Cycle 2 Anchor

Thanks for putting your time and energy into this Ronen, please excuse the delay on commenting - I wanted to make sure to respond in good time without feeling it imperative to respond so as not to miss things or callously reply with a thumbs up before considering it properly ;) - In the abstract this feels like something Ive been trying to arrive at with other endeavours where the "initial tediousness" usually tends to hamper adoption so I'm grateful for this tidy articulation and assumed endorsement 🙏.

From my perspective the first two points have a feel of appreciative inquiry and it feels like theres also a resonance with programming constructs like sequence, selection, iteration and invocation. Not exactly the same by any stretch but similar to degrees! Taking pause to witness the situation is often neglected in those practices and probably the most important part (example disaster: permissions vs capabilities paradigms built in at the base level of most computing systems leading to a host of pathologies... due to a seemingly symmetrical relation of subjects/objects).

Point four is also interesting in that noting who modified a processes and how is often not accounted for, so keeping an audit log seems like good practice - I'd endorse such accounting (though perhaps slightly tedious). This is hard to do in a fluid discussion without documented processes but the overheads probably worth it. Same for documenting and formalising discussions which Loomio seems like a pretty natural tool for such which is handy!

Review / retrospectives of the PROCESS and INTERVENTION are also necessary feedback loops that are often ignored due to the lack of such previously mentioned formalisations (I'm generally adverse to a lot of formalisation due to the lack of any substantial reasoning but I'm fine with it if reasoned well like this).

Taking pause to look at what I've just written and applying the process:
Step 1 - Thanks for taking the time to step back and witness our situation
Step 2 - Thanks for taking the time to identify the points of an intervention (meta process) while taking time to identify latent potential of such an intervention
Step 3 - As well as coordinating this discussion
Step 4 - I've nothing to add to the proposal other than the question: who and how should we document? (to internalise the cost of this question; I'm happy to make a sheet(?) and practice the logging if we feel all agree its a good direction to go)
Step 5 thorough 8 - Looking forward to testing this hypothesis and reflecting on the implementation if accepted :)

To formalise this particular proposal, do you guys think we should use Loomio to make the proposal official? it feels like we're in a bootstrapping mode. Myself, I'm not usually on consensus vibes but in this case I think its probably relevant to hear all voices and explicitly make a collective decision. Perhaps even at the meta level, processes like this should it be consent based? I don't know, but In that regard I'm not really comfortable assuming no objections means good to go, unless things really start to stall.

On a slightly unrelated note, consensus vs consent polarities feels like a good duality to discuss once were past this point... but I'll leave that discussion for later. Again thanks for taking the time and energy to articulate this 🙏

Remote Microsolidarity Implementation of Meta Generative Process

Thank you @Josh Fairhead for taking the time and space to ingest and respond at the right time for you :) I embrace and encourage us all to practice this kind of rhythm personally and to discover what kind of collective rhythms emerge from it.

Your comment about consent and consensus leads me to the next document: a suggested implementation for our group of the generative process. At the core of it is consent as a bootstrapping strategy for decision making.

I think that consent dominates most of the document - namely a short description of consent and then a specific protocol for implementing it amongst us here on Loomio. As I was writing the document I realized that consent as a major building block ... once it was in place ... the specific collaborative processes required for the generative process were relatively simple instantiations!

So ... embracing your consent comment here is the document about using it in our generative process experiment: https://demo.codimd.org/s/Hktvwu1Iv

I will also launch a proposal for a meeting in our allocated time-frame next week to go over this together.

Cheers for the second document as well, I read over it today and feel pretty aligned with it - looking forward to testing them out as we go. I've also shown the first link to @Roberto Valenti as it would be great to instill such disciplines across spaces.

I'm glad to hear that this work may be resonating with others :)

Your original comment (as it arrived in my email notification) included an inquiry about inviting Roberto to our meeting. Have you withdrawn that question?

Yeah, inquiry withdrawn; I saw the other post and its context so felt it unsuitable to do so for now as it specifically stated a more personal catch up context so I want to honour that space and just see you guys. Maybe another time it would be more suitable :)

@Josh Fairhead I saw that Roberto has answered the scheduling poll for the upcoming meeting ... so instead of bouncing back and forth in private channels I am asking for open collective clarification.

@Roberto Valenti I intend to bring the question of your participation to the group, However to do so I would like to:

1. Express appreciation for your interest and the potential spread of the inquiry we began in this crew.

2. Clarify that I cannot know in advance what the group response will be (though I speculate positivity).

3. Avoid advanced hypothetical decision as to what your participation can look like. I do ask that you understand that you are stepping into a crew that has spent some time together in inquiry and in forming some shared understanding, language and interest. I do ask that you understand that personally I would like to give priority to the flowing work of the group and that may imply limitations on your ability to participate ... and that the specifics of what that looks like will emerge during the meeting.

4. To allow myself and the crew an informed reflection, I'd like to ask you Robert to reply to this comment with a short introduction about yourself and what is it about the group and the work we are doing that interests you. After you do that, I intend to make a proposal to the group about your participation.

I like the idea but I noticed that you withdraw the concept of centers, and I find it important to be able to grasp the wholeness. Talking about centers of pods/crews formation would allow us to put some examples of centers in different contexts or stages. I mean, we are talking about a particular kind of a living process, not a generic one. If the process is at the stage "me as source" there are some centers, if someone shared the idea with different people is another stage of the process, and the centers are different as well.

I also would look for the coherence when witnessing the process along the process. We both used this word in the first cycle.

Drawing from the first cycle, I also would include the "via negativa" approach we talked about. When we sense the centers (as part of the experience of sensing the wholeness of the process), we will sense their needs, constraints and concerns (better than their weak points), which will be in fact the triggers of our proposals of intervention. And when thinking about interentions, we were very aware about what we did not want. What I learned in the audio-guided exercises that Alex and you made is that when imagining together, we expressed very clearly our struggles in the process (in making choices) in form of needs and concerns. (I also had another insight on how we imagined our microsolidarity space or the tea houses, regarding the Poetics of Space of Gaston Bachelard, but I will save it for later when we talk about concrete audio-guided practices).

I've added the word "centers" ... but, as I indicated in the document, I chose NOT to go into Alexander's theory. I am relying on the time we've spent together and the shared resonance we've generated (and will continue to refine in the future). I do not feel inclined to write an introduction to Christopher Alexander :)

Seed for Remote Microsoldarity Generative Process

I've created this minimal/core/seed process to allow us to explore collaborating on a generative process. It IS offered in the spirit of the conversations we had in cycle1. I did aspire to make it WHOLE. However, it is NOT offered as something complete. It is offered as a kind of "strange attractor" around which ideas can orbit and find convergent direction.

If you feel you have things to say about it ... GREAT ... try to inhabit that energy without acting on it YET :) Bring that energy to the coming meeting where we can try to give it meaningful flow using the meta-generative process :)

Process document: https://demo.codimd.org/s/SJiPWWwUw#

Audit document: https://demo.codimd.org/s/S1dRpE_8v#num1

@Josh Fairhead I noticed that I am working at a DEMO.codimd.org domain. Is this a reliable place to hold our work or is there another instance of CodiMD we would be better off using?

Based on Josh's answer, everyone else may wish to register on CodiMD to be able to collaborate on those documents.

Evening gents, responding about CodiMD only, not the proposal; I'm not sure the full story with CodiMD. I a-synochrinostically asked a friend who previously told me it was the community version of hackMD, just there two days ago! His response was that it may have a time limit on how long documents were stored so we might consider moving to hackMD or installing Codi on a server if we happen to have one available. He has used the demo version for quite some time without negative impact, however it's a risk we might have to assume (or I can dig deeper into the situation another day and search for certainty) depending on documentation.

Looking forward to seeing you all tomorrow!