Talk: Commons-Oriented Open Cooperative Governance Model V 1.0: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 08:09, 9 July 2018

NOTE: If you're not a Guerrilla Translator, but part of the Hervás meeting, please comment on the model in this Loomio thread. Thanks!

Discussion for the model has been moved to four Loomio threads covering the main sections:

As there are various subtopics inside the thread please hit "reply" to open a "sub-discussion" of sorts under the relavant topic. However, you must have the thread set to "nested" (as opposed to chronological). This is chosen in the drop-down menu at the top of the thread.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Supporters ==
+'''NOTE: If you're not a Guerrilla Translator, but part of the Hervás meeting, please comment on the model [https://www.loomio.org/d/pVDnaJyL/the-open-coop-governance-model in this Loomio thread]. Thanks!'''
-<blockquote>Supporters can engage with Guerrilla Translation through email or social media but, preferably, through an open Loomio group for that purpose. In time strategies can be studied to use the Loomio group for polls etc,</blockquote>
+Discussion for the model has been moved to four Loomio threads covering the main sections:
-What would this Loomio group look like? What discussions and consultations would be initiated there? How can trolling be prevented?
+* '''[https://www.loomio.org/d/j9oBdUCk/gov-model-the-open-coop-governance-model-in-guerrilla-translation The Open Coop Governance Model in Guerrilla Translation]'''
+* '''[https://www.loomio.org/d/VaZ3G5mW/gov-model-roles-and-responsibilities Roles and Responsibilities]'''
+* '''[https://www.loomio.org/d/qwTBO1vs/gov-model-decision-making-processes Decision making processes]'''
+* '''[https://www.loomio.org/d/K0qzwTuM/gov-model-credits-contribution-tracking Credits: Contribution tracking]'''
-== Members beyond the Testing Phase ==
+As there are various subtopics inside the thread please hit "reply" to open a "sub-discussion" of sorts under the relavant topic. However, you must have the thread set to "nested" (as opposed to chronological). This is chosen in the drop-down menu at the top of the thread.
-In the intro, we say:
-<blockquote>(... María) ...In fact, she could spend all of her time just doing agency/livelihood work, and it would still benefit the pro-bono/love side and vice versa.</blockquote>
-Meaning that full members, as long as they get 400 credits, regardless of whether they're livelihood or love, meet the minimum quarterly requirements. But should they obligatorily get 400 LOVE credits, anyway?
-'''Pros:''' That would ensure no shortage of pro-bono translations being published online
-'''Cons:''' It may take away time from paid work, which the collective needs.
-Maybe there's a halfway, or negotiated solution (or we determine a general pro-bono quota which, when met, exempts those full members from having to accrue 400 love credits (and just present the equivalent or more in Livelihood credits). Or we cut the pro-bono quota to 200 for full members? The important thing is that the commons is never starved.
-== Casual Relationships: Contributors ==
-'''Stacco:''' Could there be a provision for "Casual" members taking on livelihood/paid work? Think of great translators that, for some reason or other, do not want to get committed or follow the model. this would only be in situations where no Guerrilla Translators can cover work. However, these casual members would be paid proportionately less, with an important percentage going back to GT to fulfill the streams (like a normal translation agency).
-On the other hand this may not be something to be encouraged, as the idea is to get people working within the collective, creating Commons etc. It also technically sets GT up as capitalists (employing wage labour), which runs counter to its ideals. Another problem would be ''when'' to pay these "casual translators". Would their payment be part of the monthly distribution, or would they be paid in bulk (meaning that Guerrilla Translators would have give a part of their monthly shares to be able to priorotize non-member paymen).
-All in all, I think it's more trouble than it's worth, even if this means having to say "no" to paying work because there are not enough committed members available.