# /0 Summary

## // What Is an AG?

A working group (AG) is a permanent, theme-focused working context within the BCCB initiative. While Care Plena carry out and coordinate concrete care practice, and Care Brigades are directed at acute, time-limited care tasks, AGs take long-term responsibility for a definable thematic field that requires ongoing attention.

## // Why AGs?

Some tasks cannot be meaningfully handled in the plenum (too granular, too specialised, too time-consuming) and cannot be captured as a brigade (not punctual, no concrete person affected, but a permanent field). AGs are the answer: they pool expertise, take on continuous responsibility and thereby relieve the plenum. At the same time they remain accountable to it.

## // What Are the Goals & Benefits?

- Relieving the plenum of labour-intensive and specialised questions
- Building collective expertise and handover capacity to Care Plena
- Continuity: topic-related knowledge does not disappear with individual people
- Clear accountability without hierarchisation: AGs decide autonomously within their mandate but remain accountable to the Care Plena (see /7)
- Politicisation of the subject: every AG brings its field into an emancipatory self-understanding

# /1 Structural Foundations

## // Participants

3–10 people who:

- have a substantive interest in or existing competencies in the AG's thematic field
- are prepared to take on responsibility on a lasting basis (guideline: at least 6 months of active participation)
- support the AG's mandate as set by the plenum and align themselves with it
- are open to rotating roles (facilitation, minutes, external contact etc.)

The AG is open to new members but maintains a stable core of permanently active people. For smaller AGs (3–4 people), it is advisable to connect with at least one additional person from the plenum as a "bridge" to avoid isolation.

## // Handovers & Transitions

AGs are long-term — but people change. Therefore:

- Knowledge management is crucial: everything is documented so that a new person can get up to speed
- Onboarding for new members, oriented around the AG's core documents (mandate, recent minutes, open points)
- If an AG loses its purpose or the thematic field needs to be redrawn: active dissolution or reorganisation in the plenum — no creeping inactivity

# /2 Meeting Rhythm & Pre-Discussions

## // Frequency and Time Frame

- Regular meetings: every 2–6 weeks
- Where possible: a fixed date — facilitates reliability
- At least once per quarter or semester: a longer retreat session to reflect on one's own work

## // Pre-Discussions

AG work only succeeds when meetings are prepared. The pre-discussion is a distinct, independent working step:

- Gather what is to be worked on in the coming meeting
- Distribute who prepares what content (research, draft, resolution proposal)
- Collect inputs from the plenum, brigades, other AGs

## // Preparation of the Meeting

- Topic list with time budgets is in the pad
- Resolution proposals are drafted (at least 48 hours before the meeting)
- Open points from the last minutes are named
- Incoming requests from the plenum / brigades / other AGs are incorporated

# /3 Agenda Structure

Each meeting follows five phases. Time budgets are set in advance in the pad and are determined by the number of agenda items.

## // Phase 1: Check-In

- How is everyone, what capacities are there (or not) right now.
- Collect any last additions to the agenda

## // Phase 2: Current Tasks and Reflection

- Review of the last minutes
- Who is taking minutes?
- What was (not) done
- What friction / delays are there?
- Feedback from plenum / brigades / other AGs
- Assign time budgets to agenda items

## // Phase 3: Substantive Work

- Work through agenda items according to the topic list with respective time budgets
- Discussion / decision-making by consensus / mandate
- Name any need to report back to the plenum if fundamental questions of direction have arisen
- Postpone topics that need more preparation

## // Phase 4: Further Tasks & External Coordination

- What goes to the plenum, what to other AGs / brigades?
- Establish clear responsibilities: who takes on what (within what timeframe)?

## // Phase 5: Check-Out

How is everyone, how was the meeting, was the time budget appropriate, is there anything that should go into the next pre-discussion? Best case: confirmation of the next date.

# /4 Working Methods Between Meetings

## // Decision Modes

Task-related operational decisions that lie within the previously agreed mandate are made independently by the responsible person or the respective small team. Transparency within the AG is important here. Project-related substantive decisions that concern the AG as a whole are made by consensus where possible and recorded in the meeting minutes to remain traceable.

## // Asynchronous Work

Between meetings, the majority of the actual work runs asynchronously:

- Research, drafts and resolution proposals are prepared in the same working environment,
- open tasks are maintained in the task-tracking list with status and responsibility,
- and short-term agreements run via the secure communication channel (for example the Signal group with disappearing messages).

It is important that this asynchronous work does not remain invisible with individual people, but is traceable for all AG members at any time. Who is working on what should be apparent from the pad without generating enquiries. Depending on possibilities and scope, a technical solution (project management tool) is also worth considering.

## // Conflict Resolution

For conflicts within the AG, the attempt is first made to clarify the conflict directly and openly within the AG — explicitly not behind individuals' backs. If this does not succeed, or if gender-specific dynamics make it more difficult, the conflict is brought to the plenum.

# /5 Documentation & Development

## // Meeting Minutes

Every meeting is minuted. Use of the AG meeting template (separate) is recommended. At minimum the following must be included:

- Metadata (date, those present, facilitation, minutes)
- Agenda items adopted
- Substantive results per agenda item
- Task list
- Interface points (what goes to the plenum / other AGs / brigades)

## // Periodic Evaluation

Every 3–6 months the AG reviews its own work, ideally in a retreat session:

- Are the meetings productive? Is the rhythm right?
- How are members doing? Who is overloaded, who underloaded?
- What should we report to the plenum — what successes, blind spots, friction?
- Do we need support, new members, new tools?

# /6 Founding an AG

An AG is founded within the plenum as needed (see /1). The following points are discussed:

- The AG's thematic field (formulated as narrowly as possible to avoid mandate creep)
- Concrete tasks and expectations — what should the AG do, what not?
- Decision scope: which decisions can the AG make itself, which must go back to the plenum?
- Resource framework: time, budget if applicable, spaces if applicable, tools if applicable
- Feedback rhythm: at what interval does the AG report to BCCB?

These five points form the AG's mandate (see /7) and are recorded in writing before the AG begins its work.

# /7 Relationship to the Care Plena

The AG works autonomously within the mandate set at its founding (see /6). The relationship to the Care Plena rests on three elements:

## // Mandate

Within the agreed thematic field and decision scope, the AG decides independently without consulting everyone for each step. The mandate is the basis for this autonomy — not a general advance of trust, but concretely what was recorded in writing in /6.

## // Accountability

- Regular brief report to the plenum: what was done, what is coming up, where is there friction?
- For fundamental questions of direction: active feedback to the Care Plena, also outside the regular reporting rhythm
- Transparent documentation, accessible at any time for all care-organised people
- In cases of conflict or exhaustion: ask for help, draw on hyphae

## // Revising Decisions

The Care Plena can return an AG decision for renegotiation by consensus if it lies outside the mandate or if there are fundamental concerns. The AG then develops a revised proposal; the return is an impetus for shared clarification, not a replacement of the AG's decision by the plenum.

# /8 Critical Reflection

Beyond the periodic evaluation of the individual AG (see /5), the AG model itself requires regular review in the plenum:

- Do AGs actually relieve the plenum, or do they produce new, invisible concentrations of responsibility in individual people?
- Does the connection to the Care Plena remain alive, or do AGs become de facto autonomous despite a formal mandate?
- Are thematic fields still appropriately drawn, or are new founding, mergers or dissolutions needed?
- Is rotation of roles and membership actually lived, or are informal permanent responsibilities becoming entrenched?

These questions are discussed collectively in the plenum at least once a year across all existing AGs — not just internally within each AG.

# /9 Tools

- Data protection-compliant collaborative pad (e.g. CryptPad) shared with all AG members, accessible to the plenum
- Secure communication channel for asynchronous exchange (e.g. Signal group with disappearing messages)
- Shared file storage for resolutions, minutes, research
- AG meeting template for ongoing minute-taking
- Task tracking — pragmatic, e.g. a pad list with status / responsibility / deadline
- Shared calendar for meeting and pre-discussion dates