Internal Protocol of Trust before assuming FairCoop responsibilities (DRAFT proposal)
The FairCoop family is growing; every day there are more synergies, more people join the ecosystem and more local nodes are being activated throughout the planet. We are many and various, but we are connected, and, in our diversity, we are heading towards the same goal, enriching the process and building it day by day as we go.
As we do not always have the opportunity to meet physically somewhere on the planet or to work face-to-face with each other... it would be interesting to work on a proposal that encourages the sharing of information between activists, such as an internal protocol of trust and transparency between us for:
Preserving trust in the FairCoop project
Prevention of damage to the image of the FairCoop project and/or those working on it
Strengthen our networks of trust with other related projects / possible alliances
Encourage the participation and inclusion of new activists
2. List of tasks defined as "responsibility" (or sensitive)
Permissions to administer our main services and/or access private data
Official post management
3. Profile proposal
All positions of responsibility in FairCoop should be assumed by:
Comrades who are actively demonstrating their good work and commitment to FairCoop
Partners who are promoting local processes (active nodes) and/or establishing synergies with other collectives expanding the FairCoop vision
Comrades who have participated and/or are participating in movements and initiatives related to our principles (from libertarian, anarchist, internationalist, hacker, decoupling, ecologist, etc.)
Partners who do not currently have open conflict resolution processes in the community
Regular participants in the assemblies and the Open Coop Work process.
!! NOTE: voluntary, altruistic, unpaid work that may have been carried out under the project over time will also be valued ;)
All persons who are likely to take on responsibility for (sensitive?) tasks in FairCoop should be proposed beforehand at the respective area assemblies, either by themselves or by third parties.
If there is a candidacy* to take on a "responsible" task, a collective appraisal process would be initiated (after the GA) where the person in question would have to be supported/guaranteed by at least 3 trustworthy people who know and attest to his/her suitability/reliability according to the profiles developed in point 3 of this proposal (may or may not be from his/her area).
The area assemblies would be responsible for deciding together with the candidate (and in any case with a possible GA approval):
whoassumes whatfor how longand under what conditions of follow-up/transparency/collective permanent evaluation.