I think that we have not yet reacted with general feedback because we have a sense of wholeness of the initial proposal of the process. Why? I suspect that its wholeness comes from years of observation and meditation about it of Ronen and a benefic influence of his experience within the crew to shape the GPs in their current form. 

I love the Toni of the past, who wrote this that I take as a sort of unorthodox guide to understanding the wholeness of the generative process AS IS. 

Well established and sequenced centers

Invitation

The invitation to the space is implicit at GP: Context>Strangers, quite open: "Strangers arrive in this space at random times and from diverse contexts". No need to define a particular form of invitation. Yet, the GP>Welcome>Invite Friends defines a good time to invite friends. 

Agreements

A list of implicit foundational agreements are formulated at GP: Foundations with the pattern "We acknowledge". Also, the existence of agreements in the particular space is announced at GP Welcome>Core Values.

Face-to-face orientation space 

The GP: Welcome is an initial orientation space held by a Host. Activities have facilitators that orient (see GP: Activity Guide>Facilitators and GP: Participate.

Offers

The current GP: Activity Guide covers this center.

Signaling of interest protocol

Same. The current GP: Interest signaling feels like a novel and strong center of the generative process as it is.

Ethical income generator

We are here now. I have the feeling that Ronen wrote some cards to make up his mind around this subject. I wrote a few cards on value because I felt that could help to define better the GP. I will work a little more on that, trying to build upon the two perspectives on the subject and make it coherent with the matters of concern of Ronen regarding money. 

Absent (potential) centers

I think that the following elements are not integrated yet because the GP is, for now, individual-centered. I feel that in the end, it will be more balanced, if not biased, towards crews. I feel that the crew will the most relevant unit of the space. And we are in a threshold of the GP in which the individual will be less and less important.  

• Proposals 

• Face-to-face support

• Face-to-face sense-making

• Shared silence

• Audio doors into spaces

• Written sense-making and decision space

• Written self-orientation space

• Back-channel

@Toni Blanco thank you for starting this thread and initiating it with your "process scan" :)

I would like to offer an even higher level summary which is what is keeping me oriented and helping me prioritize the unfolding in general.

The objective I have in mind is, as we discussed, reaching a point where we can present this work to others. I am thinking primarily of Space Keepers (such as Richard) who currently hold actual social spaces and may be interested in the kind of space we are exploring. But the same work could support, for example, funding.

With that in mind there are three main centers I am currently focused on:

1. The Space: my hope is that by listening to this generative process someone who is not part of our crew can get a sense of what we are working on and what we aspire to create. This was the first center to mature and around which we have a shared understanding.

2. Money: I was drawn to this because it feels like a critical piece. In most of the real-world examples (people and spaces) I look at and imagine can inhabit and benefit from the kind of space we have been exploring, money is a recurring and fundamental challenge. It feels like it needs to be addressed. My approach here has been to look for a social dynamic in which a diversity of solutions can emerge (instead of having to find "the solution" for money).

3. Initiating a Space: after someone has an image of what a space can be and how it relates to money, hopefully there will be curiosity in the form of a question: how can I create such a space. This generative process(s) is supposed to answer that question. I have already written something around this but a much better and simplified version is alive in my heart and I have yet to put it in writing (which is why I haven't shared it with you yet).

I hope these three centers will draw a clear picture of something attractive for existing community-holders.

If this is done well and evokes an image inside you as a reader, it should, I believe, invite many more details and centers that are not yet elaborated including the potential centers you listed. The question that I am asking (and inviting you to ask) around these and any other potential centers is do they enhance the sense of wholeness for the people with whom we wish to share this generative vision?

In the original invitation to this crew, I explicitly framed a scope: converting a random stream of strangers into cohesive crews. So I am not venturing into what happens after crews are formed because:

1. It is outside the scope we agreed on (and we have not intentionally expanded the scope).

2. There is plenty of potential for innovation beyond this scope, but I believe that at this point in time it is a hypothetical over-reach.

3. If and when we start to actually manifest a space where crews reliably and systemically emerge (which will be a cause for celebration) we will have a much better understanding of what is needed next.

4. There may be existing tools that already address some of the needs that will arise.

Thank you @Ronen Hirsch , it is important to give feedback so we can check we are on the same page.

My confusion comes from thinking of the microsolidarity dyad, crew, congregation path as the remote microsolidarity horizon, (and assuming that the congregation would eventually be the main attractor to the space).

No problem with limiting the scope, but to re-read the process again in this light, I would like to clarify when is considered that a crew is formed. In our case would be the moment we decided to crew and begin cycle 1?

On the other hand, If I understand it well, this scope simplifies the money issue very much.

I am with you on the microsolidarity horizon and am making a conscious choice to focus on dyad and crew. A practical reason for this is that I have a felt sense of dyad and crew (in large part thanks to our crew) but I do not have a sense of a congregation. I cannot imagine how a congregation can be initiated ... so I am curious to see if/how it can emerge.

Thank you for the question on "when is a crew considered formed?". I have a few reflections around this:

1. I don't know and I am not sure it is necessary to have a clear answer to this question. I suspect that different answers can arise in different contexts and they will be valid within those contexts.

2. A famous Israeli philosopher named Leibovitz suggested (I think this was already back in the 60's) that a nation is a sense of affiliation that lives in the hearts of individuals irrespective of politics or geographical borders. Therefore, he argued that within the Israeli-Palestinian context a two-state solution is inevitable because in people's hearts there are in fact two nations. This is clearly manifesting now with all the clashes and lynching between Arabs and Jews going on INSIDE Israel. Similarly, I would say that a crew is something that exists in the minds and hearts of its members.

3. If I embrace the scope I have outlined, one indicator of crews forming would people becoming less active in the space BECAUSE they have found crews and are no longer "dating." Then they may move to other mediums to continue crewing and congregating OR we may choose to respond by expanding the scope of the space may IN RESPONSE to the maturity of its members to support ongoing crewing and congregating.

I also want to clarify that in my previous comment I did not intend to enforce scope just to remind us all that there is a scope around which our crew formed. I feel that this initial scope is a good container to keep our work clear and focused. But if you feel it would be better to expand the scope I am open to that. I just ask that we do that consciously and not as feature creep.

Here: https://iamronen.com/blog/2021/05/15/yeshayahu-leibowitz-a-right-to-land/

Thank you, Ronen. I am OK with that choice, and we can change it eventually if we feel that we should do it. I guess I was biased because of what I am experiencing right now with the neoguild Pantheon started here in Barcelona. Focusing on dyads and crews just has consequences on aspects such as the timeframe in which some dynamics we are talking about, like the awareness of the previously unknown value, change significantly. On the other hand reduces in some sense complexity, which is good for our purpose.