Effective, Efficient, Workable and Scalable
I like that in sociocracy every voice counts.
I like the question that we promote in the consciousness of the world:
“Who Decides Who Decides?”
I like that in sociocracy so many voices could sing one song.
“What is the name of the game?”
or, in other words:
“What is the name of the song?”
Quote from Sociocracy For All Vision:
“A world in which people engage together to meet their individual and collective needs in an equitable way, with respect for all living beings.”
I like this song! Do you?
These days I often hear that SoFA is growing and that there is a need to optimize its structure, to become more efficient, workable and scalable worldwide.
The International Circle created a proposal for restructuring, to make it more operationally effective.
Excellent news! It seems that things are going on and we have to adapt on the fly.
This is not easy, but it’s possible if we are willing to listen to as many voices as possible and then synthesize a transformation proposal that meets the general needs. We are really in the situation of (re)building the ship while we sail with it.
If we are in the situation to make all these changes, why don’t we take in consideration new dimensions and make changes to the entire SoFA structure?
When the time comes for a circle to become a Fiscal Circle, it will be related to a country or with a territory, is it? When it comes to having legal entities for different grants, we need country / territories entities. Or not?
As a member I have some question:
Why should we have an “International Circle” or an “International Development Circle”? Instead we could make SoFA an international structured organization that could have a "Language Diversity Circle’’ as a helping child. (see the picture)
Why not have the entire SoFA structure as a result of geographical diversity, covering the entire Earth zones, countries and territories? (see the picture)
What would it be like the General Circle to be the real international circle with members from the main geographical regions of the Earth (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania), the Mission Circle (MC) and a Helping Circle (HC) with a few child circles (Membership Circle, Ecosystem Circle, Content Circle, Language Diversity Circle)? (see the picture)
In the picture, there is a “circles structure” proposal for those who are in charge. If it doesn’t deserve any attention, just ignore it. You won’t lose anything and I won’t be upset at all.
Here you have another alternative proposal for the SoFA “circles structure”. Sociocracy is ultimately a “game” of circles and domains, is it?
These are my own reflections about how SoFA could be organized to be more operationally effective, efficient, workable and scalable worldwide.
I expect that my reflections and proposals won’t hurt anybody. It’s about ideas, not people, right?
I would appreciate any feedback from you. Thanks.
because I care
p.s. I guess it’s in my own domain to think and to share my thoughts. These words don’t represent anybody else but me. I hope this is already clear.