This thread is to host conversations on workstream 1 of the IoPA governance design process. Comprehensive information on what that is and how to participate is here.
This thread relates to this section of that process document.
We had a bit of discussion on the Membership topic during today’s discussion on decision making structures - notes were made on this Miro board
1 Like
Last week during the governance task force work session (notes in the framapad) we did a temperature check on “do we all agree that individuals will also be members”. I don’t remember us doing the reverse temperature check “do we all agree that organisations will also be members”
This has come up in a discussion on another thread. I will respond here for people interested in the topic of membership specifically.
1.I see a need to create a membership structure in which Organizations find the incentive to be invested in the “north star” of building an IOP. The was discussed in the “why do we need a membership” work session, and only post it captures that in the miro board : “recognition that certain expertise and resources are required”. Resources coming from organisations can be funds/events/allocated time of skilled individuals (seconded) to areas of work etc. And there is a feedback loop in “organisational membership (insert other term)” bringing credibility to those who find credibility in organisations: i.e: signalling to other organizations, who are interfaces to needed resources.
I don’t see that it absolutely needs to have the same “name” as for individuals, so it could indeed be a different term than “member” or a variation of it. This is some way to be “Listed in support of”. Whatever the term, we need to identify what is needed in terms of incentive (including the name/title attached to this organisational support) for organisations to choose to do it.
In parallel, is the discussion of what role/rights/ responsibilities come with individual membership and with “being listed in support of” (insert other agreed term). That conversation takes place here, and I hear how it could be wise (and possibly easier to articulate) to mostly/only deal with individuals when spelling out rights/responsibilities related to governance.
A counterexample that is not a governance related right: I don’t see any reason not to give the right to have “supporting” organisations’ logo on some part of the website (donors are already listed). This example is to show that we can talk about membership, tiers, and names for the individual and organisational forms of engagement, beyond the sole topic of decision-making.