To identify a open-minded, democratic, free, professional and result driven roleset for CivicWise.

CW communication strategy

Dear All,

documentation for a role set in CivicWise:


CW communication strategy

I agree with you: the mere time amount cannot be really an indicator of proper participation; as I mentioned in the latest hangout, I can spend 100 hours into system administering CivicWise, but it will not make me a carer*.
A possibility is to identify specific criteria as Discourse team have done for the badges and the role assignation,.

Now challenge is: which criteria and activities can be the minimal set to achieve to become carer or promoter?

On the monthly hours, was to identify an entry level barrier, someone that already proved him/her-self being committed (and eventually being already part of the community he/her might represent).
Nevertheless a monthly commitment is considered (but not completely incorporated into the gist linked; it appears only in the datamodel above).


‘*’ well it can help, I can be the carer of #tech, but just implementing or operating the systems cannot make me directly the carer; something more is needed in my opinion (and I say against me cause I am spending much time on techy thing :smile: )


Current Matrix presented right now in the running Hangout.

The matrix is accessible here


I like it. Simple and clear.


Reporting interesting links from Saverio in slack.com

I found this diagram that express the structure of the Knit Knot Studio’s community http://www.knitknotarchitecture.com/about

I think it’s interesting for us. What do you think?


In the current status of our role (member & role,cicles type) setup I understood that a project is related and linked to a circle (being this local or thematic).

If my understanding is correct, I have a specific (even if confused :slight_smile: question:

I thought initially that people around a project can join CW easily with some sort of ad hoc circle (was initially the project circle).
It appeared to me a very interesting and direct way for the inclusiveness principle of CW: you have a project, you can join with your crowd in CW (sure accepting its principles and contributing to global knowledge) but without the requirement of creating a circle. I misunderstood this thinking that the ad hoc project was self containing the circle and was eventually and potentially disappearing at project completion.

While I really like the new setup and it’s simplification/separation, maybe this easiness for a project team to join CW has been missed in the translation. Or maybe I misunderstood it.

Need advice :help


Good question @levm.

I agree that there should be inclusiveness and simplicity for people to join CW, regardless where they are coming from (projects, circles, etc). I think we should really try as hard as we can to build a governance that fits our work, is super intuitive to understand and allows people to concentrate on the actual projects rather then how to organise themselves.

On this note, I think your question raises two interesting points.

  1. Do people have to belong to a circle to be part of CW?
    In my opinion the answer is NO. I think we can say that people who run a CW project are automatically part of the CW community as members without the need to constitute a circle.

  2. What is the relationship between projects and circles? Does a project NEED to belong to a circle?
    I would say that the natural and easiest way is to associate projects with the existing geographical circles. Example, if people X,Y run a project in London, that project will automatically become part of the London circle. If there isn’t a circle yet, it’s up to the project promoters to decide if they want to constitute the geographic circle or they want to do an open call within the CW community to identify someone who wants to found the circle. I think this is a great way to grow the CW community organically as well.
    The same would hold for a thematic circle. For example, let’s assume that same project is a green space. If there is already a circle for ‘Reinventing green spaces’, that project can become part of that existing circle.

In both cases, the incentive to be part of existing circles is that project promoters will be able to leverage on the knowledge and experience that the individual circles have. To use the same example as above, if your project is in London, the London circle will be able to advise you on the method, support you with tools and help promoting the project. Likewise, if you are trying to build a green space in a waste land, the ‘Reinventing green spaces’ circle might help you develop the project faster, given their expertise in supporting similar projects elsewhere.

In a nutshell, circles would become the hubs for expertise and knowledge that builds up by supporting and incubating a growing number of projects over time.

I hope that makes sense and I am looking forward to hearing what you think.


I have read the matrix. It’s clear. I agree with the structure and the subdivisions proposed.
I suggested (by comment on drive) to adopt also “civicfriends” and “civicmembers”, because basically as friends or members we share the values and aims, so it’s nice to feel a wider community.

During the hangout tonight I was thinking that would be needed two things: a “members” version for groups, because there might be this possibility. Currently in fact I would say that the matrix is built on individuals, who certainly are and will be the most prevalent category, of course.
The other aspect is to transform and communicate the matrix through a “friendly” and engaging message, making everyone feel, in the words of Francesco, a possible “executive” from the first moment. :blush:


Hi everybody,
today we kept working on this document about CWRoles

click here

we’ll announce the role matrix next Wednesday 1/07/15 on hangout, please add your contribution on the document before that day.

the points to be completed are:

  • rename ‘Civicwise Executive’
  • language check
  • verify distinction between ‘Activities’ and ‘Commitment’ (what you CAN do and what you HAVE TO do).

Please add your contribution as a comment by side. To do so, locate the cursor in the related box, click Insert/ Add comment

see you next Wednesday


Hi everybody,
the meeting scheduled for last night has been moved to next week.
the event is scheduled for Wednesday, July 8 on global hangout at 9.00 pm (GMT+1)

we will keep working on the Role Matrix to be able to announce it.

add your contribution here:
role matrix doc

see you next Wednesday!


I think I have a new proposal for our “CivicTrainer” > What do you think about “Civic Connector” or “Civicwiser Connector”? I was thinking it’s really that because this role is the only one in charge with the coordination of networks, so “connector” express better then “trainer” this activity.

At least two interesting organizations are using this concept: one is Ouishare and the other is +Socialgood
+Socialgood is also using another concept I like which is Advisor, but I have to say that I prefer Connector.

I have to say that the fact that other organisations are using the same concept is useful, for this kind of role because help us to communicate better. I think trainer it’s a little bit tricky.

What do you think?


I like connector as well. You are right Domenico, sometimes trying to find different names for the sake of having unique terminology might not be the most efficient thing.


I think it’s a good name. as @orsola said the point it’s not to be unique but it’s about being useful and efficient.


Ok for Civic Connector as well.
Civicwiser connector is too long


connector is good. civicwiser connector I agree is too long