Thank you @lumina.envision, @alwynvanwyk, and @atlantian001 - I really appreciate your thoughtful replies in Afo’s thread. I agree with a lot of what’s been said, especially the importance of building on what’s already working rather than over-engineering something that’s been growing naturally. What we have is a beautiful thing and should be celebrated!
At the same time, we shouldn’t ignore that there have been cracks. Not everything has been smooth. People have had confusion around roles, unclear growth paths, suggestions go untended, burnout from invisible labor, unelected leaders who no longer show up, and frustration around how decisions get made or who gets to do what. My proposal isn’t meant to criticize nor create bureaucracy, but to provide just enough (minimal) structure to reduce friction, and allow the network to grow more intentionally.
The idea isn’t to approve or deny chapter activity, far from it. Chapters should continue doing what works. But if we’re serious about growing this into something bigger, then we need a clearer way to support new chapters and nodes, elevate contributors, and maintain shared alignment without burning out the few unpaid folks currently holding it all together.
Formalizing a lightweight structure for how leaders emerge, how we recognize and elevate them, and how we share lessons across the network is a critical step toward that. It’s not meant to replace organic growth, but to support it as things scale. If we do it right, it should feel like momentum, not overhead.
Not to mention that it also brings us more on-chain, as outlined by Owocki in January.