> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:26:47 -0700
> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> What about:
> 'One person alone or a group can begin this description. It forms the
> basis & authority for negosiating any new additions.'
> Alex
I can't separate this one element (the Step 1 sentence) from the other (the Brainstorm point c).
I redrafted Step 1 and c. as an interrelated message in my earlier email. Although I omitted it in the suggestion I later made, also in that email I was trying to explain why the idea of this step being an invitation for someone to cooperate was significant.
There I wrote, Can you see that by leaving out 'cooperation' the meaning might become more confusing - is it saying that the initial description is the basis (ie the foundation) for new ideas, or having said that, is it also saying that with new people, the original description becomes subject to change with the addition of new ideas (ie not necessarily with agreement of the initiator)? If you think 'cooperation' doesn't do it, I will be looking for something that does.
I was hoping that the initial description was to be the basis for 'inviting cooperation adding input & sharing authority.'
If this doesn't work well enough, it needs strengthening but I am afraid that the wording you suggest would weaken that meaning.
So for the wording in Step 1, what about -
'One person alone or a group can start here. That start forms the basis for inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing ownership.'
I also wrote -The words 'idea notes' in both versions of the brainstorming point c which we are also now working on -adds confusion.
Also -
Neither in the note at Step 1, nor in the brainstorm instructions is it clear that a new person should do step 1, even though either someone else or the group has started it. That is why I had ‘c. When others get involved, briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’ they write … merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as agreed.’ - it was a shorthand attempt to encourage their input to be written on PINs for that step.
I previously acknowledged your point that it could exclude the initiator, but that whatever the solution to avoid that is, it also needs to incorporate the importance of getting new people to have a go at this step and have their written description incorporated.
> > 2009/6/1 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> Hi Alex - I forgot to add a suggestion re the step 1 note to the bottom of
> >> that email I just sent - what about
> >> "Whether one person alone or a group begins this description, it is the
> >> basis for negotiating what anyone might add & thus for sharing ownership."
> >>> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >>> >> >> Based on our conversation I have made a number of changes to the new
> >>> >> >> draft.
> >>> >> >> The wording in step one. The last part of the wording '...so others
> >>> >> >> might join' - concept has been integrated below step to where it now
> >>> >> >> says - 'This is the bases for cooperation ...'
> >>> >> >> it now reads 'Use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to DESCRIBE your Activity
> >>> >> >> who, when, where, what etc.'
> >>> >> >> The smaller writing under step 1 - inviting an individual process
> >>> >> >> and
> >>> >> >> warning about group process effect on idea - I've made some change
> >>> >> >> there. '…Do alone or with others. If group’s idea isn’t what you
> >>> >> >> want,
> >>> >> >> describe a new activity.'
> >>> >> >> The writing between Q 1 and Q2
> >>> >> >> We discussed making the wording under the description reflect a
> >>> >> >> constitutional issue - I have tried to do this. It reads - 'This is
> >>> >> >> the bases for cooperation - so seek agreement for any change.'
> >>> >> >> (all these points now containded in step one grey box)
> >>> >> > I think we're getting there - what about -
> >>> >> > 'Whether one person alone or a group starts this description, it is
> >>> >> > the
> >>> >> > basis for inviting cooperation, adding input & sharing authority'
> >>> >> OK - I reversed it a bit just so it immediately leads on from step 1:
> >>> >> "Note: Whether this description is done by one person or a group, it
> >>> >> is the basis for inviting cooperation, adding input & sharing
> >>> >> authority."
> >>> > The wording "starts this description" was an attempt at reinforcing the
> >>> > message that others can add to the description. There may be a better
> >>> > way of
> >>> > reinforcing it because "adding input" doesn't seem enough to fully carry
> >>> > it
> >>> > off.
> >>> > In fact the new wording you give, "Whether this description is done by
> >>> > one
> >>> > person or a group" while more compact, actually sounds like a suggestion
> >>> > that either one person or a group could do the whole description. While
> >>> > this
> >>> > is true, if one person did the whole description without involving
> >>> > others in
> >>> > making additions, their ownership would be made very much harder to
> >>> > share
> >>> > with others because it if so fully their idea. Again, perhaps there is a
> >>> > better wording.
> >>> OK - for now I'll replace your wording - 'Whether one person alone or
> >>> a group starts this description, it is the basis for inviting
> >>> cooperation, adding input & sharing authority'
> >>> see draft attached
> >>> >> > This would replace ".... Do Alone or with others. If the group's idea
> >>> >> > is't
> >>> >> > what you want, describe a new activity and this is the basis for
> >>> >> > cooperation
> >>> >> > - so seek agreement for any change."
> >>> >> >> c of the silent brainstorm
> >>> >> >> We discussed 'if a group involved' sounded like a group may not get
> >>> >> >> involved.Changed 'If' to 'When'
> >>> >> > Regarding -
> >>> >> > ‘c. When others involved, briefly discuss each ‘idea note’.
> >>> >> > …remove, merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as discussion
> >>> >> > determines.’
> >>> >> > I agree with ‘when’, but am concerned about how the sentence can be
> >>> >> > interpreted.
> >>> >> > If you read it from the perspective of a minority idea being
> >>> >> > presented
> >>> >> > by an
> >>> >> > individual you will see what I mean.
> >>> >> > This could sound like when you start to involve others you should
> >>> >> > discuss
> >>> >> > the description you have made with a mind to changing to accommodate
> >>> >> > whoever
> >>> >> > you are talking to. The right meaning would be that a discussion
> >>> >> > would
> >>> >> > be
> >>> >> > simply to clarify what you are proposing so others could make up
> >>> >> > their
> >>> >> > mind
> >>> >> > if they want to join – if not, they should join another activity or
> >>> >> > start
> >>> >> > one of their own.
> >>> >> > ‘ …remove, merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as discussion
> >>> >> > determines.’
> >>> >> > Could sound like a further instruction reinforcing the above to
> >>> >> > remove
> >>> >> > anything that discussion determines.
> >>> >> > ‘as discussion determines.’
> >>> >> > Would have to be understood in the context of the decision making
> >>> >> > process
> >>> >> > which is a majority rules process, whatever protections for the
> >>> >> > minority
> >>> >> > we
> >>> >> > put in and for any value of x below 50% - that is, the originator
> >>> >> > would
> >>> >> > not
> >>> >> > be able to establish a clear proposal or a group of minority
> >>> >> > supporters
> >>> >> > for
> >>> >> > an activity.
> >>> >> > In the Silent Brainstorming instruction, what about
> >>> >> > ‘c. When others get involved, briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’
> >>> >> > they
> >>> >> > write … merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as agreed.’
> >>> >> OK - although this seems a bit long and repetitive to me. What about
> >>> >> just:
> >>> >> ‘c. When others get involved, briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’ …
> >>> >> merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as agreed.’
> >>> >> 'they write' also seems to neglect the fact that the
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:26:47 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> What about:
>> 'One person alone or a group can begin this description. It forms the
>> basis & authority for negosiating any new additions.'
>> Alex
> I can't separate this one element (the Step 1 sentence) from the other (the
> Brainstorm point c).
> I redrafted Step 1 and c. as an interrelated message in my earlier email.
> Although I omitted it in the suggestion I later made, also in that email I
> was trying to explain why the idea of this step being an invitation for
> someone to cooperate was significant.
> There I wrote,
> Can you see that by leaving out 'cooperation' the meaning might become more
> confusing - is it saying that the initial description is the basis (ie the
> foundation) for new ideas, or having said that, is it also saying that with
> new people, the original description becomes subject to change with the
> addition of new ideas (ie not necessarily with agreement of the initiator)?
> If you think 'cooperation' doesn't do it, I will be looking for something
> that does.
> I was hoping that the initial description was to be the basis for 'inviting
> cooperation adding input & sharing authority.'
> If this doesn't work well enough, it needs strengthening but I am afraid
> that the wording you suggest would weaken that meaning.
> So for the wording in Step 1, what about -
> 'One person alone or a group can start here. That start forms the basis for
> inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing ownership.'
Both the language and the amount of concepts being put together here
'inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing
ownership.' is confusing in my opinion. I have no problem with the
concepts themeselves but the communication is a problem.
I think something like: 'One person alone or a group can start this
description.' is pretty straight forward and ok.
and 'this start is the basis for 'inviting cooperation, negotiating
additions' is also not too bad although if it could be simpler that
would be better.
...but '...and thus for sharing ownership' I find particularly
problematic. It asks the reader to put too much together. Ownership in
itself is also a confusing concept in this context. Authority is
something we may get away with better. I don't know how to say this
but I think that 'thus...' and 'ownership' are not very workable for
getting these ideas across.
What about:
'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
is the authority base for inviting new cooperation and negotiating
additions.'
or//
'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
forms a 'core agreement'. It can be used for inviting new cooperation
& negotiating additions.'
It may be still too wordy but it's stating to consolidate the concepts.
> I also wrote -The words 'idea notes' in both versions of the brainstorming
> point c which we are also now working on -adds confusion.
> Also -
> Neither in the note at Step 1, nor in the brainstorm instructions is it
> clear that a new person should do step 1, even though either someone else or
> the group has started it. That is why I had ‘c. When others get involved,
> briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’ they write … merge or add new ‘idea
> notes’ as agreed.’ - it was a shorthand attempt to encourage their input to
> be written on PINs for that step.
> I previously acknowledged your point that it could exclude the initiator,
> but that whatever the solution to avoid that is, it also needs to
> incorporate the importance of getting new people to have a go at this step
> and have their written description incorporated.
The only thing I suggested changing is leaving off '...they write' so it says:
c. When others get involved, briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’
(delete - they write)
…merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as agreed.
I see no real difference, in terms of encourages them to redo step 1,
between leaving 'they write' in or taking it out. Given that, and
given that adding it excludes the originators new idea-notes it would
seem better alround without it.
Something else might be needed but I'm not sure what can be at this
stage and I can't see any logic in adding 'they write'.
>> > 2009/6/1 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> Hi Alex - I forgot to add a suggestion re the step 1 note to the bottom
>> >> of
>> >> that email I just sent - what about
>> >> "Whether one person alone or a group begins this description, it is the
>> >> basis for negotiating what anyone might add & thus for sharing
>> >> ownership."
>> >>> >> >> Hi Chris,
>> >>> >> >> Based on our conversation I have made a number of changes to the
>> >>> >> >> new
>> >>> >> >> draft.
>> >>> >> >> The wording in step one. The last part of the wording '...so
>> >>> >> >> others
>> >>> >> >> might join' - concept has been integrated below step to where it
>> >>> >> >> now
>> >>> >> >> says - 'This is the bases for cooperation ...'
>> >>> >> >> it now reads 'Use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to DESCRIBE your
>> >>> >> >> Activity
>> >>> >> >> who, when, where, what etc.'
>> >>> >> >> The smaller writing under step 1 - inviting an individual
>> >>> >> >> process
>> >>> >> >> and
>> >>> >> >> warning about group process effect on idea - I've made some
>> >>> >> >> change
>> >>> >> >> there. '…Do alone or with others. If group’s idea isn’t what you
>> >>> >> >> want,
>> >>> >> >> describe a new activity.'
>> >>> >> >> The writing between Q 1 and Q2
>> >>> >> >> We discussed making the wording under the description reflect a
>> >>> >> >> constitutional issue - I have tried to do this. It reads - 'This
>> >>> >> >> is
>> >>> >> >> the bases for cooperation - so seek agreement for any change.'
>> >>> >> >> (all these points now containded in step one grey box)
>> >>> >> > I think we're getting there - what about -
>> >>> >> > 'Whether one person alone or a group starts this description, it
>> >>> >> > is
>> >>> >> > the
>> >>> >> > basis for inviting cooperation, adding input & sharing authority'
>> >>> >> OK - I reversed it a bit just so it immediately leads on from step
>> >>> >> 1:
>> >>> >> "Note: Whether this description is done by one person or a group,
>> >>> >> it
>> >>> >> is the basis for inviting cooperation, adding input & sharing
>> >>> >> authority."
>> >>> > The wording "starts this description" was an attempt at reinforcing
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > message that others can add to the description. There may be a
>> >>> > better
>> >>> > way of
>> >>> > reinforcing it because "adding input" doesn't seem enough to fully
>> >>> > carry
>> >>> > it
>> >>> > off.
>> >>> > In fact the new wording you give, "Whether this description is done
>> >>> > by
>> >>> > one
>> >>> > person or a group" while more compact, actually sounds like a
>> >>> > suggestion
>> >>> > that either one person or a group could do the whole description.
>> >>> > While
>> >>> > this
>> >>> > is true, if one person did the whole description without involving
>> >>> > others in
>> >>> > making additions, their ownership would be made very much harder to
>> >>> > share
>> >>> > with others because it if so fully their idea. Again, perhaps there
>> >>> > is a
>> >>> > better wording.
>> >>> OK - for now I'll replace your wording - 'Whether one person alone or
>> >>> a group starts this description, it is the basis for inviting
>> >>> cooperation, adding input & sharing authority'
>> >>> see draft attached
>> >>> >> > This would replace ".... Do Alone or with others. If the group's
>> >>> >> > idea
>> >>> >> > is't
>> >>> >> > what you want, describe a new activity and this is the basis for
>> >>> >> > cooperation
>> >>> >> > - so seek agreement for any change."
>> >>> >> >> c of the silent brainstorm
>> >>> >> >> We discussed 'if a group involved' sounded like a group may not
>> >>> >> >> get
>> >>> >> >> involved.Changed 'If' to 'When'
>> >>> >> > Regarding -
>> >>> >> > ‘c. When others involved, briefly discuss each ‘idea note’.
>> >>> >> > …remove, merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as
> >> 'One person alone or a group can begin this description. It forms the
> >> basis & authority for negosiating any new additions.'
> >> Alex
> > I can't separate this one element (the Step 1 sentence) from the other (the
> > Brainstorm point c).
> > I redrafted Step 1 and c. as an interrelated message in my earlier email.
> > Although I omitted it in the suggestion I later made, also in that email I
> > was trying to explain why the idea of this step being an invitation for
> > someone to cooperate was significant.
> > There I wrote,
> > Can you see that by leaving out 'cooperation' the meaning might become more
> > confusing - is it saying that the initial description is the basis (ie the
> > foundation) for new ideas, or having said that, is it also saying that with
> > new people, the original description becomes subject to change with the
> > addition of new ideas (ie not necessarily with agreement of the initiator)?
> > If you think 'cooperation' doesn't do it, I will be looking for something
> > that does.
> > I was hoping that the initial description was to be the basis for 'inviting
> > cooperation adding input & sharing authority.'
> > If this doesn't work well enough, it needs strengthening but I am afraid
> > that the wording you suggest would weaken that meaning.
> > So for the wording in Step 1, what about -
> > 'One person alone or a group can start here. That start forms the basis for
> > inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing ownership.'
> Both the language and the amount of concepts being put together here
> 'inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing
> ownership.' is confusing in my opinion. I have no problem with the
> concepts themeselves but the communication is a problem.
> I think something like: 'One person alone or a group can start this
> description.' is pretty straight forward and ok.
OK
> and 'this start is the basis for 'inviting cooperation, negotiating
> additions'
OK - I am happy with it, but if you think you can simplify it without losing anything let me know your idea.
is also not too bad although if it could be simpler that
> would be better.
> ...but '...and thus for sharing ownership' I find particularly
> problematic. It asks the reader to put too much together. Ownership in
> itself is also a confusing concept in this context. Authority is
> something we may get away with better.
Authority is a word with negative overtones - it also implies that someone or some people have authority which is not the idea. The idea is that the constitution and subsequent unanimous agreements about the constitution are the authority. Shared Ownership is a term that seems more accurate to the ethic, and more appealing to people in a group.
I don't know how to say this
> but I think that 'thus...' and 'ownership' are not very workable for
> getting these ideas across.
The intention is that shared ownership/whatever actually flows from having your input incorporated. It is also important to somehow get it across clearly
that everone (who becomes a 'member') is equal under that 'constitution' that the originator does not retain ownership, that the 'constitution' is the only ethical authority (whatever may subsequently happen through majority rules).
> What about:
> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
> is the authority base for inviting new cooperation and negotiating
> additions.'
> or//
> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
> forms a 'core agreement'. It can be used for inviting new cooperation
> & negotiating additions.'
> It may be still too wordy but it's stating to consolidate the concepts.
What about -
'One person alone or a group can start this description. Their start is the basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions through which ownership of the activity becomes shared.'
> > I also wrote -The words 'idea notes' in both versions of the brainstorming
> > point c which we are also now working on -adds confusion.
> > Also -
> > Neither in the note at Step 1, nor in the brainstorm instructions is it
> > clear that a new person should do step 1, even though either someone else or
> > the group has started it. That is why I had ‘c. When others get involved,
> > briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’ they write … merge or add new ‘idea
> > notes’ as agreed.’ - it was a shorthand attempt to encourage their input to
> > be written on PINs for that step.
> > I previously acknowledged your point that it could exclude the initiator,
> > but that whatever the solution to avoid that is, it also needs to
> > incorporate the importance of getting new people to have a go at this step
> > and have their written description incorporated.
> The only thing I suggested changing is leaving off '...they write' so it says:
> c. When others get involved, briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’
> (delete - they write)
> …merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as agreed.
Yes I agreed in two previous emails that 'they write' would exclude the originator and this is no good.
> I see no real difference, in terms of encourages them to redo step 1,
> between leaving 'they write' in or taking it out.
I was trying to make it clearer that they should write something, thereby negotiating additions for Step 1. If that is not clearly a formal Step they must take then the originator will retain ownership and the Cooperator will only be used by 'the owner' to identify the jobs and organise cooperation. That said - again, I agree we don't want to exclude the originator from adding new descriptions with the words 'they write' ... we need something else to encourage new people to take ownership by physically participating in describing the activity.
Given that, and
> given that adding it excludes the originators new idea-notes it would
> seem better alround without it.
I agree
> Something else might be needed but I'm not sure what can be at this
> stage and I can't see any logic in adding 'they write'
I hope you can now see the logic for adding something better than 'they write'.
> >> > 2009/6/1 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> Hi Alex - I forgot to add a suggestion re the step 1 note to the bottom
> >> >> of
> >> >> that email I just sent - what about
> >> >> "Whether one person alone or a group begins this description, it is the
> >> >> basis for negotiating what anyone might add & thus for sharing
> >> >> ownership."
> >> >>> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >>> >> >> Based on our conversation I have made a number of changes to the
> >> >>> >> >> new
> >> >>> >> >> draft.
> >> >>> >> >> The wording in step one. The last part of the wording '...so
> >> >>> >> >> others
> >> >>> >> >> might join' - concept has been integrated below step to where it
> >> >>> >> >> now
> >> >>> >> >> says - 'This is the bases for cooperation ...'
> >> >>> >> >> it now reads 'Use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to DESCRIBE your
> >> >>> >> >> Activity
> >> >>> >> >> who, when, where, what etc.'
> >> >>> >> >> The smaller writing under step 1 - inviting an individual
> >> >>> >> >> process
> >> >>> >> >> and
> >> >>> >> >> warning about group process effect on idea - I've made some
> >> >>> >> >> change
> >> >>> >> >> there. '…Do alone or with others. If group’s idea isn’t what you
> >> >>> >> >> want,
> >> >>> >> >> describe a new activity.'
> >> >>> >> >> The writing between Q 1 and Q2
> >> >>> >> >> We discussed making the wording under the description reflect a
> >> >>> >> >> constitutional issue - I have tried to do this. It reads - 'This
> >> >>> >> >> is
> >> >>> >> >> the bases for cooperation - so seek agreement for any change.'
> >> >>> >> >> (all these points now containded in step one grey box)
>> >> 'One person alone or a group can begin this description. It forms the
>> >> basis & authority for negosiating any new additions.'
>> >> Alex
>> > I can't separate this one element (the Step 1 sentence) from the other
>> > (the
>> > Brainstorm point c).
>> > I redrafted Step 1 and c. as an interrelated message in my earlier
>> > email.
>> > Although I omitted it in the suggestion I later made, also in that email
>> > I
>> > was trying to explain why the idea of this step being an invitation for
>> > someone to cooperate was significant.
>> > There I wrote,
>> > Can you see that by leaving out 'cooperation' the meaning might become
>> > more
>> > confusing - is it saying that the initial description is the basis (ie
>> > the
>> > foundation) for new ideas, or having said that, is it also saying that
>> > with
>> > new people, the original description becomes subject to change with the
>> > addition of new ideas (ie not necessarily with agreement of the
>> > initiator)?
>> > If you think 'cooperation' doesn't do it, I will be looking for
>> > something
>> > that does.
>> > I was hoping that the initial description was to be the basis for
>> > 'inviting
>> > cooperation adding input & sharing authority.'
>> > If this doesn't work well enough, it needs strengthening but I am afraid
>> > that the wording you suggest would weaken that meaning.
>> > So for the wording in Step 1, what about -
>> > 'One person alone or a group can start here. That start forms the basis
>> > for
>> > inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing
>> > ownership.'
>> Both the language and the amount of concepts being put together here
>> 'inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing
>> ownership.' is confusing in my opinion. I have no problem with the
>> concepts themeselves but the communication is a problem.
>> I think something like: 'One person alone or a group can start this
>> description.' is pretty straight forward and ok.
> OK
>> and 'this start is the basis for 'inviting cooperation, negotiating
>> additions'
> OK - I am happy with it, but if you think you can simplify it without losing
> anything let me know your idea.
> is also not too bad although if it could be simpler that
>> would be better.
>> ...but '...and thus for sharing ownership' I find particularly
>> problematic. It asks the reader to put too much together. Ownership in
>> itself is also a confusing concept in this context. Authority is
>> something we may get away with better.
> Authority is a word with negative overtones - it also implies that someone
> or some people have authority which is not the idea. The idea is that the
> constitution and subsequent unanimous agreements about the constitution are
> the authority. Shared Ownership is a term that seems more accurate to the
> ethic, and more appealing to people in a group.
Authoity and Ownership seem to many of the same negative overtones to
me. Couldn't you just as easily use the term 'shared authority'?
> I don't know how to say this
>> but I think that 'thus...' and 'ownership' are not very workable for
>> getting these ideas across.
> The intention is that shared ownership/whatever actually flows from having
> your input incorporated. It is also important to somehow get it across
> clearly
> that everone (who becomes a 'member') is equal under that 'constitution'
> that the originator does not retain ownership,
> that the 'constitution' is the only ethical authority (whatever may
> subsequently happen through majority rules).
Yes I understand this
>> What about:
>> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
>> is the authority base for inviting new cooperation and negotiating
>> additions.'
>> or//
>> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
>> forms a 'core agreement'. It can be used for inviting new cooperation
>> & negotiating additions.'
I'm not sure why you don't like this suggestion. It seems to contain
the elements.
>> It may be still too wordy but it's stating to consolidate the concepts.
> What about -
> 'One person alone or a group can start this description. Their start is the
> basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions through which
> ownership of the activity becomes shared.'
To me this has the same problems as the your last draft. Adding 'through which
ownership of the activity becomes shared.' to the part before it makes
for too long and complicated a sentance. Even though I know what you
are getting at I for one find it hard to comprehend.
What about:
One person or a group can start step 1. It is the basis for shared
activity ownership …for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions.
>> > I also wrote -The words 'idea notes' in both versions of the
>> > brainstorming
>> > point c which we are also now working on -adds confusion.
>> > Also -
>> > Neither in the note at Step 1, nor in the brainstorm instructions is it
>> > clear that a new person should do step 1, even though either someone
>> > else or
>> > the group has started it. That is why I had ‘c. When others get
>> > involved,
>> > briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’ they write … merge or add new ‘idea
>> > notes’ as agreed.’ - it was a shorthand attempt to encourage their input
>> > to
>> > be written on PINs for that step.
>> > I previously acknowledged your point that it could exclude the
>> > initiator,
>> > but that whatever the solution to avoid that is, it also needs to
>> > incorporate the importance of getting new people to have a go at this
>> > step
>> > and have their written description incorporated.
>> The only thing I suggested changing is leaving off '...they write' so it
>> says:
>> c. When others get involved, briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’
>> (delete - they write)
>> …merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as agreed.
> Yes I agreed in two previous emails that 'they write' would exclude the
> originator and this is no good.
>> I see no real difference, in terms of encourages them to redo step 1,
>> between leaving 'they write' in or taking it out.
> I was trying to make it clearer that they should write something, thereby
> negotiating additions for Step 1. If that is not clearly a formal Step they
> must take then the originator will retain ownership and the Cooperator will
> only be used by 'the owner' to identify the jobs and organise cooperation.
> That said - again, I agree we don't want to exclude the originator from
> adding new descriptions with the words 'they write' ... we need something
> else to encourage new people to take ownership by physically participating
> in describing the activity.
> Given that, and
>> given that adding it excludes the originators new idea-notes it would
>> seem better alround without it.
> I agree
>> Something else might be needed but I'm not sure what can be at this
>> stage and I can't see any logic in adding 'they write'
> I hope you can now see the logic for adding something better than 'they
> write'.
> Chris
> .
>> Alex
>> > Chris
>> >> > 2009/6/1 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> Hi Alex - I forgot to add a suggestion re the step 1 note to the
>> >> >> bottom
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> that email I just sent - what about
>> >> >> "Whether one person alone or a group begins this description, it is
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> basis for negotiating what anyone might add & thus for sharing
>> >> >> ownership."
>> >> >>> >> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> >>> >> >> Based on our conversation I have made a number of changes to
>> >> >>> >> >> the
>> >> >>> >> >> new
>> >> >>> >> >> draft.
>> >> >>> >> >> The wording in step one. The last part of the wording '...so
>> >> >>> >> >> others
>> >> >>> >> >> might join' - concept has been
> >> >> 'One person alone or a group can begin this description. It forms the
> >> >> basis & authority for negosiating any new additions.'
> >> >> Alex
> >> > I can't separate this one element (the Step 1 sentence) from the other
> >> > (the
> >> > Brainstorm point c).
> >> > I redrafted Step 1 and c. as an interrelated message in my earlier
> >> > email.
> >> > Although I omitted it in the suggestion I later made, also in that email
> >> > I
> >> > was trying to explain why the idea of this step being an invitation for
> >> > someone to cooperate was significant.
> >> > There I wrote,
> >> > Can you see that by leaving out 'cooperation' the meaning might become
> >> > more
> >> > confusing - is it saying that the initial description is the basis (ie
> >> > the
> >> > foundation) for new ideas, or having said that, is it also saying that
> >> > with
> >> > new people, the original description becomes subject to change with the
> >> > addition of new ideas (ie not necessarily with agreement of the
> >> > initiator)?
> >> > If you think 'cooperation' doesn't do it, I will be looking for
> >> > something
> >> > that does.
> >> > I was hoping that the initial description was to be the basis for
> >> > 'inviting
> >> > cooperation adding input & sharing authority.'
> >> > If this doesn't work well enough, it needs strengthening but I am afraid
> >> > that the wording you suggest would weaken that meaning.
> >> > So for the wording in Step 1, what about -
> >> > 'One person alone or a group can start here. That start forms the basis
> >> > for
> >> > inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing
> >> > ownership.'
> >> Both the language and the amount of concepts being put together here
> >> 'inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing
> >> ownership.' is confusing in my opinion. I have no problem with the
> >> concepts themeselves but the communication is a problem.
> >> I think something like: 'One person alone or a group can start this
> >> description.' is pretty straight forward and ok.
> > OK
> >> and 'this start is the basis for 'inviting cooperation, negotiating
> >> additions'
> > OK - I am happy with it, but if you think you can simplify it without losing
> > anything let me know your idea.
> > is also not too bad although if it could be simpler that
> >> would be better.
> >> ...but '...and thus for sharing ownership' I find particularly
> >> problematic. It asks the reader to put too much together. Ownership in
> >> itself is also a confusing concept in this context. Authority is
> >> something we may get away with better.
> > Authority is a word with negative overtones - it also implies that someone
> > or some people have authority which is not the idea. The idea is that the
> > constitution and subsequent unanimous agreements about the constitution are
> > the authority. Shared Ownership is a term that seems more accurate to the
> > ethic, and more appealing to people in a group.
> Authoity and Ownership seem to many of the same negative overtones to
> me. Couldn't you just as easily use the term 'shared authority'?
> > I don't know how to say this
> >> but I think that 'thus...' and 'ownership' are not very workable for
> >> getting these ideas across.
> > The intention is that shared ownership/whatever actually flows from having
> > your input incorporated. It is also important to somehow get it across
> > clearly
> > that everone (who becomes a 'member') is equal under that 'constitution'
> > that the originator does not retain ownership,
> > that the 'constitution' is the only ethical authority (whatever may
> > subsequently happen through majority rules).
> Yes I understand this
> >> What about:
> >> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
> >> is the authority base for inviting new cooperation and negotiating
> >> additions.'
> >> or//
> >> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
> >> forms a 'core agreement'. It can be used for inviting new cooperation
> >> & negotiating additions.'
> I'm not sure why you don't like this suggestion. It seems to contain
> the elements.
> >> It may be still too wordy but it's stating to consolidate the concepts.
> > What about -
> > 'One person alone or a group can start this description. Their start is the
> > basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions through which
> > ownership of the activity becomes shared.'
> To me this has the same problems as the your last draft. Adding 'through which
> ownership of the activity becomes shared.' to the part before it makes
> for too long and complicated a sentance. Even though I know what you
> are getting at I for one find it hard to comprehend.
> What about:
> One person or a group can start step 1. It is the basis for shared
> activity ownership … for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions.
Someone only gets a share in ownership once they have negotiated additions - it would seem more sequential to say
'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions that share ownership of the activity.
I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point c issues I have tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below, the issues are integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new participants involved in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through the instructions about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just gets harder.
> >> > I also wrote -The words 'idea notes' in both versions of the
> >> > brainstorming
> >> > point c which we are also now working on -adds confusion.
> >> > Also -
> >> > Neither in the note at Step 1, nor in the brainstorm instructions is it
> >> > clear that a new person should do step 1, even though either someone
> >> > else or
> >> > the group has started it. That is why I had ‘c. When others get
> >> > involved,
> >> > briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’ they write … merge or add new ‘idea
> >> > notes’ as agreed.’ - it was a shorthand attempt to encourage their input
> >> > to
> >> > be written on PINs for that step.
> >> > I previously acknowledged your point that it could exclude the
> >> > initiator,
> >> > but that whatever the solution to avoid that is, it also needs to
> >> > incorporate the importance of getting new people to have a go at this
> >> > step
> >> > and have their written description incorporated.
> >> The only thing I suggested changing is leaving off '...they write' so it
> >> says:
> >> c. When others get involved, briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’
> >> (delete - they write)
> >> …merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as agreed.
> > Yes I agreed in two previous emails that 'they write' would exclude the
> > originator and this is no good.
> >> I see no real difference, in terms of encourages them to redo step 1,
> >> between leaving 'they write' in or taking it out.
> > I was trying to make it clearer that they should write something, thereby
> > negotiating additions for Step 1. If that is not clearly a formal Step they
> > must take then the originator will retain ownership and the Cooperator will
> > only be used by 'the owner' to identify the jobs and organise cooperation.
> > That said - again, I agree we don't want to exclude the originator from
> > adding new descriptions with the words 'they write' ... we need something
> > else to encourage new people to take ownership by physically participating
> > in describing the activity.
> > Given that, and
> >> given that adding it excludes the originators new idea-notes it would
> >> seem better alround without it.
> > I agree
> >> Something else might be needed but I'm not sure what can be at this
> >> stage and I can't see any logic in adding 'they write'
> > I hope you can now see the logic for adding something better than 'they
> > write'.
> > Chris
> > .
> >> Alex
> >> > Chris
> >> >> > 2009/6/1 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> Hi Alex - I forgot to add a suggestion re the step 1 note to the
> >> >> >> bottom
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> that email I just sent - what about
> >> >> >> "Whether one person alone or a group begins this description, it is
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> basis for negotiating what anyone might add & thus for sharing
> >> >> >> ownership."
>> >> >> 'One person alone or a group can begin this description. It forms
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> basis & authority for negosiating any new additions.'
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> > I can't separate this one element (the Step 1 sentence) from the
>> >> > other
>> >> > (the
>> >> > Brainstorm point c).
>> >> > I redrafted Step 1 and c. as an interrelated message in my earlier
>> >> > email.
>> >> > Although I omitted it in the suggestion I later made, also in that
>> >> > email
>> >> > I
>> >> > was trying to explain why the idea of this step being an invitation
>> >> > for
>> >> > someone to cooperate was significant.
>> >> > There I wrote,
>> >> > Can you see that by leaving out 'cooperation' the meaning might
>> >> > become
>> >> > more
>> >> > confusing - is it saying that the initial description is the basis
>> >> > (ie
>> >> > the
>> >> > foundation) for new ideas, or having said that, is it also saying
>> >> > that
>> >> > with
>> >> > new people, the original description becomes subject to change with
>> >> > the
>> >> > addition of new ideas (ie not necessarily with agreement of the
>> >> > initiator)?
>> >> > If you think 'cooperation' doesn't do it, I will be looking for
>> >> > something
>> >> > that does.
>> >> > I was hoping that the initial description was to be the basis for
>> >> > 'inviting
>> >> > cooperation adding input & sharing authority.'
>> >> > If this doesn't work well enough, it needs strengthening but I am
>> >> > afraid
>> >> > that the wording you suggest would weaken that meaning.
>> >> > So for the wording in Step 1, what about -
>> >> > 'One person alone or a group can start here. That start forms the
>> >> > basis
>> >> > for
>> >> > inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing
>> >> > ownership.'
>> >> Both the language and the amount of concepts being put together here
>> >> 'inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing
>> >> ownership.' is confusing in my opinion. I have no problem with the
>> >> concepts themeselves but the communication is a problem.
>> >> I think something like: 'One person alone or a group can start this
>> >> description.' is pretty straight forward and ok.
>> > OK
>> >> and 'this start is the basis for 'inviting cooperation, negotiating
>> >> additions'
>> > OK - I am happy with it, but if you think you can simplify it without
>> > losing
>> > anything let me know your idea.
>> > is also not too bad although if it could be simpler that
>> >> would be better.
>> >> ...but '...and thus for sharing ownership' I find particularly
>> >> problematic. It asks the reader to put too much together. Ownership in
>> >> itself is also a confusing concept in this context. Authority is
>> >> something we may get away with better.
>> > Authority is a word with negative overtones - it also implies that
>> > someone
>> > or some people have authority which is not the idea. The idea is that
>> > the
>> > constitution and subsequent unanimous agreements about the constitution
>> > are
>> > the authority. Shared Ownership is a term that seems more accurate to
>> > the
>> > ethic, and more appealing to people in a group.
>> Authoity and Ownership seem to many of the same negative overtones to
>> me. Couldn't you just as easily use the term 'shared authority'?
>> > I don't know how to say this
>> >> but I think that 'thus...' and 'ownership' are not very workable for
>> >> getting these ideas across.
>> > The intention is that shared ownership/whatever actually flows from
>> > having
>> > your input incorporated. It is also important to somehow get it across
>> > clearly
>> > that everone (who becomes a 'member') is equal under that 'constitution'
>> > that the originator does not retain ownership,
>> > that the 'constitution' is the only ethical authority (whatever may
>> > subsequently happen through majority rules).
>> Yes I understand this
>> >> What about:
>> >> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
>> >> is the authority base for inviting new cooperation and negotiating
>> >> additions.'
>> >> or//
>> >> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
>> >> forms a 'core agreement'. It can be used for inviting new cooperation
>> >> & negotiating additions.'
>> I'm not sure why you don't like this suggestion. It seems to contain
>> the elements.
>> >> It may be still too wordy but it's stating to consolidate the concepts.
>> > What about -
>> > 'One person alone or a group can start this description. Their start is
>> > the
>> > basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions through which
>> > ownership of the activity becomes shared.'
>> To me this has the same problems as the your last draft. Adding 'through
>> which
>> ownership of the activity becomes shared.' to the part before it makes
>> for too long and complicated a sentance. Even though I know what you
>> are getting at I for one find it hard to comprehend.
>> What about:
>> One person or a group can start step 1. It is the basis for shared
>> activity ownership … for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions.
> Someone only gets a share in ownership once they have negotiated additions -
> it would seem more sequential to say
> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis
> for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions that share ownership of
> the activity.
I still think the second sentence needs breaking up to be accessible.
what about:
'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
ownership of the activity can be shared.
> I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point c issues I have
> tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below, the issues are
> integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new participants involved
> in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through the instructions
> about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just gets harder.
I see what you are wanting to encourage here. I agree that shared
ownership is important and that if new people are cooperating they
need the chance to negotiate step 1. This is of course implied in the
sentence we are working on but could be made clearer. Perhaps
something can also be done in c but I find it harder to see what can
be done there as c is a generic step that isn't necessarily related to
step 1 at all.
>> >> > I also wrote -The words 'idea notes' in both versions of the
>> >> > brainstorming
>> >> > point c which we are also now working on -adds confusion.
>> >> > Also -
>> >> > Neither in the note at Step 1, nor in the brainstorm instructions is
>> >> > it
>> >> > clear that a new person should do step 1, even though either someone
>> >> > else or
>> >> > the group has started it. That is why I had ‘c. When others get
>> >> > involved,
>> >> > briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’ they write … merge or add new
>> >> > ‘idea
>> >> > notes’ as agreed.’ - it was a shorthand attempt to encourage their
>> >> > input
>> >> > to
>> >> > be written on PINs for that step.
>> >> > I previously acknowledged your point that it could exclude the
>> >> > initiator,
>> >> > but that whatever the solution to avoid that is, it also needs to
>> >> > incorporate the importance of getting new people to have a go at this
>> >> > step
>> >> > and have their written description incorporated.
>> >> The only thing I suggested changing is leaving off '...they write' so
>> >> it
>> >> says:
>> >> c. When others get involved, briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’
>> >> (delete - they write)
>> >> …merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as agreed.
>> > Yes I agreed in two previous emails that 'they write' would exclude the
>> > originator and this is no good.
>> >> I see no real difference, in terms of encourages them to redo step 1,
>> >> between leaving 'they write' in or taking it out.
>> > I was trying to make it clearer that they should write something,
>> > thereby
>> > negotiating additions for Step 1. If that is not clearly a formal Step
>> > they
>> > must take then the originator will retain ownership and the Cooperator
>> > will
>> > only be used by 'the owner' to identify the jobs and organise
>> > cooperation.
>> > That said - again, I agree we don't want to exclude the originator from
> >> >> >> 'One person alone or a group can begin this description. It forms > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> basis & authority for negosiating any new additions.'
> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> > I can't separate this one element (the Step 1 sentence) from the > >> >> > other > >> >> > (the > >> >> > Brainstorm point c).
> >> >> > I redrafted Step 1 and c. as an interrelated message in my earlier > >> >> > email. > >> >> > Although I omitted it in the suggestion I later made, also in that > >> >> > email > >> >> > I > >> >> > was trying to explain why the idea of this step being an invitation > >> >> > for > >> >> > someone to cooperate was significant.
> >> >> > There I wrote, > >> >> > Can you see that by leaving out 'cooperation' the meaning might > >> >> > become > >> >> > more > >> >> > confusing - is it saying that the initial description is the basis > >> >> > (ie > >> >> > the > >> >> > foundation) for new ideas, or having said that, is it also saying > >> >> > that > >> >> > with > >> >> > new people, the original description becomes subject to change with > >> >> > the > >> >> > addition of new ideas (ie not necessarily with agreement of the > >> >> > initiator)? > >> >> > If you think 'cooperation' doesn't do it, I will be looking for > >> >> > something > >> >> > that does.
> >> >> > I was hoping that the initial description was to be the basis for > >> >> > 'inviting > >> >> > cooperation adding input & sharing authority.' > >> >> > If this doesn't work well enough, it needs strengthening but I am > >> >> > afraid > >> >> > that the wording you suggest would weaken that meaning.
> >> >> > So for the wording in Step 1, what about - > >> >> > 'One person alone or a group can start here. That start forms the > >> >> > basis > >> >> > for > >> >> > inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing > >> >> > ownership.'
> >> >> Both the language and the amount of concepts being put together here > >> >> 'inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing > >> >> ownership.' is confusing in my opinion. I have no problem with the > >> >> concepts themeselves but the communication is a problem.
> >> >> I think something like: 'One person alone or a group can start this > >> >> description.' is pretty straight forward and ok.
> >> > OK
> >> >> and 'this start is the basis for 'inviting cooperation, negotiating > >> >> additions'
> >> > OK - I am happy with it, but if you think you can simplify it without > >> > losing > >> > anything let me know your idea.
> >> > is also not too bad although if it could be simpler that > >> >> would be better.
> >> >> ...but '...and thus for sharing ownership' I find particularly > >> >> problematic. It asks the reader to put too much together. Ownership in > >> >> itself is also a confusing concept in this context. Authority is > >> >> something we may get away with better.
> >> > Authority is a word with negative overtones - it also implies that > >> > someone > >> > or some people have authority which is not the idea. The idea is that > >> > the > >> > constitution and subsequent unanimous agreements about the constitution > >> > are > >> > the authority. Shared Ownership is a term that seems more accurate to > >> > the > >> > ethic, and more appealing to people in a group.
> >> Authoity and Ownership seem to many of the same negative overtones to > >> me. Couldn't you just as easily use the term 'shared authority'?
> >> > I don't know how to say this > >> >> but I think that 'thus...' and 'ownership' are not very workable for > >> >> getting these ideas across.
> >> > The intention is that shared ownership/whatever actually flows from > >> > having > >> > your input incorporated. It is also important to somehow get it across > >> > clearly
> >> > that everone (who becomes a 'member') is equal under that 'constitution' > >> > that the originator does not retain ownership, > >> > that the 'constitution' is the only ethical authority (whatever may > >> > subsequently happen through majority rules).
> >> Yes I understand this
> >> >> What about:
> >> >> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start > >> >> is the authority base for inviting new cooperation and negotiating > >> >> additions.'
> >> >> or// > >> >> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start > >> >> forms a 'core agreement'. It can be used for inviting new cooperation > >> >> & negotiating additions.'
> >> I'm not sure why you don't like this suggestion. It seems to contain > >> the elements.
> >> >> It may be still too wordy but it's stating to consolidate the concepts.
> >> > What about -
> >> > 'One person alone or a group can start this description. Their start is > >> > the > >> > basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions through which > >> > ownership of the activity becomes shared.'
> >> To me this has the same problems as the your last draft. Adding 'through > >> which > >> ownership of the activity becomes shared.' to the part before it makes > >> for too long and complicated a sentance. Even though I know what you > >> are getting at I for one find it hard to comprehend.
> >> What about: > >> One person or a group can start step 1. It is the basis for shared > >> activity ownership … for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions.
> > Someone only gets a share in ownership once they have negotiated additions -
> > it would seem more sequential to say > > 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis > > for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions that share ownership of > > the activity.
> I still think the second sentence needs breaking up to be accessible.
> what about: > 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for > inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the > ownership of the activity can be shared.
Good - what about 'gets shared' rather than 'can be shared'? 'Gets shared' would send the message that sharing is the objective rather than the optional 'can be shared'. I think I would be happy with that. But I think that to get new people to actually take ownership at this point they will need to take a physical step at this point - the brainstorming instruction would seem to be where this could happen.
> > I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point c issues I have > > tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below, the issues are > > integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new participants involved > > in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through the instructions > > about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just gets harder.
> I see what you are wanting to encourage here. I agree that shared > ownership is important and that if new people are cooperating they > need the chance to negotiate step 1. This is of course implied in the > sentence we are working on but could be made clearer. Perhaps > something can also be done in c but I find it harder to see what can > be done there as c is a generic step that isn't necessarily related to > step 1 at all.
I am not pumping for 'they write' (it excluded the originator), but it had a strong meaning when associated with Step 1 but a generic meaning for subsequent steps. So it is possible to achieve - we just need the right words.
When we ran into each other in the street we discussed standing back for a bit to be sure that this tinkering around the edges with a word here or there is the right approach. In Step 1 there are actually two inputs required - the initiator input (whether it be an individual or a group) and later the input from a subsequent joiner - sort of Step 1a and Step 1b.
1a establishes the constitution, 1b shares ownership and both are essential. I think ownership needs to be shared in Step 1 because if each additional new person does not get a procedural and tangible process for shaing ownership they will become followers by default.
Anyhow, we both have our heads around this part of the challenge now - the other part being keeping the poster as simple as possible without it losing our essential purpose, so it is probably best to stand back for a bit.
Chris
ps Now that we have reached this point I have deleted everything below this in the earlier part of the conversation to speed up downloading and editing - we have it all on record in every earlier email.
Hi Chris,
When I stand back the three components that would seem to need covering are
1. individual or group can start step 1
2. this description becomes the 'shared authority' - reference point
for co-operation and new input
3. new people can engage (add to if all agree) with this authority to
achieve ownership
If we do agree that these are in fact the messages that need to be
present alongside step 1 the challenge would seem to be how to get the
wording as clear and as brief as possible.
We must envisage that new people will be coming into activities all
the time. Also, for many, their 'ownership' will simply come from the
embracing of the existing description (and their input in jobs and the
like) and not their addition to it - so our wording needs to navigate
that.
What about something like:
Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it
becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input. Whenever
people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and
possible additions to, the description.
Alex
2009/6/4 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> 'One person alone or a group can begin this description. It forms
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> basis & authority for negosiating any new additions.'
>> >> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> > I can't separate this one element (the Step 1 sentence) from the
>> >> >> > other
>> >> >> > (the
>> >> >> > Brainstorm point c).
>> >> >> > I redrafted Step 1 and c. as an interrelated message in my earlier
>> >> >> > email.
>> >> >> > Although I omitted it in the suggestion I later made, also in that
>> >> >> > email
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > was trying to explain why the idea of this step being an
>> >> >> > invitation
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > someone to cooperate was significant.
>> >> >> > There I wrote,
>> >> >> > Can you see that by leaving out 'cooperation' the meaning might
>> >> >> > become
>> >> >> > more
>> >> >> > confusing - is it saying that the initial description is the basis
>> >> >> > (ie
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > foundation) for new ideas, or having said that, is it also saying
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > new people, the original description becomes subject to change
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > addition of new ideas (ie not necessarily with agreement of the
>> >> >> > initiator)?
>> >> >> > If you think 'cooperation' doesn't do it, I will be looking for
>> >> >> > something
>> >> >> > that does.
>> >> >> > I was hoping that the initial description was to be the basis for
>> >> >> > 'inviting
>> >> >> > cooperation adding input & sharing authority.'
>> >> >> > If this doesn't work well enough, it needs strengthening but I am
>> >> >> > afraid
>> >> >> > that the wording you suggest would weaken that meaning.
>> >> >> > So for the wording in Step 1, what about -
>> >> >> > 'One person alone or a group can start here. That start forms the
>> >> >> > basis
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing
>> >> >> > ownership.'
>> >> >> Both the language and the amount of concepts being put together here
>> >> >> 'inviting cooperation, negotiating additions & thus for sharing
>> >> >> ownership.' is confusing in my opinion. I have no problem with the
>> >> >> concepts themeselves but the communication is a problem.
>> >> >> I think something like: 'One person alone or a group can start this
>> >> >> description.' is pretty straight forward and ok.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> and 'this start is the basis for 'inviting cooperation, negotiating
>> >> >> additions'
>> >> > OK - I am happy with it, but if you think you can simplify it without
>> >> > losing
>> >> > anything let me know your idea.
>> >> > is also not too bad although if it could be simpler that
>> >> >> would be better.
>> >> >> ...but '...and thus for sharing ownership' I find particularly
>> >> >> problematic. It asks the reader to put too much together. Ownership
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> itself is also a confusing concept in this context. Authority is
>> >> >> something we may get away with better.
>> >> > Authority is a word with negative overtones - it also implies that
>> >> > someone
>> >> > or some people have authority which is not the idea. The idea is that
>> >> > the
>> >> > constitution and subsequent unanimous agreements about the
>> >> > constitution
>> >> > are
>> >> > the authority. Shared Ownership is a term that seems more accurate to
>> >> > the
>> >> > ethic, and more appealing to people in a group.
>> >> Authoity and Ownership seem to many of the same negative overtones to
>> >> me. Couldn't you just as easily use the term 'shared authority'?
>> >> > I don't know how to say this
>> >> >> but I think that 'thus...' and 'ownership' are not very workable for
>> >> >> getting these ideas across.
>> >> > The intention is that shared ownership/whatever actually flows from
>> >> > having
>> >> > your input incorporated. It is also important to somehow get it
>> >> > across
>> >> > clearly
>> >> > that everone (who becomes a 'member') is equal under that
>> >> > 'constitution'
>> >> > that the originator does not retain ownership,
>> >> > that the 'constitution' is the only ethical authority (whatever may
>> >> > subsequently happen through majority rules).
>> >> Yes I understand this
>> >> >> What about:
>> >> >> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
>> >> >> is the authority base for inviting new cooperation and negotiating
>> >> >> additions.'
>> >> >> or//
>> >> >> 'One person alone or a group can start this discription. This start
>> >> >> forms a 'core agreement'. It can be used for inviting new
>> >> >> cooperation
>> >> >> & negotiating additions.'
>> >> I'm not sure why you don't like this suggestion. It seems to contain
>> >> the elements.
>> >> >> It may be still too wordy but it's stating to consolidate the
>> >> >> concepts.
>> >> > What about -
>> >> > 'One person alone or a group can start this description. Their start
>> >> > is
>> >> > the
>> >> > basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions through which
>> >> > ownership of the activity becomes shared.'
>> >> To me this has the same problems as the your last draft. Adding
>> >> 'through
>> >> which
>> >> ownership of the activity becomes shared.' to the part before it makes
>> >> for too long and complicated a sentance. Even though I know what you
>> >> are getting at I for one find it hard to comprehend.
>> >> What about:
>> >> One person or a group can start step 1. It is the basis for shared
>> >> activity ownership … for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions.
>> > Someone only gets a share in ownership once they have negotiated
>> > additions -
>> > it would seem more sequential to say
>> > 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis
>> > for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions that share ownership of
>> > the activity.
>> I still think the second sentence needs breaking up to be accessible.
>> what about:
>> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
>> ownership of the activity can be shared.
> Good - what about 'gets shared' rather than 'can be shared'? 'Gets
> shared' would send the message that sharing is the objective rather than the
> optional 'can be shared'. I think I would be happy with that. But I think
> that to get new people to actually take ownership at this point they will
> need to take a physical step at this point - the brainstorming instruction
> would seem to be where this could happen.
>> > I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point c issues I
>> > have
>> > tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below, the issues
>> > are
>> > integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new participants
>> > involved
>> > in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through the
>> > instructions
>> > about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just gets harder.
In my earlier email as well as suggesting we step back I made a few suggestions which are at risk of dropping off the bottom of the email you replied with. I've pasted that part of the conversation below so it is not lost in stepping back. I think that with the wording we are coming up with we are close to something that could work in Step 1 instructions and it might also be practical to reinforce any weakness with something in the brainstorming instructions. I hope to hold on to that progress and compare it with anything that might come out of stepping back. There are some important subtleties in those words that are not covered in the 3 points you list below. For example, see below -
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:43:02 -0700 > Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, > When I stand back the three components that would seem to need covering are > 1. individual or group can start step 1
In the words we have come to I hope there is also the message that we recommend that a constitution be established before inviting anyone's interest in an activity. I also hope that the reader will realise that if they have an idea, it is advisable to start the description by themselves rather than the neutral 'or' you use above that might make it sound just as wise, and perhaps even more natural to start it as a group.
> 2. this description becomes the 'shared authority' - reference point > for co-operation and new input
Again, prior to it becoming the shared authority, the initial partial description becomes the individual authority and the first elements of the constitution for inviting shared authority when it is started by an individual.
> 3. new people can engage (add to if all agree) with this authority to > achieve ownership
and if it was an individual who starts the description, a new person or a group that the initiator presents that description to "can engage (add to if all agree) with this authority to achieve ownership".
The reason I am making these points is to be sure that we are on the same page. You will see from the distinctions I make above that it could be that we are not. If we are not we need clarify what each of us is working towards to agree exactly what we are trying to cooperate on. Any difference will show up in an inability to agree on a word here or there and just make the process fraught.
> If we do agree that these are in fact the messages that need to be > present alongside step 1 the challenge would seem to be how to get the > wording as clear and as brief as possible.
Yes
> We must envisage that new people will be coming into activities all > the time. Also, for many, their 'ownership' will simply come from the > embracing of the existing description (and their input in jobs and the > like) and not their addition to it - so our wording needs to navigate > that.
Yes
> What about something like: > Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it > becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input. Whenever > people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and > possible additions to, the description.
I thought we had a version already well under discussion, but now this is a totally new version with new problems. Before responding below to this new suggestion, the point in the discussion we got to was ...
> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for > >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the > >> ownership of the activity can be shared.
> > Good - what about 'gets shared' rather than 'can be shared'? 'Gets > > shared' would send the message that sharing is the objective rather than the > > optional 'can be shared'. I think I would be happy with that. But I think > > that to get new people to actually take ownership at this point they will > > need to take a physical step at this point - the brainstorming instruction > > would seem to be where this could happen.
> >> > I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point c issues I > >> > have > >> > tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below, the issues > >> > are > >> > integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new participants > >> > involved > >> > in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through the > >> > instructions > >> > about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just gets harder.
> >> I see what you are wanting to encourage here. I agree that shared > >> ownership is important and that if new people are cooperating they > >> need the chance to negotiate step 1. This is of course implied in the > >> sentence we are working on but could be made clearer. Perhaps > >> something can also be done in c but I find it harder to see what can > >> be done there as c is a generic step that isn't necessarily related to > >> step 1 at all.
> > I am not pumping for 'they write' (it excluded the originator), but it had a > > strong meaning when associated with Step 1 but a generic meaning for > > subsequent steps. So it is possible to achieve - we just need the right > > words.
> > When we ran into each other in the street we discussed standing back for a > > bit to be sure that this tinkering around the edges with a word here or > > there is the right approach. In Step 1 there are actually two inputs > > required - the initiator input (whether it be an individual or a group) and > > later the input from a subsequent joiner - sort of Step 1a and Step 1b.
> > 1a establishes the constitution, 1b shares ownership and both are essential. > > I think ownership needs to be shared in Step 1 because if each > > additional new person does not get a procedural and tangible process for > > shaing ownership they will become followers by default.
> > Anyhow, we both have our heads around this part of the challenge now - the > > other part being keeping the poster as simple as possible without it losing > > our essential purpose, so it is probably best to stand back for a bit. > > Chris > > ps Now that we have reached this point I have deleted everything below this > > in the earlier part of the conversation to speed up downloading and editing > > - we have it all on record in every earlier email. > >"
I hope you can say what you think about the above so we don't just go to a discussion about your new suggestion which is -
> What about something like: > Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it > becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input. Whenever > people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and > possible additions to, the description.
Given the clarifications to the objectives I see above, and in the context of where the draft was up to my response to this new suggestion is that it loses some of the things I thought we had achieved. For example, "it becomes the basis" ... what might "it" refer to?
In the context you have given, what "it" could refer to is the description arrived at by the individual and the group, rather than necessarily the starting description that an individual might make. That is to say that ownership of the idea comes in only after an individual negotiates something with the group - ie the wording puts the individual under the pump to conform to what the group decides - ie the idea has no standing or potential until the group owns it.
Is that what you intend "it" to mean?
Do you know that where an individual has an idea, I want the process to be understood by all (especially by the individual) to empower the individual with ownership, right up until they decide to accept or reject cooperation with anyone else? This would mean that no group has any power over an individual's idea, that the individual does not feel they have to submit their idea to 'the group' to see what it thinks, but that they can describe their idea to any other individual or to any part of any group or to any group and that anyone who responds positively will virtually form a new group around that new idea. No previously established 'group think' involved in the process we give to an individual.
Can you see that 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions ... ' is a better attempt at this? If it doesn't get there, in my opinion it needs to be changed to get there, and to avoid any ambiguity that could undercut the effort.
I can see that your new words for the 'ownership' issue work ie "Whenever people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and possible additions to, the description." I would change "can come" to "comes". The problem I have here is what I decribed earlier - these words do not make for a Step in the process, and so the description might be left without the advantage of getting formal descriptions at the start to flesh out the activity and its constitution. Also because this is not a formal step in the process, true and equal ownership is not activated at the outset - it relies on a passive potential to add descriptions or to silently embrace. Silence or inaction does not necessarily signal anything - we need a formal step.
> Hi Alex,
> In my earlier email as well as suggesting we step back I made a few
> suggestions which are at risk of dropping off the bottom of the email you
> replied with. I've pasted that part of the conversation below so it is not
> lost in stepping back. I think that with the wording we are coming up
> with we are close to something that could work in Step 1 instructions and it
> might also be practical to reinforce any weakness with something in the
> brainstorming instructions. I hope to hold on to that progress and compare
> it with anything that might come out of stepping back. There are some
> important subtleties in those words that are not covered in the 3 points you
> list below. For example, see below -
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:43:02 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris,
>> When I stand back the three components that would seem to need covering
>> are
>> 1. individual or group can start step 1
> In the words we have come to I hope there is also the message that we
> recommend that a constitution be established before inviting anyone's
> interest in an activity. I also hope that the reader will realise that if
> they have an idea, it is advisable to start the description by
> themselves rather than the neutral 'or' you use above that might make it
> sound just as wise, and perhaps even more natural to start it as a group.
OK
>> 2. this description becomes the 'shared authority' - reference point
>> for co-operation and new input
> Again, prior to it becoming the shared authority, the initial
> partial description becomes the individual authority and the first elements
> of the constitution for inviting shared authority when it is started by an
> individual.
OK
>> 3. new people can engage (add to if all agree) with this authority to
>> achieve ownership
> and if it was an individual who starts the description, a new person or a
> group that the initiator presents that description to "can engage (add to if
> all agree) with this authority to achieve ownership".
> The reason I am making these points is to be sure that we are on the same
> page. You will see from the distinctions I make above that it could be that
> we are not. If we are not we need clarify what each of us is working towards
> to agree exactly what we are trying to cooperate on. Any difference will
> show up in an inability to agree on a word here or there and just make the
> process fraught.
OK - I have read your qualification of these points and agree
>> If we do agree that these are in fact the messages that need to be
>> present alongside step 1 the challenge would seem to be how to get the
>> wording as clear and as brief as possible.
> Yes
>> We must envisage that new people will be coming into activities all
>> the time. Also, for many, their 'ownership' will simply come from the
>> embracing of the existing description (and their input in jobs and the
>> like) and not their addition to it - so our wording needs to navigate
>> that.
> Yes
>> What about something like:
>> Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it
>> becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input. Whenever
>> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and
>> possible additions to, the description.
> I thought we had a version already well under discussion, but now this is a
> totally new version with new problems. Before responding below to this new
> suggestion, the point in the discussion we got to was ...
> " > >> what about:
>> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
>> >> ownership of the activity can be shared.
>> > Good - what about 'gets shared' rather than 'can be shared'? 'Gets
>> > shared' would send the message that sharing is the objective rather
>> > than the
>> > optional 'can be shared'. I think I would be happy with that. But I
>> > think
>> > that to get new people to actually take ownership at this point they
>> > will
>> > need to take a physical step at this point - the brainstorming
>> > instruction
>> > would seem to be where this could happen.
>> >> > I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point c issues
>> >> > I
>> >> > have
>> >> > tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below, the issues
>> >> > are
>> >> > integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new participants
>> >> > involved
>> >> > in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through the
>> >> > instructions
>> >> > about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just gets harder.
>> >> I see what you are wanting to encourage here. I agree that shared
>> >> ownership is important and that if new people are cooperating they
>> >> need the chance to negotiate step 1. This is of course implied in the
>> >> sentence we are working on but could be made clearer. Perhaps
>> >> something can also be done in c but I find it harder to see what can
>> >> be done there as c is a generic step that isn't necessarily related to
>> >> step 1 at all.
>> > I am not pumping for 'they write' (it excluded the originator), but
>> > it had a
>> > strong meaning when associated with Step 1 but a generic meaning for
>> > subsequent steps. So it is possible to achieve - we just need the right
>> > words.
>> > When we ran into each other in the street we discussed standing back for
>> > a
>> > bit to be sure that this tinkering around the edges with a word here or
>> > there is the right approach. In Step 1 there are actually two inputs
>> > required - the initiator input (whether it be an individual or a group)
>> > and
>> > later the input from a subsequent joiner - sort of Step 1a and Step 1b.
>> > 1a establishes the constitution, 1b shares ownership and both are
>> > essential.
>> > I think ownership needs to be shared in Step 1 because if each
>> > additional new person does not get a procedural and tangible process for
>> > shaing ownership they will become followers by default.
>> > Anyhow, we both have our heads around this part of the challenge now -
>> > the
>> > other part being keeping the poster as simple as possible without it
>> > losing
>> > our essential purpose, so it is probably best to stand back for a bit.
>> > Chris
>> > ps Now that we have reached this point I have deleted everything below
>> > this
>> > in the earlier part of the conversation to speed up downloading and
>> > editing
>> > - we have it all on record in every earlier email. > >"
> I hope you can say what you think about the above so we don't just go to a
> discussion about your new suggestion which is -
The above discussion has the wording:
'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
ownership of the activity gets shared.'
I agree that there are good elements here and it would need to be
compared to anything else come up with.
>> What about something like:
>> Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it
>> becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input. Whenever
>> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and
>> possible additions to, the description.
> Given the clarifications to the objectives I see above, and in the context
> of where the draft was up to my response to this new suggestion is that it
> loses some of the things I thought we had achieved. For example, "it becomes
> the basis" ... what might "it" refer to?
> In the context you have given, what "it" could refer to is the description
> arrived at by the individual and the group, rather than necessarily the
> starting description that an individual might make. That is to say that
> ownership of the idea comes in only after an individual negotiates something
> with the group - ie the wording puts the individual under the pump to
> conform to what the group decides - ie the idea has no standing or potential
> until the group owns it.
> Is that what you intend "it" to mean?
> Do you know that where an individual has an idea, I want the process to be
> understood by all (especially by the individual) to empower the individual
> with ownership, right up until they decide to accept or reject cooperation
> with anyone else? This would mean that no group has any power over an
> individual's idea, that the individual does not feel they have to submit
> their idea to 'the group' to see what it thinks, but that they can describe
> their idea to any other individual or to any part of any group or to any
> group and that anyone who responds positively will virtually form a new
> group around that new idea. No previously established 'group think'
> involved in the process we give to an individual.
> Can you see that 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the
> basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions ... ' is a better
> attempt at this? If it doesn't get there, in my opinion it needs to be
> changed to get there, and to avoid any ambiguity that could undercut the
> effort.
OK - I am comfortable with the wording as it stands.
> I can see that your new words for the 'ownership' issue work ie "Whenever
> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and possible
> additions to, the description." I would change "can come" to "comes".
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:35:17 -0700
> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris
> see below
> Alex
> 2009/6/5 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > In my earlier email as well as suggesting we step back I made a few
> > suggestions which are at risk of dropping off the bottom of the email you
> > replied with. I've pasted that part of the conversation below so it is not
> > lost in stepping back. I think that with the wording we are coming up
> > with we are close to something that could work in Step 1 instructions and it
> > might also be practical to reinforce any weakness with something in the
> > brainstorming instructions. I hope to hold on to that progress and compare
> > it with anything that might come out of stepping back. There are some
> > important subtleties in those words that are not covered in the 3 points you
> > list below. For example, see below -
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> When I stand back the three components that would seem to need covering
> >> are
> >> 1. individual or group can start step 1
> > In the words we have come to I hope there is also the message that we
> > recommend that a constitution be established before inviting anyone's
> > interest in an activity. I also hope that the reader will realise that if
> > they have an idea, it is advisable to start the description by
> > themselves rather than the neutral 'or' you use above that might make it
> > sound just as wise, and perhaps even more natural to start it as a group.
> OK
> >> 2. this description becomes the 'shared authority' - reference point
> >> for co-operation and new input
> > Again, prior to it becoming the shared authority, the initial
> > partial description becomes the individual authority and the first elements
> > of the constitution for inviting shared authority when it is started by an
> > individual.
> OK
> >> 3. new people can engage (add to if all agree) with this authority to
> >> achieve ownership
> > and if it was an individual who starts the description, a new person or a
> > group that the initiator presents that description to "can engage (add to if
> > all agree) with this authority to achieve ownership".
> > The reason I am making these points is to be sure that we are on the same
> > page. You will see from the distinctions I make above that it could be that
> > we are not. If we are not we need clarify what each of us is working towards
> > to agree exactly what we are trying to cooperate on. Any difference will
> > show up in an inability to agree on a word here or there and just make the
> > process fraught.
> OK - I have read your qualification of these points and agree
> >> If we do agree that these are in fact the messages that need to be
> >> present alongside step 1 the challenge would seem to be how to get the
> >> wording as clear and as brief as possible.
> > Yes
> >> We must envisage that new people will be coming into activities all
> >> the time. Also, for many, their 'ownership' will simply come from the
> >> embracing of the existing description (and their input in jobs and the
> >> like) and not their addition to it - so our wording needs to navigate
> >> that.
> > Yes
> >> What about something like:
> >> Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it
> >> becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input. Whenever
> >> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and
> >> possible additions to, the description.
> > I thought we had a version already well under discussion, but now this is a
> > totally new version with new problems. Before responding below to this new
> > suggestion, the point in the discussion we got to was ...
> > " > >> what about:
> >> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
> >> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
> >> >> ownership of the activity can be shared.
> >> > Good - what about 'gets shared' rather than 'can be shared'? 'Gets
> >> > shared' would send the message that sharing is the objective rather
> >> > than the
> >> > optional 'can be shared'. I think I would be happy with that. But I
> >> > think
> >> > that to get new people to actually take ownership at this point they
> >> > will
> >> > need to take a physical step at this point - the brainstorming
> >> > instruction
> >> > would seem to be where this could happen.
> >> >> > I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point c issues
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below, the issues
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new participants
> >> >> > involved
> >> >> > in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through the
> >> >> > instructions
> >> >> > about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just gets harder.
> >> >> I see what you are wanting to encourage here. I agree that shared
> >> >> ownership is important and that if new people are cooperating they
> >> >> need the chance to negotiate step 1. This is of course implied in the
> >> >> sentence we are working on but could be made clearer. Perhaps
> >> >> something can also be done in c but I find it harder to see what can
> >> >> be done there as c is a generic step that isn't necessarily related to
> >> >> step 1 at all.
> >> > I am not pumping for 'they write' (it excluded the originator), but
> >> > it had a
> >> > strong meaning when associated with Step 1 but a generic meaning for
> >> > subsequent steps. So it is possible to achieve - we just need the right
> >> > words.
> >> > When we ran into each other in the street we discussed standing back for
> >> > a
> >> > bit to be sure that this tinkering around the edges with a word here or
> >> > there is the right approach. In Step 1 there are actually two inputs
> >> > required - the initiator input (whether it be an individual or a group)
> >> > and
> >> > later the input from a subsequent joiner - sort of Step 1a and Step 1b.
> >> > 1a establishes the constitution, 1b shares ownership and both are
> >> > essential.
> >> > I think ownership needs to be shared in Step 1 because if each
> >> > additional new person does not get a procedural and tangible process for
> >> > shaing ownership they will become followers by default.
> >> > Anyhow, we both have our heads around this part of the challenge now -
> >> > the
> >> > other part being keeping the poster as simple as possible without it
> >> > losing
> >> > our essential purpose, so it is probably best to stand back for a bit.
> >> > Chris
> >> > ps Now that we have reached this point I have deleted everything below
> >> > this
> >> > in the earlier part of the conversation to speed up downloading and
> >> > editing
> >> > - we have it all on record in every earlier email. > >"
> > I hope you can say what you think about the above so we don't just go to a
> > discussion about your new suggestion which is -
> The above discussion has the wording:
> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
> ownership of the activity gets shared.'
> I agree that there are good elements here and it would need to be
> compared to anything else come up with.
> >> What about something like:
> >> Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it
> >> becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input. Whenever
> >> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and
> >> possible additions to, the description.
> > Given the clarifications to the objectives I see above, and in the context
> > of where the draft was up to my response to this new suggestion is that it
> > loses some of the things I thought we had achieved. For example, "it becomes
> > the basis" ... what might "it" refer to?
> > In the context you have given, what "it" could refer to is the description
> > arrived at by the individual and the group, rather than necessarily the
> > starting description that an individual might make. That is to say that
> > ownership of the idea comes in only after an individual negotiates something
> > with the group - ie the wording puts the individual under the pump to
> > conform to what the group decides - ie the idea has no standing or potential
> > until the group owns it.
> > Is that what you intend "it" to mean?
> > Do you know that where an individual has an idea, I want the process to be
> > understood by all (especially by the individual) to empower the individual
> > with ownership, right up until they decide to accept or reject cooperation
> > with anyone else? This would mean that no group has any power over an
> > individual's idea, that the individual does not feel they have to submit
> > their idea to 'the group' to see what it thinks, but that they can describe
> > their idea to any other individual or to any part of any group or to any
> > group and that anyone who responds positively will virtually form a new
> > group around that new idea. No previously established 'group think'
> > involved in the process we give to an individual.
> > Can you see that 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:35:17 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris
>> see below
>> Alex
>> 2009/6/5 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > In my earlier email as well as suggesting we step back I made a few
>> > suggestions which are at risk of dropping off the bottom of the email
>> > you
>> > replied with. I've pasted that part of the conversation below so it is
>> > not
>> > lost in stepping back. I think that with the wording we are coming up
>> > with we are close to something that could work in Step 1 instructions
>> > and it
>> > might also be practical to reinforce any weakness with something in the
>> > brainstorming instructions. I hope to hold on to that progress and
>> > compare
>> > it with anything that might come out of stepping back. There are some
>> > important subtleties in those words that are not covered in the 3 points
>> > you
>> > list below. For example, see below -
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> When I stand back the three components that would seem to need covering
>> >> are
>> >> 1. individual or group can start step 1
>> > In the words we have come to I hope there is also the message that we
>> > recommend that a constitution be established before inviting anyone's
>> > interest in an activity. I also hope that the reader will realise that
>> > if
>> > they have an idea, it is advisable to start the description by
>> > themselves rather than the neutral 'or' you use above that might make it
>> > sound just as wise, and perhaps even more natural to start it as a
>> > group.
>> OK
>> >> 2. this description becomes the 'shared authority' - reference point
>> >> for co-operation and new input
>> > Again, prior to it becoming the shared authority, the initial
>> > partial description becomes the individual authority and the first
>> > elements
>> > of the constitution for inviting shared authority when it is started by
>> > an
>> > individual.
>> OK
>> >> 3. new people can engage (add to if all agree) with this authority to
>> >> achieve ownership
>> > and if it was an individual who starts the description, a new person or
>> > a
>> > group that the initiator presents that description to "can engage (add
>> > to if
>> > all agree) with this authority to achieve ownership".
>> > The reason I am making these points is to be sure that we are on the
>> > same
>> > page. You will see from the distinctions I make above that it could be
>> > that
>> > we are not. If we are not we need clarify what each of us is working
>> > towards
>> > to agree exactly what we are trying to cooperate on. Any difference will
>> > show up in an inability to agree on a word here or there and just make
>> > the
>> > process fraught.
>> OK - I have read your qualification of these points and agree
>> >> If we do agree that these are in fact the messages that need to be
>> >> present alongside step 1 the challenge would seem to be how to get the
>> >> wording as clear and as brief as possible.
>> > Yes
>> >> We must envisage that new people will be coming into activities all
>> >> the time. Also, for many, their 'ownership' will simply come from the
>> >> embracing of the existing description (and their input in jobs and the
>> >> like) and not their addition to it - so our wording needs to navigate
>> >> that.
>> > Yes
>> >> What about something like:
>> >> Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it
>> >> becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input. Whenever
>> >> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and
>> >> possible additions to, the description.
>> > I thought we had a version already well under discussion, but now this
>> > is a
>> > totally new version with new problems. Before responding below to this
>> > new
>> > suggestion, the point in the discussion we got to was ...
>> > " > >> what about:
>> >> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
>> >> >> ownership of the activity can be shared.
>> >> > Good - what about 'gets shared' rather than 'can be shared'? 'Gets
>> >> > shared' would send the message that sharing is the objective rather
>> >> > than the
>> >> > optional 'can be shared'. I think I would be happy with that. But I
>> >> > think
>> >> > that to get new people to actually take ownership at this point they
>> >> > will
>> >> > need to take a physical step at this point - the brainstorming
>> >> > instruction
>> >> > would seem to be where this could happen.
>> >> >> > I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point c
>> >> >> > issues
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below,
>> >> >> > the issues
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new
>> >> >> > participants
>> >> >> > involved
>> >> >> > in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through the
>> >> >> > instructions
>> >> >> > about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just gets
>> >> >> > harder.
>> >> >> I see what you are wanting to encourage here. I agree that shared
>> >> >> ownership is important and that if new people are cooperating they
>> >> >> need the chance to negotiate step 1. This is of course implied in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> sentence we are working on but could be made clearer. Perhaps
>> >> >> something can also be done in c but I find it harder to see what can
>> >> >> be done there as c is a generic step that isn't necessarily related
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> step 1 at all.
>> >> > I am not pumping for 'they write' (it excluded the originator), but
>> >> > it had a
>> >> > strong meaning when associated with Step 1 but a generic meaning for
>> >> > subsequent steps. So it is possible to achieve - we just need the
>> >> > right
>> >> > words.
>> >> > When we ran into each other in the street we discussed standing back
>> >> > for
>> >> > a
>> >> > bit to be sure that this tinkering around the edges with a word here
>> >> > or
>> >> > there is the right approach. In Step 1 there are actually two inputs
>> >> > required - the initiator input (whether it be an individual or a
>> >> > group)
>> >> > and
>> >> > later the input from a subsequent joiner - sort of Step 1a and Step
>> >> > 1b.
>> >> > 1a establishes the constitution, 1b shares ownership and both are
>> >> > essential.
>> >> > I think ownership needs to be shared in Step 1 because if each
>> >> > additional new person does not get a procedural and tangible process
>> >> > for
>> >> > shaing ownership they will become followers by default.
>> >> > Anyhow, we both have our heads around this part of the challenge now
>> >> > -
>> >> > the
>> >> > other part being keeping the poster as simple as possible without it
>> >> > losing
>> >> > our essential purpose, so it is probably best to stand back for a
>> >> > bit.
>> >> > Chris
>> >> > ps Now that we have reached this point I have deleted everything
>> >> > below
>> >> > this
>> >> > in the earlier part of the conversation to speed up downloading and
>> >> > editing
>> >> > - we have it all on record in every earlier email. > >"
>> > I hope you can say what you think about the above so we don't just go to
>> > a
>> > discussion about your new suggestion which is -
>> The above discussion has the wording:
>> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
>> ownership of the activity gets shared.'
>> I agree that there are good elements here and it would need to be
>> compared to anything else come up with.
>> >> What about something like:
>> >> Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it
>> >> becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input. Whenever
>> >> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and
>> >> possible additions to, the description.
>> > Given the clarifications to the objectives I see above, and in the
>> > context
>> > of where the draft was up to my response to this new suggestion is that
>> > it
>> > loses some of the things I thought we had achieved. For example, "it
>> > becomes
>> > the basis" ... what might "it" refer to?
>> > In the context you have given, what "it" could refer to is
>> > the description
>> > arrived at by the individual and the group, rather than necessarily the
>> > starting description that an individual might make. That is to say that
>> > ownership of the idea comes in only after an individual negotiates
>> > something
>> > with the group - ie the wording puts the individual under the pump to
>> > conform to what the group decides - ie the idea has no standing or
>> > potential
>> > until the group owns it.
>> > Is that what you intend "it" to mean?
>> > Do you know that where an individual has an idea, I want the process to
>> > be
>> > understood by all (especially by the individual) to empower the
>> > individual
>> > with ownership, right up until they decide to accept or
> >> 2009/6/5 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > In my earlier email as well as suggesting we step back I made a few
> >> > suggestions which are at risk of dropping off the bottom of the email
> >> > you
> >> > replied with. I've pasted that part of the conversation below so it is
> >> > not
> >> > lost in stepping back. I think that with the wording we are coming up
> >> > with we are close to something that could work in Step 1 instructions
> >> > and it
> >> > might also be practical to reinforce any weakness with something in the
> >> > brainstorming instructions. I hope to hold on to that progress and
> >> > compare
> >> > it with anything that might come out of stepping back. There are some
> >> > important subtleties in those words that are not covered in the 3 points
> >> > you
> >> > list below. For example, see below -
> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> When I stand back the three components that would seem to need covering
> >> >> are
> >> >> 1. individual or group can start step 1
> >> > In the words we have come to I hope there is also the message that we
> >> > recommend that a constitution be established before inviting anyone's
> >> > interest in an activity. I also hope that the reader will realise that
> >> > if
> >> > they have an idea, it is advisable to start the description by
> >> > themselves rather than the neutral 'or' you use above that might make it
> >> > sound just as wise, and perhaps even more natural to start it as a
> >> > group.
> >> OK
> >> >> 2. this description becomes the 'shared authority' - reference point
> >> >> for co-operation and new input
> >> > Again, prior to it becoming the shared authority, the initial
> >> > partial description becomes the individual authority and the first
> >> > elements
> >> > of the constitution for inviting shared authority when it is started by
> >> > an
> >> > individual.
> >> OK
> >> >> 3. new people can engage (add to if all agree) with this authority to
> >> >> achieve ownership
> >> > and if it was an individual who starts the description, a new person or
> >> > a
> >> > group that the initiator presents that description to "can engage (add
> >> > to if
> >> > all agree) with this authority to achieve ownership".
> >> > The reason I am making these points is to be sure that we are on the
> >> > same
> >> > page. You will see from the distinctions I make above that it could be
> >> > that
> >> > we are not. If we are not we need clarify what each of us is working
> >> > towards
> >> > to agree exactly what we are trying to cooperate on. Any difference will
> >> > show up in an inability to agree on a word here or there and just make
> >> > the
> >> > process fraught.
> >> OK - I have read your qualification of these points and agree
> >> >> If we do agree that these are in fact the messages that need to be
> >> >> present alongside step 1 the challenge would seem to be how to get the
> >> >> wording as clear and as brief as possible.
> >> > Yes
> >> >> We must envisage that new people will be coming into activities all
> >> >> the time. Also, for many, their 'ownership' will simply come from the
> >> >> embracing of the existing description (and their input in jobs and the
> >> >> like) and not their addition to it - so our wording needs to navigate
> >> >> that.
> >> > Yes
> >> >> What about something like:
> >> >> Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it
> >> >> becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input. Whenever
> >> >> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and
> >> >> possible additions to, the description.
> >> > I thought we had a version already well under discussion, but now this
> >> > is a
> >> > totally new version with new problems. Before responding below to this
> >> > new
> >> > suggestion, the point in the discussion we got to was ...
> >> > " > >> what about:
> >> >> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
> >> >> >> ownership of the activity can be shared.
> >> >> > Good - what about 'gets shared' rather than 'can be shared'? 'Gets
> >> >> > shared' would send the message that sharing is the objective rather
> >> >> > than the
> >> >> > optional 'can be shared'. I think I would be happy with that. But I
> >> >> > think
> >> >> > that to get new people to actually take ownership at this point they
> >> >> > will
> >> >> > need to take a physical step at this point - the brainstorming
> >> >> > instruction
> >> >> > would seem to be where this could happen.
> >> >> >> > I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point c
> >> >> >> > issues
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > have
> >> >> >> > tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below,
> >> >> >> > the issues
> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> > integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new
> >> >> >> > participants
> >> >> >> > involved
> >> >> >> > in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through the
> >> >> >> > instructions
> >> >> >> > about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just gets
> >> >> >> > harder.
> >> >> >> I see what you are wanting to encourage here. I agree that shared
> >> >> >> ownership is important and that if new people are cooperating they
> >> >> >> need the chance to negotiate step 1. This is of course implied in
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> sentence we are working on but could be made clearer. Perhaps
> >> >> >> something can also be done in c but I find it harder to see what can
> >> >> >> be done there as c is a generic step that isn't necessarily related
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> step 1 at all.
> >> >> > I am not pumping for 'they write' (it excluded the originator), but
> >> >> > it had a
> >> >> > strong meaning when associated with Step 1 but a generic meaning for
> >> >> > subsequent steps. So it is possible to achieve - we just need the
> >> >> > right
> >> >> > words.
> >> >> > When we ran into each other in the street we discussed standing back
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > bit to be sure that this tinkering around the edges with a word here
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > there is the right approach. In Step 1 there are actually two inputs
> >> >> > required - the initiator input (whether it be an individual or a
> >> >> > group)
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > later the input from a subsequent joiner - sort of Step 1a and Step
> >> >> > 1b.
> >> >> > 1a establishes the constitution, 1b shares ownership and both are
> >> >> > essential.
> >> >> > I think ownership needs to be shared in Step 1 because if each
> >> >> > additional new person does not get a procedural and tangible process
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > shaing ownership they will become followers by default.
> >> >> > Anyhow, we both have our heads around this part of the challenge now
> >> >> > -
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > other part being keeping the poster as simple as possible without it
> >> >> > losing
> >> >> > our essential purpose, so it is probably best to stand back for a
> >> >> > bit.
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> > ps Now that we have reached this point I have deleted everything
> >> >> > below
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > in the earlier part of the conversation to speed up downloading and
> >> >> > editing
> >> >> > - we have it all on record in every earlier email. > >"
> >> > I hope you can say what you think about the above so we don't just go to
> >> > a
> >> > discussion about your new suggestion which is -
> >> The above discussion has the wording:
> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.'
> >> I agree that there are good elements here and it would need to be
> >> compared to anything else come up with.
> >> >> What about something like:
> >> >> Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it
> >> >> becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input. Whenever
> >> >> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and
> >> >> possible additions to, the description.
> >> > Given the clarifications to the objectives I see above, and in the
> >> > context
> >> > of where the draft was up to my response to this new suggestion is that
> >> > it
> >> > loses some of the things I thought we had achieved. For example, "it
> >> > becomes
> >> > the basis" ... what might "it" refer to?
> >> > In the context you have given, what "it" could refer to is
> >> > the description
> >> > arrived at by the individual and the group, rather than necessarily the
OK I have attached the draft. Obviously we have a problem with the
amount of words. Do you think that, given the overlap 'In this way the
ownership of the activity gets shared.' could be deleted?
Alex
2009/6/8 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> 2009/6/5 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > In my earlier email as well as suggesting we step back I made a few
>> >> > suggestions which are at risk of dropping off the bottom of the email
>> >> > you
>> >> > replied with. I've pasted that part of the conversation below so it
>> >> > is
>> >> > not
>> >> > lost in stepping back. I think that with the wording we are coming up
>> >> > with we are close to something that could work in Step 1 instructions
>> >> > and it
>> >> > might also be practical to reinforce any weakness with something in
>> >> > the
>> >> > brainstorming instructions. I hope to hold on to that progress and
>> >> > compare
>> >> > it with anything that might come out of stepping back. There are some
>> >> > important subtleties in those words that are not covered in the 3
>> >> > points
>> >> > you
>> >> > list below. For example, see below -
>> >> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> >> When I stand back the three components that would seem to need
>> >> >> covering
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> 1. individual or group can start step 1
>> >> > In the words we have come to I hope there is also the message that we
>> >> > recommend that a constitution be established before inviting anyone's
>> >> > interest in an activity. I also hope that the reader will realise
>> >> > that
>> >> > if
>> >> > they have an idea, it is advisable to start the description by
>> >> > themselves rather than the neutral 'or' you use above that might make
>> >> > it
>> >> > sound just as wise, and perhaps even more natural to start it as a
>> >> > group.
>> >> OK
>> >> >> 2. this description becomes the 'shared authority' - reference point
>> >> >> for co-operation and new input
>> >> > Again, prior to it becoming the shared authority, the initial
>> >> > partial description becomes the individual authority and the first
>> >> > elements
>> >> > of the constitution for inviting shared authority when it is started
>> >> > by
>> >> > an
>> >> > individual.
>> >> OK
>> >> >> 3. new people can engage (add to if all agree) with this authority
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> achieve ownership
>> >> > and if it was an individual who starts the description, a new person
>> >> > or
>> >> > a
>> >> > group that the initiator presents that description to "can engage
>> >> > (add
>> >> > to if
>> >> > all agree) with this authority to achieve ownership".
>> >> > The reason I am making these points is to be sure that we are on the
>> >> > same
>> >> > page. You will see from the distinctions I make above that it could
>> >> > be
>> >> > that
>> >> > we are not. If we are not we need clarify what each of us is working
>> >> > towards
>> >> > to agree exactly what we are trying to cooperate on. Any difference
>> >> > will
>> >> > show up in an inability to agree on a word here or there and just
>> >> > make
>> >> > the
>> >> > process fraught.
>> >> OK - I have read your qualification of these points and agree
>> >> >> If we do agree that these are in fact the messages that need to be
>> >> >> present alongside step 1 the challenge would seem to be how to get
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> wording as clear and as brief as possible.
>> >> > Yes
>> >> >> We must envisage that new people will be coming into activities all
>> >> >> the time. Also, for many, their 'ownership' will simply come from
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> embracing of the existing description (and their input in jobs and
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> like) and not their addition to it - so our wording needs to
>> >> >> navigate
>> >> >> that.
>> >> > Yes
>> >> >> What about something like:
>> >> >> Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it
>> >> >> becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input.
>> >> >> Whenever
>> >> >> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and
>> >> >> possible additions to, the description.
>> >> > I thought we had a version already well under discussion, but now
>> >> > this
>> >> > is a
>> >> > totally new version with new problems. Before responding below to
>> >> > this
>> >> > new
>> >> > suggestion, the point in the discussion we got to was ...
>> >> > " > >> what about:
>> >> >> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
>> >> >> >> ownership of the activity can be shared.
>> >> >> > Good - what about 'gets shared' rather than 'can be shared'? 'Gets
>> >> >> > shared' would send the message that sharing is the objective
>> >> >> > rather
>> >> >> > than the
>> >> >> > optional 'can be shared'. I think I would be happy with that. But
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > think
>> >> >> > that to get new people to actually take ownership at this point
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > will
>> >> >> > need to take a physical step at this point - the brainstorming
>> >> >> > instruction
>> >> >> > would seem to be where this could happen.
>> >> >> >> > I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point c
>> >> >> >> > issues
>> >> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> > have
>> >> >> >> > tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below,
>> >> >> >> > the issues
>> >> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> > integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new
>> >> >> >> > participants
>> >> >> >> > involved
>> >> >> >> > in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through the
>> >> >> >> > instructions
>> >> >> >> > about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just gets
>> >> >> >> > harder.
>> >> >> >> I see what you are wanting to encourage here. I agree that shared
>> >> >> >> ownership is important and that if new people are cooperating
>> >> >> >> they
>> >> >> >> need the chance to negotiate step 1. This is of course implied in
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> sentence we are working on but could be made clearer. Perhaps
>> >> >> >> something can also be done in c but I find it harder to see what
>> >> >> >> can
>> >> >> >> be done there as c is a generic step that isn't necessarily
>> >> >> >> related
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> step 1 at all.
>> >> >> > I am not pumping for 'they write' (it excluded the originator),
>> >> >> > but
>> >> >> > it had a
>> >> >> > strong meaning when associated with Step 1 but a generic meaning
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > subsequent steps. So it is possible to achieve - we just need the
>> >> >> > right
>> >> >> > words.
>> >> >> > When we ran into each other in the street we discussed standing
>> >> >> > back
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > bit to be sure that this tinkering around the edges with a word
>> >> >> > here
>> >> >> > or
>> >> >> > there is the right approach. In Step 1 there are actually
>> >> >> > two inputs
>> >> >> > required - the initiator input (whether it be an individual or a
>> >> >> > group)
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > later the input from a subsequent joiner - sort of Step 1a and
>> >> >> > Step
>> >> >> > 1b.
>> >> >> > 1a establishes the constitution, 1b shares ownership and both are
>> >> >> > essential.
>> >> >> > I think ownership needs to be shared in Step 1 because if each
>> >> >> > additional new person does not get a procedural and tangible
>> >> >> > process
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > shaing ownership they will become followers by default.
>> >> >> > Anyhow, we both have our heads around this part of the challenge
>> >> >> > now
>> >> >> > -
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > other part being keeping the poster as simple as possible without
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > losing
>> >> >> > our essential purpose, so it is probably best to stand back for a
>> >> >> > bit.
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> > ps Now that we have reached this point I have deleted everything
>> >> >> > below
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > in the earlier part of the conversation to speed up downloading
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > editing
>> >> >> > - we have it all on record in every earlier email. > >"
>> >> > I hope you can say what you think about the above so we don't just go
>> >> > to
>> >> > a
>> >> > discussion about your new suggestion which is -
>> >> The above discussion has the wording:
>> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
>> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.'
>> >> I agree that there are good elements here and it would need to be
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:41:14 -0700
> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> OK I have attached the draft. Obviously we have a problem with the
> amount of words. Do you think that, given the overlap 'In this way the
> ownership of the activity gets shared.' could be deleted?
Yes.
By the way in embracing of,
the coma is unnecessary. Also a space is needed after eg in eg:Organise
Also I think it sounds better to say 'With others who are interested' and actually would take no more lines, rather than
With interested others
I'll print off this new version and get back - I guess we will have to move on to the Brainstorming instructions and get back to the decision Making process next.
> >> >> 2009/6/5 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > In my earlier email as well as suggesting we step back I made a few
> >> >> > suggestions which are at risk of dropping off the bottom of the email
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > replied with. I've pasted that part of the conversation below so it
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > lost in stepping back. I think that with the wording we are coming up
> >> >> > with we are close to something that could work in Step 1 instructions
> >> >> > and it
> >> >> > might also be practical to reinforce any weakness with something in
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > brainstorming instructions. I hope to hold on to that progress and
> >> >> > compare
> >> >> > it with anything that might come out of stepping back. There are some
> >> >> > important subtleties in those words that are not covered in the 3
> >> >> > points
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > list below. For example, see below -
> >> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> >> When I stand back the three components that would seem to need
> >> >> >> covering
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> 1. individual or group can start step 1
> >> >> > In the words we have come to I hope there is also the message that we
> >> >> > recommend that a constitution be established before inviting anyone's
> >> >> > interest in an activity. I also hope that the reader will realise
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > they have an idea, it is advisable to start the description by
> >> >> > themselves rather than the neutral 'or' you use above that might make
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > sound just as wise, and perhaps even more natural to start it as a
> >> >> > group.
> >> >> OK
> >> >> >> 2. this description becomes the 'shared authority' - reference point
> >> >> >> for co-operation and new input
> >> >> > Again, prior to it becoming the shared authority, the initial
> >> >> > partial description becomes the individual authority and the first
> >> >> > elements
> >> >> > of the constitution for inviting shared authority when it is started
> >> >> > by
> >> >> > an
> >> >> > individual.
> >> >> OK
> >> >> >> 3. new people can engage (add to if all agree) with this authority
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> achieve ownership
> >> >> > and if it was an individual who starts the description, a new person
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > group that the initiator presents that description to "can engage
> >> >> > (add
> >> >> > to if
> >> >> > all agree) with this authority to achieve ownership".
> >> >> > The reason I am making these points is to be sure that we are on the
> >> >> > same
> >> >> > page. You will see from the distinctions I make above that it could
> >> >> > be
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > we are not. If we are not we need clarify what each of us is working
> >> >> > towards
> >> >> > to agree exactly what we are trying to cooperate on. Any difference
> >> >> > will
> >> >> > show up in an inability to agree on a word here or there and just
> >> >> > make
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > process fraught.
> >> >> OK - I have read your qualification of these points and agree
> >> >> >> If we do agree that these are in fact the messages that need to be
> >> >> >> present alongside step 1 the challenge would seem to be how to get
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> wording as clear and as brief as possible.
> >> >> > Yes
> >> >> >> We must envisage that new people will be coming into activities all
> >> >> >> the time. Also, for many, their 'ownership' will simply come from
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> embracing of the existing description (and their input in jobs and
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> like) and not their addition to it - so our wording needs to
> >> >> >> navigate
> >> >> >> that.
> >> >> > Yes
> >> >> >> What about something like:
> >> >> >> Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description, it
> >> >> >> becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input.
> >> >> >> Whenever
> >> >> >> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of, and
> >> >> >> possible additions to, the description.
> >> >> > I thought we had a version already well under discussion, but now
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > is a
> >> >> > totally new version with new problems. Before responding below to
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > new
> >> >> > suggestion, the point in the discussion we got to was ...
> >> >> > " > >> what about:
> >> >> >> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis
> >> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
> >> >> >> >> ownership of the activity can be shared.
> >> >> >> > Good - what about 'gets shared' rather than 'can be shared'? 'Gets
> >> >> >> > shared' would send the message that sharing is the objective
> >> >> >> > rather
> >> >> >> > than the
> >> >> >> > optional 'can be shared'. I think I would be happy with that. But
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > think
> >> >> >> > that to get new people to actually take ownership at this point
> >> >> >> > they
> >> >> >> > will
> >> >> >> > need to take a physical step at this point - the brainstorming
> >> >> >> > instruction
> >> >> >> > would seem to be where this could happen.
> >> >> >> >> > I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point c
> >> >> >> >> > issues
> >> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> >> > have
> >> >> >> >> > tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below,
> >> >> >> >> > the issues
> >> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> >> > integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new
> >> >> >> >> > participants
> >> >> >> >> > involved
> >> >> >> >> > in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through the
> >> >> >> >> > instructions
> >> >> >> >> > about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just gets
> >> >> >> >> > harder.
> >> >> >> >> I see what you are wanting to encourage here. I agree that shared
> >> >> >> >> ownership is important and that if new people are cooperating
> >> >> >> >> they
> >> >> >> >> need the chance to negotiate step 1. This is of course implied in
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> sentence we are working on but could be made clearer. Perhaps
> >> >> >> >> something can also be done in c but I find it harder to see what
> >> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> >> be done there as c is a generic step that isn't necessarily
> >> >> >> >> related
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> step 1 at all.
> >> >> >> > I am not pumping for 'they write' (it excluded the originator),
> >> >> >> > but
> >> >> >> > it had a
> >> >> >> > strong meaning when associated with Step 1 but a generic meaning
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > subsequent steps. So it is possible to achieve - we just need the
> >> >> >> > right
> >> >> >> > words.
> >> >> >> > When we ran into each other in the street we discussed standing
> >> >> >> > back
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > bit to be sure that this tinkering around the edges with a word
> >> >> >> > here
> >> >> >> > or
> >> >> >> > there is the right approach. In Step 1 there are actually
> >> >> >> > two inputs
> >> >> >> > required - the initiator input (whether it be an individual or a
> >> >> >> > group)
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > later the input from a subsequent joiner - sort of Step 1a and
> >> >> >> > Step
> >> >> >> > 1b.
> >> >> >> > 1a establishes the constitution, 1b shares ownership and both are
> >> >> >> > essential.
> >> >> >> > I think ownership needs to be shared in Step 1 because if each
> >> >> >> > additional new person does not get a procedural and tangible
> >> >> >> > process
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > shaing ownership they will become followers by default.
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:41:14 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> OK I have attached the draft. Obviously we have a problem with the
>> amount of words. Do you think that, given the overlap 'In this way the
>> ownership of the activity gets shared.' could be deleted?
> Yes.
> By the way in embracing of,
> the coma is unnecessary.
OK
Also a space is needed after eg in eg:Organise
Unfortunately it goes down a line if a space is put in
> Also I think it sounds better to say 'With others who are interested' and
> actually would take no more lines, rather than
> With interested
> others
It does add another line
> I'll print off this new version and get back - I guess we will have to move
> on to the Brainstorming instructions and get back to the decision Making
> process next.
OK
One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join,
shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions
to, the description.
This still seems a bit long and repetitive to me. We seem to be saying
the same thing twice. I'm starting to think that the old wording is
enough.
'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
ownership of the activity gets shared.'
>> >> >> Hi Chris
>> >> >> see below
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> 2009/6/5 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> > In my earlier email as well as suggesting we step back I made a
>> >> >> > few
>> >> >> > suggestions which are at risk of dropping off the bottom of the
>> >> >> > email
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > replied with. I've pasted that part of the conversation below so
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > not
>> >> >> > lost in stepping back. I think that with the wording we are coming
>> >> >> > up
>> >> >> > with we are close to something that could work in Step 1
>> >> >> > instructions
>> >> >> > and it
>> >> >> > might also be practical to reinforce any weakness with something
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > brainstorming instructions. I hope to hold on to that progress and
>> >> >> > compare
>> >> >> > it with anything that might come out of stepping back. There are
>> >> >> > some
>> >> >> > important subtleties in those words that are not covered in the 3
>> >> >> > points
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > list below. For example, see below -
>> >> >> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> >> >> When I stand back the three components that would seem to need
>> >> >> >> covering
>> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> 1. individual or group can start step 1
>> >> >> > In the words we have come to I hope there is also the message that
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > recommend that a constitution be established before inviting
>> >> >> > anyone's
>> >> >> > interest in an activity. I also hope that the reader will realise
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > if
>> >> >> > they have an idea, it is advisable to start the description by
>> >> >> > themselves rather than the neutral 'or' you use above that might
>> >> >> > make
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > sound just as wise, and perhaps even more natural to start it as a
>> >> >> > group.
>> >> >> OK
>> >> >> >> 2. this description becomes the 'shared authority' - reference
>> >> >> >> point
>> >> >> >> for co-operation and new input
>> >> >> > Again, prior to it becoming the shared authority, the initial
>> >> >> > partial description becomes the individual authority and the first
>> >> >> > elements
>> >> >> > of the constitution for inviting shared authority when it is
>> >> >> > started
>> >> >> > by
>> >> >> > an
>> >> >> > individual.
>> >> >> OK
>> >> >> >> 3. new people can engage (add to if all agree) with this
>> >> >> >> authority
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> achieve ownership
>> >> >> > and if it was an individual who starts the description, a new
>> >> >> > person
>> >> >> > or
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > group that the initiator presents that description to "can engage
>> >> >> > (add
>> >> >> > to if
>> >> >> > all agree) with this authority to achieve ownership".
>> >> >> > The reason I am making these points is to be sure that we are on
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > same
>> >> >> > page. You will see from the distinctions I make above that it
>> >> >> > could
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > we are not. If we are not we need clarify what each of us is
>> >> >> > working
>> >> >> > towards
>> >> >> > to agree exactly what we are trying to cooperate on. Any
>> >> >> > difference
>> >> >> > will
>> >> >> > show up in an inability to agree on a word here or there and just
>> >> >> > make
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > process fraught.
>> >> >> OK - I have read your qualification of these points and agree
>> >> >> >> If we do agree that these are in fact the messages that need to
>> >> >> >> be
>> >> >> >> present alongside step 1 the challenge would seem to be how to
>> >> >> >> get
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> wording as clear and as brief as possible.
>> >> >> > Yes
>> >> >> >> We must envisage that new people will be coming into activities
>> >> >> >> all
>> >> >> >> the time. Also, for many, their 'ownership' will simply come from
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> embracing of the existing description (and their input in jobs
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> like) and not their addition to it - so our wording needs to
>> >> >> >> navigate
>> >> >> >> that.
>> >> >> > Yes
>> >> >> >> What about something like:
>> >> >> >> Whether it is one person or a group who starts this description,
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> becomes the basis for inviting new cooperation and new input.
>> >> >> >> Whenever
>> >> >> >> people join, shared ownership can come from their embracing of,
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> possible additions to, the description.
>> >> >> > I thought we had a version already well under discussion, but now
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > is a
>> >> >> > totally new version with new problems. Before responding below to
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > new
>> >> >> > suggestion, the point in the discussion we got to was ...
>> >> >> > " > >> what about:
>> >> >> >> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the
>> >> >> >> >> basis
>> >> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
>> >> >> >> >> ownership of the activity can be shared.
>> >> >> >> > Good - what about 'gets shared' rather than 'can be
>> >> >> >> > shared'? 'Gets
>> >> >> >> > shared' would send the message that sharing is the objective
>> >> >> >> > rather
>> >> >> >> > than the
>> >> >> >> > optional 'can be shared'. I think I would be happy with that.
>> >> >> >> > But
>> >> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> > think
>> >> >> >> > that to get new people to actually take ownership at this point
>> >> >> >> > they
>> >> >> >> > will
>> >> >> >> > need to take a physical step at this point - the brainstorming
>> >> >> >> > instruction
>> >> >> >> > would seem to be where this could happen.
>> >> >> >> >> > I can't tell if you are taking on board the Brainstorm point
>> >> >> >> >> > c
>> >> >> >> >> > issues
>> >> >> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> >> > have
>> >> >> >> >> > tried to include in the discussion or not. As I say below,
>> >> >> >> >> > the issues
>> >> >> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> >> > integral to this Step 1 because we need to get the new
>> >> >> >> >> > participants
>> >> >> >> >> > involved
>> >> >> >> >> > in Step 1, either via the instruction at Step 1 or through
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > instructions
>> >> >> >> >> > about brainstorming ... otherwise sharing ownership just
>> >> >> >> >> > gets
>> >> >> >> >> > harder.
>> >> >> >> >> I see what you are wanting to encourage here. I agree that
>> >> >> >> >> shared
>> >> >> >> >> ownership is important and that if new people are cooperating
>> >> >> >> >> they
>> >> >> >> >> need the chance to negotiate step 1. This is of course implied
>> >> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> sentence we are working on but could be made clearer. Perhaps
>> >> >> >> >> something can also be done in c but I find it harder to see
>> >> >> >> >> what
>> >> >> >> >> can
>> >> >> >> >> be done
> >> OK I have attached the draft. Obviously we have a problem with the
> >> amount of words. Do you think that, given the overlap 'In this way the
> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.' could be deleted?
> > Yes.
> > By the way in embracing of,
> > the coma is unnecessary.
> OK
> Also a space is needed after eg in eg:Organise
> Unfortunately it goes down a line if a space is put in
Yes, but it still looks better doesn't it?
> > Also I think it sounds better to say 'With others who are interested' and
> > actually would take no more lines, rather than
> > With interested
> > others
> It does add another line
Ok, but it sounds very awkward to say with interested others. For the sake of clarity I think we should say with others who are interested.
> > I'll print off this new version and get back - I guess we will have to move
> > on to the Brainstorming instructions and get back to the decision Making
> > process next.
> OK
> One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join,
> shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions
> to, the description.
> This still seems a bit long and repetitive to me. We seem to be saying
> the same thing twice. I'm starting to think that the old wording is
> enough.
> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
> ownership of the activity gets shared.'
> ..do you think this is enough?
I agree there is a repetition ... but there is also an attempt at a clarification. However perhaps we could slightly change & reduce the wording here if we did the clarification well in the decision making instructions.
The clarification I see as needed is the idea that the invitation and subsequent ownership comes from "embracing" the starting description made by an individual (or by more than one person if it is the case that more than one person initiates the proposal).
The starting description is the constitution. It can be changed by unanimous agreement, ie only genuine supporters of it should join and negotiate additions or changes by unanimous agreement. We know that even with such a sincere start, disagreements will still arise that will need a decision making process, but it needs to be one which obviously upholds the importance of that sincere start (the constitution) and the ideal of unity over division (clearly promoting the ideal of x at 50%).
Can you confirm for me if this is in fact your intention too?
If so, the change you suggest would seem to be taking the reader further away from this intention rather than closer to it.
For example, I'm sure you will see that "Their start" could be understood as the start made by one person and the group together - that is, without embracing the start made by the initiator, the constitution would immediately become something the majority can impose, before the individual stands a chance of forming a group of supporters for that minority idea.
In the context of having been invited to cooperate without having first embraced the start made by the initiator, "negotiating additions" could also be understood as changing the description made at that start .... on what basis could such changes be made? ... on the basis of the decision making process we provide, ie majority rules (as it would be for any value of 'x' below 50% and irrespective of any additional time given to minority voices which may have been the ones who began the activity and have therefore been working longest on it.)
I am opposed to this interpretation. Instead, I am looking for wording that supports the development of ideas that are not necessarily ideas the mainstream is much interested in and would generally bury.
Whatever a mainstream group or person might also be able to use the Cooperator for, I want the outsider to instantly see in the process that it will support and nurture the minority idea to gather support.
I am not at all interested in helping mainstream ideas to more efficiently advance their agenda, (although a process that would work to support a minority idea could also support a mainstream thinker to get mainstream support).
I know I have tried to clarify this with you a number of times before but I am still unsure as to your intention here and I feel as though we are pulling in different directions. I feel as though your priority is for a process that will work for most people, and consequently for the more efficient uptake of their ideas.
If that is the case you will have known it because I have been pretty clear, but I still can't tell what your intention is.
This is a real problem for me and so I ask you to try to address each of the elements in each of the two perspectives above so I can clearly see where any differences lie. Not knowing this, I often feel as though in the drafting process I could easily end up somewhere I didn't want to go.
This understanding is surely critical to how we proceed, especially with the work that remains to be done on the Cooperator.
> >> >> >> Hi Chris
> >> >> >> see below
> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> 2009/6/5 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> > In my earlier email as well as suggesting we step back I made a
> >> >> >> > few
> >> >> >> > suggestions which are at risk of dropping off the bottom of the
> >> >> >> > email
> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> > replied with. I've pasted that part of the conversation below so
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > not
> >> >> >> > lost in stepping back. I think that with the wording we are coming
> >> >> >> > up
> >> >> >> > with we are close to something that could work in Step 1
> >> >> >> > instructions
> >> >> >> > and it
> >> >> >> > might also be practical to reinforce any weakness with something
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > brainstorming instructions. I hope to hold on to that progress and
> >> >> >> > compare
> >> >> >> > it with anything that might come out of stepping back. There are
> >> >> >> > some
> >> >> >> > important subtleties in those words that are not covered in the 3
> >> >> >> > points
> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> > list below. For example, see below -
> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> >> >> When I stand back the three components that would seem to need
> >> >> >> >> covering
> >> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> >> 1. individual or group can start step 1
> >> >> >> > In the words we have come to I hope there is also the message that
> >> >> >> > we
> >> >> >> > recommend that a constitution be established before inviting
> >> >> >> > anyone's
> >> >> >> > interest in an activity. I also hope that the reader will realise
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > if
> >> >> >> > they have an idea, it is advisable to start the description by
> >> >> >> > themselves rather than the neutral 'or' you use above that might
> >> >> >> > make
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> > sound just as wise, and perhaps even more natural to start it as a
> >> >> >> > group.
> >> >> >> OK
> >> >> >> >> 2. this description becomes the 'shared authority' - reference
> >> >> >> >> point
> >> >> >> >> for co-operation and new input
> >> >> >> > Again, prior to it becoming the shared authority, the initial
> >> >> >> > partial description becomes the individual authority and the first
> >> >> >> > elements
> >> >> >> > of the constitution for inviting shared authority when it is
> >> >> >> > started
> >> >> >> > by
> >> >> >> > an
> >> >> >> > individual.
> >> >> >> OK
> >> >> >> >> 3. new people can engage (add to if all agree) with this
> >> >> >> >> authority
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> achieve ownership
> >> >> >> > and if it was an individual who starts the description, a new
> >> >> >> > person
> >> >> >> > or
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > group
>> >> OK I have attached the draft. Obviously we have a problem with the
>> >> amount of words. Do you think that, given the overlap 'In this way the
>> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.' could be deleted?
>> > Yes.
>> > By the way in embracing of,
>> > the coma is unnecessary.
>> OK
>> Also a space is needed after eg in eg:Organise
>> Unfortunately it goes down a line if a space is put in
> Yes, but it still looks better doesn't it?
OK
>> > Also I think it sounds better to say 'With others who are interested'
>> > and
>> > actually would take no more lines, rather than
>> > With interested
>> > others
>> It does add another line
> Ok, but it sounds very awkward to say with interested others. For the sake
> of clarity I think we should say with others who are interested.
I agree there is an important message in 'with others who are
interested' and I know that it is clearer then 'with interested other'
but we do have a genuine problem with how crowded the poster is. If we
do a good job of the para we are working on now which will come before
this step and will clearly invite people to find cooperation with
those interested in the description do you think it would be OK to use
the wording:
'2. Together, use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to suggest JOBS for the activity.' ?
This would seem to follow on well from:
One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join,
shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions
to, the description.
>> > I'll print off this new version and get back - I guess we will have to
>> > move
>> > on to the Brainstorming instructions and get back to the decision Making
>> > process next.
>> OK
>> One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join,
>> shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions
>> to, the description.
>> This still seems a bit long and repetitive to me. We seem to be saying
>> the same thing twice. I'm starting to think that the old wording is
>> enough.
>> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
>> ownership of the activity gets shared.'
>> ..do you think this is enough?
> I agree there is a repetition ... but there is also an attempt at
> a clarification. However perhaps we could slightly change & reduce the
> wording here if we did the clarification well in the decision making
> instructions.
> The clarification I see as needed is the idea that the invitation and
> subsequent ownership comes from "embracing" the starting description made by
> an individual (or by more than one person if it is the case that more than
> one person initiates the proposal).
I agree that 'embracing' is a good word. We should be able to work it
in and avoid the repetition?
> The starting description is the constitution. It can be changed by unanimous
> agreement, ie only genuine supporters of it should join and negotiate
> additions or changes by unanimous agreement. We know that even with such
> a sincere start, disagreements will still arise that will need a decision
> making process, but it needs to be one which obviously upholds the
> importance of that sincere start (the constitution) and the ideal of unity
> over division (clearly promoting the ideal of x at 50%).
> Can you confirm for me if this is in fact your intention too?
Yes this is my intention
> If so, the change you suggest would seem to be taking the reader further
> away from this intention rather than closer to it.
I think that: 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is
the basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this
way the ownership of the activity gets shared.'
...contains this message but having said that I agree that a word like
'embracing' contains an element that strengthens this message. While I
agree that it should be as strong as we can make it that also means
making it short. If faced with the choice of being either short or
containing subtle strengthening elements, I think we also have to
consider the prospect that shorter may make the message more powerful.
Having said that I want to make sure that all essential elements are
contained.
> For example, I'm sure you will see that "Their start" could be understood as
> the start made by one person and the group together - that is, without
> embracing the start made by the initiator, the constitution would
> immediately become something the majority can impose, before the individual
> stands a chance of forming a group of supporters for that minority idea.
before we say 'Their start' we say 'One person or a group can start
step 1.' This was an attempt at a clear invitation for an individual
to develop an idea.
> In the context of having been invited to cooperate without having first
> embraced the start made by the initiator, "negotiating additions" could also
> be understood as changing the description made at that start .... on what
> basis could such changes be made? ... on the basis of the decision making
> process we provide, ie majority rules (as it would be for any value of 'x'
> below 50% and irrespective of any additional time given to minority voices
> which may have been the ones who began the activity and have therefore been
> working longest on it.)
> I am opposed to this interpretation. Instead, I am looking for wording that
> supports the development of ideas that are not necessarily ideas the
> mainstream is much interested in and would generally bury.
As I have said I think the word embracing adds an element here and am
happy to keep that part. I'm just trying to avoid repetition.
> Whatever a mainstream group or person might also be able to use the
> Cooperator for, I want the outsider to instantly see in the process that it
> will support and nurture the minority idea to gather support.
> I am not at all interested in helping mainstream ideas to more efficiently
> advance their agenda, (although a process that would work to support
> a minority idea could also support a mainstream thinker to
> get mainstream support).
> I know I have tried to clarify this with you a number of times before but I
> am still unsure as to your intention here and I feel as though we are
> pulling in different directions. I feel as though your priority is for a
> process that will work for most people, and consequently for the more
> efficient uptake of their ideas.
> If that is the case you will have known it because I have been pretty clear,
> but I still can't tell what your intention is.
> This is a real problem for me and so I ask you to try to address each of
> the elements in each of the two perspectives above so I can clearly see
> where any differences lie. Not knowing this, I often feel as though in the
> drafting process I could easily end up somewhere I didn't want to go.
> This understanding is surely critical to how we proceed, especially with
> the work that remains to be done on the Cooperator.
I agree that it is important for the process to invite individual
descriptions and that these should be the basis (or be embraced) for
further input. I understand and agree with the constitutional value of
the first description and that a change of this description by a
majority rule decision (when people had invested their energy on the
basis of that description) would seem inappropriate. It is for this
reason that I agree that the word 'embrace' has something beyond
'..the basis of cooperation and negotiating changes.'
I think this wording keeps all the elements without repetition:
'One person or a group can start step 1. Whenever others cooperate,
shared ownership comes from their embracing of this description. Their
new additions may also be agreed to.'
This tries to avoid the danger of 'negotiate' that you point out and
goes to giving the initiator/s power to 'agree' to new addition.
> >> >> OK I have attached the draft. Obviously we have a problem with the
> >> >> amount of words. Do you think that, given the overlap 'In this way the
> >> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.' could be deleted?
> >> > Yes.
> >> > By the way in embracing of,
> >> > the coma is unnecessary.
> >> OK
> >> Also a space is needed after eg in eg:Organise
> >> Unfortunately it goes down a line if a space is put in
> > Yes, but it still looks better doesn't it?
> OK
> >> > Also I think it sounds better to say 'With others who are interested'
> >> > and
> >> > actually would take no more lines, rather than
> >> > With interested
> >> > others
> >> It does add another line
> > Ok, but it sounds very awkward to say with interested others. For the sake
> > of clarity I think we should say with others who are interested.
> I agree there is an important message in 'with others who are
> interested' and I know that it is clearer then 'with interested other'
> but we do have a genuine problem with how crowded the poster is.
Yes
If we
> do a good job of the para we are working on now which will come before
> this step and will clearly invite people to find cooperation with
> those interested in the description do you think it would be OK to use
> the wording:
> '2. Together, use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to suggest JOBS for the activity.' ?
I would flow ok from the right statement, but it would once again tend to reduce the message that joiners need to be only those who fully support the idea presented, not those who like some aspect of it but think they will join first and work on changing things from there.
They way it would reduce the message is that it would leave that message entirely to the fine print - what would hit you in the eye would be 'Together ...'. That would only be fine if as you say the 'embrace'/only those who fully support is gets attention first & second that where an individual has an idea, their idea and the description they give is the constitution before any 'togetherness' or group involvement/takeover.
I'm not saying that anything we have come up with so far is good enough - not embrace/their/they write/x/ etc - to get the message across, let alone to do it briefly enough to work in a poster.
> One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join,
> shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions
> to, the description.
> >> > I'll print off this new version and get back - I guess we will have to
> >> > move
> >> > on to the Brainstorming instructions and get back to the decision Making
> >> > process next.
> >> OK
> >> One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join,
> >> shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions
> >> to, the description.
> >> This still seems a bit long and repetitive to me. We seem to be saying
> >> the same thing twice. I'm starting to think that the old wording is
> >> enough.
> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.'
> >> ..do you think this is enough?
> > I agree there is a repetition ... but there is also an attempt at
> > a clarification. However perhaps we could slightly change & reduce the
> > wording here if we did the clarification well in the decision making
> > instructions.
> > The clarification I see as needed is the idea that the invitation and
> > subsequent ownership comes from "embracing" the starting description made by
> > an individual (or by more than one person if it is the case that more than
> > one person initiates the proposal).
> I agree that 'embracing' is a good word. We should be able to work it
> in and avoid the repetition?
OK
> > The starting description is the constitution. It can be changed by unanimous
> > agreement, ie only genuine supporters of it should join and negotiate
> > additions or changes by unanimous agreement. We know that even with such
> > a sincere start, disagreements will still arise that will need a decision
> > making process, but it needs to be one which obviously upholds the
> > importance of that sincere start (the constitution) and the ideal of unity
> > over division (clearly promoting the ideal of x at 50%).
> > Can you confirm for me if this is in fact your intention too?
> Yes this is my intention
Thanks - I have been unnecessarily anxious about direction.
> > If so, the change you suggest would seem to be taking the reader further
> > away from this intention rather than closer to it.
> I think that: 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is
> the basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this
> way the ownership of the activity gets shared.'
> ...contains this message but having said that I agree that a word like
> 'embracing' contains an element that strengthens this message. While I
> agree that it should be as strong as we can make it that also means
> making it short. If faced with the choice of being either short or
> containing subtle strengthening elements, I think we also have to
> consider the prospect that shorter may make the message more powerful.
Yes I agree - but I haven't seen any shortening yet that does that. So far, attempts at shortening have reduced the prominence of that message.
> Having said that I want to make sure that all essential elements are
> contained.
> > For example, I'm sure you will see that "Their start" could be understood as
> > the start made by one person and the group together - that is, without
> > embracing the start made by the initiator, the constitution would
> > immediately become something the majority can impose, before the individual
> > stands a chance of forming a group of supporters for that minority idea.
> before we say 'Their start' we say 'One person or a group can start
> step 1.' This was an attempt at a clear invitation for an individual
> to develop an idea.
Yes it was - what I am saying is that it can still easily be taken the wrong way. In fact, given the way most people tend to behave in a group, it is likley that the interpretation will be that whether one person or a group starts an idea, the constitution will be decided by the group (either the group having the authority over the initiator or majority rules), not that the individual initiator is being supported by the process to proceed with the idea with the one or two others from the group who are genuine supporters and the rest should reform elsewhere around their different idea.
> > In the context of having been invited to cooperate without having first
> > embraced the start made by the initiator, "negotiating additions" could also
> > be understood as changing the description made at that start .... on what
> > basis could such changes be made? ... on the basis of the decision making
> > process we provide, ie majority rules (as it would be for any value of 'x'
> > below 50% and irrespective of any additional time given to minority voices
> > which may have been the ones who began the activity and have therefore been
> > working longest on it.)
> > I am opposed to this interpretation. Instead, I am looking for wording that
> > supports the development of ideas that are not necessarily ideas the
> > mainstream is much interested in and would generally bury.
> As I have said I think the word embracing adds an element here and am
> happy to keep that part. I'm just trying to avoid repetition.
Yes I am comfortable with that now. I also want to avoid repetition - I guess the reason why I worry about deleting repetition has been because it was reinforcement. However if we can do a better job of getting the message across, it will not need repetition to reinforce it and that would be ideal.
> > Whatever a mainstream group or person might also be able to use the
> > Cooperator for, I want the outsider to instantly see in the process that it
> > will support and nurture the minority idea to gather support.
> > I am not at all interested in helping mainstream ideas to more efficiently
> > advance their agenda, (although a process that would work to support
> > a minority idea could also support a mainstream thinker to
> > get mainstream support).
> > I know I have tried to clarify this with you a number of times before but I
> > am still unsure as to your intention here and I feel as though we are
> > pulling in different
>> >> >> OK I have attached the draft. Obviously we have a problem with the
>> >> >> amount of words. Do you think that, given the overlap 'In this way
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.' could be deleted?
>> >> > Yes.
>> >> > By the way in embracing of,
>> >> > the coma is unnecessary.
>> >> OK
>> >> Also a space is needed after eg in eg:Organise
>> >> Unfortunately it goes down a line if a space is put in
>> > Yes, but it still looks better doesn't it?
>> OK
>> >> > Also I think it sounds better to say 'With others who are interested'
>> >> > and
>> >> > actually would take no more lines, rather than
>> >> > With interested
>> >> > others
>> >> It does add another line
>> > Ok, but it sounds very awkward to say with interested others. For the
>> > sake
>> > of clarity I think we should say with others who are interested.
>> I agree there is an important message in 'with others who are
>> interested' and I know that it is clearer then 'with interested other'
>> but we do have a genuine problem with how crowded the poster is.
> Yes
> If we
>> do a good job of the para we are working on now which will come before
>> this step and will clearly invite people to find cooperation with
>> those interested in the description do you think it would be OK to use
>> the wording:
>> '2. Together, use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to suggest JOBS for the
>> activity.' ?
> I would flow ok from the right statement, but it would once again tend to
> reduce the message that joiners need to be only those who fully support the
> idea presented, not those who like some aspect of it but think they will
> join first and work on changing things from there.
> They way it would reduce the message is that it would leave that message
> entirely to the fine print - what would hit you in the eye would be
> 'Together ...'. That would only be fine if as you say the
> 'embrace'/only those who fully support is gets attention first & second that
> where an individual has an idea, their idea and the description they give is
> the constitution before any 'togetherness' or group involvement/takeover.
> I'm not saying that anything we have come up with so far is good enough -
> not embrace/their/they write/x/ etc - to get the message across, let alone
> to do it briefly enough to work in a poster.
OK - I'm not sure what to put here now. Perhaps, because 'with others
who are interested' doesn't fit and because 'Together' reduces the
message it is better to leave 'with interested others' for now until
we come up with something better that fits. I don't personally think
that with interested others' is all that unclear.
>> One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join,
>> shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions
>> to, the description.
>> >> > I'll print off this new version and get back - I guess we will have
>> >> > to
>> >> > move
>> >> > on to the Brainstorming instructions and get back to the decision
>> >> > Making
>> >> > process next.
>> >> OK
>> >> One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join,
>> >> shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions
>> >> to, the description.
>> >> This still seems a bit long and repetitive to me. We seem to be saying
>> >> the same thing twice. I'm starting to think that the old wording is
>> >> enough.
>> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
>> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.'
>> >> ..do you think this is enough?
>> > I agree there is a repetition ... but there is also an attempt at
>> > a clarification. However perhaps we could slightly change & reduce the
>> > wording here if we did the clarification well in the decision making
>> > instructions.
>> > The clarification I see as needed is the idea that the invitation and
>> > subsequent ownership comes from "embracing" the starting description
>> > made by
>> > an individual (or by more than one person if it is the case that more
>> > than
>> > one person initiates the proposal).
>> I agree that 'embracing' is a good word. We should be able to work it
>> in and avoid the repetition?
> OK
>> > The starting description is the constitution. It can be changed by
>> > unanimous
>> > agreement, ie only genuine supporters of it should join and negotiate
>> > additions or changes by unanimous agreement. We know that even with such
>> > a sincere start, disagreements will still arise that will need a
>> > decision
>> > making process, but it needs to be one which obviously upholds the
>> > importance of that sincere start (the constitution) and the ideal of
>> > unity
>> > over division (clearly promoting the ideal of x at 50%).
>> > Can you confirm for me if this is in fact your intention too?
>> Yes this is my intention
> Thanks - I have been unnecessarily anxious about direction.
>> > If so, the change you suggest would seem to be taking the reader further
>> > away from this intention rather than closer to it.
>> I think that: 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is
>> the basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this
>> way the ownership of the activity gets shared.'
>> ...contains this message but having said that I agree that a word like
>> 'embracing' contains an element that strengthens this message. While I
>> agree that it should be as strong as we can make it that also means
>> making it short. If faced with the choice of being either short or
>> containing subtle strengthening elements, I think we also have to
>> consider the prospect that shorter may make the message more powerful.
> Yes I agree - but I haven't seen any shortening yet that does that. So far,
> attempts at shortening have reduced the prominence of that message.
>> Having said that I want to make sure that all essential elements are
>> contained.
>> > For example, I'm sure you will see that "Their start" could be
>> > understood as
>> > the start made by one person and the group together - that is, without
>> > embracing the start made by the initiator, the constitution would
>> > immediately become something the majority can impose, before the
>> > individual
>> > stands a chance of forming a group of supporters for that minority idea.
>> before we say 'Their start' we say 'One person or a group can start
>> step 1.' This was an attempt at a clear invitation for an individual
>> to develop an idea.
> Yes it was - what I am saying is that it can still easily be taken the wrong
> way. In fact, given the way most people tend to behave in a group, it is
> likley that the interpretation will be that whether one person or a group
> starts an idea, the constitution will be decided by the group (either the
> group having the authority over the initiator or majority rules), not that
> the individual initiator is being supported by the process to proceed with
> the idea with the one or two others from the group who are genuine
> supporters and the rest should reform elsewhere around their different idea.
I can see that getting this message right requires a fine balance of
issues. On the one hand there's what you are saying here that the
group will take control of the process on the other hand there is the
concern you have expressed below that the initiator will not share
ownership. Underlining all of this is the question of how achievable
the ideal of consensus and where that will and wont be likely to
happen.
>> > In the context of having been invited to cooperate without having first
>> > embraced the start made by the initiator, "negotiating additions" could
>> > also
>> > be understood as changing the description made at that start .... on
>> > what
>> > basis could such changes be made? ... on the basis of the decision
>> > making
>> > process we provide, ie majority rules (as it would be for any value
>> > of 'x'
>> > below 50% and irrespective of any additional time given to minority
>> > voices
>> > which may have been the ones who began the activity and have therefore
>> > been
>> > working longest on it.)
>> > I am opposed to this interpretation. Instead, I am looking for wording
>> > that
>> > supports the development of ideas that are not necessarily ideas the
Hi Chris,
Sorry I was mixing up the terms blockers and spoilers in my last email
when I was really only referring to spoilers - spoilers being people
who are actually being a problem and blockers who are simply not
consenting to something potentially for good reason.
Alex
>>> >> >> OK I have attached the draft. Obviously we have a problem with the
>>> >> >> amount of words. Do you think that, given the overlap 'In this way
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.' could be deleted?
>>> >> > Yes.
>>> >> > By the way in embracing of,
>>> >> > the coma is unnecessary.
>>> >> OK
>>> >> Also a space is needed after eg in eg:Organise
>>> >> Unfortunately it goes down a line if a space is put in
>>> > Yes, but it still looks better doesn't it?
>>> OK
>>> >> > Also I think it sounds better to say 'With others who are interested'
>>> >> > and
>>> >> > actually would take no more lines, rather than
>>> >> > With interested
>>> >> > others
>>> >> It does add another line
>>> > Ok, but it sounds very awkward to say with interested others. For the
>>> > sake
>>> > of clarity I think we should say with others who are interested.
>>> I agree there is an important message in 'with others who are
>>> interested' and I know that it is clearer then 'with interested other'
>>> but we do have a genuine problem with how crowded the poster is.
>> Yes
>> If we
>>> do a good job of the para we are working on now which will come before
>>> this step and will clearly invite people to find cooperation with
>>> those interested in the description do you think it would be OK to use
>>> the wording:
>>> '2. Together, use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to suggest JOBS for the
>>> activity.' ?
>> I would flow ok from the right statement, but it would once again tend to
>> reduce the message that joiners need to be only those who fully support the
>> idea presented, not those who like some aspect of it but think they will
>> join first and work on changing things from there.
>> They way it would reduce the message is that it would leave that message
>> entirely to the fine print - what would hit you in the eye would be
>> 'Together ...'. That would only be fine if as you say the
>> 'embrace'/only those who fully support is gets attention first & second that
>> where an individual has an idea, their idea and the description they give is
>> the constitution before any 'togetherness' or group involvement/takeover.
>> I'm not saying that anything we have come up with so far is good enough -
>> not embrace/their/they write/x/ etc - to get the message across, let alone
>> to do it briefly enough to work in a poster.
> OK - I'm not sure what to put here now. Perhaps, because 'with others
> who are interested' doesn't fit and because 'Together' reduces the
> message it is better to leave 'with interested others' for now until
> we come up with something better that fits. I don't personally think
> that with interested others' is all that unclear.
>>> This would seem to follow on well from:
>>> One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>>> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join,
>>> shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions
>>> to, the description.
>>> >> > I'll print off this new version and get back - I guess we will have
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > move
>>> >> > on to the Brainstorming instructions and get back to the decision
>>> >> > Making
>>> >> > process next.
>>> >> OK
>>> >> One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>>> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join,
>>> >> shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions
>>> >> to, the description.
>>> >> This still seems a bit long and repetitive to me. We seem to be saying
>>> >> the same thing twice. I'm starting to think that the old wording is
>>> >> enough.
>>> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for
>>> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the
>>> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.'
>>> >> ..do you think this is enough?
>>> > I agree there is a repetition ... but there is also an attempt at
>>> > a clarification. However perhaps we could slightly change & reduce the
>>> > wording here if we did the clarification well in the decision making
>>> > instructions.
>>> > The clarification I see as needed is the idea that the invitation and
>>> > subsequent ownership comes from "embracing" the starting description
>>> > made by
>>> > an individual (or by more than one person if it is the case that more
>>> > than
>>> > one person initiates the proposal).
>>> I agree that 'embracing' is a good word. We should be able to work it
>>> in and avoid the repetition?
>> OK
>>> > The starting description is the constitution. It can be changed by
>>> > unanimous
>>> > agreement, ie only genuine supporters of it should join and negotiate
>>> > additions or changes by unanimous agreement. We know that even with such
>>> > a sincere start, disagreements will still arise that will need a
>>> > decision
>>> > making process, but it needs to be one which obviously upholds the
>>> > importance of that sincere start (the constitution) and the ideal of
>>> > unity
>>> > over division (clearly promoting the ideal of x at 50%).
>>> > Can you confirm for me if this is in fact your intention too?
>>> Yes this is my intention
>> Thanks - I have been unnecessarily anxious about direction.
>>> > If so, the change you suggest would seem to be taking the reader further
>>> > away from this intention rather than closer to it.
>>> I think that: 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is
>>> the basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this
>>> way the ownership of the activity gets shared.'
>>> ...contains this message but having said that I agree that a word like
>>> 'embracing' contains an element that strengthens this message. While I
>>> agree that it should be as strong as we can make it that also means
>>> making it short. If faced with the choice of being either short or
>>> containing subtle strengthening elements, I think we also have to
>>> consider the prospect that shorter may make the message more powerful.
>> Yes I agree - but I haven't seen any shortening yet that does that. So far,
>> attempts at shortening have reduced the prominence of that message.
> OK
>>> Having said that I want to make sure that all essential elements are
>>> contained.
>>> > For example, I'm sure you will see that "Their start" could be
>>> > understood as
>>> > the start made by one person and the group together - that is, without
>>> > embracing the start made by the initiator, the constitution would
>>> > immediately become something the majority can impose, before the
>>> > individual
>>> > stands a chance of forming a group of supporters for that minority idea.
>>> before we say 'Their start' we say 'One person or a group can start
>>> step 1.' This was an attempt at a clear invitation for an individual
>>> to develop an idea.
>> Yes it was - what I am saying is that it can still easily be taken the wrong
>> way. In fact, given the way most people tend to behave in a group, it is
>> likley that the interpretation will be that whether one person or a group
>> starts an idea, the constitution will be decided by the group (either the
>> group having the authority over the initiator or majority rules), not that
>> the individual initiator is being supported by the process to proceed with
>> the idea with the one or two others from the group who are genuine
>> supporters and the rest should reform elsewhere around their different idea.
> I can see that getting this message right requires a fine balance of
> issues. On the one hand there's what you are saying here that the
> group will take control of the process on the other hand there is the
> concern you have expressed below that the initiator will not share
> ownership. Underlining all of this is the question of how achievable
> the ideal of consensus and where that will and wont be likely to
> happen.
>>> > In the context of having been invited to cooperate without having first
>>> > embraced the start made by the initiator, "negotiating additions" could
>>> > also
>>> > be understood as changing the
> >> >> >> OK I have attached the draft. Obviously we have a problem with the > >> >> >> amount of words. Do you think that, given the overlap 'In this way > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.' could be deleted?
> >> >> > Yes. > >> >> > By the way in embracing of, > >> >> > the coma is unnecessary.
> >> >> OK
> >> >> Also a space is needed after eg in eg:Organise
> >> >> Unfortunately it goes down a line if a space is put in
> >> > Yes, but it still looks better doesn't it?
> >> OK
> >> >> > Also I think it sounds better to say 'With others who are interested' > >> >> > and > >> >> > actually would take no more lines, rather than
> >> >> > With interested
> >> >> > others
> >> >> It does add another line
> >> > Ok, but it sounds very awkward to say with interested others. For the > >> > sake > >> > of clarity I think we should say with others who are interested.
> >> I agree there is an important message in 'with others who are > >> interested' and I know that it is clearer then 'with interested other' > >> but we do have a genuine problem with how crowded the poster is.
> > Yes
> > If we > >> do a good job of the para we are working on now which will come before > >> this step and will clearly invite people to find cooperation with > >> those interested in the description do you think it would be OK to use > >> the wording:
> >> '2. Together, use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to suggest JOBS for the > >> activity.' ?
> > I would flow ok from the right statement, but it would once again tend to > > reduce the message that joiners need to be only those who fully support the > > idea presented, not those who like some aspect of it but think they will > > join first and work on changing things from there.
> > They way it would reduce the message is that it would leave that message > > entirely to the fine print - what would hit you in the eye would be > > 'Together ...'. That would only be fine if as you say the > > 'embrace'/only those who fully support is gets attention first & second that > > where an individual has an idea, their idea and the description they give is > > the constitution before any 'togetherness' or group involvement/takeover.
> > I'm not saying that anything we have come up with so far is good enough - > > not embrace/their/they write/x/ etc - to get the message across, let alone > > to do it briefly enough to work in a poster.
> OK - I'm not sure what to put here now. Perhaps, because 'with others > who are interested' doesn't fit and because 'Together' reduces the > message it is better to leave 'with interested others' for now until > we come up with something better that fits.
> that with interested others' is all that unclear.
> >> This would seem to follow on well from:
> >> One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for > >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join, > >> shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions > >> to, the description.
> >> >> > I'll print off this new version and get back - I guess we will have > >> >> > to > >> >> > move > >> >> > on to the Brainstorming instructions and get back to the decision > >> >> > Making > >> >> > process next.
> >> >> OK
> >> >> One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for > >> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. Whenever people join, > >> >> shared ownership comes from their embracing of & possible additions > >> >> to, the description.
> >> >> This still seems a bit long and repetitive to me. We seem to be saying > >> >> the same thing twice. I'm starting to think that the old wording is > >> >> enough.
> >> >> 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is the basis for > >> >> inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this way the > >> >> ownership of the activity gets shared.'
> >> >> ..do you think this is enough?
> >> > I agree there is a repetition ... but there is also an attempt at > >> > a clarification. However perhaps we could slightly change & reduce the > >> > wording here if we did the clarification well in the decision making > >> > instructions.
> >> > The clarification I see as needed is the idea that the invitation and > >> > subsequent ownership comes from "embracing" the starting description > >> > made by > >> > an individual (or by more than one person if it is the case that more > >> > than > >> > one person initiates the proposal).
> >> I agree that 'embracing' is a good word. We should be able to work it > >> in and avoid the repetition?
> > OK
> >> > The starting description is the constitution. It can be changed by > >> > unanimous > >> > agreement, ie only genuine supporters of it should join and negotiate > >> > additions or changes by unanimous agreement. We know that even with such > >> > a sincere start, disagreements will still arise that will need a > >> > decision > >> > making process, but it needs to be one which obviously upholds the > >> > importance of that sincere start (the constitution) and the ideal of > >> > unity > >> > over division (clearly promoting the ideal of x at 50%).
> >> > Can you confirm for me if this is in fact your intention too?
> >> Yes this is my intention
> > Thanks - I have been unnecessarily anxious about direction.
> >> > If so, the change you suggest would seem to be taking the reader further > >> > away from this intention rather than closer to it.
> >> I think that: 'One person or a group can start step 1. Their start is > >> the basis for inviting cooperation & negotiating additions. In this > >> way the ownership of the activity gets shared.'
> >> ...contains this message but having said that I agree that a word like > >> 'embracing' contains an element that strengthens this message. While I > >> agree that it should be as strong as we can make it that also means > >> making it short. If faced with the choice of being either short or > >> containing subtle strengthening elements, I think we also have to > >> consider the prospect that shorter may make the message more powerful.
> > Yes I agree - but I haven't seen any shortening yet that does that. So far, > > attempts at shortening have reduced the prominence of that message.
> OK
> >> Having said that I want to make sure that all essential elements are > >> contained.
> >> > For example, I'm sure you will see that "Their start" could be > >> > understood as > >> > the start made by one person and the group together - that is, without > >> > embracing the start made by the initiator, the constitution would > >> > immediately become something the majority can impose, before the > >> > individual > >> > stands a chance of forming a group of supporters for that minority idea.
> >> before we say 'Their start' we say 'One person or a group can start > >> step 1.' This was an attempt at a clear invitation for an individual > >> to develop an idea.
> > Yes it was - what I am saying is that it can still easily be taken the wrong > > way. In fact, given the way most people tend to behave in a group, it is > > likley that the interpretation will be that whether one person or a group > > starts an idea, the constitution will be decided by the group (either the > > group having the authority over the initiator or majority rules), not that > > the individual initiator is being supported by the process to proceed with > > the idea with the one or two others from the group who are genuine > > supporters and the rest should reform elsewhere around their different idea.
> I can see that getting this message right requires a fine balance of > issues. On the one hand there's what you are saying here that the > group will take control of the process
I think this is inevitable whatever we do. What I would like to achieve however is that everyone understands why such taking control is ethically suspicious and should not be taken lightly as it usually is when someone calls for a vote.
on the other hand there is the
> concern you have expressed below that the initiator will not share > ownership.
No, I think the initiator will share ownership - I think they will have no option and should be encouraged by our words to realise that they must. What I was objecting to below was some wording you were suggesting that seemed to me
...
|
