Thank you for the links

hahahaha...

Just to clear one thing up in case, I am not a member of the board, so if you're looking for direct answers from them, I can't help you there. But if you're suggesting that I, as the one who has respond to your post, has ignored your questions, I will give it another go, but to be honest, I really, genuinely did not understand most of your questions.

Here are the questions I've seen you ask above and an attempt to answer to them given that I don't fully understand them...

May I ask how a doacracy is supposed to actually function?

I'm not the best person to answer this because I'm not an expert on do-ocracy, and frankly I'm not a big fan of it, but the links that I posted above in previous replies should be a good start to answering that question. Here they are again...

https://talk.kiezburn.org/d/M91bKpBo/intro-to-consensual-do-ocracy-short-advice-process

https://talk.kiezburn.org/d/IjSQFmf0/the-advice-process

Surely we can argue whether it should be the word “poll” or any other semantic amusement, but which mechanism if not with polling should we use it its place?

and

If polling doesn’t consist of advice from everyone, what other forms of advice are there that can be used aside from asking the board?

I honestly don't understand what you mean here. I would guess that there are a number of mechanisms that could be used to get advice: asking questions, having a discussion, reaching out to people with experience, etc. But that seems so obvious that I suspect you mean something else.

Is there more to be said about this mysterious substance?

The "substance" you are speaking about here appears to be the word "binding" or "non-binding" which I used above. There is nothing mysterious about the word and nothing more to be said about it. It is simply a common English word with a well understood definition that I personally was using to describe something.

Is it a requirement for a doer to actually do something?

Again, I'm not an expert on do-ocracy, but my understanding is the the doer is required to go through an advice process before implementing a proposal. See again: https://talk.kiezburn.org/d/IjSQFmf0/the-advice-process

Who generates it?

I have no idea what "it" is in this question.

The community or the board?

Assuming this is still asking about "it", I still don't know what "it" is.

Or is it preferable to the board to make the community believe it is decreed by the gods?

I assume the answer to that is "no", but I can't speak for the board. I am a member of the verein, and I participated in the election that elected the board, and my general feeling is that the members of the verein do not want that, and since the board is elected by the members to operate the verein on their behalf, I would think that they would not be doing their jobs properly if that were the case.

Website is up to date. That is correct.

This is not to detract from your request for clarification, which I think is genuine and appropriate, but... maybe your experience in making a proposal and going through the do-ocratic advice process is a good glimpse into what these core members have been going through ad-nauseam for the past few years.

to be more clear about that... I think my point was, this process is difficult and daunting, but not impossible, so consider whether you have truly failed yet, or if you're simply exhausted from the process, which imho is exhausting.

Thanks for the clarification. The way i read this post is that callum doesn’t see that he has failed but is asking for further clarification on why he is having so much trouble while following a process that is meant to give community the joy of taking on tasks and enabling decentralisation. I joined Kb this this reason. Because anything is possible and it has the capacity to be what we make it because we make it.

@Erin Jeavons-Fellows @Callum Macdonald and everyone else... sorry, I must have given the wrong impression unintentionally. Let me try to clarify...

In my impression, Callum's post here contains the premise that he has tried the do-ocratic process and it has failed, and he reasonably wants an explanation for that. I'm **suggesting** that he consider if the do-ocratic process in which he has engaged has actually failed completely yet (warranting his request for explanation), or if the do-ocratic process is simply still on-going, and although it is an exhausting and difficult process, maybe it will work out in the end and then maybe he would not feel this question is as relevant any more. Does that make sense?

As far as I understand it, there is no collective decision making process in do-ocracy. Individual “doers” make decisions after an advice process.

Where have you seen it said that polling is not a valid way to get advice? My impression is that polling is a totally permissible way of collecting information about the sentiment on a topic, but the results of a poll are non-binding, i.e. a poll can be used to get a sense of the support for a proposal, but the results of the poll do not make the decision, and therefore the “doer” could decide on something even if a poll favored something else.

Thank you, CJ. Still I can see how I might have added to the confusion and acted as a bad representative for KB here. 🤔 Anyways, I take it as a learning.