I couldn't find it in me to create a formal invitation to cycle 3.

I feel we are in cycle 3, it has a fuzzy beginning and has a fuzzy feeling.

There are times when the fuzziness feels sleepy and I want to shake it off, but most of the time I am OK with the fuzziness.

I sense that we arrived at a soft agreement that cycle 3 is about fleshing-out the generative process that was placed at the altar. That feels like a clear invitation to me and, though slower than I would like, that fleshing out is emerging from me.

I offer this fuzziness as an invitation to cycle 3 and, as always, invite us all to unfold this invitation with whatever is alive in you.

@Josh Fairhead I just want to make it explicit that though you did not reply to the pole, I take it, based on past interactions, that you do not have any objections. If this is not correct, even though the pole has closed, please feel free to express your position in response to this thread.

I am now wondering what would be a good way to do this. This is a process that is currently alive for me:

1. One of us (in this case myself or Josh) have a one-on-one conversation with the "candidate" to introduce the crew and what we've been doing. During this conversation extend the invitation to join and ask for feedback and/or interest in the invitation.

2. Inviting the candidate to a gathering where we can get acquainted, ask questions, share thoughts, wishes feelings.

3. If, after the gathering, there is a mutual interest, an official proposal will be made to invite the "candidate" in. If there is consent the invitation will be extended to the candidate.

4. Because the crew is an established space, the candidate will be joining for an initial "test" phase (can be firmly or loosely defined) during which we can all get a feel if the addition feels good.

Any thoughts, wishes around this?

Thanks for tagging; I thought I had replied but apparently not... Assumed correctly, I have no objections.

In response to process;

1. Fine but:

   1. This statement begs the question of coherent messaging, I wouldn't be surprised at all if each of us articulates what we've been doing in differing ways. At least, I believe that I'd have difficulty formulating a representative view of what we're doing bar the basics (I'm not entirely sure we're even doing "Microsolidarity" but rather our own approximate flavor which leans on Richards writing). Feedback from the outside about our 'self-representation' would be welcome in that regard.

   2. 1:1's feel like the way to introduce a new candidate; however I'm inclined to addend a proportional amount of 1:1's to the group size to increase variety for the candidate (like being in a crew to feel at home in a congregation). In this specific case, myself and Maija already have a pre-existing relationship ('dyad') and as such feel it should be up to other members to integrate that relationship into something of higher order by building relationships with her directly, rather than through me as proxy; I think a triad is probably the minimum viable 'route in' at the crew level.

      1. Tangential note; typing this response up reminds me of the three-body problem in orbital mechanics; two-ness remains a closed system... I've always felt Richard missed something by skipping from dyad to crew, this situation reminds me why!

2. Fine

3. Fine

4. Fine also.

   1. But begs a question around off boarding; I assume Maija will be fine with us but what happens if I turn into a complete prick, or something else happens in the space we've created? Since were talking about on boarding, it might be an appropriate moment to meditate on an off boarding process also (planning for the future; perhaps also think about how any potential practices might translate to the congregation level). This would be significant step for us as its equivalent to evolving ourselves a metabolism! (which regulates the flow of energy and resources across our membrane)

Thanx @Ronen Hirsch for the blueprint and @Josh Fairhead for the comments.

Fine but:

1. This statement begs the question of coherent messaging, I wouldn't be surprised at all if each of us articulates what we've been doing in differing ways.

We have left a good trace at Loomio and Discord of what we are doing, which I think that also speaks pretty well for itself. I would invite the candidate to read it. Conversely, I would love to read any trace of her/his work, when available.

I'm not entirely sure we're even doing "Microsolidarity"

I am still not sure what microsolidarity is. For me, even the naming is confusing. Imagine microfriendship, microcompassion, microempathy, microsupport... Really, I do not get it. And what united us is precisely the skepticism of some of its tenets, like the need for physical gathering.

I've always felt Richard missed something by skipping from dyad to crew, this situation reminds me why!

Totally. I have some notes for the Pantheon book regarding this, drawing from the amazing intuitions of George Simmel on the dyad and the triad. Even the order is not right. As Simmel wrote, before being alone you have to be with someone else. Otherwise, that cannot happen.

But begs a question around off boarding;

I agree as well. I read a few days ago a brilliant talk of James Hillman on the goddess Hera, where he said that "At the moment of marriage, the widow is also there and the divorcee is also there". It made me think a lot about that any agreement/covenant of being together is like that. Avoiding that dimension is somehow like an elephant in the room. Even if someone has not off boarded or has not the intention to, but you feel that has off boarded because of low (quality) interaction.

Ronen does not like to think in terms of generations, but I do. I think each generation supports different pressures. I think that millennials, for understandable reasons, prefer joining groups with low entry and exit costs. I expect Maija to want this.

Sergio and I talked without drama about the possibility of breaking apart at the same time when we decided to partner. Our model was open source communities: the horizon of forking. And not necessarily because we were mad at each other but, for instance, because of growth: the need to split and form two crews of 7 members instead of being one of 14. All our work is open source so no ownership there to fight about. Credit for contributions exquisitely maintained so we gain the reputation we deserve. That kind of organizational decisions makes the conversation today and in the future easier by design.

We have left a good trace at Loomio and Discord of what we are doing, which I think that also speaks pretty well for itself.

Spot on, for some reason that didn't occur to me.

Conversely, I would love to read any trace of her/his work, when available.

Speaks to the personal artifacts discussion of blogs, sites, outputs, portfolios discussion.

I am still not sure what microsolidarity is. For me, even the naming is confusing. Imagine microfriendship, microcompassion, microempathy, microsupport... Really, I do not get it. And what united us is precisely the skepticism of some of its tenets, like the need for physical gathering.

😂😂😂🤘

I have some notes for the Pantheon book regarding this, drawing from the amazing intuitions of George Simmel on the dyad and the triad. Even the order is not right. As Simmel wrote, before being alone you have to be with someone else. Otherwise, that cannot happen.

Tangential: I've been with the H3uni people for about a year and a half, Anthony was one of John Bennets research fellows as well as having worked under Stafford Beer also. I'm probably gonna do the qualitative systems course, perhaps you might be interested in the QualSystems as a taster? Its April 14th at 8pm CEST if so

"At the moment of marriage, the widow is also there and the divorcee is also there". It made me think a lot about that any agreement/covenant of being together is like that. Avoiding that dimension is somehow like an elephant in the room.

This is a nice thought on potentialities and possibilities Tony, thanks for that share.

I think that millennials, for understandable reasons, prefer joining groups with low entry and exit costs. I expect Maija to want this.

Hmm, maybe they do, maybe they don't. I feel that its more that we live in an enviroment of abundant information and scarce attention so cheap entry/exit decreases risk. I don't know why you'd expect that of Maija though?

All our work is open source so no ownership there to fight about. Credit for contributions exquisitely maintained so we gain the reputation we deserve.

True for code, but not for brand. Forking can be expensive as you lose opportunity or have to ostrisise yourself from other members of the group. This is my issue with DAOs; there's room for forking/entropy but not spooning/extropy/intergration. In crypto space forking is kinda reified as a mantra to everything, but its not, very often its a toxic ideology. In many cases forking is a zero sum game so context and potential outcomes need consideration.

That kind of organizational decisions makes the conversation today and in the future easier by design.

💯- the issue is usually bootstrapping as bad governance decisions made too early can leave the organism in 'technical debt' and also lead to a lot of wasted energy (forking etc.) down the road.

Hmm, maybe they do, maybe they don't. I feel that its more that we live in an enviroment of abundant information and scarce attention so cheap entry/exit decreases risk.

Of course, it is just an heuristic. Also, what I expect is either that or the opposite, since this appears to be a pivotal issue nowadays. Hence the "micro" of the "microsolidarity". That is my interpretation of such naming.

I don't know why you'd expect that of Maija though?

Oh, because I have not many inputs about her; even her "generation" is a guess. As I just said, I am totally open minded to find the opposite case because of saturation.

True for code, but not for brand. Forking can be expensive as you lose opportunity or have to ostrisise yourself from other members of the group. This is my issue with DAOs; there's room for forking/entropy but not spooning/extropy/intergration

I think ours is a different case, because size/scale matters, and because of our activity and value proposition. After two years, nobody buys Pantheon but Sergio and/or Toni. Also, we put care, mutual support, and credit/reputation in the equation in a way that I do not things DAO do because of their ontological obsession with the individual.

We know how traumatic forks can be, I even tackled this subject a little bit when talked with Amish about their different branches...

1: Coherent Messaging

I hear you @Josh Fairhead and while I understand the challenge and agree with youf raming it does not feel real to me.

The framing that is guiding me: we are an oganism and if we add another person we become a new organism. While there will be continuity, and a dominant presence of the past ... we are opening ourselves to becoming something new.

I am grateful for @Toni Blanco 's reminder that we have all this stuff here in Loomio ... but then I remember "shit, all this stuff in Loomio" ... I would NOT want to be obliged to ingest so much material at once as a criteria for joining a crew ... and so I would not place that on someone else. I WOULD make it available and refer to it as needed.

I would venture and say that the point of such a shift (inviting another member) is to shift coherence ... from one intangible to another (hopefully wholer, fuller, refined, better, more beautiful) intangible!?

2: Dyads

Thank you for making this explicit :)

For me, this exists ... in a fuzzy way. I have had the pleasure of one-on-one's with all of you ... all of which left me feeling dyad-ic in different ways :) At the present moment I do not feel a personal need to explictly introduce more of this.

Do you feel this needs to be structurall re-inforced? Made more explicit/intentional?

3: Off-boarding

Though I believe in living each day as if it were my last, I am not planning my funeral :)
I DO plan my funeral on dark days ... and even then I find myself gravitating to via-negativa: no "men-of-god" and no concrete!

I also want to express a feeling of trust ... because of "how we are" holds the keys to mitigating stress or crisis.

I also want to presence, here too, that I do not feel any personal need to tend to this. This is not alive for me. I AM available to tend to it if anyone else DOES feel a need.

Lastly, I would like to bring something else you said @Josh Fairhead as a question in this context:

[bad] governance decisions made too early can leave the organism in 'technical debt' and also lead to a lot of wasted energy down the road