 Good afternoon. First, I would like to welcome you all here today at the follow-up residence assembly meeting to discuss, modify the selection process methodology. Thank you all for attending this meeting. Here is our team, the residence assembly service, who is holding this process. Dan, Giovanni, Dverena, Satish, Tatyana. The facilitator, our dedicated facilitator, Julie, who is going to hold and facilitate the event. Here are the members of the SPRTF selection process review task force, Martin and Philippe. A big thank you for the dedication and support. And we would like also to express our big thank you to all volunteers who also helped us organize this event. We thank you Auroville Radio for live streaming. The silent presence keepers pool as well. Thank you very much. So I'm turning it to Julie. Thank you, Tatyana. Yeah, welcome everybody. We probably have more people watching online if I look at the quite empty room here today. I would like just to have a look with you on the agenda. We just passed by the welcome and intention. I have like a little invitation to focus all together, which I will talk about. Then Giovanni will just give a short introduction to the RAD process and where we're at with the second residence assembly meeting. Then the SPRTF, Martin and Philippe will present the updated proposal on the selection methodology. And we will also have open space for question answers so that everything can be included. Towards the end, the RES will take the pulse on whether this proposal is ready to go for voting or not. And we will see. Then there will be just an information about next steps and we're already at the closing, most probably around six, depending on how much we feel that we have to discuss. So I thought about having kind of ground rules for this meeting and I was inspired by something else. And this is a suggestion, it's an invitation and I know we're all sometimes struggling with it. So the invitation would be to have an open mind as much as possible, which means listening with curiosity, expressing yourself clearly and concise when you're raising your voice. Also be here with an open heart as much as possible. So connect with respect and try to drop the judgment. I know we're all judging all the time, that's how our brain works. But to be conscious about it makes a big difference. And last but not least be as much as possible here with an open will because we're here to decide something all together and it's really crucial to really try to go with the flow. If there is a movement that is collectively emerging and also try to include others' views. So as said in the beginning, this is just an invitation, let's just try our best and see where we're at. Okay, I would like to invite Martin and Philipp to, oh I'm sorry, I don't want to, sorry. I was confused. Thank you, Julia. I will be very quick, just a brief presentation about the process we are using to come up with a final decision. So the first step, as many of you may recall, is a petition. It can come from 60 residents or more, or it can come from a working group. Then we move to Ram 1, so the first resident assembly meeting which we just had a few weeks ago on this topic. And the meaning of the first Ram is to introduce the topic and invite feedback. Then we have had the radiate period of feedback which we, RAS, collected and we handed over to the task force in this case. And the task force had to consider all your feedback and then deciding if taking this feedback into consideration or not. And we will hear from them soon. So this is where we are now in the second Ram. And the purpose of this meeting is to have a look at the revised proposal. And then at the end, as we have seen in the agenda, deciding if the proposal is ready to be put out to the community for voting. And we will also have a little discussion about voting options. So we are here. What's coming next then? So let's assume that in this room and also those online will agree on moving on. So we will go, RAS will do a report of this meeting. And then we will send, as we have done in the past, a personalized voting link that each resident of each Aurovillian, or confirmed Aurovillian can use to express his vote or her vote. And we will give two weeks for people to vote. There is another possibility that at the end of this meeting when Tatiana will ask the room and the online participants, if they feel the proposal is ready, they might feel otherwise. So they may conclude, you may conclude that for whatever reason, it is not ready. Then we go to another RAM. So there is a RAM 3 and possibly an RAM 4 or 5. This process will stop when you, the participants in the room and online, will decide that the proposal is ready. And that is the end of my presentation in the beginning. So we would have time for questions after the presentation. If there's something very urgent, just please note it so you don't forget it. Let them just go through the presentation so that they can concentrate. So welcome. There were one or two people that have not been meant, not been thanked so far. And I would really like to thank them. Because we actually had some other members, apart from Philippe and myself, of the SBRTF group. Selection process. Forgot my task force. Anyway. So we started off with seven people, a few of them dropped out. But the people who have really made a contribution, apart from Philippe and myself, I should especially mention Sanjeev because he's recently passed away and he was an important part of this group and really worked with us hard on the proposal. So I'd like to publicly thank Sanjeev for his work on this. Also Jaya gave some input. And we have Jean François, who is out of Oroville right now, but he's been giving input online. So it's a group that's been working closely together. So anyway, we've got to, I hope everybody read the original proposal and I hope everybody's read the new one. Because although we have a new proposal here, I don't propose to go through it line by line. But what I wanted to do first of all was to go through the process that we've been through for feedback. Because we've actually done more work, I think, almost more work in processing the feedback than we have actually writing the proposal in the first place. And you'll see in a moment why. So we've had 121 people give feedback. Now this is exceptional. We've never had, I don't think in the past, that many people giving feedback to a proposal. And I really want to thank everybody who's done that because it was a lot of work on behalf of a lot of people. We had 120, well, 121 by online and 18 emails. And we asked everybody that gave feedback to each paragraph to say whether they agreed or disagreed with the paragraph. And those bars down the bottom there show how this thing works. Anyway, those bars down the bottom there show the agreement that we got on that. So we could have said, oh, well, everybody agrees we can let it go now. But no, there was a really decent feedback. There was some really useful feedback. So we've done our work in incorporating it. We've got something between 80% and 90% agreement on the whole thing. So I'm really, I think we've, I'm grateful that people have given that sort of approval. So how was the feedback considered? So first of all we should make clear that the feedback was given to the RAS and it was given to us anonymously. The RAS know who their feedback came from, we don't. So except one or two who signed their name at the bottom. But largely we don't know where the feedback came from. So mind you, we can guess some of them. So we asked ourselves questions because to incorporate all the feedback would have been completely impossible. There were contradictions and all sorts of things. So we asked a number of questions with each piece of feedback. Was it helpful? Did it fit with the general principles of the proposal? And those are basically random selection of the selection group. Learning sessions for the selection group and independent selection teams. So they were sort of principles that we said, no, we're not going outside that. That's what we've decided we want to do. But we'll change things as needed. So were there contradictory views? So some people said, I really like this. And someone else says I really don't like this. And we think maybe it's about right. So were there several similar feedbacks? Obviously if there are several similar feedbacks then we've tried to suggest we think it's probably about right. Was the general support for the section or the idea similar to the last? Were there specific suggestions that change? We gave two columns. We go for feedback and suggestions. Now where there was just feedback and it was somebody's opinion, it's very difficult to know what to do about it sometimes. So if we got specific suggestions we looked at those more carefully. So main feedback. So we received a lot of feedback on several topics. One of the first one was the TDCE should be included in this. And we sort of agreed to that. We agreed with that and we made a few modifications accordingly. Deselection should be included. We'll discuss this a little bit later. But essentially we said we don't, because it was at quite a late stage, that we don't have a capacity and we don't really feel that it's our job to do that. So we communicated that with the council and there's a member of the council here who's willing to speak on that. So we'll look at that a little bit later. So if you don't mind putting that up a little bit later. So the other thing was the use of randomization. So we had quite a lot of people who liked randomization and quite a lot of people who didn't. So we thought well it's okay, it must be about. Actually I think more people liked it. So I quickly run through the other feedback that we received. Emphasis on specific skills and we've done a bit more work on that. Candidates should commit to work to the working group mandate. Feedback on candidates in general. So the feedback section that we put in there, there was quite a few comments on that and we've improved it. Not enough space for feedback. We've increased that. Preparation knowledge needed for selection of TDC members. We agreed that it needed more knowledge and more work to select TDC members. So we've included that. Interviews with candidates should be with the whole selection group. Yes, we took that and that's been done. We've changed the process slightly. Selection group numbers and selection process, yes. There were quite a few comments on the number of people should be in the selection group. Some people thought it should be less and some people said I think six. Some people said it should be much more, 200 or something. So we thought that perhaps our 40 was probably about right. So we stuck with 40. So importance to select a good team as well as skilled individual members. Yes, we took that on and we've modified the process accordingly. So there should be a balance of gender, nationality. But we believe that that will come out in the randomness. So a few other things. Backup candidates. We've passed on that one. Miscellaneous notes about silent observers, complexity. Some people found it too complex. Some people didn't. Suggestions of games for the team building. Well, they can do it if they want to, but we didn't put it in the procedure. Suggestion of streaming the whole event. Not really because it needs to be done. The team work is very much teamwork and not public work. So we didn't feel that was appropriate. Issue of confidentiality feedback. And I'll go into that, but yes. The feedback will not go outside the selection room. We had a few very different proposals put to us. But at the beginning I said that we're sticking with our basic principles. So selection by wise people, selection by members of the working groups. Solution, positioning. I don't know what if not that. Voting based and grids with points anyway. These are all different proposals that came up. And a few others which we didn't address. So a monitoring group for working groups to follow their mandate. They were really part of the selection. Somebody said that they thought it wasn't very readable. But judging by the feedback that we got, people did understand it. RAD reform needed. Computer programs versus human organization. We decided mainly on computer programs. But some feedback pointing to issues of governance in general. We got a few of those. Lack of integrity, vested interests. Lack of alignment to individuals and groups within Auroville. So we didn't feel that those were, it was really appropriate to look at those. So these are the main improvements that we've done. So we've added a, in the round, in the process where we, the groups, the individual groups, because there's actually four groups of ten who work on the proposal. Who work on the selection itself. They look at the individual candidates. So in that section we were, basically we were asked to improve that so that the groups could have more knowledge of a team and building a team. So we broke this up into two sections. And we'll show you a bit about that in a moment. We've removed, we decided that if only one group came up with, if there was only one group that came up with a candidate, that that probably wasn't enough. So we've excluded any candidate that only gets one group vote. So, and the last one there is the processes, yes, this is very important. The process is open for any working group. And that's what we've said in the whole proposal. We've said, look, we've tailored this so it could be used for any working group, including the TDC. We've allowed sufficient information to be provided to the selectors so that they can select people from the TDC. But likewise we also feel that the selection process could be used for other groups. So if we, basically if we decide that for example the land board should be selected in this way, then we believe that this process would be suitable for other groups. So we've made it flexible enough so that it can be used for other groups. Now I'm going to break just there for a moment because, or do you want to continue with your bit and then we go back? Yeah? Okay. Okay. Well, we've got a bit, we've got a part on the individual selection teams. Do you want to do that? Okay, we'll go to the next slide. Do you want to do that? I'll come back to the proposal in a moment. We had some discussions, a bit heavy discussion with Martin just before. So I'm a bit tensed now. Yeah. So this is the same as before if you were here. This is the, basically we start getting a random selection of 40 people, 40 volunteers. The main, the first change with the first version of the proposal was that the interviews, it was not really defined now because of some feedbacks. The interviews with the people, with the candidates will be done all together. So within the 40 people in the, let's say the first day. Now at some point, like let's say when there's some awesome feedback here. We're talking a lot about feedbacks here. But there's a sound feedback here. A bit. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's okay. We'll try. So let's say when the 40 people have all the information they need to do the selections, like the role of the working groups, eventually the roles within the working groups, the specific skills needed and all those kind of things. And the information about the candidates. So once the interviews were done with all the candidates, then the same as before, this team of 40 is split in four equal. Yeah. And they work and basically ideally from now until the end, everything is done in the single day. So at the end of the day, really the idea is that as much as possible, the selection should be over. There's a reason for that is we try to get the separate team as independent as possible so that they don't influence each other. So we split in, let's say, three rounds. The first round is just as before, means that the four subgroups, independent selection teams, they do their own selection. So for this group, there would be, for example, like three positions to fill. So we have Mr. Blue, Mrs. Green and Mrs. Orange, and all those candidates so that here you can see that Mr. Blue was selected by all of them. So Mr. Blue is selected for that working group. Then, basically, the organization team, so the RAS plus a team who will help them, inform each of the subgroups that Mr. Blue has been selected by everyone. So basically, they start getting a more clear picture about those working groups. There will be the ongoing members, which are not represented here, plus Mr. Blue. So now we have the introduction and this was actually very nice. As Martin said, like those are anonymous, it was really a suggestion by someone. So I don't know if he's in the room or really thank you for all the feedback. Some of them they are very constructive, some of them a bit less, but it was very nice and it was really the idea having a second room for feedback. So somehow it worked. So now, right after this, we know that Mr. Blue was selected, each subgroup knows that Mr. Blue actually is going to be part of this working committee, TDC, whatever. And knowing, so that's very important information. And then there's a second round, which function exactly like before. Just that information that Mr. Blue was selected. So it is a way to allow those subgroups, basically, to try to select not only a person, but a team, making some team building. So basically looking at all the skills, eligibility that the people already selected have, let's say maybe they identify that here in that case Mr. Orange or Mrs. Orange here, is the right person to balance or to give another skill that would be missing otherwise. So Mrs. Orange here got in that second round the unanimity of all the subgroups that she selected. And the rest, that was also another suggestion for many people, is that to be in the final hat, so basically picked randomly, you need to be at least in two selections of those subgroups. So if someone, so for example here, Mr. Pink was selected only by one subgroup, so he's not in the final hat. Otherwise, so we have Mrs. Green and Mrs. Purple, they have two and three respectively, have been selected by two and three, so that they'll be in the final hat and click. So that finally we have newly selected Mr. Blue which was selected in the first round, Mrs. Orange selected in the second round, and then let's say we have a third person to select. So they will be picked up from this hat thing, so that three tokens, three names with Mrs. Green and two with Mrs. Purple. And then we just pick whatever name missing. It can very much happen that actually no one makes the cut, no one has been selected by more of one subgroup. So in that case, and that very much can happen, like depending on for example if there's only one position to fulfill. And 20 candidates, we have relatively less chances to have someone who would have been selected in two subgroups. That's a trade-off basically for this suggestion of being selected only in two subgroups. So it adds just a little bit more, slight more complex, but it gives really the chance to have those two rounds, to have more team building, and we give another chance basically to reach unanimity. So it's all in all that's a trade-off that we made, more complexity, but it allows probably some very advantageous thing, like specifically more the team building, like we give a chance, more chance to have a coherent team or a team with appropriate skills. I think that's it. Thank you, thanks Philippe. So I'd like to sort of interspace some of this with something where I'm going to show now, but it was difficult to do it on the computer. So what I'm going to do now is to just show you, I hope this will come up. Yeah, okay. Just to give you an idea of what the feedback looks like that we received. That's the feedback we received. So there's a lot of it, 121 of them. So just what we discussed before, like those are almost each and every feedback or comment that we have, like we have put either Martin, myself or Jean-François at some point for the emails, we put the comment on it. So if someone feels that his or her feedback was not taken into account, we can share this whatever with the notes. I don't think it really would bring things that we publish it really publicly, but it's not secret. No, if anybody wants to say, oh, what do you do with my feedback? We can tell you. Yeah, that's what we did basically. We broke it into each section. And each section, we had the feedback and the suggestions for change, and then we made some notes. So, and you can see here actually what we've, the first one was mainly just comment. So there wasn't much we could do. So we said no change. The second one, you can see at the bottom there, they said disagree. Okay. So we changed the paragraph and we put in there what we did to change it. So, and if we go down a bit further, we'll see that there's others that we've changed, paragraph changed. Subject to a wider debate, mandates are part of the problem of excess bureaucracy in Auroville. Okay, what do you want us to do about it? So anyway, so we didn't do anything there. The one above, not part of the scope. So to be dealt with by the ABC. And that's what we're talking about earlier. Deselection. So we'll get a comment from the, we get something from the ABC a little later. So just to see, just to show you that we've considered every, every feedback. There isn't one that we haven't put something against that's been given. So we did, we did our job. So the next bit I want to show you is the proposal itself. We actually put this online so you can see this, but this is the combination of both proposals. This is a, shows the changes that we made. So I just wanted to highlight specific, some specific areas that we've changed. So the first one was to do with the PWG. Now the PWG is, the PWG is basically the participatory working group guidelines, which are there to, that every working group is supposed to follow. So we, this proposal goes into part three of that proposal. Okay. It's, this will be integrated into part three of that proposal. And we, there's a small problem actually because the present PWG excludes the TDC. And we've said that we want, or a lot of people have said, a lot of, big lot of feedback has said we want the TDC included. So we've changed basically the proposal to make sure that the TDC can be used, it can be used for selecting the TDC so that it can be used. So what we will, what has to be done obviously is that that needs to be included in the PWG. The PWG at the moment says it's excluded. So we need to make sure that that's changed to include it. So, so just running through, can I make it bigger? Yeah, sure. Is that better? A bit more? Okay. Okay. So, yeah, which working groups? So we've put an additional paragraph in there saying that the process selection of working groups, according to their mandate and according to the latest version of the PWD document, the process is sufficiently flexible to allow additional information to be provided to the work selection teams to enable them to select members of any group. So what we've also said is, look, this is intended, of course, it's intended that we do selection processes once a year, but it may not be always be so. So what we've said is that this proposal can be used for either all of the working groups at once, once a year, or it can also be used for an individual working group. If we need to select an individual working group, we can put together a team to do that. So, so that's what we've said. In other words, the process can be repeated for a selection of individual or multiple groups at any time of the year. So, yes, we were, there was quite a bit of feedback on specialist skills. So we put some emphasis on specialist skills that need to be looked for. Ah, yes, quite a few people said, oh, the members have to, the candidates need to agree to work to the mandate, to their mandate. And so we put it in there. They should agree to work to the current mandate. It can be a tick box on the form. Candidates should clarify their availability, full-time, part-time availability. And we've also given a little bit extra time for those people who have been nominated by others. Again, feedback. Yeah, confidentiality. Feedback, it's very important that we don't get into this public debate over people's feedback. The feedback is often very personal. We've allowed only 300 characters in the feedback so that it's going to be short, but it's still, it's going to be, it may be personal. It will be shared only with a selection team and it will be destroyed afterwards. So it's not something which is a public thing. But we've also now introduced the option that if somebody, so this feedback will be sent to the candidates themselves and they will be given a chance to respond. So that response will also be given to the selection teams. So we have, they will be given the feedback and they'll be given the responses of the individuals. We felt that that was fair. We didn't feel that we should go into a whole investigation into all of it. We've got the feedback and we've got a response. The selection team has to decide. They can decide that it's nonsense. They can decide that it's, they're not going to take it into account or they can decide that they do take it into account. It's up to them. Yeah, there's a few clarifications. Yeah, one of the things for this is to do with time flexibility. Because we've been asked to make it suitable for any working group, it doesn't mean that the time both for the selection itself and for the selection team, the training if you like of the selection team needs to be flexible. So we've made sure that we've said between one and two days for that. So we've made that flexible. We've emphasised that the select, the presentations to the team can be made by members of the community. But obviously that needs to be done with care. So short presentations organised in consultation with the selection group made by community members who can offer balanced perspectives on the needs of the working groups. In particular, specialised information needed to ensure that the selection of skilled persons for particular working groups. Imports in the form but not limited to brief presentations, written information, videos, etc. So I'll just whizz on a little bit. Interviews with the candidates. Yes, we've said the interviews will all be done together. We've then added into the criteria that they'll be looking for, the ability to work, do the work that's needed and having the skills needed, including those skills needed for specific roles. So if there are specific roles needed, for example in the TTC, it's important that we select candidates who can do that role. So the independent teams thing, we've just had that explained. And that was, I'd also like to thank the person who came up with the suggestion to split that into two rounds. And we believe that that's likely to give a better result. So there's one round, two rounds and this is all the, we've just had that explained. So a couple of little notes. Yeah, members of this is at the end basically that we decided that it would be a bit of a waste if we had another selection process taking place sometime in the next month or two. It would be a rather waste of all the training that those people had gone through so that they would be allowed to have, their names could go forward into within the following year. So their names could actually go forward for another selection process. So those people will hopefully be, will be quite knowledgeable by the time they've been through all of this process. So it would be useful. And the note at the bottom there, the time frame is flexible. It depends on the number of groups open for the selection processes, candidates, etc. and determined by the organisation team. Typically we reckon three working days. So, yeah, confidentiality. If, as Philip explained, we have a selection, the selection teams will be working together to select candidates. If they've got four working groups to, or five working groups to select, it could take longer than one day. Now it's quite important in this process that those people don't chatter to one another at any point. We feel that it's better that those teams work independently and independently of each other. So if it doesn't finish in one day, then we're asking them not to communicate with one another team overnight. We have to trust them. So that's it. So for my presentation right now, is there anything else? Is there anything else we've missed? Okay, yeah, yeah, true. Yeah, yeah, that's true. PWG. Let's make it a bit bigger. So, just for those who don't know the PWG off my heart. So, yeah, this is what the PWG presently says. The working groups are included in these guidelines. The working committee, the Orville council, FMC, l'Avenir and entry board. But it says in brackets there excluded from part three. Now part three is a selection process. So it was intended when this was written to create a separate selection process for the TDC. So what we have said is that we believe that our process is suitable for selection of the TDC. So that will need to be changed. That will need to be removed from there. So when this goes out for vote, that will be part of the thing that will be voted for. So that's, we hope we'll solve that particular issue. Just to let you know that there is a part here which covers deselection, which people may or may not know about, removal of members doing the term. There is a section already there, but it only covers removal of members by the team itself, by the group itself. It just says basically that if there's a member that is not pulling their weight, the rest of the team can ask them to leave. Now what has been asked for as something a bit different, which is that the community itself should be able to do that. As I mentioned earlier, we were, whilst we were processing the feedback, it came up in the feedback. Now as I said before, we at that point said, look we don't have the capacity to do that, to work on another proposal. And so we went to the Orville Council and said, look, we don't feel that we, they were the initiators of all of this. So we said that we don't feel that this is something that we can do. So we passed it to them and they have taken it up, as far as I'm aware. Can I say something? Yeah, sure. The main topic of discussion between me and Martin and some people around, I would really, I would just seeing the number of feedbacks that ask us to include the deselections, counted something like 40 people, which is quite a lot of people asking to integrate deselections within the selection. So I think that actually trace the question of what are we doing here, in the sense, or not in general, like in life and in Orville, but about this selection. I think the question itself is a bit biased. What we really should come is not really the selection of the working groups, but the constitution of the working groups. Like the community must first, must ensure that legally speaking, and we have, let's say, a working committee to present because it is required by the Foundation Act. So it is at any point in time. So let's say, deselections, can the community decide to deselect the whole working committee at once? It is very much possible according to an RAD. Right now there's only a RAD which allows the people to deselect. That's one of the probably coming ones. But what if we deselect the whole working committee at once? It's not a smart thing to do, honestly. So that's why having a deslection process is important. The thing is, Martin and I were kind of burnt out doing this thing, and we got kind of this selection, the RAD and the RAM1 and the RAM2 and the feedbacks and all. It's very heavy. So we'd like to get through this. And having an acceptable selection process is really an emergency right now. So that's what we'd like to expedite it. Just about the deslection, I would say, as I explained, like for me it is about making sure that we are represented at any point in time correctly. So that includes that yes, as a community we make mistakes when we select people and we shouldn't be bound for them just to decide that they are stuck in that for four years and we as a community should be able to manage this in a smart way. And that's the deslection process. Okay, I understand. What? Can I finish? Please. It's not easy. Thank you. So basically what we ask the council, like what to do, and the council replied to us, don't worry, we're taking care of it. More or less. Later on we don't have it. So we asked like, what do you guys are doing? Like, no answer. So there's an RAD going on. Probably it will be, maybe it will be the next one for this topic. Having an RAD for deselecting people is just like having a bulldozer for something. So I would like really to hear about the council here. And for me this is right in the center. Like this is what we're talking about today. Like selection is, but actually it is making sure that we have correctly, like people, what we can, but people in the working groups. And that includes like to say, to tell people like, sorry, please, like we want you out. This is very difficult thing that might be even more difficult than the selection. But that's not something we just can escape. And leaving it just like in the hand of the good will of the council, I am sorry, I do not agree. The council basically is biased on this story. The council is just saying, are we taking the risk of being selected ourselves? Like it is a topic of the community and not the council. So I'd like to hear from them what they have in mind. And this is them urgent. Okay. Thank you, Philippe. We have council members here and Chivaya is already standing up. Would you like to clarify on like where you're at with this deselections subgroup and what's going on? Look, we are like you feeling that this is very important. And we have other things running. So we have then looked for people and have actually now people have stepped forward to put work and effort and work into this, but we will, I mean, as far as we have been reflecting on amending the participatory working group document accordingly. This is just started now. We have people who have actually agreed and they will start this or next week and it will be done as a concentrated effort. Can you maybe share something about who's part of this group as far as it's possible already? It's not the council. We are, it's, we are gonna lia's and you know, I want to say this also. We are not so divided. Yeah, we have different views in our group, but so far we have been stirring this boat graciously. So I don't like to say we are divided. We are not always fully in one or the other, but we want to, we represent the residents assembly and we do the work required. What do we have this, this opinion and that? Yes, sometimes we are not totally in sync, but we have no major issues that prevents us from working. I'm Syrian. So Philip, I'm surprised you're so frustrated because we actually asked you to come up with this. We asked you to look into this, but then you said you didn't want to. So then it came back to us. So we said okay, we'll do what we can. Now because the SPRTF is ongoing now and we're going to have a vote for which selection process we're going to do, it seemed like something urgent. So, well it is something urgent. So we didn't have the time to reach out to the community for an open call. I mean maybe that's something we should do. We could vote on that in this meeting if you want. But so what we did, I'll just answer your question, is the people that we invited were Elisa, Maya, Suria Mai, Enrique, and there's one person missing. Who? Oh and Alan. Yeah, so we chose these people because we know they're very good with this sort of thing. And that was the best that we could do. What's missing Philippe? Go ahead, please tell me what's wrong with what we did. Open call to the community. Hey guys, who has input? Okay, one more thing here. SPRTF, you notice like we end up with two people. Yeah. Like, as I said, we're burnt out Martin and myself. Because the council decided that there were only seven people. We had 12 volunteers. So that you decide that there are seven. Like Sanjeev is gone. We have two people who kind of never showed up. One people who resigned and one people who is TOS. So that, please, as we've shown with Martin, we had so many feedbacks. Very interesting things like people who have put their brain and their mind and people we don't even know. Like are they here and all and all. And we came arguably with a better proposal now. Your community is full of that. Like don't put your subcommittee and all like people, your small circle of friends and say like, don't worry guys. Like go back to sleep. We're going to present you a deselection process with the people we trust. Go open it. And now today is the day. Like start it. Good idea. So let's talk about two things. First of all, the SPRTF was in the hands of the RAS. The council gave it to the RAS and the RAS of the holders. So it's out of the hands of the council. Plus, if you look at, if I think I remember correctly, the SPRTF when it was formed, that any of the 12 members, so seven were chosen, any of the 12 members were supposed to replace anybody that dropped out. Right? So the SPRTF should have been aware of that and the RAS. That was the point. So that had been covered and thought about. Two, yeah. So as I just said, it just seemed like something urgent. So, and we offered you to do it. You didn't want to do it. So we took it back. And then that was the first step. So, and Philip, listen, Philip. So the reason we did that is just because we felt it was urgent. Now, if there's no reason why we wouldn't make an open call to the community. I'm always vying for that. I always want to do it in that way. So we just thought we'd do it quickly and see if we can't get it in place before the SPRTF votes and we can somehow insert it. At the same time, Philip, even if something is suggested, it always comes to the community and the community always has an opportunity to give feedback. Right? So it's not entirely behind closed doors. Anyhow, what I'm hearing you say is you want an open call to the community to join the de-selection group. Right? Which is fine with me. Totally fine. I guess you take it back to your team and the RES to see if there's either an open call to select a new group or to add people to the already constituted subgroup. Yeah, I think that makes sense. The only thing to consider is that it will take longer, obviously. And it will not be ready by the time the SPRTF goes to vote. But I guess that's also okay. So it will be an additional process. Why are you shaking your head? This proposal will go for voting and there will be a de-selection proposal coming up afterwards. Okay, thank you. Okay, so what you're saying is to try to include it in this SPRTF for the voting, which will need to be seen. Because if this proposal goes for voting after this meeting, there will be no time to include anything. So there might be another process needed for the next proposal on the de-selection. More time. Okay, let's not get worked up about lost time. There's maybe more that you want to know or ask. We have a time frame for about 30 minutes, maybe if there are questions. On the refined proposal, on the feedback that was taken up or not, Sabine would like to take names. And we would maybe start with taking 10 names and then see where we're at with the time and then add more people if needed. There's one hand here. It's the first number one on this board now. There's Dorle in the back. Dorle, anyone else so far? Okay, so I guess then we can... There's someone in the back on the chair. Maona. My name's Julia. Okay, I guess we go with these six for now and then see if there are more questions coming up. I just have two short questions. First question is whether you have thought of including people who would be TOS in the part on presentation of the candidates, like especially if it happens in July or in June, some people might not be here. I prefer to do one question at a time so I don't remember them. Yes, we included the online possibility for interviews. So I think that should answer that. Okay, and the second is more of a comment, which I had given as a feedback, but I just feel like giving it again, which is that I'm personally a bit puzzled with the word candidates. I do feel it always gives a very politicized dimension to the whole selection process, and I would really personally value if we could use the word applicant, like in any other job, to avoid having then candidates who are opposing each other and who have to get the vote of other people and so on, because words do carry a baggage. That was just a comment. Thank you for that feedback and now I know who it came from. But it was the only one, so out of 120 people. So my name is Gundolf. I'm referring to what is yellow highlighted about that the PVG has to change, and in case this is changed to integrate the TDC, for me TDC is not one group. And if you look around to the expert, they have very clear two different groups, one who takes January the input of the community, and the other one is those who have the freedom to see how the input has to be translated. So we need two different mandates. And the mandates is for me a trigger because in the feedback it was called it has to, every mandate has to apply the charter. And after it's written, it's only a reminder. For me the charter with all the four points is essential that this has to be like the program of a party that we vote. And if someone doesn't go along the program or along our charter, for me this is a reason for not selecting a name or selecting, but to look very clearly if in the past or for the future if someone doesn't apply to the four points that this is a reason to become deselected and maybe someone knows how to integrate this. Yeah, this is, I think this is beyond what I can sort of answer really, but nevertheless I am aware that there are controversies over the TDC mandate and that there was a mandate which was approved by the community in 2017 and then there was something else which came from the governing board and they chose to work to the governing board. So look, it's not for the selection process to work out the mandate. The mandate has to be there and the community needs to decide on which mandate it is that the mandates for the working groups. So far the community is all the working groups here that we've listed. It has been the community that has basically chosen those mandates. So we're not, but that's not part of this process. If we're talking about deselection then that's already something we've talked about and the councillors along with a new group will do that. So I hope that's answered. Do I understand right that before any selection will start we have to have the mandate, we have the mandate and the mandate needs to be changed according to, we have two groups, not one TDC but two members and I propose, I wrote already in my feedback, I propose that in all our working groups it has to be very clear not to remind people to the charter but to be obligatory. So if this is taken care from the residence assembly or whoever, that before any selection starts that this is done. Yeah, look it's all part of the, if you look at the, this is the straining, interviews with the candidates. Deep resonance with the charter, the dream and to be a true or a villain. So that's something that they need to show, they need to show that. So that's already there, as far as the mandates are concerned we've already addressed that at the beginning when that was there in the previous version was that the RAS will keep track of the mandates of all the working groups and the terms of the members. Each working group needs to notify the, when the resignations etc. So the mandates are really part of the whole thing and in fact the training that the team get, the selection team get, the preparation sessions include a session on the mandates of the particular working group. Yeah, yeah. It's weak. Too weak. You're the only one that's commented on that. Maybe there are more who will resign than you think. Sure, sure, I understand. I'm here for the same reason, so please, I understand. The feedback, it was not to remind people but that is obligatory. You have to, if not you kick out, understand? Okay, look, as with anybody who gives feedback right now, I hope somebody's making notes of the feedback. Anyway, it's being recorded, so we, look, anybody that gives feedback right now we have two options, towards the end we will have, we will decide whether it's, this proposal can go forward or not. If the answer is no, then those feedbacks can be in, can be again looked at and new feedbacks can be looked at and incorporated. So at the moment I'm saying we've put it in the best we felt possible. If we are given the chance to modify it again, let's see if we need to strengthen it. If there's other voices that also ask to be strengthened. Okay. Hi, my name is Eric, I have a few questions and remarks. I was wondering if it should be mentioned that people not nominated with the selection process or any approved error decision are illegitimate. What do you mean by illegitimate? They are not legitimate. For what? To be selected. It happened that some people have been selected not in the right way. So what do we do in those cases? Let's say there's a takeover and some people, you can imagine anything. If it happened that some kind of whatever organization decide to nominate a member, what do we do? Okay. Look, it was part of quite some debate whether or not we should have a feedback process. And that feedback process we decided in the end that it should be in there. In past selection process it wasn't and other processes it was. So in some previous processes it was a very strong part of the... I think it was an organization with a feedback. You don't? Okay. I don't think what you're saying it has anything with the feedback about the candidates. It's an organization basically taking over. Like if there's a martial law in India and they say like the dismantle or reveal like... I think no one has an answer for this. Like what we try to do. I think eventually one thing that's again a question around the de-selection process. Like we should be able to have more flexibility about this. Now like if you're by chance, like if you're thinking about the TDC for example, our TDC has just decided that they don't follow the mandate of the community. So what to do? Like this is beyond the selection and even the constitution of it is really what is the TDC. Now I can very shortly, just a suggestion. We as a community can decide to have a town planning authority. Community with the mandate of the community that we give to them. If the people that choose to go another way and all like we cannot just tell them like please don't. I mean we can say but we know the answer but what we can do is decide that no as a community we must have a town planning authority which represents the residents. At least people should agree that they cannot be nominated in another selection process. Another process that is the one that is... I don't believe in having a blacklist of people that they cannot be stripped out of their rights of being a citizen of a reveal. Like this has to do maybe with the exit policy or something like that. As a mentor, with the other mentor I'm working with, we are kind of struggling with another kind of big topic is the feedbacks. So we kind of got a draft from Mondakini who made us aware that there was a subgroup working on feedbacks. So in the draft that never been approved it is mentioned that sentence. Please take accountability of what you share here. You may be invited to elaborate your views during the processing and verification stages of the feedback. I would even add evidences will be asked to confer some feedback because we know here there can be feedbacks that are totally wrong in a way. So what do we do? That is one question that has to be addressed by a big group. Can I answer one question at a time? It's easier because I don't remember them otherwise. Look, with the feedback we have, there's always a decision to be made. How far we go with the feedback? Do we simply say, do we go to what we were doing with the previous one, one or two sessions where we had a separate feedback committee, TFRC it was called, Temporary Feedback Review Committee, who worked on all the feedback for weeks trying to decide whether it was right or wrong. They went to the working groups to get information, they went to the here and there. I tell you, I've interviewed people who were on those feedback TFRC groups and it was a fearful job. They were highly stressed and it was very, very difficult to find anybody that would do the work. In the end, the next group selection we decided we'd do away with the feedback. We wouldn't have feedback at all. We've introduced some feedback and we get the opportunity to the person who is having that feedback to respond. That person is not prevented from taking up a position. That feedback is passed on to the selection team. I believe that that was the fairest way to do it. The simple fact that the applicant can answer, it's great, but people should really understand that they are accountable. They are responsible about what they send. For instance, we were thinking with my co-mentor who is here, some clarifications. For instance, when it is written, records of violence or sexual conduct, does the term record mean police records? For instance, what are threatening speeches constituting violence also? All those kind of things. That for me has to be clarified, not for us. It has to be clarified, way more specific. It is written. Records of violence, it's written there. What do we mean by records? No, just to be more specific, more precise, what do we mean by records? No, I'm talking about this feedback. Honestly, I don't know. The idea here is that the feedback thing, as we said before, I think we spoke a lot in the first meeting. Whatever you do, you'll be criticized. Yes feedback, no feedback, feedback review team, then the responsibility on those. There's no procedure 1, 2, 3, and this is valid feedback and this is not valid feedback without people really considering with all their consciousness and all their voluntary things. Yes, this is valid or not. So at the end what we chose here is whatever is sent will be communicated to the selection group. And we trust somehow the selection group to take it over as if, yes, it's a serious one or not. That's the most because as Martin said, we tried so many things. But now if you have some better idea, but like trying pushing it now and trying to make it super, having something really different or more precise or according to that it will delay the whole thing. And at the end I personally I don't really believe that it's worth it because it will be always subject to a lot of interpretations, human interpretations and then it all depends on the quality of the people who will get those information. And the last one is the assessments of the applicants. For me it's not enough, it has been proven it is not. I would suggest a strong training after the applicants have been chosen, a strong training in the criteria for the applicants. Okay, I can respond to that one. First of all it's not part of the selection process itself, but it is part of the PWG. And there's already a selection section in the PWG talking about training of people in working groups. Now if that needs strengthening, fine, that could be something which could be done and more work would need to go into that. But yes it's there in the PWG, it's not in the selection process. So we haven't considered it as a part of the selection process. So yeah, I agree with you, I agree with you because I've worked in working groups and I know the skills that are needed. But there's also training needed and it should happen. It's there in the PWG. Okay, thank you. First I guess a comment that at the way top of your document it needs to have a version number and a date. Oh that was you that put that one in? No, but it does. Yes, yes, it will because it will go into the PWG. This document does not stand on its own, it goes into the PWG and the PWG will be updated to 2020. And it will have all the dates and everything on it. I did by the way, because you said so in your feedback, I did add a date to the bottom. There you are. That was because of you, thank you. Thank you. No, because there's too many documents in Orville which are totally out there. I understand, but it will be integrated into the PWG and the PWG itself will be updated. There's not any document which doesn't have the exact... I totally agree. And then the other thing is regarding the deselection. I think it's essential that the deselection goes into this document. And whether it means we have to wait another three weeks before we can go for voting or another RAM, I think it's worth it. Because we have seen now I think quite obviously what the consequences can be. So I think it's worth the wait. It should be as soon as possible, but it's worth the wait. And I will very much hope that the RIS in the meantime takes the other RIDs forward, because we don't... I mean, we can listen to other people in meetings while we wait for this to be worked out. I hope people are listening to that. I think we've said all we have to say on that, so unless Fede wants to say something. Fede wants to say something. Yeah, I think it all depends. I really would like to ask the people and ask them whatever, because they are pros and cons. The three weeks like your... We need help for that. So having RIDs, how to do it, it's pretty different and I suspect it might be even more difficult than putting together a selection. Having a de-selection, that's something we never really did. And that's not easy just to tell people we don't like you anymore, go out. So I hope it will be included in some polls, whatever, but it's not in my hands. Next, I have two questions. One is about half time, three quarters of time, full time. We can see in our current scenario right now in our working groups that people are half time or we're not sure what. Which means we don't have the equivalent of let's say seven members in a group. We have three people of half time, one that we never see, et cetera. That should be also criteria and follow-up of presence and attendance. And there should be a mandatory, not a reminder. And also if in the selection process I already asked that last time, people managed to say if they were applying for half time or full time. It was not taken into consideration that then if there's two people for half time, they make one member technically in time. When people decided there would be seven members in a group, I hope they meant seven full-time members. For example, if the mandate says seven percent. So either we change the mandate and say exactly what those seven people are supposed to be doing. Because really the amount of work that there is to do in groups, I don't think we can entertain much longer. Half time, which also means that those people are doing another full job somewhere else. That is not maybe not in those short terms that we have. So I would add something there because you mentioned it somewhere. I appreciate that it's there. A candidate should clarify their availability full-time, part-time and months of the year. So if they say that it's part-time, then what happens when they get selected? Should they have another person with them half-time? Or how does it work? How does it work? That's more to do with the mandates themselves because the mandates really have to be more specific in that area. We have not looked at the mandates themselves. We've only looked at what the mandates have said in terms of whether they need so many people. You're right. There need to be some criteria there written into the mandates. That wasn't our job at the time. I would suggest to add it in the selection process for now. You also mentioned something that you decided not to follow up. I've forgotten what it was along those lines. It will come back, never mind. And about the clearance panel because whatever the feedback is the main problem in our selection every single time. There's been a drama every single time around feedback, which I understand why. It's difficult. But there was an RAD and there was a vote of the community. I think the council last time said they would check. I haven't heard back. There was an RAD with the decision with a full document called the clearance panel. And that was exactly meant for that. To have like Eric was asking proper investigation proper so people could not just they're given a fact and another fact which is not possible to verify while you're sitting on the selection table. So the people would want and I mean there was a whole process could have a proper investigation together and have this available when case feedback comes where people could. So it ended up with a weird situation that the task force that was started just gave up apparently. But I don't think that the task force deciding that it's not what they want to do should stop the whole voting process. So something is missing there. I hope the council will clarify because that is stopping every single process since then. So that is something that was pending last time. I already asked the same question. Thank you. Thank you. It is because if you're talking about feedback and it goes against what the other RAD said that definitely needs to be looked at. Yeah. We've we've not taken into account the tier either a TFRC or a clearance panel. We've not taken that into account. We've just assumed that it doesn't exist because it's it's not part of the PWG the existing PWG. We've said that we incorporate it into the existing PWG. So we're not it's not part of that. So we've basically excluded it. So it's a whole new debate if we want to go back to that that form of feedback. I think it was meant as a separate parallel process that would alleviate this one because we run the little danger of going through once again a longer selection process and someone eventually out of it. Challenging it because of that clearance panel not being followed for any reason. So we need first to fully clarify this or as we're going to end up in more problems. My question was on feedback and it has been amply discussed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Tom. Yeah. The one thing is we are talking of fighting lies cynicism arrogance and all these things. So we are trying our level best with our brains with our computers and everything. But how far do we go in that fight when it's destroying us all the time. And you know for example record of violence or sexual misconduct financial mismanagement. OK we write it. It has been written already 20 years ago. Nothing has been done. Absolutely nothing has been done and people are experiencing a form of impunity. How you say they just go and it's normal. It's absolutely normal and this normality is what we have to fight. And I'm not sure that by spelling out again new. OK we can always write that we can always vote that. But then what you see what happened in the past three four months. It's becoming routine almost. Some people try to keep the flame. Some people try to stay alive. But you know like people get their three months visa all these things and it goes on. So this is more what I want to discuss. This is more what I want to see. So my question I conclude are we sure that we are on the right way. Because we have in front of us a big monster. That is challenging the validity the legality of what all whatever we are doing. So are we addressing the problem we face as a reveal in the right approach. Is this the right approach. Look I'm not sure anywhere any more than anyone else is sure we've done our best. No no I'm not criticizing. No no I'm not. I look I accept that we have problems right now in the community in as a community. I accept that. But look this isn't intended to address that. But it's intended to try and improve the quality of the people that we are putting into positions. To do the work that needs to be done. That was the intention. The intention was to have to a process which will somehow make a step. It'll make a step. It won't be perfect. And at the end of this we hope and we put a clause at the end actually to say it needs to be reviewed. Because we this is an experiment. Okay now it's an experiment but one can see today the danger that all of it is facing. I mean. Yeah yeah I mean as Martin said we've done our best. I hope even like we could have been better but that's what we came with. And for me like even like if you want to go there like it's the intent itself like it's more important than the result. So will it really improve the constitution of the working group this can always hope so. But we can hope that it will involve the people and make people think and being involved correctly. So now I think what you're referring is the legalities of those things. We have something called PWG. That's what we can put on the table when the government of India asked us like how did we constitute this working committee. And like if it's done correctly it will help us. That's it. Like after as I said like if we have a martial law if we have an atomic bomb dropped at us like there's nothing much we can do. Thank you. Actually you just introduced yourself the question that I had which is about reviewing. Because whenever we are compelled to formulate a new system we are in virgin territory more or less. We know it's an experiment and it's important. I think we also know that there is certain time pressure that we get this through that we get a broad agreement. But we know that there's many areas that are a little bit dicey that are great to us. So my question is just have you thought of ways are there ways that we can allow for an easy review and adaptation process without having to go through the very heavy and cumbersome procedures that we have to change our rules. The answer is at the moment we don't. But I would personally very much like us to be have a quicker and a more effective review process. Especially as the for example the Orville Council I think their mandate goes back to 2003 or something like that. You know and it's been stuck there because we haven't had the time to review it. So I fully agree but let's find a way of doing it so that it can be reviewed more more quickly. We try to make this kind of flexible with giving guidelines somehow like giving some principle but like make it flexible. So there's always a trade off now reviewing and all as Martin said like I think we're a bit stuck with this area. The thing like if we want to change a comma in one of those things that have been approved then that's the legal thing. That's the only thing that the community can decide is going through this area which is I think way too heavy for so many things. That's one of the topic I hope will be taken soon. OK. There's one more question by Gondorf. Anyone else who wants to ask something otherwise we Ramesh. OK. So we will have you two and then see if we can look at the parts seeing if the proposal is ready for voting. Gondorf please. I have only a suggestion. For many years we have been around 500 and then we try to find a consent and then if we could stock someone rise. Oh let's try this way for two years. And I want to suggest something that you put into a revised version two or three years that we know in advance. This is a deadline that we don't come after. Thank you. Martin is there anything that would disqualify a person from the selection process. Absolutely. That's an interesting that comes back to the feedback again. We haven't specified anything which would disqualify but we've asked for feedback on the most serious things. Now we do have to give the people who are selecting some credit for and we've actually put in there now also some training on feedback on processing feedback. So look if you saw if you were on that selection team and you saw somebody who had been accused of sexual violence and they didn't give an adequate response to that. Would you select them for the working working committee. I think I think we have to give the people some credit for the work that they do and trust them. So this is the process. This is what we based it on. So there is nothing in the past history that would ever eliminate the selection of a person. There has been in the past but it's basically it's that that process is finished. It's no longer. There was the TFRC that and then there was. Yeah. But it that process no longer exists. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's not a question. When you were saying is there something that would disqualify just the first thing that came to my mind was not being part of the array. Yeah. You have to be part of the array to be part of a working group. No there's a common thing. It seems logical. But to be part of the array you would have to be a certain age because yeah. It just came to me. That's why I don't need my name on this. Thank you. Okay. So if there are no more questions we would resume to the next part for which I would like to invite Tatiana which is the pulse. I got that slide somewhere. Thank you. So now you heard everything about the proposal questions comments and all as it is envisioned by their decision making policy. Now it's time to get a sense of the participants of the meeting. Those who participate in person and online. I just would like to highlight that. Please remember that in that pulse only confirmed or villains can participate. Those who are present here and those who are online. So that sense that common agreement. If the proposal that you can see now so that's what this proposal will look when we will put it for voting. So the question is is the revised proposal refined the proposal ready to go out for voting. If you feel like yes it's good enough to go for voting please raise your hand. And those who participate online please use also the tool which you will see on the screens. Well who would agree. RIS members could you please help me. Just count hands. Those who are present done without this election. This election needs further refinement as we heard from the SPRTF team and the council. Thank you. So Giovanni online participants. The process is going. Thank you for your patience. So please give us a few moments. Those who participating online. There is a chart. A chat. A chat to express your pulse. In this case it was asked if you get say yes. OK so it takes a while because the online participants just get into this chat and have to type yes I guess. So we have to be patient for two three more minutes. There will be another question. Please hold on. I think so yeah if you've got some clear numbers so online participants they prefer to go on to proceed with the process. So and next all right. Second question that we put here is the voting options. There will be now something that you can also reflect. There is one opportunity for example to have only yes no voting which is quite simple. And option B we can include the third option. I don't know but I would like to give my voice to support the majority. So wait wait wait. So those who would like to have only yes no option please. Hands up online voting continues in the meantime. Those who would like to support B option now it's your turn to voice your opinion. Looks like majority supports the option A from the room and online participants. I think again for being so patient. So those who are connected online please go again in the chat and express your preference between option A and B as Tatiana just described. We wait 30 seconds. People start to vote. What was the result in the room Tatiana? A option 100 percent. Okay so online is a split group with mostly the option B. It's interesting in numbers. In numbers not so many so far. Seven votes for option B and three votes for option A. It seems to me that majority is here for the option A. All right for more details. Shall we close the voting online? Yes I believe it's time. Thank you very much. So now it's again Julia. And yes next steps so we are going to publish the report of the follow-up residence assembly meeting and after that we will announce the beginning of the residence assembly decision making which is voting technically. Thank you all of you for being present here and for your feedback and for your active participation and engagement in this matter. Thank you the selection process review task force those who are present those who are absent but they share the inputs. Thank you Julia. Thank you. Thank you. One more piece of information and anyway Julia will do the closing. I just like to remind those who are present those who are present online that next week Monday next week we are going to have the first residence assembly meeting to discuss the proposal which was submitted to the residence assembly service through a group of concerned residents. There is a petition to vote to consider no confidence in the working committee so it's a long proposal. I'm not sure that it was quite precise. So please welcome next Monday same time 4 p.m. 6 30 I believe p.m. Thanks a lot. Okay thank you everybody we're ending on time that's almost impossible to believe but we will and I would like to invite you just for a moment of silence altogether before we leave the room.