# Positions/Evaluation system reform ## General Motivations While worldwide revered and praised, the [current positions system](https://kanthaus.online/en/governance/constitution#positions) has lately been more and more seen as suboptimal by the kanthausians, as shown by the following symptoms: - low attendence to evaluations - some former members now recurring visitors are expected to be evaluated an amount of time that is disproportionate compared to the time they actually spend in the house, which might have been the motivation to give some a member status - several former members went back to the status of volunteer with the idea to progressively decrease their involvment, which led to several long term residents having evaluations every 2 months, which seems disproportionately often given how much they are already known by the community - some volunteers never request to become members despite having spent more than a year here, which also lead to the same problem of a disproportionate evaluation periodicity, further contributing to the evaluation fatigue *See Also* - [Issues with Evaluations and Positions](https://pad.kanthaus.online/issues-with-evaluations-and-positions) - [Governance Cafe notes 2022-05-22](https://pad.kanthaus.online/2022-05-22-governance-cafe) ## Proposal points drafts *Formal propositions would be done in a ukuvote: the proposal points below are still at the brainstorming phase, and thus very much up for discussion. Once, and if, we get to the voting phase, it will be up to you to formalize your favorite proposal composition, based on the points you like, in the official vote proposals, if it has not been added already.* ### [maxime] Merge volunteers and members roles A visitor may request to become a member (or a "kanthausian"? name to be determined separately). If they request is granted at their evaluation, their next evaluation will be in 2 months. The next one after 3 months, and then 4, etc, until they reach a 6 months periodicity, which is the maximum. Having directly this member status, they are invited to progressively take more responsability in maintaining and developping Kanthaus, in accordance with their skills, time constrains, and desires. While we should aim for a fair repartition of responsabilities, some members will take more, some less, as it is already the case today. Members on the way out could progressively pass on responsabilities, without the need to change role and to be evaluated every 2 months in that process. Mathematical formalization: ``` a = (2 + (number of past evaluations started as a member and confirming the member role)) months b = 6 months member evaluation periodicity = smallest value between a and b ``` Comments: * [Nathalie] I like the two different roles of member and volunteer, because they're providing clarity of a persons intention and the amount of responsibility associated with the person. Merging them would lead to a loss of information. I don't think the group would benefit from that. Also I find it reasonabe that only member can vote on the constitution. It's in the members context to preserve it and not everyone may be interested to get involved on a constitutional level. * [kito] "take more responsability in maintaining and developping Kanthaus" is quite vague, and could lead to insecurity if "I do enough for Kanthaus". and I think it's quite difficult to describe it really concrete. and I also think it's reasonable to be in KH for a longer period of time without taking more and more responsibility (for example if you are absent quite often) ### [maxime] Create an alumni role Members meeting certain critiria of absence automatically become alumnis: they keep their right to visit without needing a host but loose their right to vote at evaluations and on constitution and collective agreement changes. When visiting, they can request an evaluation at any time to request to be re-instored in their member role. They are not evaluated, unless they or a member requests it or they visited for a full month. Comments: * [antonin] I like the general idea but I do not think it should be automatically done after a period of absence, but rather explicitly requested at an evaluation * [you] ### [maxime] Increase visitors evaluation default periodicity to 1 month * Check-ins could be done after one and two weeks before reaching that first evaluation * It would still be possible for a visitor to request an earlier evaluation after 20 days Comments: * [antonin] not very convinced because I do not think the frequency of visitor evaluations is a burden at all at the moment. Volunteer evaluations are much more frequent. * [Doug] How about generally increase evaluation threshholds? 1 month, 3 months, 9 months respectively? * [you] ### [Nathalie] Introduce variation of volunteer and member position Symptoms 2-4 seem to be adressed by allowing to change the evaluation period. Therefore I have something like this in mind: adding a variation of a position with a shortend or extended period. - visitor (21 days) - volunteer (2 months) - variation: volunteer (6 months) - member (6 months) - variation: member (2 months) At the evalutation anyone present can request a variation of the desired position. Once raised, in the voting phase the voters vote on the variation first (test vote and binding vote). If the variation is not accepted, the voters vote on the default position. After that no other variation is taken into account. (eg. member variation --> member --> volunteer). Comments: * [Nathalie] Use cases I can think of: - variation volunteer can be used for well-known volunteers who are either stepping down from member position or don't intend to step up in the next time, to expand evalutation period - variation member can be used for persons who are still perceived as members but the community has a need to evaluate sooner (e.g. due to existing tensions) * [Antonin] I like it, I would just not phrase it as "introducing variation positions". I would rather say that we still have the same positions, but we decide on the length of the period in the next evaluation of volunteers and members in the evaluation. That avoids saying bizarre things like "I am a variation volunteer" or something like that. * [Nathalie] @Antonin - I tried to make it work within our current decision making system. This asks for a clear proposal where voters can put their support, accept or oppose. We don't have a consistent system on an open question like 'when should this person be evaluated next', so I went for the 2 options either 2 months or 6 months. But yeah, maybe the phrasing isn't the best, I agree! ### [Doug] reduce barrier to participation Deciding on a default time and day would make it easier for people to 'plan in' attending evaluations. Also asking the person gettig evaluated to find a facilitator would make the 'feeling' nicer, than waiting around for someone to come at CoMe. Putting evaluations in the task lottery is something we could even consider! I believe the voluntary nature of attendence is partly at fault for low attendence, because it _is_ work. * [kito] I don't think a default time/day makes it easier. People who are interested in this specific evaluation might be unable to attend. And with the current system of deciding together when the evaluation takes place it's easier to make it possible. * [doug] I meant 'default' like it's the first proposal. I do think it could help, even if only a bit... I'm motivated to try and organise a trial. ### [you] some other proposition point