Ideas for restructuring the International Circle (IntC)

Ideas for restructuring the International Circle (IntC)


10+1 personal observations:

  1. One language is spoken by people living in many countries.

  2. In a certain country there are many languages spoken.

  3. Language and countries are two different items which do not necessarily overlap.

  4. Localization is basically related to the place, not to language so localization should be a geographical spreading process, not a translation process.

  5. The Language Helping Circle should be related only to languages and translations from / to English (which is our international “lingua franca” = common language).

  6. Restructuring the current International Circle (IntC) should be a part of a general restructuring process which would transform the current departament circles into helping circles linked to a general Helping Circle. The Helping Circle, Zone Circle and Mission Circle would be linked to the General Circle. There will always be enough room for 2-3 guests (for consultation but without decision rights) in the GC meetings, according to the GC agenda.

  7. It would be fair that the US would have a country circle - US Circle, linked to North America Circle.

  8. SoPra could become a country circle linked to Europe Circle. Linking one country to the GC and the other country circles to other circles (layers) does not respect the equivalence principle.

  9. There is no need for an English Helping Circle linked to the Language Helping Circle, as English is our “lingua franca” (common language).

  10. Asking for public input more often from the inside or from external circles’ environment (on the discussion forum, for example) would save time and would facilitate the optimization of the proposal forming processes inside the organization. Asking for imput by the web circle is a good example. We could decide where a decision should be made (circle and domain) but neither can we know, nor can we decide where good ideas could come from.

  11. A political circle in the SoFA ecosystem would be useful, as long as we would like to influence the outside political environment where laws are being made (related to education, work, communities and so on).


  1. International Circle (aim, domain, membership, new name?)

My suggestion:

There is no need to keep “International Circle” as it is now. Renamed as “Language Helping Circle” and linked to a general "Helping Circle” (HC) it will be related only to LANGUAGES (translations from / to English). LHC could have as many adjacent circles as necessary: Spanish Helping Circle (SLC), Portuguese Helping Circle (PHC), French Helping Circle (FHC), Italian Helping Circle (IHC), Hebrew Helping Circle (HHC), German Helping Circle (GHC), Romanian Helping Circle (RHC) etc.

All languages related circles could work asynchronously. There is no need to meet them all at once. Simplifying the structure and it will become more effective and efficient. There is no need for an “International General Circle” but a “Language Helping Circle” and a geographical / country related new structure. Each country could replicate the SoFA helping circle structure in a fractal way, as needed.

  1. Which LCs should go together? (name, aim, domain and membership of these clusters)

My suggestion:

We could have Spanish Helping Circle (SHC), German Helping Circle (GHC), French Helping Circle (FHC), Hebrew Helping Circle (HHC), Italian Helping Circle (IHC), Romanian Helping Circle (RHC) etc. each of them being related only to LANGUAGE (translations from / to English). Country related circles should be formed in another structure (geographical related). There is no need for Language Helping Circles to work “together”. They could work autonomously and asynchronously, being coordinated by the Language Helping Circle (LHC).

  1. SoPra linked to IntC or GC?

My suggestion:

Language Helping Circle (LHC) need a Spanish Helping Circle (SHC). SoPra should be a country related circle and should be in a geographical related circle, as any other country related circles (France Circle, Italy Circle, Germany Circle, Romania Circle, US Circle, Brasil Circle etc. All those country related circles could have their Legal Entities if necessary for grants, salaries etc.

  1. LCs’ development

My suggestion:

“LHC” should be related to LANGUAGES only, for translation from / to English (which is lingua franca). Spanish Helping Circle (SHC), German Helping Circle (GHC), Romanian Helping Circle (RHC) etc. could work asynchronously. There is no need to meet all together at the same time. All those language circles should be child circles to the Language Helping Circle (LHC) and could be as many as necessary. They will interact / cooperate with the other helping circles and / or country circles as necessary.

  1. Cross-pollination

My suggestion:

Online, as necessary

  1. What roles and where?

My suggestion:

minimal: coordinator, language authority, translation team etc.

  1. How to have a sustainable new structure?

My suggestion:

simplified (minimal) structure, work asynchronously, Language Helping Circles

My general restructuring proposal Language Diversity vs. Geographical Spread of Sociocracy

You can see all the suggestions made by the current IntC members here.

I also invite you to read this post: Effective, Efficient, Workable and Scalable


Your friend
because I care

p.s. I like this suggestions:

  • Keep International Circle?” (Thomas)
  • Replicating SOFA’s structure in the language circles (fractal mode) VS Internationalizing each circle” (Roberto)
  • Starters: get to know each other; create connection & get started so not to put too much pressure on starters circles” (Pia)
  • Create an environment for connection” (Pia)
  • Sketch alternative structures to compare” (Roberto)

Ideas for restructuring the International Circle (IntC)


10+1 personal observations:

  1. One language is spoken by people living in many countries.

  2. In a certain country there are many languages spoken.

  3. Language and countries are two different items which do not necessarily overlap.

  4. Localization is basically related to the place, not to language so localization should be a geographical spreading process, not a translation process.

  5. The Language Helping Circle should be related only to languages and translations from / to English (which is our international “lingua franca” = common language).

  6. Restructuring the current International Circle (IntC) should be a part of a general restructuring process which would transform the current departament circles into helping circles linked to a general Helping Circle. The Helping Circle, Zone Circle and Mission Circle would be linked to the General Circle. There will always be enough room for 2-3 guests (for consultation but without decision rights) in the GC meetings, according to the GC agenda.

  7. It would be fair that the US would have a country circle - US Circle, linked to North America Circle.

  8. SoPra could become a country circle linked to Europe Circle. Linking one country to the GC and the other country circles to other circles (layers) does not respect the equivalence principle.

  9. There is no need for an English Helping Circle linked to the Language Helping Circle, as English is our “lingua franca” (common language).

  10. Asking for public input more often from the inside or from external circles’ environment (on the discussion forum, for example) would save time and would facilitate the optimization of the proposal forming processes inside the organization. Asking for imput by the web circle is a good example. We could decide where a decision should be made (circle and domain) but neither can we know, nor can we decide where good ideas could come from.

  11. A political circle in the SoFA ecosystem would be useful, as long as we would like to influence the outside political environment where laws are being made (related to education, work, communities and so on).


Your friend
because I care

Ideas for restructuring the International Circle (IntC)


Objections usually arise because sufficient input was not requested and received before formulating a proposal.

It is very good that the objections are taken into account and integrated after the presentation of a proposal, but certainly many objections could be prevented if sufficient input would have been requested and gathered even before a proposal being synthesized.

Such good practice behavior would save time, energy and even money.

Sometimes hard work is neither enough nor necessary. We could fundamentally optimize the decision-making process (in any circle) if we requested and gathered enough input (from inside and outside the circle) before synthesizing a proposal.

Making a proposal is not a proof of glory. Making a proposal that is good enough for now and safe enough to try is a proof of a well done proposal forming process.

Asking for public input more often from the inside or from external circles’ environment (on the discussion forum, for example) would save time and would facilitate the optimization of the proposal forming processes inside the organization.

Asking for input by the web circle is a good example.

We could decide where a decision should be made (circle and domain) but neither can we know, nor can we decide where good ideas could come from.


Your friend
because I care