SOM Metadecidim

CONTEXT OF THE 15th SOM

Date: 10-25-2018.

Length: from 17 to 19h.

Objective: Explore possible organizational models.

Facilitators: Alicia Mullor and Núria Baldrich.

CONTENTS OF THE SESSION

Opening: Presentation of the session and the Agenda.

Decidim Stories: Adrià Duarte (Participatory Democracy International Observatory)

Doing Decidim:

Get Verified! Explanation of the verification process (Carol)

Context and Presentation Sentilo Model, Mapping + Criteria (Elisenda)

Explanation of the participative dynamics and that we want to extract: to explore possible organizational models that are coherent with the criteria. Division into small groups of work and exploration step by step: What do you think about these criteria? Do we add / remove any? Look for evidence (each group worked on two criteria): How would you or the environment know that this "criterion" is a fact? Creation of possible organizational models (visual map): What do you think should be the organs that represent and govern the Metadecidim Community? How do they relate to each other?

Socialization of the harvest of the subgroups and plenary: the works of each subgroup have been posted (work of the criteria and maps of organized organizational models). A spokesperson from each group presented the work done in their group, emphasizing how the model responds to the principles. Once all the murals have been seen, postits have been posted highlighting: a) What all the models had in common and b) What from their point of view is incompatible with the principles.

Closing and evaluation of the SOM of today: a target has been used in which, through postits, the degree of alignment of the methodology used in relation to the result sought was assessed.

RESULTS

New criteria that have been added to the previous ones.

Specific evidence of what the criteria mean (as we knew / would notice ourselves or someone external that the criterion is a fact.

Three maps of possible organizational models.

The common in the three maps developed and ideas detected that could be incompatible with the results. Next, the postits that the participants have generated are collected (all the ideas are collected, although some are repeated: the repeated ideas are "strength ideas"):

In common:

• Citizen financing, crowdfunding (more independence).
• R + D + I: Governance model.
• Community.
• Community.
• Sustainability = economic + development.
• Economic sustainability.
• Economic sustainability.
• Democratic governance.
• Democratic system.
• Draw (assembly).
• Preponderance of the community in governance.

Incompatibility with the criteria:

• Existing model Executive committee.
• Replicate existing model with adaptations.
• New languages ​​= pedagogy.
• People functions.
• Role of the assembly, community vs sponsors.
• Overrepresentation of the sponsors to dependence of the sponsors.
• The final user is in the community.