Movement Charter/Drafting Methodology

Movement Charter

FAQ

Content

Community Consultation

Drafting Committee

Ratification vote

This is a methodology created by the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, which explains the process of drafting the text of the future Movement Charter.

Drafting Methodology

1. Generate a drafting group (DGs) with interested individuals (If needed).
2. Internal brainstorming (by the drafting group) on the subtopics and questions to be answered that fall within the overall topic and gather in a preliminary list. This should be informed by and include the useful results of research and previous processes, but must not be limited to them. For example, if the topic were “Ratification”, then questions to be answered might include things such as:
   1. Groups needing to concur to the movement charter (MC)?
   2. Level of consensus (majority, supermajority, what level of supermajority)?
   3. Are clauses to be individually ratified, or purely as a whole?
3. First iteration - drafting (by the DG). The DG will endeavour to create a full initial draft, answering all the areas viewed as necessary for the chapter, factoring in research, prior discussions, and consultation that occurs while “in progress”. This initial draft should first be shown to the full MCDC for review and sign-off to show to the Community for the first iteration discussion. Where DG members are unable to come to a consensus, broader MCDC viewpoints should be sought. Where the full MCDC is unable to come to a clear consensus, the disagreement should be listed as an open question for the Community consultation, with feedback specifically sought on options.
4. First iteration (community review) - both the draft policy text and any open questions will be presented to the Community for review. Discussion would be both about pros/cons of the text, which may include suggesting specific alternatives or areas for further consideration by the DG/MCDC. Consideration of the open questions will also take place, whether taking the form of support/opposition for one of the options presented or in the form of proposing alternate solutions. Discussion to occur through multiple channels, including live meetings, meta, emails, and other routes as listed in the communications strategy. Significant efforts to duplicate ideas/proposals/comments from other platforms onto Meta (including their source, if not necessarily anonymous).
5. 2nd (and as needed) iteration discussion (MCDC stage) - the DG will have two primary tasks
   1. Amend draft text to correct for any noted problems
   2. Create additional draft text to close as many open questions as possible
6. 2nd (and potentially more as needed) iteration discussion (community stage) - two things are therefore presented to the community for the next set of discussion:
   1. Draft text on as much of the topic as possible, for community review
   2. A list of specific open questions needing further discussion, along with the options
7. Conclude or continue? The MCDC should determine if further iteration steps are needed. Most complex topics will require at least 3, if not more, iterations, but others may be fine at 2. If continued, return to step 5 and repeat. If concluded, move to step 8.
8. Remaining open question handling - where there were any remaining open questions, they should either be:
   1. Closed with the best option available, but specifically tagged for review in any amendment phase. This, and the reasoning, should be highlighted to the community. Where the MCDC (still) disagrees on the content, the methodology given in the decision-making documentation should be used.
   2. Left open, as a question to be decided when the remainder of the MC draft has been concluded. This should be a method of last resort, due to the difficulties it causes to working on the remainder of the MC. This decision should factor in whether later parts of the draft Charter will depend on this section. For example, the structure of the GC may affect the fundraising model.
9. Report and review - The DG should report to the MCDC and the community on any key outstanding points (e.g. still open questions; pending research), before dissolving.