The use of pol.is by this group to guide a critical governance decision which will determine the course of the forthcoming election for Catalyst Circle v4 repays closer attention.
(Meeting #11, 4th August 2022 - Catalyst Circle Oversight V3)
Of particular note is :
- How divisive statements are (not) represented,
- how little or no discussion is given to statements that do not support restructuring Circle according to some newly-defined categories rather than the current functional roles
- the suppositions made about the community (eg “groups participating in Catalyst”)
- and omitted key takeaways (such as “the community is not convinced Circle should be a decision-making body at all”, “increasingly complex layers of bureaucracy” and "We should try out some alternatives to the Circle model”).
Additionally in the analysis there is no reference to how pol.is should be used or rationale for how it used by the two reporters (see Examining pol.is as a Survey Methodology - Examining pol.is as a Survey Methodology | by Colin Megill | pol.is blog )