Network_Circle

# Network Circle

Last updated: 21.08.2026

Network-wide governance in the Permaculture Network is handled by the Network Circle.

The Network Circle exists to address matters that affect the network as a whole.

It is not a board and it should not govern individual projects.

The Network Circle is a governance space, not a project reporting meeting.

Report asynchronously. Govern together.

The Circle should spend shared time on matters that genuinely require network-wide governance.

Routine operational updates, project status reports, and detailed work coordination should normally happen within projects, within Stewardship Areas, or asynchronously through the network's communication and documentation tools.

Representation

The Network Circle consists of representatives of active Stewardship Areas.

Each active Stewardship Area may appoint one representative.

An area without active projects or ongoing responsibility does not need to appoint anyone.

The Network Circle therefore has a maximum of eight members.

The seat belongs to the area

The representative does not personally own the governance seat.

The seat belongs to the Stewardship Area, not the person.

The people actively working within the area decide who represents them.

If the people carrying responsibility within that area choose a different representative, the representative may be replaced.

Authority ends when the responsibility on which it is based ends.

A representative who no longer actively carries responsibility within their Stewardship Area cannot continue representing that area solely because they previously held the role.

Scope of the Network Circle

The Network Circle should focus only on matters that properly belong at the network-wide level.

Examples include:

• purpose
• vision
• mission
• network-wide principles
• major network-wide policies
• overall direction of the network
• questions affecting several Stewardship Areas that cannot reasonably be resolved by the affected areas themselves
• changes to the governance structure itself

The Network Circle may approve the intent and direction of a partnership, but only Vihreä Pourusmäki ry or an authorised representative may enter into legally binding commitments on behalf of the Permaculture Network.

Network Circle time should primarily be used for:

• network-wide governance decisions
• strategic questions affecting the whole network
• network-wide policies and principles
• governance changes
• unresolved questions of responsibility between Stewardship Areas
• major shared-resource questions
• partnerships or cooperation with network-wide implications
• matters that cannot reasonably be resolved at a lower governance level

Limits of the Network Circle

The Network Circle should not become a governing board for the whole network.

In particular, it should not:

• manage the internal work of individual projects
• override decisions that properly belong to a project
• centralize authority that should stay close to the work
• treat representation as a personal office or status position
• act as a recurring project reporting or management meeting

Avoid using Circle meetings for:

• routine project updates
• detailed operational planning
• minor implementation decisions
• task management
• discussions that properly belong within one project
• discussions that properly belong within one Stewardship Area

Emergency authority follows existing responsibility.

Responsible people or teams may act immediately to prevent significant harm without waiting for Network Circle approval where a genuine emergency requires timely action.

Such action should be documented and reviewed once the immediate situation has passed.

Vihreä Pourusmäki ry is not an additional governance layer above the Network Circle.

At the same time, no Network Circle decision can require the legal operator to violate applicable law, its statutory duties, or binding legal obligations.

If a Network Circle decision cannot legally or reasonably be implemented, the legal constraint should be explained and the Circle should work with the legal operator to find an alternative that preserves the intention of the decision as far as possible.

Clarifying responsibility

If projects or Stewardship Areas cannot agree where responsibility for a decision belongs, the Network Circle may be asked to clarify the scope of responsibility.

This does not necessarily mean the Network Circle should make the underlying decision itself.

Where possible, once responsibility has been clarified, the decision should return to the appropriate project or Stewardship Area.

This helps prevent the Network Circle from gradually becoming a management body.

Governance conflicts

For unresolved governance conflicts, the Network Circle may clarify governance rules, responsibility, and boundaries between Stewardship Areas.

The Network Circle should clarify governance and responsibility rather than judge personal disputes.

Where the underlying problem is primarily relational or interpersonal, facilitation or mediation should normally be preferred.

Potential Code of Conduct violations should follow the Code of Conduct process rather than ordinary Network Circle governance.

Active participation

Representation in the Network Circle follows active responsibility.

The Circle is not based on elections by the full membership.

It emerges from the Stewardship Areas that are actively carrying work and responsibility in the network.

If all projects and ongoing responsibilities in a Stewardship Area become dormant, that area's representation in the Network Circle becomes inactive until meaningful work resumes.

Representation review

Network Circle representation should be reviewed annually.

There is no fixed term limit.

A representative may continue as long as they:

• remain actively responsible within the Stewardship Area
• retain the trust of active contributors
• are willing to continue

Rotation is encouraged where practical, but continuity and relevant expertise take priority over rotation for its own sake.

Governance Review

The Network Circle should coordinate an annual Governance Review.

The purpose is to check whether the written governance still reflects the actual work of the network.

Governance should evolve with the work, not ahead of it.

The review should include input from active projects, Stewardship Areas, representatives, the Advisory Team, and active contributors where useful.

If no changes are needed, the outcome may simply be recorded as: No governance changes required.

Fundamental governance changes should use consent first. Where fallback voting is necessary, the 75% threshold of participating, non-recused representatives for fundamental governance decisions applies.

Facilitation

The Network Circle does not require a permanent Chair.

Facilitation is a function, not a position of authority.

A facilitator may be chosen for one meeting, several meetings, or another practical period.

Facilitation may rotate between representatives.

The facilitator may:

• help structure discussion
• keep attention on the agenda
• support the consent process
• ensure people have opportunities to contribute
• help clarify decisions and next steps

The facilitator does not receive additional governance authority or voting power.

Agenda

Any Network Circle representative may bring an item to the agenda.

Stewardship Areas may bring proposals or questions through their representative.

Where practical, agenda items should be visible before a meeting so representatives have an opportunity to prepare or consult their Stewardship Area.

Urgent or important issues may still be added when necessary.

The agenda should prioritise matters that require collective governance rather than routine updates.

Concrete proposals

Where a decision is needed, discussion should move toward a concrete proposal.

A useful question is:

What exactly are we being asked to decide?

Proposals should normally make clear:

• what is being proposed
• why a decision is needed
• who or what will be affected
• what outcome is expected

This does not require a formal proposal template unless such a template becomes useful later.

Avoid prolonged abstract discussion where no decision or governance outcome is required.

Transparency

The Network Circle should operate with a relatively high level of transparency.

Normally make visible:

• current representatives
• important agenda topics
• decisions
• relevant reasoning
• governance and policy changes

Personal, legal, security-related, or otherwise confidential details should not be published merely for the sake of transparency.

Where part of a matter must remain confidential, a public record may still state that a confidential matter was discussed and record the non-sensitive outcome where appropriate.

Network-wide decisions should have one canonical place of record, normally the agreed governance documentation or Logbook.

Decision-making principle

The Network Circle should use a simple principle:

Seek consent first. Vote only when necessary.

Consent does not mean that everyone must fully agree, be enthusiastic, or prefer the proposal.

Consent means the absence of a reasoned objection showing that a proposal would create significant harm, unacceptable risk, or conflict with the Purpose or Values of the network.

A simple preference or disagreement is not enough to block a proposal.

The purpose of an objection is to identify a real problem that should be addressed, not to provide an individual veto.

Simple decision process

The Network Circle should keep decision-making lightweight and practical.

It does not need to use a complex formal process with separate mandatory rounds.

Questions, advice, concerns, improvements, and objections may be handled naturally within one discussion.

The usual process is:

1. Proposal: a Network Circle representative or Stewardship Area brings forward a concrete proposal.
2. Discussion and advice: representatives ask questions, provide advice, identify consequences, raise concerns, and suggest improvements.
3. Consent check: the Circle asks whether anyone sees a significant reason why the proposal should not proceed.
4. Integrate objections: if a valid objection is raised, the group tries to modify the proposal so that the risk or harm is reduced or removed.
5. Decision: if no reasoned objections remain, the proposal is accepted by consent.

Where appropriate, the Circle should seek advice from people outside the Circle who are directly affected or have relevant expertise.

When consent cannot be reached

A single representative should not be able to indefinitely block a network-wide decision.

If consent cannot be reached after a reasonable attempt to understand and integrate valid objections, the Circle should:

1. revise the proposal
2. make one further attempt to reach consent
3. use voting as a fallback if necessary

Voting should remain an exception, not the normal decision-making method.

Voting thresholds

For ordinary network-wide decisions, fallback voting requires:

A two-thirds majority of participating representatives.

Simple majority voting should be avoided where possible because the Network Circle is small and network-wide decisions should have broad support.

For fundamental governance decisions, fallback voting requires:

At least 75% of participating, non-recused representatives must support the proposal.

This threshold applies only when consent has already been attempted, valid objections have been considered and integrated where possible, fallback voting is necessary, and quorum is met.

The 75% threshold is not calculated from the theoretical maximum of eight seats.

Examples of fundamental governance decisions include:

• changing the Purpose of the network
• fundamental changes to the governance structure
• abolishing or fundamentally redesigning the Network Circle
• major changes to the core governance principles
• major changes to the network's foundational Values

Mission, Vision, and ordinary policies do not necessarily need to be treated as fundamental governance decisions unless the documentation gives them that status.

Quorum

A Network Circle decision requires meaningful participation.

At least half of the currently filled Network Circle seats must participate, with a minimum of three representatives.

The calculation is based on currently appointed representatives, not the theoretical maximum of eight seats.

For example:

• if five Stewardship Areas currently have representatives, at least three representatives must participate
• if seven Stewardship Areas currently have representatives, at least four representatives must participate

For a decision involving recusal, quorum is calculated from the representatives eligible to participate in that decision.

A representative who is recused from the final consent check or fallback vote does not count toward the eligible decision-making pool for that specific decision.

No Network Circle decision may be made with fewer than three eligible representatives participating.

If recusals leave fewer than three eligible representatives, the Circle should not make the decision itself. The matter should instead be deferred, restructured, or handled through another appropriate and sufficiently independent process.

Asynchronous decisions

Network Circle decisions do not need to happen in meetings.

They may also happen asynchronously through the communication tools used by the network.

Meetings are one governance tool, not the governance system itself.

Representatives must be given a reasonable opportunity to:

• understand the proposal
• ask questions
• provide advice
• raise objections

Silence should not automatically be treated as consent unless people have had a reasonable opportunity to participate.

Asynchronous participation is particularly useful for:

• straightforward proposals
• documentation review
• policy feedback
• routine consent checks
• preparation before meetings

Meetings should be preferred where discussion benefits from real-time interaction, especially for complex, sensitive, or strongly interconnected issues.

Project and Stewardship Area updates

Routine updates should normally be shared asynchronously rather than taking up Network Circle meeting time.

If updates are shared in the Circle, they should be brief and relevant to network-wide governance.

For example, an area may highlight:

• a decision that affects another area
• a major risk
• a need for shared governance
• a structural problem
• a proposal requiring Network Circle attention

Avoid standing rounds where every representative reports all recent activity.

Report asynchronously. Govern together.

Representatives and their Stewardship Areas

Representatives participate in the Network Circle on behalf of active Stewardship Areas.

They are not independent political officeholders.

For important decisions, representatives should have enough opportunity to consult the active contributors in their Stewardship Area where this is relevant.

A representative does not need to return to their area for every minor governance question.

Use proportionality and practical judgement.

Where an important proposal could significantly affect an area, the representative should be able to request time to consult the area before giving final consent.

Attendance and participation

Representatives are expected to meaningfully participate in Network Circle governance.

Do not introduce rigid rules such as automatic removal after missing a fixed number of meetings.

Where a representative is no longer meaningfully participating, their Stewardship Area should review whether they remain the appropriate representative.

Guests and Advisors

The Network Circle may invite people to discussions where their contribution would be useful.

Guests may include:

• project contributors
• members of the Advisory Team
• people from Stewardship Areas
• subject experts
• partner representatives
• external specialists

Guests may provide information, answer questions, offer advice, and participate in relevant discussion.

Participation in a Network Circle discussion does not create governance authority.

Guests do not automatically become representatives or gain decision-making rights.

Documentation

The Circle does not need a permanent Secretary.

For meetings or decisions, someone should ensure that relevant outcomes are recorded.

Meetings should record decisions, responsibilities, and important unresolved questions.

Documentation should focus on:

• decisions
• responsibilities
• follow-up actions
• unresolved governance questions

Avoid unnecessary transcripts or detailed minute-taking.

The people making a significant decision remain responsible for ensuring that an appropriate record exists.

Open or unresolved proposals

Not every proposal must be decided immediately.

The Network Circle may:

• request further information
• return a proposal to a Stewardship Area
• ask affected areas to work on the proposal together
• seek additional advice
• revise the proposal
• postpone a decision where more time is genuinely useful

This should not become an indefinite delay mechanism.

The existing conflict-resolution and decision-making rules concerning hidden vetoes and unnecessary delay remain applicable.

Keeping the Circle lightweight

The Network Circle should periodically consider whether its own working practices are becoming unnecessarily complex.

Avoid automatically introducing:

• permanent officers
• elaborate meeting procedures
• standing committees
• mandatory reporting systems
• formal parliamentary procedures
• unnecessary approval stages

Governance should remain as simple as the work allows.

The Circle may develop additional practices when real experience shows that they are needed.

Conflicts of interest

If a representative has a significant personal, organisational, or financial conflict of interest in a decision, it should be disclosed.

The person may still:

• provide relevant information
• answer questions
• offer advice

However, where the conflict is significant, they should not participate in the final consent check or fallback vote.

Ordinary involvement in a Stewardship Area should not, by itself, be treated as a conflict of interest.