Entry and Exit Pathways

This document forms part of our set of emerging Participation Agreements, and outlines how we currently understand our:

• entry pathway for inviting additional participants into the collective
• hiatus process for temporarily opting-out of participating in the collective
• process for handling unexplained absences of non-participation
• exit pathway for supporting people to leave the collective indefinitely

Entry Pathway

Expression of Interest

When a person expresses an interest in participating in the collective, it is expected to include:

1. A description of their current understanding of the foundational (RAD housing) context for the Brassica Collective
2. A commitment to acting in alignment with the current agreements and processes the collective has shared publicly while contributing to co-creating emerging collective practices going forward.

Expressions of interest should be in writing (e.g., via this EOI Form) as these provide the list of ‘potential participants’.

PAS Crew are responsible for maintaining a list of potential participants and sharing it with the broader collective.

Proposal intention

Intentions to propose a potential participant can be declared by current participants who have completed their onboarding, or by the PAS Crew.

An intention to propose inviting a participant needs to be declared at least 8 days prior to the end of an interval to be considered for an invitation in the following interval.

We do not consider more invitation proposals in an interval than the invitation cap.

• The invitation cap is the limit on how many invitation proposals we can support during an interval
• Unless otherwise specified, the invitation cap sits at 20% of the number of participants who opted-in for additional responsibilities during the previous interval.
• To adjust to changes in our needs and capacity as a collective, the invitation cap can be adjusted by the PAS crew via an advice process that provides at least 1 interval notice.
• Potential participants who are not proposed in the intended interval will remain on the list of potential participants unless the proposer removes them.

Prioritisation of Potential Participants

The prioritisation process is intended to ensure we only onboard a small number of well-supported participants within each interval.

When there are more invitation proposals intended for the same interval than the ‘invitation cap’, we consider proposals prioritised by:

• The total number of intervals the proposer has participated in this collective, divided by the total number of people they have proposed in the past (regardless of whether they ended up as participants). If there is a tie, we consider whichever proposal was received first. This ensures that we prioritise the people invited by active participants who have invited the least people.

If the number of invitation proposals intended by current participants are less than the invitation cap for that interval, the PAS Crew has the option to propose a potential participant from those who’ve not previously been proposed.

Proposal discussion

Proposers communicate with potential participants they have been prioritised for an invitation, write-up their proposal to the collective, and take responsibility for coordinating the associated processes (described below).

A proposal is expected be posted as the start of a discussion thread on Loomio, and include:

1. Reasoning for why the potential participant can be trusted to:
   1. Act in alignment with our existing agreements, and
   2. Contribute to co-creating emerging collective practices going forward
2. Current context of potential participant:
   1. A description the proposed participant has provided about their current understanding of the foundational (RAD housing) context for the Brassica Collective
3. Supporter coordination:
   1. A commitment to coordinating support for the potential participant
   2. An outline of support needed for the potential participant to feel confident co-creating our collective practices
   3. A request for at least one other participant to share responsibility for providing this support
4. Specific time-bound requests for engagement by other participants, including:
   1. A date by which current participants are expected to nominate as a second supporter and/or raise any concerns or objections to the proposal (date 01). A second supporter can not be nominated, and no concerns or objections to the proposal can be raised after date 01.
   2. A date at which the proposer intends to retire the proposal if there are any unresolved concerns or objections remaining (date 02).

An invitation proposal template is available in Loomio

Collective Consideration

The proposer will monitor the relevant discussion thread to allow current participants an opportunity to:

1. Discuss the capacity of current participants to support the proposed participant
2. Ask clarification questions and discuss any concerns (e.g. “This person has no experience with collective practice, how do we plan to support them to participate well?”) about the proposal of this potential participant
   • Clarification questions and concerns are expected to be offered with curiosity and constructive suggestions for how to resolve them.
   • While unresolved concerns do not obstruct the entry pathway, the proposer may choose to extend the preset timeline (date 02) to allow for ongoing discussion.
3. Raise a principled objection to the proposal
   • To raise a principled objection a participant shares their reasoning in the discussion forum and initiates the collective’s relevant process for resolving disagreements. If there is no relevant agreement, this invitation is paused until the group develops one.
   • Principled objections are made based on reasoning as to why the proposed person is likely to violate fundamental principles of the collection (“I think there is a serious risk this person will act in unjust, unethical, or deliberately harmful ways”).
4. Express any ‘unprincipled objections’ (e.g. “I don’t like this person”). This does not obstruct the entry pathway. Participants who have ‘unprincipled objections’ to the proposal are encouraged to discuss them directly with the proposer (to allow for understanding of different perspectives) and with other collective participants during an assembly (as a twinge)

Proposal resolution

The proposal can be resolved if :

• A second supporter has nominated themselves, and
• Opportunities for collective consideration remained open for at least 1 week following the nomination of the second supporter, and
• Any principled objections raised have been resolved

The proposal will be retired:

• On date 01 if a second supporter has not nominated, or
• On date 02 if principled objections remain unresolved

After a proposal is resolved or retired, the proposer is responsible for

• Summarising the considerations discussedion
• Adding the potential participant to either the ‘participant invitation list’ or ‘retired proposals’ list, and
• Communicating to the potential participant the outcome of the proposal, including any concerns/objections raised if relevant, and explaining the next steps in the process

Invitation

Invitation responsibilities sit with the proposer and include meeting with the potential participant to outline all existing agreements and collective practices.

If the invitation is accepted, the proposer should ensure that participants are:

• Welcomed at their first assembly with a small ritual that helps us remember to celebrate their presence and notice the increasing complexities of relational interconnectedness emerging in our collective.
• Given access to our communication tools and encouraged to actively contribute to discussions in-person and in online forums.
• Provided an outline of the onboarding process, and informed that these need to be completed prior to participants blocking decisions or inviting additional new participants.

Onboarding

The process for onboarding is stewarded by the PAS crew and is intended to guide recent participants in understanding existing agreements and actively engage in co-creating future collective practices.

The proposer is responsible for coordinating the support requested by a new participant as they complete the relevant onboarding activities. This initial support is expected to continue until onboarding is complete, or the onboarding support is replaced with some other agreed mode of support within the collective.

Onboarding is completed when new participants confirm they feel confident in each of the following statements:

• I understand the foundational context of the RAD housing project
• I can use the Brassica communication channels appropriately
• I can regularly attend assemblies
• I can reliably contribute to our online discussion forums
• I can act in alignment with existing collective agreements
• I can contribute to processes for updating and co-creating collective agreements going forward

Participation Opt-outs

Pause Participation (Hiatus)

A participation hiatus occurs when a participant explicitly opts out of their minimum responsibilities for a fixed period of time while retaining their expectations of the collective.

Participants are expected to communicate to the collective that they are taking a ‘hiatus’ when they:

• Know in advance that they will be unable to meet their minimum responsibilities for an interval or more.
• Finds themselves unable to meet minimum responsibilities in an ongoing way, yet intend to return to participating when capacity allows.

At the end of each participation hiatus period, participants are expected to communicate that they either want to return to opting-in to participation or extend their hiatus period. If they do neither of these, they will be considered to be in an unexplained absence (see below).

Unexplained Absence

If a participant has not met their minimum responsibilities for two consecutive intervals without communicating their intention to pause participation (go on hiatus) to the collective they will be considered to be on an ‘unexplained absence’ for the following two intervals.

During this time:

• While absent, participants will not be included in decision-making processes. They retain all other expectations of the collective.
• Other participants are expected to attempt to check-in and identify if there are any barriers to participation that could be resolved by the collective.
• PAS Crew are responsible for reminding an absent participant that they will be considered to have opted-out of participation if unable to either re-engage or communicate an intention to pause participation (go on hiatus) during this period.

To return to participating, an absent participant needs to communicate they want to pause participation (go on hiatus) for a set time-period or opt-in to participation again. Returning participants are expected to ask for support to catch up on any agreements or collective practices that emerged in their absence.

Exit Pathway

Exit pathways outline those circumstances in which a participant can be understood to have opted-out of participation including both their responsibilities to the collective AND their expectations of the collective.

Participants who exit may choose to return in the future by expressing an interest in participating and engaging in the entry pathway processes (without any prioritisation).

A participant will be considered to have opted-out of their collective responsibilities AND expectations if they:

1. Explicitly opt-out of participation with no intention of returning, or;
2. Remain on unexplained absence for two consecutive intervals (in addition to the two intervals of inactivity required to trigger the ‘unexplained absence’ process), or;
3. Meet the exit criteria defined in another agreement of the collective.

When a participant opts-out indefinitely or is otherwise indefinitely absent, PAS Crew will coordinate the following process:

1. Removing the exiting participant’s access to the collective’s communication channels
2. Reminding the exiting participant that they are relinquishing their expectations of the collective (including expectations of housing security, if relevant).
3. Returning the exiting participant’s transitional equity (following the withdrawal of equity process detailed in the Transition to Stewardship model).

Review conditions

This agreement (Version 4.1) will be reviewed in any of the following circumstances:

• Whenever a participant proposes an amendment to this agreement
• When any agreement in the set of Participation Agreements is amended
• Prior to the first participants living in a collectively stewarded site
• Every two years (if not otherwise reviewed in that timeframe)

Context Questions & Assumptions

Where can I find more information about the jargon terms and associated assumptions in this agreement?

• The ‘collective’ referenced in this agreement is the Brassica Collective, as described in our handbook
• This agreement assumes familiarity with our broader set of Participation Agreements, and any ambiguities in this agreement should be interpreted in that context. In this context:
  • ‘we’ refers to all current participants in the Brassica Collective.
  • A ‘current participant’ is everyone who has opted-in to their ‘minimum responsibilities’ to the collective for the relevant interval(s), as described in the Responsibilities and Expectations Agreement

Why do we need an entry & exit agreement?

• Articulating our current understanding of when/how/why people start and stop participating is intended to help us honour our varying and fluctuating capacity for participation, and navigate the emerging project-group dynamics as the configuration of participants change over time.
• Our entry pathway is the process through which any current participant can invite additional potential participants to collaborate with us on this experiment in implementing RAD housing and co-creating our collective living practices going forward.
• As part of taking collective responsibility for each other as participants, we want to ensure that we are thoughtful about our collective capacity for supporting additional people to become active participants (by becoming familiar with the various conceptual and relational contexts this may require).

Why doesn’t this agreement include details about how people enter or exit collectively stewarding housing-sites?

• The current version of this agreement is for our collective practice prior to acquiring any housing-sites.
• We expect to update this agreement and/or clarify site-specific agreements about entry and exit pathways when we have had time to consider the many additional complexities associated with when, why, and how people can enter and exit our collectively stewarded housing sites.

Why doesn’t this agreement consider all possible scenarios we might face as a collective?

• We also expect this agreement to be updated as we try, fail, learn, and review our shared expectations of how to navigate the ever-changing dynamics of our collective.