Thanks for these thoughts Jennifer,

I would like to know if there an opening for considering making the digital space not-for-profit? Just because a business is not-for-profit doesn’t mean those involved can’t profit from it, it just means the legal purpose for the business is something other than simply making a profit.

In my view we are involved in a 'for purpose' endeavour. I'd be cautious of prescribing a particular set of legal constraints though as all choices will have unintended consequences. For instance if we adopt non-profit legal status now, it will rule out the ability to create services that can be funded through the likes of pension funds in the future (as there is no ownership, there are no shares that can be traded or profit to be extracted - fwiw I'm perhaps talking naively here). This example may or may not matter, but in my opinion its just too early to tell. My personal frame on this matter is that legal structures are just tools to pick up for specific purposes as I feel that these structures only give the illusion of security - there are many really great for-profits and many absolutely rotten non-profits.

If the digital space could support the training and development of people who are interested in working in the way the crew works, this would be valuable to many organizations around the world seeking people like that. They are hard to find. I think organizations would pay for access to people trained in working this way and who have demonstrated they are dependable and capable.

Another slightly different path to generating an income that came to my mind is from people who offer paid activities already and are looking for certain kinds of people who are capable of being in groups like this crew. They also might pay to have access to people drawn to the digital space.

These insights feel like they have a lot of potential in them.

Any potential path to generating an income will take time. In the meantime, Robert and I would like to say again we are willing to put money into this project.

That's super kind of you both, the spirit of the offer is appreciated and I interpret it as coming from a good place but I feel a knot within myself due to past experiences that I should probably share. I'm particularly cautious of internally funded 'financial solidarity' as I've been personally harmed by it and have seen it cause a lot of unintentional consequences. In a nutshell even if the provisions are truly given in the spirit of the unconditional gift (rare, despite espoused beliefs), it creates a distortion field in the minds of appropriators which in turn gives rise to all kinds of power asymmetries, biases and blindness. Its hard for me to sum this up coherently but these days I feel quite strongly about living lean and remaining self-funded until the point of external validation (clients, customers ect.).

To me this feels like a generous offer made in good spirit, so I want to be clear that its received well and that I'm not drawing comparisons - I'm just yet to see and experience tangible upsides to internally validating a project through financial means. I'm open to the possibility that my perspective is just sample bias, but I can't disregard my past experience despite the differences in context.

Thank you, Josh for all you wrote here. I appreciate the feedback that you have experienced internally funded "financial solidarity" and have been harmed by it. Thank you for sharing that, it's helpful for me to understand where you are coming from on this topic of money and funding.

As for legal structures, I think any legal structure may work, as long as the endeavor is "for-purpose" as you say.

However, I do think there is a problem with strictly for-profit legal structures if it means that the legal purpose of the business is to make a profit. That doesn't seem to me to actually allow the endeavor to be, in fact, "for-purpose."

A LOT to unpack there Jennifer. However I will refrain from doing so here and now.

I feel that we need to find firm footing, a healthy sequence of exploration in order to do these subjects grounded justice.

Cycle 4 is upon us :)

In the US at least, there is also the "B-corporation" or "benefit corporation" structure that allows for considerations other than financial bottom line to be considered when making business decisions. In other words, there are other options besides the non-profit corporation model that we could consider. I've been working in the nonprofit space for the past two years and there are ways that it can be just as toxic as for-profit businesses if not tended to with care and commitment to purpose. This book has been a great resource and primer for me on understanding both the pitfalls and spaces of radical possibility within the nonprofit system in the US: https://www.dukeupress.edu/the-revolution-will-not-be-funded

Echos from the retrospective

@Toni Blanco brought up his experience within the world of job security. That is to say that sometimes there is a lull which brings with it feelings of uncertainty. He put this into metaphor as the time between planted seeds and seeing a field of spouts. This sense of uncertainty rang true for me having worked in the gig economy and lived out of crypto (volatility). There's a sense of stability that emerges as a by product I find.

@Alex Rodriguez noted a sense of rhythm that happens from not disassociating into abstraction
@Ronen Hirsch shared a desire to hear about the centres that enable our groups sense of cohesion. He noted; safety, time and retrospective but asked if there were other things?
@Alex Rodriguez brought a counterfactual example to the group and added that trust and shared vision carried him through
@Ronen Hirsch asked if the example felt burdening to carry for the two months that he did?
@Alex Rodriguez said that it brought a sense of disassociation that he had to work through which opened up conversation about how we bring issues to the group and ways to more easily resolve tensions and being able to double back to open threads that need resolution. The metaphorical vehicle of gossip/knots was used as well as Guntis (not Chackras).
@Jennifer Damashek added value and beauty to the list
@Robert Damashek added the depth, shared vision and tangibility.
@Josh Fairhead summarised some of the discussion that followed as "disclosure, privacy and transparency".
@Toni Blanco brought up his concern for the material conditions of our crew and suntainability of the space.
@Ronen Hirsch made the request that if your having a dyad, try to leave an echo for the wider ecology. There was also a wish that we share the generative process with others and get a sense of how others feel it in order to keep the core of the work alive.

Thank you for this echo, Josh, it’s very helpful to me. 😊

Robert

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS

I feel a wish to focus on some practicalities that surfaced in this gathering.

1: "Gossip" Protocol

The conversation around the knot between Alex and myself helped to recognize some mechanisms that we have in place to handle knots:

1. The "safety" within the crew.

2. The understanding that things take as much time as they need.

3. The retrospective itself as a place to address such issues.

The conversation led to recognition of another mechanism - the crew itself. Simply put, if person A is triggered by Person B then person A may benefit from talking to person C about what has been triggered. Within the context of this crew this would not be considered "talking behind someone back" but considered an act of ... well ... solidarity! To my understanding, this is now part of our agreement. We are open to helping each other in this way and we accept that this would not be considered a violation of privacy.

In reflecting on this event I realized and would like to make explicit my wish that this (and other crew-health-mechanisms) are used to preserve the permission to speak freely without having to walk on eggshells of fear of offending someone. This does mean being offensive or inconsiderate, but it does acknowledge that some eggs may be broken in the making of our omelet (<- not how I thought that word was spelled!!.

2: Trigger Emoji

I would like to propose adding another emoji to our agreed vocabulary. I feel like 💥 (boom) can be used to express "I am triggered"

3: Cycle 3 Complete

Though this conversation thread remains open and active, I am declaring cycle 3 complete ... unless someone states an objective.

3: Cycle 4 Proposal

I will author a proposal to frame cycle 4 around:

1. Money

2. Collaboration technology

3. Sharing the GP

Just wanted to add that it would be helpful for me to think about this next cycle with some time parameters in mind. I did notice that we've been filling out a Fibonacci sequence of lunar cycles---3, 5, 8--which aligns with the spiral dynamic that @Josh Fairhead sketched out for us early on in our work together. Dec 4, 2021-Dec 23, 2022 would get us through 13 lunar cycles :)

Not ready to put this out there as a proposal per se but curious if there are any responses/reactions to either a) the idea of putting a time-container around Cycle 4 or b) the idea of making it 13 lunar cycles

Wow, this is the second time in two days that Lunar cycles have been brought up and I've been pinpointed (Ronen mentioned them when we talked yesterday) - I don't remember that discussion but sure. I don't really want to treat them as a box or imperative @Alex Rodriguez but I do enjoy your Fibonacci observation. If you wish to lightly hold that container I'm happy to play the game with a suspended belief in the narrative.

Thanks Josh, yes, this is definitely offered with an invitation to suspend belief in any narratives that may be trying to attach themselves to my thoughts here :)