Übersicht Letzte Änderungen Letzte Änderungen in der Umgebung KurzAnleitung Blog RSS

CommunityWikiGovernmentChat2

unsummarized (so far)

Subjects from memory:

Transcript

lion
Hey Sam! Do you have a moment to talk? Would you like to? If not, I understand.
sam
I do have a moment [smile]
lion
ok!
sam
what’s up?
lion
What questions should we be asking on CW? And, I am wondering: Do you have any questions for me, personally? (I’m sooo eager to get back to discussing ideas on CW..! This process is nerve wracking.)
sam
I like the way that you framed the change that you were trying to intiate (from “clique” to “club”)
sam
It is hard to be the guy that initiates change in social arrangement that has no previous “social contract”, because you’ll be seen by some as possibly being arbitrary
lion
Ah: Another question: “What lines dare I not transgress, that I am in danger of transgressing, that would cause Sam Rose to leave CW, or otherwise cease communicating with me?” Ha!
sam
I am not going to leave, so don’t worry about that. Also I agree with you that in fact, we do automatically establish a hierarchy with a group when we enter it (with ourselves in the lower levels). That is actually one of the best insights that came out of all of this It is almost universal
lion
(nod) I’m not sure where specifically the LiteracyOfHumanNature overlaps the EcosystemOfNetworks, but I’m really interested in how they relate. I LOVE the EcosystemOfNetworks, because I understand it clearly, but there’s also a lot of interesting questions in it. (I do wonder at times where LiteracyOfHumanNature is going, or even what it is, specifically.)
lion
. o O ( I always wonder, “Am I a fast typer?” “Or is it just that everybody else thinks before they speak?” )
sam
So, I think we should think about what type of change the community is ready for. And, I think you’ve started to answer that question, by suggesting the “clique to club”, which is really an “oblique” change, that partially incorporates old ways of doing things, and partially introduces some new, and refines existing processes.
lion
. o O ( I know it’s not just you, because it’s the same with most everyone else in IRC, too… )
sam
Sorry, my wife came in and started talking to me at the same time [smile]
lion
Ah [wink]
sam
She was trying to figure out whether she wanted to send me to the store to get some cheese. heh
lion
“What kind of change is CommunityWiki ready for?” Oh, I know that one. [smile] (the wife and the cheese, that is.)
sam
I think that question will actually be answered through the process of making a constitution, or some kind of social agreement, which I think is a good idea.
lion
(nod) ok Do you mind if I copy this transcript to the CommunityWiki? I can edit out about the wife and the cheese and so on.
sam
Plus, one good thing about you starting this, is that you appear to have silenced sigi by initiating this conversation, or at least stopped him from playing games. Sure feel free to copy
lion
(nod)
sam
And, i agree with you that having this social agreement will make it easier to explain to newcomers the hows and whys of process, etc.
lion
(nod)
sam
I think that there will actually be some really good ideas that emerge out of this conversation. About EcosystemOfNetworks, and LiteracyOfHumanNature, I think there are some relationships Give me one second to find a link for you…
lion
If it is human nature to form these networks, then I would think, … You have those amazing diagrams on LiteractyOfHumanNature?, showing the diagrams of the different types of networks and so on. In some way, the LiteracyOfHumanNature page/idea seems to me more like a story than a model. The story seems to include a model, but it also seems very story based: Like EvolutionarySpirituality. EvolutionarySpirituality contains many stories and models, so it is more like a story, in my mind. Whereas the Ecology of Networks is a model. Not a story.
sam
It may be the story of a set of models….?
lion
heh {[wink]}= It also includes stories, about Graves, like Evo Spir has stories about different people, and so on.
sam
Yeah, i need to clean up the DocumentMode part of the page
lion
And then the story of how humanity developed, and so on, “clean up?” Hmm… It’s really good! It seems intrinsicly jumbled to me. Biiiig subject. Lots of parts. I still have a real hard time wrapping my head around Graves & his stages. Dating is something I understand. I can understand “stages” in dating. But I don’t understand the graves model, Spiral Dynamics. It never feels quite “right” to me, and I have difficulty saying, “Oh! I’ve seen that pattern!” Like: “Think, Talk, and Act.” “I’ve seen that pattern!”
sam
some time, I’d like to get my friend, Jerry Coursen, who is a neurscience professor at ASU to throw in some contributions to the page, because he worked with Graves, and I think he has some unique new ideas about the theories (that could also make the page itself more confusing [smile])
lion
Like: “Things, emotions, memories, thoughts, abstract states,” – “I’ve seen that pattern!” heh [smile]
lion
But, the stages, I have a hard time connecting it with clear patterns that I’ve seen before. Since the discussion seems so tied to Graves’ ideas, it’s a real show stopper, for the conversation as a whole, for me personally. I feel like I need something to “get it” somehow, something thats missing so far.
sam
Here’s one way to think about those stages, try to think about how someone could be operating in different roles in their life, with a different combination of these “stages”
lion
yes! ok I can follow that. I see those as sorts of “attitudes,” at different parts in my life, different situations, different attitudes resonate in me. I feel it is a combination of social conditioning, and the situation, and so on.
sam
Graves sade to imagine the “stages” as lights on a christmas tree that turn on and off in groups in different ways
lion
(Not everybody reacts the same in a given situation. Though people’s attitudes are part of the situation: The map is part of the territory.) Hm, … I have difficultyconnecting the pattern, but I can see that people lock into positions in roles that seem to fit templates..? “Well, we need a leader, so, as a group, we will make one from amongst us.” “Then we need a skeptic. So someone will transform into a skeptic.”
sam
yes, it is somewhat like that But, people may not fall into needed roles
lion
Like those gender swapping seahorses, or whatever. One becomes male or something. Yes; It’s a complicated thing.
sam
then again, someone might
lion
It does seem that this sort of group-template-fitting seems to happen, but I don’t know if that’s what Graves is talking about.
sam
One thing is that you can try and set the conditions for people to be more likely to fall into those roles
lion
Hm, that’s interesting.
sam
it is part of what he was talking about
lion
“Seed” the group.
sam
Yes, “seed” the group is one possibility
lion
Like interviewers asking same questions in different orders, seeding response.
sam
or, like if you try and create a democracy where a kingdom existed befofore
lion
Iraq… (nod)
sam
Or, if you created a democracy in a place like south africa, where there was previously aparthied. or on a smaller level, like community wiki, where we are looking at how to go from “clique to club”
lion
Actually, I prefer the clique, but I recognize that to protect the materials when people are gone, we have to become like a club. Cliques may need to be temporally connected, in order to be “secure.” (That makes sense to me.) Sorry, distracting from Graves…
sam
But, the changes that emerge could be come what I call (and graves called) “Oblique” they could have elements of “clique” and elements of “club” So that we could invoke our hierarchy when necassary, and our constitution states why
lion
(nod) Oh, I meant: How we relate to one another, I think will substantially change, when we have votes. Heh: Maybe we should have a page: “VotingIsTransformative?.”
sam
but, it could also give provision for people not abuse the power of invoking social rules (which I am sure you already considered, but just stating for conversation)
lion
(Instead of: VotingIsGood, VotingIsEvil, AboutVoting, …) (nod) But, we have different ideas about what “abuse” is; For example, evicting newcomers: Alex & I are quite happy to do so, with ease. Mattis opposes.
sam
VotingIsTransformative? is good
lion
Most people don’t care. They just don’t want to see violence.
sam
I think you are on the right track in trying to get people to co create a constitution. I agree there is a time to evict people, and it’s fair to have us collectively hash out when that is.
sam
Lion, gotta run. But I will pick this up on the wiki. and, actually we should do this again, or do it in IRC with others possibly (saves time in discussion [smile]!) So, see you later!
lion
ok [smile]

Here’s some more from this thread that I wrote to Lion this morning. He wasn’t online, so I’ll just paste it here:

Hey Lion, sorry that I disappeared yesterday. I wanted to also talk to you about your suggestion that a clique is not always bad, and that hierarchy is not always a bad or undesireable thing.

Where you wrote, yesterday, for instance, that the community has different ideas about what “abuse” is. That you and Alex would have no problem evicting certain people, but others, like Mattis, perhaps oppose evicting. Or where you wrote, I think in Friedemar’s personal page, that you might say to a new person “slow down” on creating new pages, while Mattis, or others might say “give them some breathing room”.

And, what I am trying to say is that these are different worldviews, different ways of solving problems. And this is where I think we can apply LiteracyOfHumanNature.

Because, what we are looking at, when we ask the question “What type of change is CommunityWiki ready for?” is: “how do we successfully mesh these apparently contradictory worldviews?”

Graves identified six conditions which must be present for change to occur. Those six conditions are (these were later repeated in the Spiral Dynamics book):

  1. Potential
  2. Solutions
  3. Dissonance
  4. Insight
  5. Barriers (or thresholds) identified and overcome
  6. Consolidation and support

These can be described this way (from http://www.vmacgill.net/paper.htm):

  1. The basic potential for change must exist. Chimpanzees are physically unable to speak. No amount of learning will change this.
  2. Solutions must exist for present or previously unresolved problems. If we do not yet have an adequate grasp of the existing vMeme or a critical situation takes all our energy, we cannot move to the next vMeme. We would not expect to see a bold new vision for the education of English children appearing in 1944. All energy was channelled into defeating Hitler.
  3. There must be a level of dissonance. If we are perfectly happy where we are, nothing moves us to change. Something must feel uncomfortable or out of balance.
  4. Insight into the situation is required with some idea of what the better future might be. There must be some prospect of a better life, a sense that there is hope in continuing.
  5. Barriers to change must be identified and overcome.
  6. Consolidation and support. The tender new shoot is vulnerable in a way it will never be as a large tree. When a leap forward is made, it must be reinforced and encouraged, to avoid slipping back to the previous state.

I am saying is that it is possible for people with different worldviews to work together. The potential is there.

We have met condition 1. We have also collectively met conditions 2, 3, and 4. For condtion 5, we have identified barriers, or thresholds as I prefer to call them. The biggest barrier, I think, is the difference in world views, or ways of solving problems.

I personally think that Alex’s response on CommunityWikiGovernment, and BayleShanks’s response at CommunityWikiConstitution, combined are pointing in the right direction. The idea that there is like a two-phased system. We try to operate in normal routine under informal, open, soft processes, much like the way that we’ve been doing. But, we also create a constitution that puts decision making power in the hands of members, if the soft processes break down. I think it is important that we think about when we will invoke the powers of voting members, and when we will not. Because, this is a subtle thing that very likely could make or break the meshing of worldviews and different types of problem solving. So, we have not overcome the barriers/thresholds to change yet, until we figure this out.

In my mind, the need to invoke a formal power/decision making process has shown itself. But, we can make a social agreement that basically says that this process will not be invoked unless certain conditions are met. If some of us “club” members want to avoid the invocation of the process, it is up to us to then solve the problem But, the formal power/decision making process is still there as a community safety net, to keep the community from breaking down.

So, it is up to us to Consolidate and Support this change, and meet condition six.

Thanks for writing up those 6 conditions, I hadn’t seen them before and they’re interesting.

I agree with the two-phased system idea.

I agree that different people probably have subtly different ideas about when the formal process that we are considering should be invoked, and that this is a potential source of future trouble.

I’m hoping that conservative voting thresholds like those of Proposal 2 will help with this issue a lot. Since, under proposal 2, it would take 80% agreement to make a new rule, actually two conditions would have to be met before the passage of a rule:

  • 80% of members present agree that the issue at hand merits even invoking the formal process at all
  • 80% of members agree that the particular proposed rule is a good solution

I imagine that sometimes people will like the point of view corresponding with a particular rule proposal, yet still vote against it because they don’t think the issue merits a formal solution in the first place.

In addition, since it would take only 50% agreement to repeal a rule, we won’t get “stuck” with more formal rules than most of us want.

So, in a situation when there is not broad agreement that the formal process is appropriate for a particular issue, the formal process will not be brought into play (and if it were, it wouldn’t do much because any proposals for rule changes would easily be voted down). So, those who do not want to use the formal process very much won’t be forced to use it; except when 80% of everyone else agrees that formal process should be used.

Diese Seiten lokal erstellen: PatrickAnderson DocumentMode

Sprachen: