WG autonomy, remits, and conflict resolution

Back in May shortly before moving to GWG I was approached to look into some organisational structures and procedures that would potentially help us grow, scale and operate effectively. Initial references to this were made in this post here: Index Gov 2.0

However, with other coop priorities at the time as well as my own new roles and responsibilities on GWG, some of the ideas I had worked on unfortunately did not get a chance to see the light of day.
With the various recent work being undertaken around org I thought it might be worthwhile sharing the initial research and ideas now. Not to interfere with the current process but hopefully to enrich the discussions and provide food for thought.

The below details some draft ideas around potential frameworks for WG’s to implement to help balance the dynamics of autonomy and delegation whilst retaining accountability and appropraite scrutiny.

WG Remits
As is the current case the ownus is on WGL’s to set out their mission, vision and strategy at their WG genisis and subsequent quarterly iterations. After consideration and approval from the community and FC etc these serve as a base outline for their remit’s. (Both in terms of descision making powers, execution and budget for example)

Framework and dispute processes
Using frameworks thoughout IC operations have been succesfully used to date. They provide a guide to help maintain consistant, objective approaches and solutions whilst maintaining flexibilty in fast moving enviroments that are difficult to predict. Below are some ideas around how to deal with mid term amendments to remits, and any disputes or ambiguities deriving from them.

If a WG/L feels a need to add, remove, amend or extend a parameter of their remit and/or budget requirements the ownus is on them to inform the community. This will at times likely be subjective and vary in significance which is where an “impact” frame work may be useful:

  • Low impact: minor amendments etc. Notify community on appropriate calls. Broad aggrement = action. Upon dis-agreements / impasse / weak consensus → Medium impact

  • Medium: actions partially conceived at WG genisis but require refinement and clarification. Notify community on calls and via forum post. In the event of objections / impasse / weak consensus / support → High impact

  • High: major changes in direction, scope and/or budget of the WG but still within broad bounds of WG definition etc. As above but with forum vote. In the event of impasse → Fundamental impact

  • Fundamental: Clues in the name on this one and obviously would expect this to be an edge case sccenario but will include for all potentially eventualities. IIP to consider new information and vote (or even revoke?) WG remit.

Accountability and effective scrutiny
As mentioned the initial responsibilty to raise changes to WG’s scope and remits reside with the WGL’s and subsequent core members. However the responsibility does not soley sit with them. If a member of the community (Silver Owl and above?? TBD) believes a remit is not being adhered to they are within their right to raise their concern. Upon doing so the WG concerned is expected to default to transparancy and work through the issue with the relevant parties using the framework above to resolve the issues and engaging the community where appropriate.

Signing off
Thanks to those who have made it this far I hope it has been usefull. Of course much of what is written here is largely common sense and often resembles the ways in which we operate anyway. I thought it was worth putting in writting that one day maybe a useful reference or contribute to a more formal process.


Tagging the following people as it’s related to similar discussion on this.


1 Like