Associació Decidim - Reunió extraordinària Comité de Coordinació

1/ Adhering to the "Technopolitics and Genocide: Solidarity with Palestine" Manifesto

After extensive deliberation at the last meeting, we have agreed:

• To make public the result of the vote in the metadecidim.

• Based on the result of the vote, to adhere as an association to the manifesto.

• To limit public communications about this adhesion.

• To carry out a mediation process with some of the community members and partners most explicitly positioned in relation to this issue, in order to help define the communication of the Association's position on the manifesto, incorporating the different sensitivities expressed in the debate.

• Write a post on metadecidim, incorporating the plurality of visions in the public debate around the manifesto, recognizing the limits and room for improvement of the decision-making process, and announcing a process to draft internal rules of procedure in the medium term.

• Communicate the results and agreements of the committee today: publication of the minutes of the meeting in the open debate on metadecidim.

2/ Mediation process

Requests and arguments of those in favor of adherence:

• It is necessary to review some comments and attitudes do not comply with community rules, where accusations are poured against the community and the project. It is necessary to review the code of conduct and see if there has been any infraction.

• Dimensioning the risk, it is not so risky to adhere (Streisand effect).

• We agree not to do much communication from the association's networks about membership.

• We do not have time or resources to open a new process from zero, to write an internal regulation, after taking a vote, etc.

Requests and arguments of those against the adherence:

• Focus on the powers of the association, because if it is not, it invalidates everything (the debate, the vote, etc.).

• Breach of governance if we do not respect the scope of the association.

• Why is there not a Democratic Guarantee Committee to control these issues?

• An internal regulation is needed

• Adhering to them could harm the project, in terms of fundraising, partners, use cases, etc.

3/ Debate

The option of joining as an association or as a community is raised. It is discarded. The proposal is for the association to join. The decision to join is therefore that of the association, not the community.

The lack of procedure does not invalidate the process. When there is no procedure, it is up to the committee itself to decide how it should be done. In the absence of a clear established procedure, the committee has defined the way to make the decision (article 20 paragraph 'L' of the bylaws).

As for the scope, the legitimacy is in art. 3 of the statutes.

From now on, we have to establish a procedure with the members and the community.

Manifesto text: there are no alternatives, the proposal is to adhere or not. If the community thinks that it should make a public position, it proposes a manifesto to the association.

The other arguments discussed during the meeting are set out in the statement in more detail.

4/ Decision

We vote for the adhesion:

• 6 in favor

• 1 against

• 2 absent