Second General Assembly Guide

Published v0.1

Este conteúdo não está disponível em sua língua ainda.

v0.1 — Drafted May 2026

Purpose of This Document

This document walks a Seed Team and a new chapter through the second General Assembly (GA): the meeting where the chapter formally constitutes itself by adopting founding documents, choosing an interim decision-making method, and electing its first Stewards.

Read F1, P1, P2, and P3 before this document.

What the Second GA Is

The second General Assembly is the meeting where the chapter moves from a community of interest to a community with structure. At the end of the second GA, the chapter has:

A ratified statement of purpose, objectives, and values
An agreed interim method for making decisions
A first cohort of elected Stewards holding 90-day terms
A regular meeting cadence going forward

This meeting carries more weight than the first GA. The decisions made here will shape the chapter’s first six months. Plan accordingly.

Before the Second GA

The two to three weeks between the first and second GA are when the most preparation happens. The drafting group from the first GA is producing founding-document drafts, the Seed Team is preparing the Steward role description, and outreach to first-GA attendees continues.

Drafting Group Output

The drafting group should produce, before the second GA:

A Purpose Statement: one or two paragraphs describing why this chapter exists. Why are we gathering, in this place, at this time?
Objectives: a short list (three to seven items) of what this chapter aims to do in the next six to twelve months
Values: a short list of the principles that will guide how the chapter operates

These documents should be circulated to all first-GA attendees at least one week before the second GA. The point is to give the broader community time to read, reflect, and arrive with comments and questions, rather than encountering the drafts cold at the meeting.

Steward Role Description

The Seed Team should prepare a one-page Steward Role Description before the second GA, using R3 (Steward Role Description) from the reference materials as a starting point. The description should cover:

What Stewards do: hold the chapter’s coordination, external connection, meeting cadence, and documentation responsibilities for a 90-day term
What Stewards are not: they are not a board, not the chapter’s voice, and not its decision-makers. They serve the chapter’s process.
Time commitment: typically 4 to 8 hours per week
Number of Stewards: 3 to 5, depending on chapter size
Term: 90 days, with the possibility of one consecutive renewal
Rotation: each cohort transitions to the next at a handover meeting

Circulate the Steward Role Description with the founding-document drafts, one week before the second GA.

Communication and Reminders

Confirm second-GA location, time, and what to expect to all first-GA attendees and broader sign-up list one week in advance
Send a 48-hour reminder with the agenda and links to the draft documents
Make clear that the meeting will involve actual decisions and that people’s input is welcomed

Roles for the Second GA

The second GA needs the same three core roles as the first (Facilitator, Stack-Keeper, Note-Taker), plus one additional role:

Process Steward (for this meeting only)

Holds the procedural framework for the meeting itself: explains the decision-making method being proposed for the meeting, calls for votes or consents when relevant, and ensures the chapter’s first acts of self-governance happen with clarity.

This role is held by a Seed Team member at the second GA and may be the same person who facilitates, depending on chapter size. In larger chapters, splitting these roles is helpful.

Suggested Agenda

Total time: 120 minutes.

1. Welcome and Recap (10 minutes)

A Seed Team member opens the meeting, briefly recaps the first GA, and frames what this meeting will accomplish: ratify founding documents, agree on a decision-making method, elect first Stewards.

Acknowledge any new attendees who were not at the first GA and invite them to introduce themselves briefly.

2. Introductions of New Attendees (5 to 15 minutes, depending on count)

If there are more than two or three new people, do a quick round: name, neighborhood, why here. If only one or two new people, brief introductions in pairs with returning members.

3. Review of Draft Founding Documents (30 minutes)

The drafting group presents the drafts: Purpose Statement, Objectives, and Values. Presentation is short (5 to 10 minutes total). The bulk of the time is for discussion.

The facilitator opens the floor with a structured prompt:

“What in these drafts resonates with you?”
“What would you change, add, or remove?”
“Is there anything missing that you expected to see?”

The stack-keeper tracks who wants to speak. The note-taker captures suggested edits and points of convergence and disagreement.

The drafting group listens. They may respond to clarifying questions, but they do not debate edits during this section. Their job here is to receive input.

After the open discussion, the facilitator surfaces a small number of specific edit proposals that emerged. For each, the facilitator asks the room: “Does this edit improve the document?” Light consent or objection is taken, and the drafting group incorporates accepted edits in real time or commits to a final version within 48 hours.

4. Adopting an Interim Decision-Making Method (20 minutes)

The Process Steward briefly explains the three main options and proposes one for the chapter to adopt as its interim method:

Consent-based decision making (Tulsa’s method): A proposal is adopted if no participant has a principled objection that they cannot accept. Consent is not enthusiasm; it is “I can live with this.” This method centers minority voices and tends to produce decisions everyone can support.

Modified consensus: Similar to consent, with the option to “stand aside” (allow a decision to proceed without endorsing it) or “block” (prevent the decision until concerns are addressed). Slower than consent but allows for more nuanced positions.

Majority vote (modified): A proposal is adopted with a supermajority (typically two-thirds or three-quarters). Faster but can leave a substantial minority unheard. Most useful in chapters that need rapid decisions on operational matters.

Many chapters adopt consent-based decision making as the default, with the option to use majority vote for narrowly defined operational matters (e.g., choosing a venue for the next event). R5 (Decision-Making Methods Explainer) covers the choice in more depth.

The chapter discusses briefly and adopts an interim method using whichever method the Process Steward proposes for this specific decision. The method adopted at this meeting can be reviewed and changed at a future GA.

5. Reviewing the Steward Role and Nominations (15 minutes)

The Process Steward presents the Steward Role Description and answers any questions about what Stewards do.

The facilitator opens the floor for nominations. People can nominate themselves or others. Nominees who are not present cannot be elected unless they have consented in advance.

Aim for nominations to produce at least five to seven candidates for three to five Steward seats. If fewer people are nominated than seats available, all nominees become Stewards by acclamation, and the chapter continues to recruit for the remaining seats over the following weeks.

Each nominee gets two to three minutes to share: why they want to serve, what capacity they would bring, what their time availability is.

6. Stewards Election (15 minutes)

For chapters using consent or consensus, the facilitator works through nominees one at a time, asking the room to consent to each. The candidates who receive consent become Stewards, up to the agreed number of seats.

For chapters using majority vote, each attendee votes for up to the number of available seats. The candidates with the most votes are elected.

In either case, the Process Steward ensures that the procedure is clear to everyone in the room before voting begins, and that the results are recorded by the note-taker.

7. Setting Forward Cadence (5 minutes)

The chapter agrees on:

The date of the next GA (typically two weeks later, beginning the bi-weekly cadence)
The day of week and time that will become the regular cadence
Whether the location will be fixed or rotate

8. Closing (5 minutes)

The elected Stewards briefly acknowledge their election. A Seed Team member closes the meeting by naming what has happened: the chapter is constituted. Thank the drafting group. Thank everyone present.

After the Meeting

Within 24 Hours

The note-taker drafts the synopsis, capturing the ratified founding documents, the adopted decision-making method, and the elected Stewards
The drafting group finalizes the founding documents incorporating any agreed edits

Within 48 Hours

The synopsis and the finalized founding documents are shared with all attendees and the broader sign-up list
The elected Stewards receive a brief onboarding email from the Seed Team with operational handover information

Within One Week

The Stewards hold their first internal meeting to plan the chapter’s first 90 days (covered in P5)
The Seed Team formally dissolves as a distinct group, with its members continuing as ordinary chapter members or in Steward roles
FREE Foundation receives the synopsis, the founding documents, and notification that the chapter has constituted itself

Common Failure Modes

Draft documents distributed too late. The room reads the drafts for the first time at the meeting and cannot engage substantively. Fix: circulate drafts at least one week in advance and remind people again 48 hours before.
Steward role unclear. People do not understand what they would be agreeing to. Either no one is willing to be nominated, or the nominees are not the right people. Fix: the Steward Role Description is clear, specific, and circulated in advance.
The election process is improvised. Confusion about how Stewards are chosen produces resentment. Fix: the Process Steward explains the method clearly before nominations begin, and the chapter walks through it as a single procedural exercise.
The chapter elects too many or too few Stewards. Three is a reasonable minimum, five is a reasonable maximum for a new chapter. Fewer than three concentrates too much load on one or two people; more than five fragments coordination.
The first Stewards include only Seed Team members. This signals that nothing has actually changed. Fix: the Steward cohort should include at least one or two members who were not part of the founding Seed Team.
The bi-weekly cadence is not locked in. Without a fixed schedule, the chapter slides into ad hoc meetings and gradually dissolves. Fix: the cadence is decided at the second GA and treated as a structural commitment.

Coordinating with FREE Foundation

For the second GA, FREE Foundation can offer:

Review of draft founding documents before they go to the chapter
Consultation on the chapter’s choice of decision-making method, with references to other chapters’ experience
Templates for Steward Role Description, synopsis, and founding documents
A representative joining briefly to welcome the new Stewards into the FREE federation network (optional, on request)

What Comes Next

After the second GA, the next document is P5: Stewards Phase 1 Guide, which covers the first 90 days of the elected Stewards’ work: holding cadence, supporting Circle formation, adopting the Code of Conduct, and preparing for the first Steward rotation.

A Note on This Document

This is v0.1 of P4, drafted in May 2026. It will be updated as chapters hold their second GAs and surface what is missing.

This is a living document. It will be reviewed and updated as the network grows.

The FREE Chapter Starter Kit is published by FREE (Forum for Real Economic Emancipation). freefreeforum.org