Difference between revisions of "Talk:Update on GCC Proposal"

From NVCWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(some additional thoughts)
 
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
I think that the definition of a regional structure can remain "somewhat sloppy" for several more months while we assemble the skeleton of a global organization. For example, I think there will initailly be more delegates from Europe than anywhere else. Of more concern to me is a decision to reorganize CNVC's charter as an organization providing administrative support for a global organization so that the GCC becomes the governing body for that organization. I hope we can address that issue later this calendar year.
 
I think that the definition of a regional structure can remain "somewhat sloppy" for several more months while we assemble the skeleton of a global organization. For example, I think there will initailly be more delegates from Europe than anywhere else. Of more concern to me is a decision to reorganize CNVC's charter as an organization providing administrative support for a global organization so that the GCC becomes the governing body for that organization. I hope we can address that issue later this calendar year.
 +
 +
- John Buck

Latest revision as of 20:07, 10 June 2006

Jerry Koch-Gonzalez from Massachusetts USA writes on June 8: Size of a group? I have always liked an average of 7 for face to face meetings. Larger than that and I start losing the ability to attend to all. Harder in a teleconference without the visual cues. Less than 5 and I am not confident of representing the diversity needed for creative and effective functioning. So usually like groups size of 5 to 9. For GCC purpose may need to be more like 7-10. Regions: Africa, Europe, North America, South America, Southeast Asia (including China, Mongolia, Siberia), South Asia, Middle East/Central Asia. That's 7. Plus the Director, that's 8 on the call. Sociocracy calls for 2 people from each lower circle. 15 seems too big though not everyone would be on most calls. Maybe have fewer regions (Americas, Asia, Europe, Africa/Middle East) with 2 people each. Another aspect is that eventually global circles may also form on topical issues like education, social change, parenting, restorative justice - mirroring the main arenas of NVC functioning. We may want those represented in some way on the GCC. The same questions affecting the GCC are up for every level of circle. What regions in just the US? How many? How many regions in New England? How many in my own state? In general, how many circles can be held in "socios" - working together on the same hierarchical level of orgnaization? Another kind of question is how do existing NVC based consulting businesses and nonprofit organizations relate to the sociocratic organizing of NVC? I believe we need people thinking and developing proposals. GCC can appoint a committee or a coordinator who will pull together a committee to work on this.

some additional thoughts

Under the sociocratic method, it is OK to have a single person on the GCC from each region so long as at least some of the local or area organizations are established as legal entities. Double linking is presevered by the ability of local or area organizations to send their functional leaders and representatives to their boards to the next higher level for given issues of particular importance. It is also a matter of "doing" projects. E.g., if an international organization (e.g., the UN) wanted NVC to undertake a project on a world-wide scale, then we would probably want to create a world-wide, double-linke organization to handle that project.

I think that the definition of a regional structure can remain "somewhat sloppy" for several more months while we assemble the skeleton of a global organization. For example, I think there will initailly be more delegates from Europe than anywhere else. Of more concern to me is a decision to reorganize CNVC's charter as an organization providing administrative support for a global organization so that the GCC becomes the governing body for that organization. I hope we can address that issue later this calendar year.

- John Buck