Kathy, a community member asked me what we were planning to do next to insure accountability and longevity of Lace on Race.

We will be posting up a formal description of what it will look like and what we hope to see from your responses. For now though, this is my answer to her. If this feels like something you want to be a part of, let us know when we publish tomorrow.

______

You got a bit ahead of me, Kathy.

Yes, we we do need another iteration of the Gaggle. We may call it Gaggle 2.0, or something else; it will have elements of the original Gaggle; which filled the absolute need of support, and most importantly, accountability for staff, and crucially, for myself.

A community like this can become top down really fast. Especially when, like this was, founded by one person with a rather singular vision. That is not by itself a bad thing. When there is novelty, in premise, theses, and application, it can be an overall good to not have to craft that vision by committee. What was in my head two years ago as I formulated this was different than what I had seen or experienced. I saw a need, a niche, and also saw a need to fill it.

But it hinged on community and accountability. I was going to ask a bunch of strangers to trust me: to walk with me to places that had never been, to consider and internalize concepts that were new to them, and to apply that in ways they never had before. That’s a lot of trust, and, handled badly, even a good idea can go sideways fast. If I was going to insist upon a community ethos, and also if I was going to ask people to think in new ways, it was and is imperative that I be a new kind of leader; one worth following.

I formed the Gaggle about a month or two after launch, for exactly these reasons. We grew fast, and it was one thing to walk with people I knew, and who knew me, it was another thing entirely to do that with those who started off as strangers.

We needed to be sure to steer clear of a cult of personality; even though my name is on this, it could not be one person issuing edicts. There needed to be a group of people who knew me, knew my strengths and areas of weakness, keep me hard on my stated personal ethos, and who would act as a counterweight.

That is still needed. As we have grown ever larger, there is an imperative that I continue to be a leader worth following, and a servant to our ethos and method.

And, in the broadest way possible, I needed and still need to be a servant.

All still true.

So, a new Gaggle, or whatever we decide to name it.

It will serve in the same way, but in an even deeper way than what was first asked.

When I invited the first group of women into the Gaggle, one thing I promised them is that little would be actually asked of them.

That was a mistake on my part. Has to do with some of my own insecurities, and also we had no firm idea of how this would evolve.

We know better now.

In the intervening months, we added two volunteer staff, and also grew a cohort–Sustainers.

We know a bit about sustainers.

By no means is being a sustainer a guarantee that we would get enhanced engagement, either on the posts or in converting promise of financial engagement to actual commitment. However, it is a good gauge. Those who are sustainers, in aggregate, do more, post more, and tend to stick around. (We need to talk about churn; which we will with Gaggle 2.0). Actually, at this point, the Gaggle was mostly silent; in terms of commenting and other engagement. They engaged in the Gaggle chat when something happened, but for the most kept a quiet presence.

We need more now. So, yes, tomorrow, we are going to describe what we envision for the group that will guide this, and provide oversight to me and staff.

It’s no secret, so I am happy to outline some stuff here. We will be asking sustainers, as well as former Gaggle members who still desire to engage in an enhanced way to become part of this new cohort.

We thought hard about the requirement that people who do take on this enhanced responsibility be sustainers, or willing to become sustainers. We have long eschewed a two tier system, where one cohort ‘gets more’ than others in the community.

We worked that out by framing this way: those who are part of this new group will not necessarily get more, but they will have more on their shoulders. That is, we are not lifting others up at the expense of the rest of our fellow walkers, but we will be asking for servants who are willing to walk beside, provide succor, share talents, and, metaphorically wash the feet of the community.

This is important to us for so many reasons, not least because the ethos of flat and round and everyone looks each other in the eye is so important.

So those who are in this new group will not be as passive as the first iteration; they will be invited and expected to model our four tenets: Leaning In by taking more responsibility, risk, and visibility; Planting Roots by committing time, in both senses of the word: time on the comment section; time engaging with fellow walkers. As well, in time committed to the community as a whole; we will ask initially for a three month commitment; that may go for longer. But we are trying this out; we want to see what this enhanced walking will look like in real terms. We will ask that they be willing to be mentored, at least initially, by me, or Marlise, or Claire, and in turn be willing to mentor at least one other. As we get larger, and if there is a demand for more mentorship, those in the initial 2.0 cohort will be asked to do what M and C and I will do with them.

This means they need to have a good working knowledge of and affinity and alignment with our core values; need to have demonstrated that they can engage with kind candor, that they are teachable, and that they will stick around. One of the weaknesses we have noticed, is that there is indeed a churn. The most active members here are not the most active members even six months ago, let alone a year or almost two years. We need to change that. One thing about a community that can be trusted and leaned into is that there be a sense of reliability and consistency. This is a dynamic we need to change. Even having two or three or five more people that people know will be here will create an enhancement to the safe-ish space.

Lastly, as we grow, we have found that we need good working groups. Marlise will be welcoming another little one soon, Claire and Christine have much on their plates as well. I myself work full time, and with our current funding levels, that will be true for awhile. So we need to identify servants who can take lead roles in areas such as funding, outreach/pr/marketing, community care, research on discrete topics as we move to a magazine format, and the like. So this group will be asked to either take lead or enhanced roles in at least one working group, reporting back as necessary. This sounds more onerous than it actually will be.

TL; DR? We will be looking for and asking people to self select in to a group that will do a bit more than before. For some of you, it won’t be too much different than what you are already doing.

The initial group will be small, as we learn to cleave and become cohesive. We will be learning applied relational ethics as we engage with each other, so it can be modeled effectively and consistently for the community as a whole.

Wow. I think I just wrote it. Any thoughts, Kathy?

Or anyone else for that matter. I really really want to know what you think.