly as they would in other organizations. So far, since the current AP was implemented, back in 2020 we haven't done a single change to it, we only spotted weak points in it, the same with talk, since 2019 Talk has been practically the same until now that we have at least a Netiquette and a couple of moderators. Maybe it is worth making some changes and seeing how it goes.

I recognize I am a bit more conservative about this in the sense that, I believe we could try to improve these instead of directly jumping to another one which more likely will also need adaptation, education, and all. Still Im okay to jump to another system, or a different Talk if that is the general opinion. I dont have a strong opinion against it, Im just not motivated enough to carry out a whole change myself. But maybe someone else does!

Just FYI it doesn’t work over at borderland either 😝

About a whole new process/methodology: Would you @Kris share here other ways to make decentralized decisions if you know any? im curious.

As I said I don't have the answers, and it would take some research to find.

Off the top of my head I'd probably start by finding ways where smaller self-organising groups (camps, or groups like the robot ministry) can come together to make decisions on a higher level, e.g. forming temporary groups for a specific event by appointing representatives.

If I was researching by myself I'd start by reading The Tyranny of Structurelessness and then look at the responses to that essay in the later years. Probably specifically from anarcha-feminist writers, interspersed with reports on what tech companies like Valve are up to.

There's also a bunch of people to reach out to. For example the burners over at Aalto University that study these kinds of organizations academically (they've got strong ties to the BM Philosophical Center). I also have anarchist family that spend time supporting dock workers and similar, that have hands on experience striking a balance between ideal organisations and real world practical effectiveness.

So no easy answers, but lots of good ideas.

(I'm really here in your comments going "read theory!" aren't I? To be more constructive, if anyone shares my interpretation of the situation and wants to go hunt for some experts and read some texts, I'm down! (Those experts will not be named Gustaf or Alexander though))

@Veroca R. Sala we used to have a simpler version of the advice process - similar to Borderlands, worth reading up on their processes btw: https://talk.theborderland.se/advice/

That weakness: it can be tested and failed ("I was nice", "I did take people into account",...), and we had to adjust the process after the ticketing proposal blowup.