CW_GOVERNANCE | Building from Glocal Camp


***The last days an interesting debate began in slack / #tc_cw_labs about governance. I think is a very interesting and important debate so I decide to create this topic and to continue building our governance starting from the achievements of Glocal Camp:

The debate in the slack channel started with @FrancescoP and @artemi_fasebase

@FrancescoP: hello @channel why don’t we name this channel #n_labs ? I say this because this channel is like the network of labs

@artemi_fasebase: @channel @francescopreviti @pascualpg Para mi los 5 grandes grupos deberían tener un mismo código. (Academy, labs, espacios civicos, herramientas y comunidad) y creo que este código debería ser sólo para estos 5 canales. Luego está networks (n), projects §, local circle (lc), cw para los generales y tc que nunca recuerdo que es pero supongo que tiene que ver con los labs

Here are my concerns about this topic. :slight_smile:
Well, @artemi_fasebase was more accurate here, and I think he´s right. In fact was a thing that we were talking about last week when we were finishing the report with Glocal Camp Summary, and it´s that, in a short-medium period, all the tools that we use (slack, youtube, drive even our website) should fit with the governance that we achieved at Glocal Camp, the one that you mention @artemi_fasebase with the five “fields” surrounding CW: labs, academy, civic spaces, community and protocols/tools.

Doing that document about Glocal Camp we kind of agreed that this five things are platforms, so networks, as you artemi was saying come later. For example, Civic Spaces is a platform, Civic Factory is a network which collect all the factories and Civic Factory Fest Valencia is a project. Another example, Academy is the platform, The coordination of the 3 Civic Design Course is the network, and the Civic Design Course in spanish is a project. Another project which could be connected with academy in a long period is this ide about the Master of Civic Design. One last example could be with community. Community is the platform, all the circles together create the network, and finally we have the single circles for each city.

We discussed also that is very important to understand that each platform, network or circle are not boxes inside another box inside another box, they are, what we called in spanish “multipertenentes”, I don´t know how to translate that word, but it means that it belong to multiple “fields” and is connected with multiple things. Another example again is that the Civic Design Course belong to the network of the three Civic Design Courses and to the Academy platform, but at the same time belong to labs and it´s connect with them or with some protocols/tools or with the project Civic Factory Fest (remember the first week of CFF when we had a Civic Design course physical).

Is an interesting debate and I think is useful that we continue to build this together so please left yours concerns about this. :wink:


@pascual_pg @FrancescoP I agree with everything that you said. All of this examples could be “multipertenentes” but in the main structure we need a clear communication so I think the examples that you said are clear with the different categories (not boxes).

  • Civic Spaces is a platform
  • Civic Factory is a network
  • And Factoría Cívica is a project. The project isn’t the Fest, that is just the first step of the project. The project is the space of the factory (just one) and all the spaces built the network.


Nice @pascual_pg from you to start this.
Actually I would like not to loose ourselves in too many definitions, indeed we would be really some kind of bureaucrats instead of having an adhocratic attitude.

In the resume of glocal camp that you linked “networks” are defined as exclusive, in the sense that “once a network has been built on a topic or a territory, a similar network cannot appear anywhere else”

In this sense I see the 5 Platforms as networks because for example we can’t have another Academy, but there can be another Civic Design Course.

I interpretate the definition of “networks circles and projects” complementar to the “5 platforms” in this sense:

  • network, circles and project is HOW WE ORGANIZE OURSELVES AND THE WORK
  • the 5 platforms (not sure about the name but it’s ok) are WHAT WE DO (our work)

our governance should reflect both of this aspects, that are indipendent but they complement each other.

P.S. Actually I think that in the image up here we are missing an important part. If you guys remember in the center (where the CW logo is) there should be the core values of CW. There I would put also networks circles and projects with the definition i said before


Very interesting and necessary discussion. Thanks to start the threat, @pascual_pg.

When i think about governance I see at least two main subjects: how to organize ourself and how we make decisions.

Is there any making decisions protocol? Are there different protocols for networks, platforms and projects or just one that applies to all organization structures? Do the local circles have autonomy to organize themselves or they must follow some common rules?

I think if we answer these questions and others we will find the differences and utility of organization structures.

Some inspiration:


I think more or less @artemi_fasebase @pascual_pg and @FrancescoP you’re saying almost the same. The only difference is how we call the 5 “elements/platforms” that define CW. I agree with @FrancescoP that they work like a network but as suggest @artemi_fasebase and @pascual_pg I will call that in a different way. We can use PLATFORM until we find something better.

To answer @skotperez I think so far the protocol for decision is for everything the same based on the network, circle and project governance: be effective with common sense and transparency according as well the situation where we have the three level of commitment: coordinators, collaborators, participants.
For general decision that are relevant for CW organization, brand and budget, and related then with “Platforms” we should let the time to mature the decision collectively… talk a lot and use the Glocal Camp to achieve the consensus.


Nice guys! :grinning:

Really interesting article the one that @skotperez shared and I think that is really linked with a lot of things about our decision making system. Really like the concept do-ocracy. :+1:

Trying to summarize all the topics:

  • About CW-Image: The name for 5 networks/platforms. I don´t like neither the name “platform” but as @urbanohumano is suggesting, we can go with that one until we find an acurrate one. By now I´m also thinking about “area” which is simple and I think describe also quite well what it is. On the other hand I don´t like that you can think about “areas” the same way you think about “boxes”… =? We keep working on it… :sweat_smile:
    About the core of the image, @FrancescoP and as we were discussing on slack, I think that the core is related with the decision making system, our governance and the question that @skotperez is putting on the table. Also related with our values, our juridical and economic system. Networks, circles and projects I think are floating around that image.

  • About decision making system: I think the questions that @skotperez is asking are very powerful to go deeper in the debate. As I see it:

** Is there any making decisions protocol?
i think that our making decisions protocol is very linked with two concepts showed on the article that you shared: do-ocracy and lazy-consent.

** Are there different protocols for networks, platforms and projects or just one that applies to all organization structures?
Regarding protocol I think that all of them should follow the three commitment level: coordination, collaboration, participant.

** Do the local circles have autonomy to organize themselves or they must follow some common rules?
This is the tricky one =? I think circles and project have autonomy to make decisions regarding the answer that I´ve done for the first question, and at the same time should follow the governance of three level commitment because is the one which assure that things are done. At the same time we should allow circles or project to experiment with that, and if they found improvements that they things should be add to the general governance, they can show it in the physical meeting, the Glocal Camp, so the whole community can discuss about this. As @urbanohumano is saying, decisions that affect to the five platforms/areas or to CW CORE (juridical, governance, etc) should be maturate using digital tools as Discourse and then discussed on Glocal Camps.


spaces? environments? contexts?

For me, this are roles that define organization structure, nothing to do with decision making.

I’m agree, in ideal conditions, when we have the time to mature decisions or to wait the next Glocal Camp: but it is not always like that. What if we have to make an important decision faster than that. I don’t want to create a complicated bureaucratic decision system but i think we need some ideas, some minimal decision tools, a minimal protocol. Right now decisions are made by a group of a few decision makers: this has limits and it creates dependencies of these people.


Very important step for CivicWise cause for the first time from March 2015, we are not organizing Governance from the place that Wisers can take in the global community but from the way we organize community for work. This a real Governance as Governance is a movement of “shift” in thinking, decision making and evaluation, with a multiplication of places and actors involved in the design of the necessary elements to achieve an end. Of course, at the begininnig of CW in London come the principal structure of Governance : Global Community and Local Circle. But after, we try to find places for people join community.

From march 2015 we imagine :

Civicbaker | CivicMaker,
then Carer | Baker, | Maker,
then Civicwiser | Civic Innovator | Civic Carers | Civic Professionnal (may 2015)
then Civicwiser executive and core connectors ,
then members, civicwiser, connector
then friends, members, civicwiser, connector

So we try from 2015 to make division due to responsability for each, engagment, possibility to earn money ( civic professionnal), possibility to take the CW baneer, etc
and globally was like all associations trying to find: who can enter, who is active, who is friend, etc.

But it’s perhaps the first time that Governance is thinking from “How we work on a subject or project.”

Am i wrong @urbanohumano, @artemi_fasebase, @FrancescoP, @skotperez ?