Autonomous Projects (Process – Governance – Decision making – Relation)
17/02/2017 at 13:13 #12893MichalisParticipant
This is a thread to discuss about Autonomous Projects that are connected to FairCoop and conclude at a guide that we should follow as an ecosystem. Please add your opinion regarding the process of building these, how should they governed or make decisions and what type of relations they can have with FairCoop.
19/02/2017 at 21:33 #12906MichalisParticipant
Autonomy originates from Greek and in general it means «one who gives oneself one’s own law» (αυτός=self and νόμος=law combines to αυτονομία in Greek)
Autonomy may have a variety of meanings depending on the context where it is used, like
- Sociology and many others fields
Autonomy may also have a variety of range depending on the sphere of influence
- Self-autonomy where only the person is responsible for its actions and
- Group-autonomy where a group specifies the rules and limits of its autonomy. That group may be small or can escalate to as big as society level.
Autonomous Projects of FairCoop
FairCoop, since almost 2 years now, adopted assemblies as its governance bodies, which are based on direct democracy and consensus for decision making. In that sense, every aspect of FairCoop’s ecosystem is decided in various assemblies, open to every member of FairCoop. There are various assemblies according to each «tool» or organisation that is part of FairCoop, while all these have to report and follow the main one, the monthly general assembly of FairCoop, where all matters that reflect to the ecosystem in whole have to be discussed and decided. To me that looks sort of a confederacy of autonomous projects, which are bind with a common set of values and aim together towards a common goal, through complement roads.
The question now is which exactly is the range of freedom (potentials of action?) that these Autonomous Projects may have. Since we have encountered these type of questions a lot in the anarchist political groups that I have been also involved, I could say that one project should have the freedom to act as its own member’s assembly requires, AS LONG AS they respect the values and the decisions of the bigger project in which they are part of. I cannot imagine a project of FairCoop which decides to do something that opposes or go against (something that should be decided by the general assembly also) the values or the decisions of the general assembly. In such circumstances there should be decided some techniques (special assemblies or else) to help resolve the issue. That type of autonomy may apply to personal decisions and actions also, as long as it has the same restrictions as described.
However, we may as well have projects that do not want to be part of the ecosystem, but would like to use its tools e.g. FairCoin. Since, we area against brand names and any kind of closed type architecture, we may encounter such issues either in local or global scale. In that cases I see 2 options; Either we try to embrace that project, if the members of it are close to our values and goals, which is something the general assembly has to decide. Or we denounce that project as one which is against our values and has nothing to do with our ecosystem. If that second option is activated, we should have a set of actions ready as well in order to effectively fight this kind of intrusions.
The case of faircoin.co
All this discussion came up because of the building of that new faircoin web site which aims to attract investors. In my opinion its just a minor problem for the time being, mainly because FairCoop is not that expanded and powerful, but we can easily imagine what may happen in the future if we don’t have a clear strategy on how to deal with such occurrences. Moreover, what is peculiar with that project is, while quite active FairCoop members are taking part on it, we are not ready to name it a project of FairCoop’s ecosystem. While the preparation of it was going on at a FairCoop’s Telegram group, that was never decided at the general assembly, so there was no other way but to name it as an external autonomous project. Still the decision awaits. Should we embrace that project inside the FairCoop ecosystem? Should we help these people and fascillitate their access to FairCoin? Is that project coordinated with FairCoop values and goals?
Only the general assembly can decide that, as well as the actions required to handle such imbalances.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.