Proposal for Fund Solutions Not Pollution Campaign Infrastructure

As per the last National Working Group meeting I’ve had a chat with Shaun from the FSNP campaign about their needs, especially regarding Action Network and have a proposal about advancing access. This proposal is for review within the National IT Working Group (IT WG) and will then be taken to the National Working Group.

The IT WG now has credentials for the DoGooder page and is investigating how/if we can migrate/link this over to Action Network.

Campaign Needs

The FSNP campaign strategy is both decentralised and targeted.

Local groups can request campaign materials and participate in weekly national meetings. So there is a need to use XR’s infrastructure for things like forms, email communication, etc.

The campaign is also looking to target key electorates. Organisers are keen to work with local groups but need the ability to asses activity within those groups and identify existing organisers that they’re able to work with.


Setup a Fund Solutions Not Pollution Action Network group that sits under the XR Australia group. This group would be active for the duration of the campaign and then archived. Organisers within the campaign would have full admin access to the group but no existing rebels would be imported into it.

Grant key campaign organisers (limit to up to 3 people) with report permissions on the XR Australia group. This will allow organisers to determine rebel capacity within key electorates, see AN usage (events, emails, etc) within state/local groups and see contact details for organisers/admins within state/local groups.

Before access is provided campaign organisers would be required to watch the Action Network training videos.

Organisers would require consent to create events, reports, emails, etc. within any AN group that is not FSNP. Existing admins of those AN groups would be responsible for delegating access.

Do they want to use the Action Network group as a mailing list, eg for newsletters or campaign update emails? Or just as a way for them to create Action Network events without needing access to the national or state Action Network groups?

I’m ok with some FSNP campaigners having report access to the national Action Network group. However, unless they are already experienced Action Network users, I think we should require that they watch the Action Network training videos first before we give them access, so that they have an idea of what Action Network is and how to use it responsibly. I think they’d need to watch all the videos in the playlist, they are all relevant. And of course read the Action Network user agreement.

Most of the campaign updates are coming through weekly meetings. Throughout the campaign there may be emails they wish to send to the national list and in those cases they’ll engage with the existing process (as is being done now with an email going out tomorrow).

At the moment they’re doing things like providing campaign materials (stencils, pamphlets, etc.) through request on Google Forms. I imagine they’ll want to move that stuff over to Action Network so that they’re more easily able to follow up on those requests.

Most of the events will be setup by local groups but there may be cases where there are national campaign events.

This is a good suggestion and I will update my original post to make it a requirement. In order to keep momentum I have already passed on the links to the User Agreement and Training Materials (of course, no access has been provided yet).

I think this is a good proposal but I’m worried about setting precedents and think that since we will be setting a precedent no matter what we do that we really need to write it up as a formal (generic) policy so that its clear what precedent we are setting. We also need to be explicit about what should happen when conflicts arise, such as when there is a local group that exists but is not active.

  • How can FSNP (or another campaign) contact rebels in this area without stepping on the toes of the local group that exists?
  • How can we ensure that a local group can’t “hold to ransom” the rebels in it’s area?
  • How do we ensure that people are expected to come to the table and work this stuff out through a consent (not consensus) Self-Organising and Regenerative process?

I don’t want to hold up the process or create obstacles to consent but I do think that it’s very important to mention these things and write down a policy that is “good enough for now” but also records the shortcomings and possible areas for improvement so that it’s very clear that the policy should continue to evolve as new campaigns arise.

Since we live in a broken system I feel strongly that if we don’t make it explicit that the policy should be revisited and adjusted regularly, people will end up following it without question and/or rejecting it in it’s entirety before starting again from scratch, rather than offering improvements.