Ordinary Resolution to simplify qualifying labour contribution

This one is the conclusions of many discussions and also an addition to already proposed resolutions regarding what does or does not qualify to be a worker member at Resonate. I think it’s really essential to try and have a system in place that’s both inviting enough, clear enough but also precise enough that we can accurately track who is doing what, give some margin to worker members once work has been done so that one doesn’t immediately fall out of membership, and yet have a worker member class that’s representative of who’s involved at the time of decision making amongst the worker members etc. Again, kept the already established presentation of resolutions as is for consistency.

Resolution to simplify qualifying labour contribution

WHEREAS section 10.i. states that a qualifying contribution for membership may be defined by ordinary resolution at a General Meeting,

WHEREAS the current qualifying contribution for Worker Membership would be complicated to track or manage, due to establishing three different systems between which a single worker might transition depending on their work relationship with the co-op :

“THAT the minimum qualifying contributions for a [Worker] Member be as follows;

(i) 80 hours of paid work as an employee of Resonate over a three month period
(ii) 40 hours of paid work as a contractor to Resonate over a three month period
(iii) 20 hours of unpaid work as a volunteer/intern of Resonate over a three month period”

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the qualifying contribution for a Worker Member be changed to:

40 hours of work over a six month period


seconded by @Hakanto during AGM

initially i thought 40 hours of volunteer labor was a bit too much. though as i’ve come to learn more about how things have happened here at Resonate, i realize that there are people who have already contributed way more than that amount of volunteer labor. based on that history, setting a more stringent standard is an appropriate and equalizing thing to do.

generally what has been the strategy when it comes to appealing to volunteers? the saying “many hands lighten the load” comes to mind for me. but it seems key tasks have been concentrated amongst very small teams of people… or in some cases it’s mainly one person fulfilling a particular role. and when someone steps back due to burnout / other life obligations, another person steps in for a time. is there an active desire for more volunteers?


I think @Hakanto and @ode12 can most speak to this, what with the Kielest calls and proposed structure as well as setting up the (underused) Needs category. I think @brndnkng also has some ideas about hosting more regular calls for people to check in this year.


Kielest is a brilliant concept! when i was reading over the notes and watching some of the calls, i was thinking about how Kielest could take shape with a few more people on board to populate different teams.


@honeyanhibiscus So glad you like it! :blush: