So I was actually talking about exactly this problem with governance models with someone over DM.

i.e. what is the key difference between designing models for volunteer/political/community groups?

And really that comes down to one thing:

Managing out the power of time. https://twitter.com/normal_danny/status/1289210624241807360

This is because the moment you have a volunteer model, you lose one of the big (albeit sometimes theoretical) controls you have at your disposal:

The ability to recruit only based on skill or 'best-candidate' fit. And to fire underperformers.

Theoretically within governments and businesses you can have a general expectation that recruitment will be based on skills proportionate to the role. In volunteer terms, that's not necessary a given.

This is because individual availability, and in political groupings ideology (witness the birth of slate voting at constituency level with the rise of Momentum in the Labour Party), have a far greater impact on who gets positions of authority.

So if you're trying to put governance in place for volunteer groupings, what you need is to minimise the use of time as a weapon.

i.e. that the ability to be somewhere, at a certain time, or respond quickly, CAN'T be the critical decider in both decision-making and authority.

If authority rests only with those who can commit to make a specific meeting (political or committee) then, pragmatically speaking, it inevitably accrues to the people who are least suited to the job.

This is either because they are incompetent or not particularly likeable (which is why they have all that spare time) or are likely non-reflective of your full user base:

Retired. Rich. Single. No kids. Not disabled. Default White Male.

Time-rich people.

Now I have a habit of saying "don't replace proper processes with tech" but this is ultimately an area where tech CAN help.

But polticial parties and volunteer groups under-invest in internal comms tech and over-invest in pr tech.

You want your meetings to be more inclusive? Stream and record them, then vote AFTER a certain time, through both post OR tech (labour's official election stuff is actually a v. good example of that)

The same tech also then helps with individual transparency.

But I get why this doesn't happen. It requires permanent IT knowledge or understanding that is often either unaffordable.

Or, less happily, just not thought to be worth the investment by those ALREADY in authority.

Because they rarely see the current governance system as failing. It's always having worked for them, and human default is to see our own biases as universal, sadly.

There's a whole bunch of other issues relating to volunteering, and there are wiser minds than me out there who can talk about it, but that should hopefully highlight a starting point for thought on the subject, for anyone interested in it.

/END

NOTE: this is a 'spinoff' from this thread, if you haven't seen the original. https://twitter.com/garius/status/1289127360348987394