participating online and in person, if they all agree that the residence assembly decision proposal is ready to be put out to the community for a decision and the voting options are clearly formulated, the arrest will announce the beginning of the voting process, otherwise the proposal will go through the second round of feedback and one more residence assembly meeting and so on. The voting will run for about two weeks and will result with an in-person voting at one of the public places and the arrest will publish the outcome of the arrest decision making within 48 hour time frame. So coming down to the heart of the matter, the Oregon Council initiated this current decision making process in October 2021 to design a modified selection procedure to address the issues we faced selecting members for the wage and working groups last year. Since Oregon Council are to be selected by the same process, they decided to hand over this endeavor to the selection process review task force and the residence assembly service. The task force was formed through a participatory process where seven community members were randomly selected from a pool of 12 self-nominated candidates. Those seven task force members are Jaya, Jean-François, Martin, Philippe, Sanjil, Sara Vanan and Sylvain Raj. Anita stepped forward to facilitate the first meeting of all the stakeholders and we all together elaborated the framework of the review process and its timeline. The task force chose to work independently and we greatly appreciate the way they dealt with their tasks. Thank you for all the work. So now it's time to Martin's presentation. Thank you. Thank you Tatiana. So now we are going to open the presentation. We are going to hand it over to Martin and Philippe also. And before that just for you to know the flow of presentation we go in one stretch yet we don't want that you feel unclear so if you have some burning question for clarity for clarification please raise your hand during the presentation and Martin and Philippe will address this question but only question for clarification. After the presentation there will be a space dedicated for general questions, for inputs, for feedback but today is really about understanding the revised proposal which is our topic today so I can hand it over to you Martin. So welcome everyone. It's really nice to see everybody so interested to come and hear about the work we've been doing. So we've been working on this for a few weeks for the team and there's just the two of us today to present. So there's Savardja sitting there. He's also was also a part of the team so I don't know if there's anyone else in the room that was part of the team. So thanks for being here so much. So the process started by us being given a brief. So we were given a brief which basically started with a task force report which came after the last selection process. So there was a and the task force had quite a long report but because there were quite some problems for that process so we were asked to see how we could redesign the process to try and reflect any learnings. So we have and the main learnings were that the present selection process is not effective, fair or aligned with horrible values. And that the process and the selection should avoid politics and avoid voting. That was our brief. So we decided to design the process which we tried to eliminate those things which were undesirable and have something a little bit different than what's happened before. So we decided on having a selection team to do the work. But the selection team should be chosen randomly from the community using a proven transparent method. So and the team would be given skills and information needed to select the candidates and would be free to make their own judgments. This is a method that's been already trialled by the citizens assembly team of which I've been a part and seemed to have been quite successful so it was something that we wanted to try and build on. An organization team created by the RAS with silent observers, facilitators and other volunteers. So these are people that will help to run the process. So we start with the candidates. So the RAS's job is to keep a track of the mandates of the working groups and make sure that the terms are known and that there is a plan for submitting new members. That's their job to make sure that they're aware of what's needed by the working groups and that we can have a process in time to select the members needed. So the public call for interest for the vacant positions, just as we've been doing. The candidates can self-apply for an open position for them, maybe nominated by them. So the candidates. We'd like the candidates to really put themselves forward in a way that gives the information that's needed for the team to be able to select them.  A resume of his or her experiences, work life experiences, internships, group participation, etc. etc. I think this is quite important because not everybody on that team is going to know everybody. So that selection team is going to be randomly selected so they'll need to know the candidates. So it's very important that the candidates will submit the information that the selection team needs. So a description of his or her skills, domain of expertise, specific interests, etc. So we get to sort of the thing we need to get to know. So this was a bit of a debate amongst us whether we should have feedback process or not and where it should actually go if we did. So in the end we decided we would put a feedback process in place and it would go at the beginning. But we tried very hard to make it something which would be as fair as possible. But we'd restrict the feedback if you like to a number of specific areas that we try avoid all this sort of general feedback. So we're trying to keep it really strictly to a number of lines and we really restrict the amount that people can actually write. We looked at Twitter and Twitter gets 140 characters so we're getting 140 characters. So let's see if this works.  Conflicts of interest specific to the area of work and an orderly engage in a court case against the federal order. So that feedback would be provided to the selection of teams. It's not a public feedback, it's provided to the selection of teams for their work. So how do we actually make up this? We talked about random selection. So it's a process of basically taking the master list and doing a random list from that master list and taking essentially as many people as necessary to get essentially 40 people. We're looking at 40 people from that master list. So we reckon that we're going to be forced to come and do it. So that those people might say no. And the experience that we have from the citizens assembly is that between three you need to select something like three or four times the number that you actually want at the end. So when we want 40, so we put a nominal number of 150. However, that can be extended because the list will be totally random.  And the organization team will connect with each of those people that have been chosen and ask them whether they would like to join the team and give them the information they need, give them the process and all the other things. So until we get the 40 people, it will be clear a bit later why we said 40. So we've got day one. So this is the selectors, just the selectors. So we felt that it was really important that the selectors had some skills, knowledge and ability to do the work that they had to do. And it wasn't that they were going to be just thrown in at the D-pad and say, look, you have to select all these people. They need to know how to do it. And again, from the experience that we had with the citizens assembly, the people need to have a certain knowledge and experience in this skill. So one day it will be provided to give them those skills that they need. So that day will be basically taken up by training in teamwork with a focus on listening skills. Listening is going to be really important in this work. Training and recognizing bias both in themselves and others, that's also really important in this work. Consensus building, they're going to need to try and find ways to agree with each other. You'll see a little bit later how it's going to be done. They'll need to know a bit about the Orbit Foundation Act, working group structure and mandates of the working groups. So that will be part of that day. And they will receive brief presentations from members of each of the working groups that they were selecting. So we're the question and answer session. And brief presentations from any other community members. So if somebody comes forward and says, I would like to give a presentation to these people because they're going to be helpful for them. The team can take those. And the last one is quite important because if this group says, oh, we really need more information on this or that and we don't really understand how this working group works or we'd really like to hear from somebody, for example, who's a previous member of the group, they can ask for that and that hopefully can be provided if it might involve an extra time for that to actually take place. So they can actually meet with any other person that the selection group members ask for. So I think I can hand this over to Filipe. This is how everything works. I'm not sure really. Okay, so till now those 40 people who were selected randomly like what Martin explained, it's a chance for everyone to be selected just in London, but it's first it's agreement that yes, people are volunteers for that. So those 40 people till now they are all together the first day. They were given the same presentations. They can interact together. Now what's happening like the main work for the selection happens in this second day actually for them, for the selectors. We have a group of 40 people. The first thing that should happen in the second day is that we create four different teams of 10. So this is, if you notice, that's the second time here we use some random process. The first random process, the random selection, let's say, is for selecting those 40 people. And all along this proposition the randomness has a, it is there at several times. So the first thing is that selecting those 40, then creating 14 of 10 people. So we're just like picking colored paper from a hat or something like that. That's pretty simple. And the idea is that from now on those 10, those 14 of 10 basically they should not really communicate to each other. They should be, they should have their own independent thinking. The idea is try to limit the possibility of lobbying from some group or something like that. So that's what we really try hard to integrate some kind of resistance to the politics or dirty or influence games that can happen. And that's the first thing. Basically, once people, at the beginning of the second day, the teams of 10 basically should be in different locations and should not talk to each other. So the whole day so that the teams of 10 will work, they will have the chance for interviewing all the candidates. So it will be a heavy day. Definitely the whole day would be quite intensive for the people. The first day was kind of get a training and all the second days really were hard work. So interview with the candidates, interaction with the candidates. So that each candidate will have basically that will be a little challenge for the organization. That's why we don't ask specifically only the RAS but like the RS3. We help by other people in the community because organizing so that the candidates will basically go and meet each of the team. Like it can be a rotation or something like that in different things and explain like why they would like to be there and why they can add something to the team and so on and so forth. And the feedbacks. So the feedbacks that were collected until now it will be presented to the teams there at this point and it's really up to them. Like the idea basically of those small teams of 10 people is try to see how randomly selected groups of 10 people, how they can build something all together. It can be, there's no rule in those stands like how they will basically select their, make their own selections and that's independently. Will they decide to work only by consensus? Will they decide to have a facilitator with them because they feel the need to help to organize in such a small group of 10 or vote, majority vote or whatever, up to them, up to those groups of 10. Up to them if they want to select, for example if there are four positions or one position or two, up to them if they want to fulfill those four positions or no, if no candidate for them is fit at all, that's their choice. It's complete space for freedom and work. So what we did was we looked for qualities that we felt were general qualities rather than specific qualities because the specific qualities are going to depend on the particular jobs that those people are going to do. So we thought well let's give people some, let's aim high anyway. The first one, the ability to do the work needed, well that's fairly obvious, let's see if we can get people that can do the work, and the ability to work harmoniously within the team. That's quite important, in fact it's really important. A deep resonance with the charter, a dream to be a true or a failure, it's quite important for some groups and perhaps all groups. An understanding of the foundation act and the structure of the foundation are quite important for the working committee, I don't think. An ability to listen with a non-judgmental attitude. That's quite important for the council. So fairness, we all try to be fair, the ability to realign oneself by having listen to stories, struggles and disagreements, particularly important if you remember the council to get a lot of that. An openness to understand another human being. The ability to empathize with discernment. Humility to acknowledge one's own limitations. Experience in communication and organization skills, perhaps not needed for everybody, but where it is needed then that needs to be taken into account. Also quite important, it's trusted by the community and respect for their integrity. That's a useful thing for a working group member. So that second day basically, according to all the tools and those ideas, the four different teams of here, imagine 10 people, it can be less, like we have the document if you have read the document, there are some details which makes it a little bit complicated, a little bit heavy, but it's trying to address some age case, for example, what happens if people don't show up and more so that we have some resistance, if one team is less than I think six people or something like that, then we say this team is not complete so it can work, the whole thing can work with only three teams. But the idea is that we have four different teams and all together at the end of the day the target is that they select a working committee, a council, a TBC hopefully and whatever group, according to the candidate. So here let's say just the example, like we have here four different candidates for a selection group with a different color, so the blue, the orange, the green, and the purple day or lady. So here the four teams, they have to make their own selection, for example, you can see that this team let's imagine there are three positions available but they decided to select only two people here. So what's happening is here their job is done, the people like the selectors chosen randomly, the volunteers, that's okay they have worked and they came with their teams with their own kind of selection. And then we can collect the results at the end. You can see here if you notice, like this person in blue, the candidate is selected by each of the individual teams so it means that we can interpret that there's a kind of consensus around this person. So automatically this person will be selected for a chosen by the process community. So that person in blue here is selected. And for the rest, basically here the green guy is selected by two groups. So here we have, we collect the results and we put all of them together in a hat. So it's a way to reassemble, basically, the different, the results of those smaller teams and how we choose. So the orange one has been selected by three teams out of four so that we have here, let's say three tickets, again like in the big hat. And we've put it in our next day, but the job for the selectors themselves is over, they come over home, it's kind of more like the organization team, so the various will ensure that the last bits of this process is done, hopefully transparently and that's really with an innocent hand, can basically do the job. And it's very simple, like it's not a day it's a half a number, even less than that. So remember like we have the guy in blue who was chosen by the four different teams, and then the rest. So here we have let's say six tickets or whatever the result in orange. So again the last bit is again a random thing basically. Let's say we have if we have one more position, so the blue one was selected, if we have one more position for this working group then out of all the tickets representing the choices from the individual selection teams, it means that here we have this guy who was selected only by one, we still have a small chance to be selected randomly and this guy a bit more and this guy a bit more right, so if you do the math, like this guy will have 50% chances and this guy probably 30% and this guy 20% or something like that. So if there is one more person to be selected, it would be only like one ticket, and if there are more two or three more, then we just draw from this the hat, and it reflects a little bit the global confidence, kind of half consensus or whatever that all the small different teams they have put in the people, so the more you're selected by the all the different teams and the more chances you have to be selected randomly. And that's it. Except that except that of course the result is final, we don't even see the reason why we should go back to the residents, like that's the result of the selection process then is after the random thing from the hat. So you have seen that the randomness actually is at least in three different steps the random of the selection, selectors the random of the small groups, and then the final there's still a touch of randomness, so it's a little mix, like I think we try to keep a balance between that consensus building a part that independence and resistance from the lobbying groups and all, so one of the ideas to split in different smaller teams and to have really the smaller teams working independently from each other is that like it's a resistance we cannot really find a way to have bullet proof thing, I think there's no such thing as a bullet proof process, but if one group is heavily influenced for some reason by a group of friends which by chance are together and they really influence one group, there will still be a resistance from those kind of pressure from the other groups that's one of the ideas The other element here that we really wanted to emphasize was the fact that the selection, all the selectors have already had all the information that they need and the training that they need to be able to do that work, so all the elements we hope that they are in order to try and build a selection process that not only chooses the right people for the right jobs, but does it in a fair way Thank you, so we'll very shortly start with the Q&A session, but before that we just wanted to take a little minute here, so if you feel like you have to move a bit, go for it and we'll just realign on technical stuff and we'll start again in one minute That's fine with everyone Shall we use these? So I see we already have many names We have one hour for the meeting now, so hopefully everyone will have a chance to talk We just want to emphasize on something which is that we would like it to have clarity to questions first, so if you need clarity on the proposal, if you have feedback, there will be a separate feedback process after this meeting So we would like to prioritize questions first and then if you have general feedback, you're most welcome, but really let's try to stick to questions at first We're not so many, so hopefully everyone will manage to speak so we really aim at ending on time So we invite everyone to be as concise as possible both people asking questions and people answering So are you ready? Once again, last information is there will be, there has placed some papers on the chair over there close to the glass door in case we could not have covered your question or you didn't mention your feedback inputs, you can please leave a note there and place it on the table outside or give it to one of us member Yeah, we can start Okay, my name is Shanti I have a question about the randomness in the end I understand when four people are picked by four groups that you automatically choose them but I don't understand why you don't also automatically choose if three groups chose the person I really don't understand why there's randomness at that level I love it at the beginning Do you have a name? Okay, whatever For someone who is selected from all the groups then there's a sense of consensus So basically it is if someone who is selected by three will have three times more chances to be selected than someone selected by only one group That's just a logical way of saying Anyway, like if one thing with the feedback that I think we have to be really open to the comments and also it's a very valid feedback We'll see if there are other people who think the same and of course we will change it Basically the sense that you get is really proportional to the result of the support I see any gender I saw that if there is a balanced gender in a group much more efficient than the other guys because what is happening with this kind of position normally is guys that want to be there or more guys than women So in this random thing should be a little less random to find a gender balance No gender balance This is something that we really thought about Not only gender but age but also nationality and many other things The experience that we had was that by doing it randomly we got a very good balance By doing that selection of that group completely at random I don't remember the numbers but it was a very balanced team in all those senses nationality gender, we had a pretty good team I asked one of another members of the team that I can't Look trust me it was very well balanced There is a possibility of doing this It's more complicated There is a possibility of giving a bias to make sure that you get all things are possible The one that's of course the most difficult is the nationalities because there was 50 something nationalities here and 50 people in there So no, it's a valid point but we chose to leave it to the divine Help yourself and God we help you Yeah, let's say from a mathematical probabilistic point of view a random draw will be representative That's a mathematical thing No, it's a good question, for example like in the team of 7, we had only one woman But let's say, it just takes this room Is it representative to the population of Auroville? Quite clearly no It's just the people who want to come forward and who are volunteer for the job Another way of asking the question is the positive segregation which is positive quota There are more women No, that's nice Age wise, it is really in balance compared to the general population of Auroville and like that, many criteria Age wise, it's very difficult so that we decided to leave it as the volunteers and the people who really want to do the job and actually it's based on whatever, the energy that the people put including the skills and all rather than selecting based on a statistical representation of the general population Mine is not a question, I have a suggestion I would request if it is possible to display the feedback the candidatures feedback, is it possible? Records of violence are sexual misconduct criminal activity This is the antecedence that Aurovillians are here as volunteer for the workers, even as people You cannot label a brother Aurovillian as a criminal or financial misconduct, a person who was involved anyway that anybody's candidature would be rejected if such a person is given feedback as if he was involved in sexual misconduct or financial management So to my understanding, I would request if this can be erased, because there are this paper will be spread around and this, to me, this to me, this is going to be a document and we are here, I'm sorry to say you are all here on voluntary reasons, many non-Indians but if you are proven or if your feedback is such that you are involved in financial mismanagement or in violence, sexual misconduct then definitely a personal question Anybody who is not proven by the court of judicature he cannot be called as a criminal in India, that is the law and we don't follow the due process of law I mean I don't understand how you can say someone is That is my opinion and my suggestion If I could ask people who have suggestions like this please participate in the feedback process because there will be feedback form going out and we will take those things seriously What I will say with the feedback is that we quite often get quite strong feedback on both sides of one argument So we might well get some very strong feedback that this feedback that we get if here is needed and we get some of it so we will take that feedback very much into account and we will do our best to form a balanced to change things if we feel that feedback is strong Thank you for the feedback The feedback on the feedback is always good One thing is that we had long long discussions We had examples of those Temporary TFOC and all All the groups in charge of validating the feedbacks and then the feedbacks were exposed and it always created a lot of tension So the idea here is just the feedback is not featured, whatever and even like it can be some people might find difficult to send the feedback with their names and all So the idea is that all the feedbacks will be fed to those selection ten people like the small groups of ten and it's their job It's tremendous job We kind of trust them that they will be wise enough to either discard if it's complete, if they feel it's not good or take it into account or whatever and each of those ten, small groups of ten basically will hopefully know what to do with those and it will influence their final choice or not their space But again, some of them they might be influenced, one group of ten and some of them won't be influenced by those feedbacks Right now that's the only way we could imagine to have still a possible feedback but without being drawn now or whatever through the small groups Just to say that anyway we are not here we are mentioning concerns or questions and the team, so first days the RS is ensuring that notes are taken so every question, every concern is going to be registered and it's still going to be considered in the feedback by the SPRTF team and yet maybe a reformulation what I'm hearing from Mutu is the science concerns may still be mentioned but maybe not as such but let's see, and please, please, please contribute in the feedback process with also some constructive proposal, you know, how it can be mentioned and that would be extremely constructive, thank you Just to mention how the feedback is going to be handled we will be asking for feedback by section so there will be a place to give your feedback for each section in the proposal and also a general feedback for the whole thing and you will be asked not only just to give your feedback but also to make a suggestion to make a suggestion as to how to change what to make this, so we're really looking for everybody's help if you'd like to make it a better proposal question I want to begin by really congratulating the team and I think they've set the bar very high, I think it's great what they've done. I have three questions one is on the feedback since it's up there Philippe said that we have to rely upon the wisdom or common sense of the people in the four groups in terms of how they use the feedback some of those topics are extremely sensitive and serious so that's what Mutu is mentioning in one sense if somebody is making allegations like this it really requires investigation it can't be left to ten people to decide whether they're going to listen to it or not so what this process implies is that somebody or some group, the RAS or some other group will have to be empowered to go out and check some of the more serious allegations from the point of view of the person who has the allegations against him it's only fair to do that so that's my one question, how are you going to actually do it second one, it's a little bit what Shanti said I don't fully follow the logic of the last random selection if somebody has received three out of four 30 out of 40 people have said we want this person even though they've got three six in the hatch rather one the chances are they won't be selected and I feel there's a certain unfairness in that so I'm just maybe look at that again, maybe for two or one person selection that's a bit different, the other one is about the separation of the groups into four groups I follow the logic, I have to absolutely understand the idea that somebody, if they're all together somebody might influence the rest, there's a bit of a downside though that is if important information comes up about a candidate in one group it's not going to be shared with the other three groups, so you have a kind of asymmetry there you have one group who knows much more about a candidate maybe negatively or positively so they may select that person, the other three groups may not select them because they won't have that information, so here again it seems to me there's, I don't know how you do it but it seems to me if there's really important information that comes up in that process of interviewing maybe not putting the groups together but that information should be given to each of the four groups because I think that's important in terms of fear I'll answer that one if I can first something that we hadn't thought of, so at least I hadn't so it would be good if you can make that suggestion in the feedback process itself although we're having those taken so as far as the feedback itself is concerned we made it along over what we should do about feedback and there seems to be very little happy medium between doing a full process that, similar to what we used to do with the TFRC where they used to do lots of investigation and go to the working groups and all the other things there seem to be very little we decided we didn't want to do that because it puts a whole different perspective on the on the process so in the end we came up with a, we tried to come up with a simpler process and it's true that it has flaws I think we're going to rely on getting feedback from people on whether we want a feedback process at all it's a very difficult one we struggle with that when you look into that one we'll see whether we can't include the three looking into that and it is a possibility just you mentioned that important information which have worked up in one group should be shared with the other groups and who will judge what is important so that's the idea of having some kind of independent but like you said you can give us more what Martin said we have we try to keep things relatively simple it sounds a bit complicated when you see the whole thing different groups and subgroups and we are simple and all but I think fundamentally it's pretty simple thank you so much to the SPRTF I think it's a really good proposal and the selection process obviously needed to be reviewed I'm thinking of that work I particularly like the suggestion of the running the selected selection committee I think that's a really good selection one thing that I'm sitting with is something that I saw lacking in previous selection processes and I'm still seeing lacking in this one is around the way of selecting is selecting individuals rather than a team this is a space that we can think deeper at this stage I've participated in selection processes where subgroups work and consensus we're really thinking about selecting a whole team and looking at things like gender violence looking at things like all the various skills and competencies needed which not each and every one of us only has a certain skills that we each hold but that how their selection for a team could really provide that complementarity and then I've seen in selection processes those names and going in the same way just get picked on the base of this many people got picked and then you lost the team composition so you lost that work so I'm just wondering whether that is something that could be reflected on in this and then I have a couple of other points that are a little bit broader and I guess with the questions to both the SBRTF and council radio one is around whether the selection process will be able to be used for the TDC because I think in the previous selection process we had that issue that the TDC wasn't included and in my understanding there's actually a need for a selection process for the TDC and that is being elaborated by members of the council but I think it's been in the works already for a long time so this could at least be approved for now and then as and when a better different selection process if needed emerges it can replace that but just that we have something I think that would be good and then my other also broader question again probably to both SBRTF and the council is in the past couple of months we've seen RAD petitions which were votes of no confidence in the whole teams and I'm wondering we have this group now that has really been reflecting on selection processes I'm wondering whether you would be willing to go that extra mile and consider a de-selection processes if you will because in the current PWG document there is a small paragraph on the removal of members and what's written there is that if a working group as a team decides this member ought to step down they can make that request of their fellow member but there is nothing for the kind of situation we've seen recently where the broader community wants to ask that so I'm just wondering whether that's something that can be reflected on maybe it's the same selection committee that was selected I don't know so just yeah those points yeah obviously we haven't this is about selection rather than de-selection so we haven't thought of that and as you say the PWG does have a paragraph in there and I see no reason why if a suggestion was made during this feedback process because we were asked to address the PWG and what we've done is address Chapter 3 of the PWG which is the selection process which I didn't look at the earlier parts so I can see no reason why that shouldn't be considered so that's that one the first one was about teams and it's a valid point and I guess we haven't really that doesn't covered so well in the by having our four groups so empty and so I think it's something that we should be thinking about so I'm happy to think about it what was the other one TDC, we said right from the beginning we would like this to be used for all the working groups and we would like this to be used for the TDC also it could be that there is an add-on for the TDC or more specific skills but that would be up to the council to put forward a proposal for that I think but yes, we said right from the beginning we want a process which will work for all the working groups we would rather include the TDC so that was our view completely agree like the personally I would really like to see the TDC being selected and I think this selection like the FMC also can claim that it's a very highly technical kind of job with the count and the economical background and the TDC is something to do with time planning agreed and the working committee which also has this one so I think that's very important also this process I really don't see why it could not be used for TDC I think your first point was very important having the sense of a team and rather than selecting individual that's a choice that we had to make I think we didn't quite didn't find any way of including a team of a sense of building a team as such it's a bit more the trust that good people all together put in the same group basically by need of working together they will find their space and their speed in the work itself otherwise we can try to select a group of people like for three years and all they have to be good friends and after two weeks they start bashing each other and all like we never know like marriage make you happy and then the next day but if you have an idea like please come and help if you think it can be, if you have an idea which can bring this aspect and be integrated sorry once again before the next question I would just like to somehow call out on the council members present here because there are some questions and feedback basically given to you and questions about can we enlarge the scope of your team in order to include maybe the TDC in the selection process and about the removal of members of working group members so I guess the scope of your of the SPRTF like maybe with a council with a council in the RIS I don't know exactly where but yeah this question should be answered very soon basically thank you Piero is my first and sorry for my English it's no bad, it's very bad but a short question did you think platform or place where apply this transparency because I think the transparency is the base of the democracy and don't like this word but in any case transparency and constantly updated one example two years ago when there was the election, no the election was not for the for both the working community in September the bulletin with the bulletin was 2500 I don't remember after three months 200 bulletins disappeared the residents but I don't know how from September and November 220 I don't remember exactly but the reason now the disappeared so in this case it's useful to have a place constantly updated the results of the transparency because we are speaking always about the transparency but after there is a lot of problems transparency is really important of course it is one of the things that we are going to, we've asked to be included in this process of our silent observers for the process so that the process itself will be watched if you like to make sure that it's being fair there will be a team put together right at the beginning which will do that and monitor the way that the thing is being done so I think it would be a bit intimidating for the groups to be filmed while they were doing their work and I think that might be difficult for them so that sort of transparency would be a bit difficult but I think one of the things that we really have to try and build here is trust so let's put together a process where where integrity is important and that we have a good process but at the end of the day I think we have to be able to trust as a community the process and the people who do it and we are picking these people to do that process, the work we are picking people at random so I think we are doing our best to have a process where we can build trust and once that is done I think the transparency, once people trust the process then I think that's half the bandwidth so we will do our best Maybe you are referring to the initial selection first like the master list, I think who is officially a rebellion I worked on the software and the data there is a resident service it's extremely difficult to maintain quality it's not a manipulation or something like that it is people move, people get our TOS people die and some joke because they are okay so we have to start with something like right now our job is not to go back to the resident service and really check that the master list is 100% accurate that's some of the editor and the job from the RAS will be in that sense of the organization team, will be to select those 40 people out of the whole list and present if your name is basically for TOS for 6 months you won't be able to attend we didn't mention really something with online thing it is kind of possible we can scratch the whole thing and gigantic lockdown which happens this thing with using the online conferencing tools this is just okay and then we'll have a virtual reveal and virtual work you can see like something I think the transparency is something that the RAS did with the one is that when they selected those names like a child from the school, the video and picking papers from their hands I think that was a very good move as we actually used that method to select FPRCF numbers so it was also recorded and the live streamed and yes it was transferred I believe I can't really think of something like box tampering that was happening before because like the teams of 10 they know who they have selected and so that the papers in this final hat will be there, it can be checked with you of course and the head could be a transparent box if you put it transparent then this is I like it better to keep it open because you don't see so yes the transparency when it comes to the back sorry I just wanted to come in because soyan was giving me a sign would you like to when I was reiterating the two points from soyama would you like to say something? I mean not really and I can't speak for the whole council and I was thinking just to give it a feedback but obviously we're in the ATC selection process and we're stuck and the last one didn't happen and in retrospect I'm surprised we didn't add it to the scope of this SBIRTF process so I definitely feel that I would recommend to the council that we recommend to the SBIRTF to expand the scope and include the ATC in this selection process and I think that seeing the selection process as it is presented here I think it will address the issues of the pre-screening for ATC that was suggested so I think this is a very good process in my opinion at least for selecting the ATC as well if this doesn't get ratified then it may be necessary to somehow implant some kind of pre-screening process that allows for the candidates of the ATC to be out of the caliber that we want them to be. Thank you. I don't want to sound cynical but you should try to attend the other government in the web to copy I want to suggest as you understand what I said was a job I think I've seen the nature of this community that everybody know everybody it's much more simple to choose 10 people or 15 people clean record, intelligent enough knowledge enough, confidence enough to do all this well this is like chewing water with all my respect it's so complicated so don't answer me please the first one is I do know some auto-villains who have pending cases from ages or even whose cases are called as unclear we never know whether they are innocent or not so for these people these auto-villains be eligible for this process this is my first question. My second question is yes I do trust the community and the transparency but still I have this query there and would like to know how many days earlier would these 40 selectors be informed that they are going to be in this process and my third query is the candidates to be selected. How many times can they stand in group like what I mean as for example in the last two selection process if they have been selected will they again be eligible to stand again that's a good question as far as the feedback I don't know quite what else we can say on that we've said I don't know how to address what you've asked to be basically on that yes and the second one was we haven't actually worked that out but it's already the reason why you're asking that question because sorry the more number of time the gap definitely as a small community people will try to influence one another. I'm sorry but I have a doubt so I guess we have to make that gap as small as possible please make that suggestion and we'll see if we can put a time limit on it and the last one I should ask someone the next one how many times can they stand for we haven't addressed that point remember where it is in the PWG we have to have a look at the PWG and see where that is to be honest if it's there in that section then we have to address it it's true probably most of it is part of the mandate of each group it might be in the PWG and we have to really concentrate on the selection itself rather than the mandate and all like the TDC so many questions if you ask me the whole organization it's a huge job and never ending this we consider it was not our task we're just concentrated on this really small thing which is selecting people for the world but I would seriously want you to consider about those organizations who want to stand for the process but at the same time they have some cases going on and it's unclear I have two questions one is that you mentioned that how the groups of 10 will come to result is up to them if they want a facilitator or other things and I was wondering like how would you make sure that this process is fair because with 10 people and without the guided process it can either be very chaotic and it can take a long time or what is more likely is that strong characters of these 10 people will push their positions so that people who are maybe more shy cannot bring their opinion so this is one like how to control how this group dynamic plays out and how this decision is made and the second question is about maybe I don't know if you said something to it but I'm just wondering is these 40 people are they selecting all the vacant spaces of the working groups in one group then I doubt that this can be done in one day but let's say we have like 12 vacant spaces and we have like 50 candidates you can never see talk to each candidate and come to a conclusion who will be selected in the end so I think it's not realistic to have this in one day and maybe I have a third question I would like to go back to that or a suggestion that not each group would interview each candidate but that they all together interview the candidates so that this can be done in one go it is also about the question concerning what Adam said that information are shared so that all groups know all the things and then go and there are small groups and discuss these information that's a good point like the idea that one person being overpowering others it would always be there and that's one of the idea of having smaller groups is that if one person is really like this person and his or her personality is so permanent that really drives the whole thing and all that one force so that if we for example that was one of the reason why it was like if the candidates they have those 40 people all at once also one person will influence the whole the four different groups and all so that's why we try to basically compartment so that those effects are more limited and you mentioned that for example when one question is one facilitator really help basically the shy person I'm not sure and we have this kind of discussion and the facilitator is themselves like they're supposed to be neutral but it's a large debate so from my experience the facilitator can also influence quite a lot so the idea is to leave the groups those groups if they feel if one person see that yes cannot voice I think that's fair enough and that one person in a group of 10 will say like man I can't work like that because I can speak otherwise so just for your awareness we have 15 minutes left for the Q&A session so I would suggest that we end with the five names remaining on the list and we see if we still have time after that we might end the Q&A over there you have more questions though I don't think we answered all of your questions the time frame is flexible we've already said it's flexible and the other question was about interviewing them all together yes they would be interviewed by everyone together we've said that already in the process we're trying to make the process a bit flexible so it's not so rigid in terms of time frames and your question about the domination of a group we're also trying to address that a little bit by the training that the people get at the beginning so to give them that awareness that the group has to work together but they can call for help but we really want to trust the group we really want to trust that group to work even though it may not be perfect my question is not really to to perform on them it is to the audience I'm finding that a lot of the local people don't use email at all in their life and I think now WhatsApp has become a very good tool to inform on meetings and I've been saying this earlier to the IS group said why don't you also adopt sending information through WhatsApp what are the local people they use WhatsApp and I'm sure there are about 300-400 people who are left out in all communications even Ashmi was coming today she's now been added to this so one member I think now one member could be trying to update and also fix this WhatsApp so people are able to even if you go put a lot of these local people on email today they are all you know WhatsApp is a game so please my request is kindly adopt to WhatsApp also sending information through WhatsApp it's possible just WhatsApp I don't use WhatsApp I'm not the only one I don't want to use WhatsApp I don't want to use WhatsApp maybe let's not enter into the page on WhatsApp or no WhatsApp or telegram or anything let's just that's a suggestion to the RIS the suggestion is noted the suggestion is noted how will we be seen after by the RIS it doesn't mean that if for example we opt for WhatsApp communication it doesn't mean that we will exclude email communication so we can combine it the suggestion is on the seeming simplicity how do viewers ask questions in an online thing like this because we can ask questions but they can't then 50% of women at least it's possible in the 40% if it can be done at the start I suggest the feedback needs to be at least proven if you comment something then it should be shared with other groups the suggestion is necessary if you don't share information between groups then you might have four separate investigations with increased risk because of this then PWG as you keep talking about I have no idea what that means if you interview the candidates together then you should have the questions asked by impartial facilitators because even the person asking the question will imply a certain thank you all of those we can include your feedback on that PWG is a participatory working group guidelines they have what all the working groups are supposed to be working to put a lot of information on how working groups should be working and the way that they should be functioning it's all available online, you do go and have a look at it it's quite an interesting company I have a question that did like what Ashwini asked there was actually an ID before on the clearance panel that they resigned so I don't know how this is still valid if there was an ID then technically it's valid so I have a question probably for the council is this overlapping or not a follow-up there I think is needed on this thing I have a question on criteria of selection for the 40 if there is a criteria for the candidates maybe there should be one for the 40 as well because if you are yourself under that list then you're going to select others who are shouldn't be there even if it's random there is a list of criteria the criteria for those 40 people who are going to be selected randomly, there is a criteria list right now for the candidates right like who was commenting on that so just a moment, you are asking for feedback on the 40 people who are selected randomly it's a question and it used to be in other processes yes either you are recommending to not have communication between the groups but as someone said it's a large group of candidates and it should go to a third day a second day of debates then how will you keep people from communicating that night that's a good question and as someone mentioned before for example if a member is resigning then the residents are supposed to be replacing it doesn't mention with what process for example we're missing your FNC numbers quite a while so there's something there that is missing in the mandate and it's on the FNC of how I don't know how this thinks let's say after the selection process someone resigns then what happens there's a gap there should the council then make an employee person until the next selection process there's something and someone mentioned something about difficulties in the group language is going to be another one and I was going to say people's language is not English for example how is this going to we have thought of that the organisation team would provide translators where ever this is okay thank you and then there was a question which was the first question was aimed I think more of a council but I think it's a deal with the clearance panel that wasn't part of our mandate to look at the clearance panel so there's more to do with the council's work so I can't answer that I'm sorry I can't answer it I don't know if you're following this I'm too new but you could send that to the council or maybe the SPRTF could send that criteria for those selectors like the 40 selectors I think it would like my first impression and what we discuss is it would make it more heavy according again to which criteria we will define we will choose whether this person will be fit for being part of the language it's just random that if there is one person that we don't like and selected or two or three like statistically speaking out of 40 people they won't be oh it's only around the 40 seats if we select the 40 seats then I see this one like technically I'm looking at the Regency R&D temporary R&D that this is part of who actually initiated this one with A working group would be a petition so I guess we are in the A case then who's holding this process and will hold the feedback and will communicate with the community I felt in the previous one it was I think originally the council initiated but gave the whole responsibility to R&D because the council would be selected through this so that's basically R&D holds this whole thing but it was initially started by a council and it was the result of the ITF report so it was kind of forced to it's just to make sure that that's for the sorry that doesn't mean like also like the time frame was pretty short because of the ITF for selecting pretty soon I think ideally in March I will have the selection process so the last question and then we'll wrap up captain I have two questions are the working group going to be changed in one group no like this whole thing it's again it's only for selecting and it's flexible if there is one seat to be attributed this would work if there are seven seats this would also work we try to make a flexible enough to handle those cases right now I think for example like the working committee the question was asked for the working committee I think only one person is going to be selected if we throw the current mandates or whatever it's up to the community eventually to start a RAD and eventually ask the replacement or more people, the target of the whole group or whatever this is not in this scope of this the question about there is a group with a organize of the group who has a lot of formification inside the movie to organize different feedback against somebody special so you don't want to verify the feedback but how you are dealing with this denunciation because it is so easy to tell that this I mean from people who are apparently not linked but in fact they are under the direction of the group I have no answer for that when those small groups of 10 they will get the feedback they will kind of identify that there is some feedback is a manipulation or something like that orchestrated the other option would be if you have any feedback at all which also raises a lot of eyebrows or whatever questions I don't know every time there is a drama on those feedbacks it's constant but I'm pretty sure if you don't include there will be also a drama because we didn't include it so please send comments so we will see what's the general tendency so that there will be a second meeting like this so including the comments and questions and the changes there will be an online form so you can give what we thought the feedback so that there will be a form each chapter, each paragraph of the comment proposal will be open for comment and also there should be a very generic box for open really purely open comments and it will be done by the RAS and then they will give us the results just to thank everybody actually for their feedback and encourage people to do complete the feedback form hopefully with really positive suggestions as well what's difficult to handle when you're looking at feedback is when somebody says oh I don't like this we would rather have somebody that says I don't like this but can you write it like this so that will be really helpful and we will do our best to incorporate all the feedback that we get but we can't promise everybody's feedback will be integrated it just may not be possible but we will do our best thank you we are reaching the closures is it it's connected to what Fred said this selection process it's really important but I feel Fred's question is important because right now there is a burning problem in the community where the community is asking for a change of one of the groups so I suppose I would ask whether the residents will be accepted here in this process look this is something that we when my question was addressed earlier I said look it's not specific changing a group completely or taking members away from a group is not what we were asked to do we were asked to select members for a group so what I'm suggesting is that that is made as part of the feedback that we get again because it's addressed in another part of the PWG so that part of that section of the PWG can also be addressed and we will look at it and see what maybe we're going to have to consult with the council over that but nevertheless let's look and put it in the feedback I think it's going to come from a number of different people from the sound of it so we'll look at it so Martin just to clarify we're inviting people to send feedback not only on the selection proposal that you worked on but also on other paragraphs of the PWG document for example the paragraph on removal of members if they feel but I would say look this isn't a general rewrite of the PWG if we get lots of feedback on other parts of the PWG that to do with the working groups how they work together and how they use do their work that wasn't our mandate to do that but if there's something to do with selection or in this case de-selection of members by all means put it in there and we will address it as best we can thank you thank you so can we have a wave of appreciation for the work, the quality, the originality of the proposal trying to address different concerns thank you very much to the SPR TF team to Martin and Philippe who are here representing the team and the work can we have a... Jania also gave us nice inputs and yeah that's also like a team of seven people so finally only two are here now but like actually where the whole job was done basically by four thank you and we are going to have a nice talking about the next steps from now very short report of our today's meeting within three or four days and along with this report we will invite feedback from the entire community this feedback period will last for two weeks then we will hand over this feedback receipt to the SPR TF for the further processing integration into the proposal once the selection process review task force is ready with an updated version of the document then we will also communicate this information to us and we will invite the community to participate in the presence assembly meeting where the updated version of the proposal will be presented and thank you for your inputs and we are very welcome to share your feedback and participate in the follow up meeting as well so thank you we are actually asked to ask that question in the policy so are we ready to go for the feedback process is that okay with everyone can we go on with presenting that proposal super thanks a lot so if you have feedback please send it and please participate in the feedback process thank you for taking the names, thank you Michelle for the column thank you to the volunteers and the entrance, thank you to the RAS to the SPR TF, to the Oral Radio to the Unity Family and to everyone and the technical team of course thank you and all of you and maybe we can just end with a moment of silence all together