Evaluation

The November 2015 Dynamic Governance Agreement includes the following appendix regarding the Evaluation Process:

Dynamic Governance Evaluation

How we will evaluate this Governance Agreement

There will be a systematic community evaluation around the 6 month mark. Information to be gathered in preparation for a decision about whether to continue with this governance system may include:

• 1. Frequency of Circle Meetings/Attendance of Circle Members

  2. Record of Circle Meetings (Minutes)/Availability of Minutes to all community members.

  3. Evaluations in each Circle and in the Full Circle—what went well, what could have been improved, suggestions for improvement

     1. Effectiveness—are decisions getting made, is the community functioning as well as or better than before?

     2. Efficiency—is the speed with which decisions and actions are taken appropriate to the decisions or actions?

     3. Transparency—is there easy community access to information about the decisions?

     4. Equivalence- has the DG process encouraged and allowed all voices to be heard?

  4. Brief case studies of:

     1. issues where there were significant objections or appeals, specifically to look at dynamics between content focus and process focus, i.e., attempts to bypass minority view or obstruction of content motion by minority view

     2. a member was removed from a Circle or not approved for Circle membership

     3. members being members of more than one core Circle, i.e., is there a perception of undue influence or a perception that this is not a concern

     4. Aims and Domains—are questions of jurisdiction well managed or are there frequent questions?

  5. A simple survey of individual members about their experience with the governance system, including whether they experienced their voices to be encouraged or discouraged. [Question for IC2: anonymous and/or public survey?]

     1. Are points of view being voiced and respected as well, or better, than before?

     2. How comfortable are you with the decisions made in the Circles of which you are not a member?

After review of the information gathered, the Full Circle will decide by consensus whether to adopt this governance system on a permanent basis. If adopted, the Hub will ensure that suggestions for improvement generated by the evaluation are considered. If Dynamic Governance is not to be continued, a full community meeting will decide whether to revert to the previous governance system or to develop a new system.

January 2017 Evaluation Topic List:

Quick reaction: DG yes? DG no? Revision?

Topics:

• Inclusivity, equivalency of voice

• Effectiveness: Efficiency and/or quality of decisions

• Amount of work required & Participation

• Community morale

• Transparency & communication (e.g. online minutes, cch-talk)

• Structure (Full Circle, Hub, Core Circle)

• Consent decision-making

• Meetings & facilitation (rounds, check-in/out, proposal-forming, facilitation quality)

• Other

Summary of May 2016 Feedback:

From the Governance Agreement:

EVALUATION

How we will evaluate this Governance Agreement

There will be a systematic community evaluation around the 6 month mark. Information to be gathered in preparation for a decision about whether to continue with this governance system may include:

• 1. Frequency of Circle Meetings/Attendance of Circle Members

  2. Record of Circle Meetings (Minutes)/Availability of Minutes to all community members.

  3. Evaluations in each Circle and in the Full Circle—what went well, what could have been improved, suggestions for improvement

     1. Effectiveness—are decisions getting made, is the community functioning as well as or better than before?

     2. Efficiency—is the speed with which decisions and actions are taken appropriate to the decisions or actions?

     3. Transparency—is there easy community access to information about the decisions?

     4. Equivalence- has the DG process encouraged and allowed all voices to be heard?

  4. Brief case studies of:

     1. issues where there were significant objections or appeals, specifically to look at dynamics between content focus and process focus, i.e., attempts to bypass minority view or obstruction of content motion by minority view

     2. a member was removed from a Circle or not approved for Circle membership

     3. members being members of more than one core Circle, i.e., is there a perception of undue influence or a perception that this is not a concern

     4. Aims and Domains—are questions of jurisdiction well managed or are there frequent questions?

  5. A simple survey of individual members about their experience with the governance system, including whether they experienced their voices to be encouraged or discouraged. [Question for IC2: anonymous and/or public survey?]

     1. Are points of view being voiced and respected as well, or better, than before?

     2. How comfortable are you with the decisions made in the Circles of which you are not a member?

After review of the information gathered, the Full Circle will decide by consensus whether to adopt this governance system on a permanent basis. If adopted, the Hub will ensure that suggestions for improvement generated by the evaluation are considered. If Dynamic Governance is not to be continued, a full community meeting will decide whether to revert to the previous governance system or to develop a new system.