Reflection: To Chat or Not to Chat?

@Alex Rodriguez expressed a wish to utilize some kind of chat (short form, "real time") communication tool to complement the deeper engagement required and implied by the Loomio space. This thread is an invitation to explore this possibility.

@Toni Blanco responded by generously creating a channel for us to use on his server: https://chat.pantheon.work/

I asked to reflect on this more spaciously ... and this is that :)

Synchronous - Asynchronous

I would like to question an assumption that was floated in our conversation: chat does not imply synchronous communication (just as Loomio does not imply asynchronous).

Synchronicity requires, regardless of the technology being used, real-shared-time availability. Right now, in this crew that only happens during our weekly calls.

Boundaries

@Alex Rodriguez brought up the theme of boundaries (Alex, if you feel I am misrepresenting please correct me):

1. You have allocated time for the 2 hours weekly meeting but not more time for "work" outside of that.

2. The nature of the Loomio space (medium / long format writing) comes up against that boundary and limits your ability to engage.

3. A chat app (that is readily available in your phone whenever/wherever) would, therefore, create a possibility to participate.

Before "tending to the boundary" I want to acknowledge and embrace it. What I hear you saying is that you wish to be more involved and give more but are pressed for time.

IF that is the case then I want to respond: thank you for the time you have made available; please do not feel obliged to put in more than you have allocated or feel comfortable giving. If you do find that you want to give more than:

1. Let us celebrate the inspiration that compels you to want to do more (instead of some social obligation to do so).

2. Please consider allocating time for your contribution during our conversations (to which you have allocated time) by adding to the meeting(s) agenda.

3. Hold on to the wish to do more until you discover another soft opportunity to act o it without compromising your well being (being away from your son, crowding your already busy schedule, etc.).

Well Being

Here I wish to speak from my personal preference of giving clear priority to well being. I am hesitant to partake in a chat space. During most of my day, I am, by design, not available for "messages popping up asking for my attention". In the morning I am practicing and my phone is muted. When I am working physically outside I like to work peacefully and to "lose myself" in the work and not be disrupted (plus my hands are often too dirty to even handle a phone). When I am on my computer engaging, as I am now writing these words, I am also uninterested in disruption. When I am done and relaxing and winding down my day, I am not interested in messages or even face to face conversation that reactivates and engages my mind.

There really isn't a time in my (spacious!) day where I feel I would like to be available to nagging notifications or communications that require of me attention that I cannot give in the present moment. I have, over recent years, been exposed to numerous chat environments ... and have found them to be more disrupting than useful. I initially let them in because it seemed to be in fashion. I felt that:

1. They were noisy - I do not miss having to check a bunch of chat channels to see new messages.

2. Evoked erratic attention that spikes and drops rapidly.

3. Flooding of short comments ("yey", "I love that" ...) tended to drown out meaningful conversation.

4. The "real-time" nature of chat evoked rapid response. Taking time to reflect about something and offer a meaningful response the next day that was two paragraphs long ... just didn't work ... often the subject of conversation had already been pushed into an archival history that was difficult to find and relate to.

5. Good ideas (deserving more attention and conversation) had no stickiness ... got lost amidst the clutter.

There would need to be a good and vital reason for me to reconsider opening to that vibe. Maybe if we were to engage deeper (more time, more regularly, for a longer period of time) there would be more need for something like this ... but for now ... I can't see a need.

Needs

Having said all that I want to offer a followup question:

Have you experienced, during the time we've been together, a concrete need to communicate through some kind of chat space? Is there something you wanted to say or do, but could not do because a chat tool was missing?

I invite you to look at this question not only in a past context, but continuously as we progress through this cycle together. If such a need arises, I would like to know about it and to tend to it.

If I am not mistaken, @Alex Rodriguez remarked as the main reason for a chat app that Loomio is not mobile friendly. In that sense, that would make easier to him to interact in "stolen" bits of time here and there.

Regarding your objections, notifications can be entirely silenced by the user both in the web browser and the cellphone, and the right netiquette would solve most of the rest except the existence of two channels (solvable with Zapier?).

Said that, and taking into account that probably Alex participation wouldn't change that much, I do not see the urge to open the chat.

Yet, this poses an interesting use case. Should we prioritize centralization of the conversation (even it that means less conversations), or do we allow or even encourage parallel conversations, at other paces, though other interfaces/means?

In my view, if Alex would like to chat with me over there about microsolidarity or any other interesting stuff that would be fine. We could summarize here the take outs or copy/paste threads if we think they worth it. You could lurk there anytime as well.

I think I am OK with you two engaging in chat. I trust that our group cohesion is valued and will be cared for.

I understand the argument about Loomio's "mobile friendliness" (though as far as I can tell it is responsive and should work fine in a mobile browser). However, I believe the real issues are embodied in what you called "stolen bits of time".

I don't think that "bits of time" can be a substitute for clear and focused attention. And, I don't think that work that benefits from clear and focused attention can be done in "bits of time".

But the real heart of the matter is in "stolen". When describing my notion of well-being, my intention was to care for Alex's well-being. If his schedule is already loaded (if not overloaded), then he may be better off going for a short walk or having a drink or holding Nico ... better than "stealing" that time from himself ... to send a short sporadic message which will likely cause a return of one or more sporadic messages which will prompt him to "steal" a few more bits of his time ... birthing a chain of disrupting thoughts and communication signals.

I feel this has the potential to be something well intentioned that leads to another small compromise in the field of personal well being ... but this could be just me getting old :)

I hope @Alex Rodriguez will be able to chime in on this ... I am curious to hear his thoughts!

I am also, if either of you feel it is worth it, open to giving it renewed space in our next meeting!

I generally agree with these sentiments Ronan but I do think they are biased towards qualitive endeavours and I'm not sure that only such endeavours are a good thing (despite my preference towards such).

I believe in the right tool for the right job, and that syncronus chat tools have a place in this world, they are just to often used wrong (in the sense that they are generally pavlovian conditioning devices input pocket that have trained us to chase the dopamine reward of validation/connection).

They are useful for cheap signalling, like "hey I'm locked outta the zoom room" and the like. I do agree that they tend towards chaos and are generally no a good way of communicating with any sense of depth but at the same time I don't think that all communication should be expensive (read: deep consideration in wording and articulation, with long time commitments to formulate).

In nature, pioneer ecosystems are generally quantative as well and as they move into maturity they tend towards qualitive depth. Thus taking a biometric approach to community (which arises out of communication) a quantative first approach would seem in order... With that said I'm not particularly inclined to indulge in cheap quantative signalling, but it's typically how people get to know eachother :/

Just playing devils advocate really, as I don't know the right way forward - I just like diversity of choice and non-duality. My thoughts are both are appropriate, but we should be mindful as to why we use either

(Excuse the lack of qualitative formatting, I'm on a phone - but to confirm loomio does work on mobile devices!)