Hi Chris, I started working on the section we refered people to in the new draft to develop an activity name and realised that perhaps it could all be integrated into one print out (The Co-operator) including the decision-making process. See draft idea attached. Alex
Looks like it has some potential, but in reality it might be oversimplified. There are quite a few points very early where a dispute could arise and frustration would result because the process which looked simple proved complex.
It may be possible to integrate as you suggest, but I think it would be good to look at the complexity first and then see if it can be simplified (as we ended up doing with the Co-operator).
I am attaching what I have been working on.
Chris
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:25 -0700
> Subject: Co-operator - integration
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, I started working on the section we refered people to in the
> new draft to develop an activity name and realised that perhaps it
> could all be integrated into one print out (The Co-operator) including
> the decision-making process. See draft idea attached.
> Alex
_________________________________________________________________
Want to stay on top of your life online? Find out how with Windows Live!
http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/
Based on the case for supporting a level of group unity at the start so as to minimise the chances of silent dissent or complex decision making too early I have redrafted the Cooperator as attached. What do you think? Is it too complex? Would it help the objective?
Chris
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:25 -0700
> Subject: Co-operator - integration
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, I started working on the section we refered people to in the
> new draft to develop an activity name and realised that perhaps it
> could all be integrated into one print out (The Co-operator) including
> the decision-making process. See draft idea attached.
> Alex
Hi Chris,
I can see what your trying to do here and I think it would be great if
people could remove the tension from co-operation - just cooperating
where there was obvious common ground but I have to say this process
doesn't work for me on a number of levels. To try and summarise that
giant email I just sent:
1. To assume that people will not launch into full blown negotiation
and decision-making as soon as they engage with an idea is unrealistic
in my opinion. If they fully support an idea and are coming in behind
it they will still quickly find room for difference and while
splitting up is always an option it is certainly not the first port of
call as suggested in step 3-4. People will necessarily look for
understanding and win win or even an acceptable compromise so they can
retain the benefit of cooperation. I think people would find splitting
up highly unsatisfactory - more than this I think they would find it
unacceptable as a first port of call. I don't think that people think
this way in groups and asking them to walk down this path is just too
different. While there are exceptions, I think people are generally
seeking common ground to cooperate from, not seeking a forum for
personal idea expression and group division. For this reason the
process comes across as prescriptive, counter-intuitive and complex to
me.
2. This process assumes a very strong individualistic approach to idea
development which I think is inconsistent with the reality that many
ideas evolve out of groups bouncing thing around with no individual
needing or wanting personal responsibility. I think that the
opportunity for individual idea development needs to be there but to
have a process that neglects group idea development would be a big
problem. In a collective PIN idea description, if they don't have
common ground they will be helped to see that straight away because
PIN makes all agendas clear. The bigger group will either negotiate
common ground from there or not it doesn't really matter - but that is
the path they will want to travel down and it can be traveled down
respectfully with PIN and a good decision-making process. I just think
to take it further than that becomes too artificial.
3. Even if there are enough individual ideas in the group the notion
that all would develop them at the same time is practically very
problematic when I consider the typical group setting. It makes the
application of our process a much bigger exercise (almost like a
planning day) than it needs to be. Ideas usually just bubble up or are
brought in by one person and groups simply need a way to reject them,
refer them to a smaller group or chase them. Our process just provides
a few simple tools to make that natural process they are already
following much better. Like the brainstorming of jobs it is just an
intuitive process improved by PIN and a good decision-making process
which can be as simple as a show of hands and a platform for the
minority and another show of hands.
Re decision making, I think a simplified decision-making process can
just be integrated with the silent brainstorm to form one definative
process that is easy to use for every step. We can recommend more than
this but the group will use it to the extent that they are committed
to consensus. I'll also do a draft to show you what I mean here.
There may be a few other points I'm making in the giant email but i
think these are the main issues for me.
Alex
2009/5/25 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Alex,
> Based on the case for supporting a level of group unity at the start so as
> to minimise the chances of silent dissent or complex decision making too
> early I have redrafted the Cooperator as attached. What do you think? Is it
> too complex? Would it help the objective?
> Chris
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:25 -0700
>> Subject: Co-operator - integration
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris, I started working on the section we refered people to in the
>> new draft to develop an activity name and realised that perhaps it
>> could all be integrated into one print out (The Co-operator) including
>> the decision-making process. See draft idea attached.
>> Alex
> Hi Chris,
> I can see what your trying to do here and I think it would be great if
> people could remove the tension from co-operation - just cooperating
> where there was obvious common ground but I have to say this process
> doesn't work for me on a number of levels. To try and summarise that
> giant email I just sent:
> 1. To assume that people will not launch into full blown negotiation
> and decision-making as soon as they engage with an idea is unrealistic
> in my opinion. If they fully support an idea and are coming in behind
> it they will still quickly find room for difference and while
> splitting up is always an option it is certainly not the first port of
> call as suggested in step 3-4. People will necessarily look for
> understanding and win win or even an acceptable compromise so they can
> retain the benefit of cooperation. I think people would find splitting
> up highly unsatisfactory - more than this I think they would find it
> unacceptable as a first port of call. I don't think that people think
> this way in groups and asking them to walk down this path is just too
> different. While there are exceptions, I think people are generally
> seeking common ground to cooperate from, not seeking a forum for
> personal idea expression and group division. For this reason the
> process comes across as prescriptive, counter-intuitive and complex to
> me.
> 2. This process assumes a very strong individualistic approach to idea
> development which I think is inconsistent with the reality that many
> ideas evolve out of groups bouncing thing around with no individual
> needing or wanting personal responsibility. I think that the
> opportunity for individual idea development needs to be there but to
> have a process that neglects group idea development would be a big
> problem. In a collective PIN idea description, if they don't have
> common ground they will be helped to see that straight away because
> PIN makes all agendas clear. The bigger group will either negotiate
> common ground from there or not it doesn't really matter - but that is
> the path they will want to travel down and it can be traveled down
> respectfully with PIN and a good decision-making process. I just think
> to take it further than that becomes too artificial.
> 3. Even if there are enough individual ideas in the group the notion
> that all would develop them at the same time is practically very
> problematic when I consider the typical group setting. It makes the
> application of our process a much bigger exercise (almost like a
> planning day) than it needs to be. Ideas usually just bubble up or are
> brought in by one person and groups simply need a way to reject them,
> refer them to a smaller group or chase them. Our process just provides
> a few simple tools to make that natural process they are already
> following much better. Like the brainstorming of jobs it is just an
> intuitive process improved by PIN and a good decision-making process
> which can be as simple as a show of hands and a platform for the
> minority and another show of hands.
> Re decision making, I think a simplified decision-making process can
> just be integrated with the silent brainstorm to form one definative
> process that is easy to use for every step. We can recommend more than
> this but the group will use it to the extent that they are committed
> to consensus. I'll also do a draft to show you what I mean here.
> There may be a few other points I'm making in the giant email but i
> think these are the main issues for me.
> Alex
> 2009/5/25 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> Hi Alex,
>> Based on the case for supporting a level of group unity at the start so as
>> to minimise the chances of silent dissent or complex decision making too
>> early I have redrafted the Cooperator as attached. What do you think? Is it
>> too complex? Would it help the objective?
>> Chris
>>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>>> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:25 -0700
>>> Subject: Co-operator - integration
>>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>>> Hi Chris, I started working on the section we refered people to in the
>>> new draft to develop an activity name and realised that perhaps it
>>> could all be integrated into one print out (The Co-operator) including
>>> the decision-making process. See draft idea attached.
>>> Alex
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 21:56:26 -0700
> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris,
> Attached is a draft I think could work.
> Alex
> 2009/5/25 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi Chris,
> > I can see what your trying to do here and I think it would be great if
> > people could remove the tension from co-operation - just cooperating
> > where there was obvious common ground
OK so that would be a worthwhile ideal to work towards and that is what I am doing.
You said that the natural process was for someone to say 'What are we doing for Christmas?' and then for the group to embark on an all in discussion. You said this is one reason why the process I suggest would not work - you said that my suggestion would impose an unnatural step where everyone, aside from the originator, would need to stop and wait for the originator to write a few descriptive PINs before starting.
I agree this could be an unnatural wait but it would be a very minor wait ... and anyhow, any originator of an idea would know after the first time that it was going to be the first thing called for by the process and would be more ready.
But the Cooperator's first step has been for everyone to silently brainstorm to SUGGEST activities. If we are talking about unnatural interference, this is the same unnatural interference. From Step 1, clearly the Cooperator design was to invite people to start thinking about their own ideas for ANY activity. It was not meant to be something someone would jump in with as soon as someone said 'So what are we doing for Christmas?'. It was just something to help people get organised once they had an idea.
The process you want would not do this but would inevitably mean that because the activity was not defined
but I have to say this process
> > doesn't work for me on a number of levels. To try and summarise that
> > giant email I just sent:
> > 1. To assume that people will not launch into full blown negotiation
> > and decision-making as soon as they engage with an idea is unrealistic
In the process advocated by you you do assume that people will not launch into discussion and decision making as soon as they hear an idea but will instead sit and write a few descriptive PINS.
I think your assumption is safe because the process calls for them to refrain from discussion and decision making and to write PINs instead and that's what they will do - or they won't use the Cooperator at all.
For the same reason that your assumption is safe I believe mine would be too - ie the process calls for them to act differently to what might be natural. That has been the purpose of the Cooperator - to overcome the usual problems that arise when people just do the knee jerk thing instead of following a better process.
> > in my opinion. If they fully support an idea and are coming in behind
> > it they will still quickly find room for difference
True - but the question is can that be delayed for long enough for them to get some clarity about what they are coming in behind and how they are operating. If it can be delayed until then we will have a somewhat unified group to take the next step.
and while
> > splitting up is always an option it is certainly not the first port of
> > call as suggested in step 3-4.
It can comfortably become the first port of call and can be encouraged if the overtones of splitting are first removed and if the process can support splitters just as well.
If people feel comfortable with the idea of splitting it doesn't mean they will split without first being sure it is quite necessary to do so - ie that the description they want is one which either can't be immediately accomodated, or that giving up their description would kill their interest - or that it is an activity that everyone really wants to do as a single group and will sacrifice their personal preferences for the sake of that.
People will necessarily look for
> > understanding and win win or even an acceptable compromise so they can
> > retain the benefit of cooperation.
They can do this with what I am suggesting - they just need to decide for themselves if theri difference is worth splitting for. The process you suggest supports group think - someone COULD split but it would require a stronger person to split from that than in the process I suggest
I think people would find splitting
> > up highly unsatisfactory - more than this I think they would find it
> > unacceptable as a first port of call.
Under the energy of your process I agree - I want to establish a different energy at the start.
I don't think that people think
> > this way in groups and asking them to walk down this path is just too
> > different. While there are exceptions, I think people are generally
> > seeking common ground to cooperate from, not seeking a forum for
> > personal idea expression and group division.
People who want this don't need what we offer - they will compromise and reach the lowest common denominator. Either the whole group will agree on skydiving or no one will - what a shame!
For this reason the
> > process comes across as prescriptive, counter-intuitive and complex to
> > me.
I just don't agree that it is any more or less prescriptive that the one you suggest - people still have to follow a process which is unnatural. Worse than that (whatever allowances the decision making process injects)
it is still one which supports majority views (group think) without offering any process for a minority group to achieve what they might want
> > 2. This process assumes a very strong individualistic approach to idea
> > development which I think is inconsistent with the reality that many
> > ideas evolve out of groups bouncing thing around with no individual
> > needing or wanting personal responsibility.
Not at all! Are you saying it is an individualistic, inconsistent process that makes an individual responsible just because someone needs to suggest an idea and somewhat describe it? Whatever responsibility they might feel is taken away as soon as my Step 3b occurs when they redo 3 together adding supportive descriptions. In any event, if they don't take that initial responsibility the group will do so.
I think that the
> > opportunity for individual idea development needs to be there but to
> > have a process that neglects group idea development would be a big
> > problem.
It doesn't neglect group idea development - step 3 and 4 ensure that the group does develop the idea and own it. Someone has to come up with the original idea even in a group - this process calls on them or any other individual who wants to to go a step further if it is an idea of interest to them ... or for the group to do so in the absence of a responsible originator.
In a collective PIN idea description, if they don't have
> > common ground they will be helped to see that straight away because
> > PIN makes all agendas clear. The bigger group will either negotiate
> > common ground from there
We know that they generally do negotiate an outcome - but it is a lowest common denominator outcome on an idea that was never explained in the first place. The process I suggest would not encourage a race to the bottom but cooperation around a more strongly held understanding.
or not it doesn't really matter - but that is
> > the path they will want to travel down and it can be traveled down
> > respectfully with PIN and a good decision-making process.
The decision making process would afford more respect, but neither it nor the process you want would give a minority group encouragement to proceed.
I just think
> > to take it further than that becomes too artificial.
The artificiality you identify exists in your version too - it was our purpose to cut off the natural tendencies that lead to combat and chaos.
> > 3. Even if there are enough individual ideas in the group the notion
> > that all would develop them at the same time is practically very
> > problematic
You misunderstand - I don't expect all to develop each idea at the same time. My suggestion in 3b was to "join an activity you like" and support it with consistent descriptions - or drift into a group which you can support and work on that idea.
when I consider the typical group setting. It makes the
> > application of our process a much bigger exercise (almost like a
> > planning day) than it needs to be.
Not at all - it is no bigger that what we did at the Over 50s. It doesn't even have to be as formal as that - small groups or large could form anywhere and at any time they like.
Ideas usually just bubble up or are
> > brought in by one person and groups simply need a way to reject them,
> > refer them to a smaller group or chase them.
What I suggest would take that power away from the group. The group has no right to make such decisions on ideas which some group members might want to pursue - it's up to those people to make the decision as to how they invite others into the idea and it is not the plae of the main group to chase up a smaller group. Anyone can simply join in to work on the idea as described or not.
Our process just provides
> > a few simple tools to make that natural process they are already
> > following much better.
What you have just described is a hierarchical thing where the group is in charge of individuals or smaller groups within it. This is indeed the 'natural' way groups work, but it is a way we are trying to offer an alterantive to.
In your decision making steps which you incorporated into the silent brainstorming, you wrote 'continue this until minority reduces' Would you add 'at which point the decision goes with the majority'?
Regarding the times when there is deadlock (no reduction in minority), did you see my addition referring to Talking Point in my draft? That is a process we offer to overcome situations where there is a lengthy issue or deadlock. People without computers need to refine their position through discussion. They need to engage with each other outside group time. I know most people won't have computers but we at least need to acknowledge the need for lengthy deep discussions to be had without imposing on the group.
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 21:56:26 -0700
> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris,
> Attached is a draft I think could work.
> Alex
> 2009/5/25 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi Chris,
> > I can see what your trying to do here and I think it would be great if
> > people could remove the tension from co-operation - just cooperating
> > where there was obvious common ground but I have to say this process
> > doesn't work for me on a number of levels. To try and summarise that
> > giant email I just sent:
> > 1. To assume that people will not launch into full blown negotiation
> > and decision-making as soon as they engage with an idea is unrealistic
> > in my opinion. If they fully support an idea and are coming in behind
> > it they will still quickly find room for difference and while
> > splitting up is always an option it is certainly not the first port of
> > call as suggested in step 3-4. People will necessarily look for
> > understanding and win win or even an acceptable compromise so they can
> > retain the benefit of cooperation. I think people would find splitting
> > up highly unsatisfactory - more than this I think they would find it
> > unacceptable as a first port of call. I don't think that people think
> > this way in groups and asking them to walk down this path is just too
> > different. While there are exceptions, I think people are generally
> > seeking common ground to cooperate from, not seeking a forum for
> > personal idea expression and group division. For this reason the
> > process comes across as prescriptive, counter-intuitive and complex to
> > me.
> > 2. This process assumes a very strong individualistic approach to idea
> > development which I think is inconsistent with the reality that many
> > ideas evolve out of groups bouncing thing around with no individual
> > needing or wanting personal responsibility. I think that the
> > opportunity for individual idea development needs to be there but to
> > have a process that neglects group idea development would be a big
> > problem. In a collective PIN idea description, if they don't have
> > common ground they will be helped to see that straight away because
> > PIN makes all agendas clear. The bigger group will either negotiate
> > common ground from there or not it doesn't really matter - but that is
> > the path they will want to travel down and it can be traveled down
> > respectfully with PIN and a good decision-making process. I just think
> > to take it further than that becomes too artificial.
> > 3. Even if there are enough individual ideas in the group the notion
> > that all would develop them at the same time is practically very
> > problematic when I consider the typical group setting. It makes the
> > application of our process a much bigger exercise (almost like a
> > planning day) than it needs to be. Ideas usually just bubble up or are
> > brought in by one person and groups simply need a way to reject them,
> > refer them to a smaller group or chase them. Our process just provides
> > a few simple tools to make that natural process they are already
> > following much better. Like the brainstorming of jobs it is just an
> > intuitive process improved by PIN and a good decision-making process
> > which can be as simple as a show of hands and a platform for the
> > minority and another show of hands.
> > Re decision making, I think a simplified decision-making process can
> > just be integrated with the silent brainstorm to form one definative
> > process that is easy to use for every step. We can recommend more than
> > this but the group will use it to the extent that they are committed
> > to consensus. I'll also do a draft to show you what I mean here.
> > There may be a few other points I'm making in the giant email but i
> > think these are the main issues for me.
> > Alex
> > 2009/5/25 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> Hi Alex,
> >> Based on the case for supporting a level of group unity at the start so as
> >> to minimise the chances of silent dissent or complex decision making too
> >> early I have redrafted the Cooperator as attached. What do you think? Is it
> >> too complex? Would it help the objective?
> >> Chris
> >>> Hi Chris, I started working on the section we refered people to in the
> >>> new draft to develop an activity name and realised that perhaps it
> >>> could all be integrated into one print out (The Co-operator) including
> >>> the decision-making process. See draft idea attached.
> >>> Alex
2009/5/26 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Alex,
> In your decision making steps which you incorporated into the silent
> brainstorming, you wrote 'continue this until minority reduces' Would you
> add 'at which point the decision goes with the majority'?
My new draft does this I think - very limited word opportunity as this
is a poster which is already a bit too wordy.
> Regarding the times when there is deadlock (no reduction in minority), did
> you see my addition referring to Talking Point in my draft? That is a
> process we offer to overcome situations where there is a lengthy issue or
> deadlock.
>People without computers need to refine their position through
> discussion. They need to engage with each other outside group time. I know
> most people won't have computers but we at least need to acknowledge the
> need for lengthy deep discussions to be had without imposing on the group.
Depending on the groups interest and commitment to consensus I think
they will either keep discussion going or simply go with majority rule
- this will leave minorities to either go along with majority or start
a new activity - our suggestion to give minority a voice is probably
about as much as we can do. I know this may be another point of
contention but I see no real potential for a reference to TP on the
poster - it just seems like concept overload to me. I think we should
have a decision making link under the Co-operator tool link which
provides a context for the decision-making process we recommend (the
draft you did) and the link to wiki and we can refer people to TP and
the need for it here also.
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 21:56:26 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris,
>> Attached is a draft I think could work.
>> Alex
>> 2009/5/25 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
>> > Hi Chris,
>> > I can see what your trying to do here and I think it would be great if
>> > people could remove the tension from co-operation - just cooperating
>> > where there was obvious common ground but I have to say this process
>> > doesn't work for me on a number of levels. To try and summarise that
>> > giant email I just sent:
>> > 1. To assume that people will not launch into full blown negotiation
>> > and decision-making as soon as they engage with an idea is unrealistic
>> > in my opinion. If they fully support an idea and are coming in behind
>> > it they will still quickly find room for difference and while
>> > splitting up is always an option it is certainly not the first port of
>> > call as suggested in step 3-4. People will necessarily look for
>> > understanding and win win or even an acceptable compromise so they can
>> > retain the benefit of cooperation. I think people would find splitting
>> > up highly unsatisfactory - more than this I think they would find it
>> > unacceptable as a first port of call. I don't think that people think
>> > this way in groups and asking them to walk down this path is just too
>> > different. While there are exceptions, I think people are generally
>> > seeking common ground to cooperate from, not seeking a forum for
>> > personal idea expression and group division. For this reason the
>> > process comes across as prescriptive, counter-intuitive and complex to
>> > me.
>> > 2. This process assumes a very strong individualistic approach to idea
>> > development which I think is inconsistent with the reality that many
>> > ideas evolve out of groups bouncing thing around with no individual
>> > needing or wanting personal responsibility. I think that the
>> > opportunity for individual idea development needs to be there but to
>> > have a process that neglects group idea development would be a big
>> > problem. In a collective PIN idea description, if they don't have
>> > common ground they will be helped to see that straight away because
>> > PIN makes all agendas clear. The bigger group will either negotiate
>> > common ground from there or not it doesn't really matter - but that is
>> > the path they will want to travel down and it can be traveled down
>> > respectfully with PIN and a good decision-making process. I just think
>> > to take it further than that becomes too artificial.
>> > 3. Even if there are enough individual ideas in the group the notion
>> > that all would develop them at the same time is practically very
>> > problematic when I consider the typical group setting. It makes the
>> > application of our process a much bigger exercise (almost like a
>> > planning day) than it needs to be. Ideas usually just bubble up or are
>> > brought in by one person and groups simply need a way to reject them,
>> > refer them to a smaller group or chase them. Our process just provides
>> > a few simple tools to make that natural process they are already
>> > following much better. Like the brainstorming of jobs it is just an
>> > intuitive process improved by PIN and a good decision-making process
>> > which can be as simple as a show of hands and a platform for the
>> > minority and another show of hands.
>> > Re decision making, I think a simplified decision-making process can
>> > just be integrated with the silent brainstorm to form one definative
>> > process that is easy to use for every step. We can recommend more than
>> > this but the group will use it to the extent that they are committed
>> > to consensus. I'll also do a draft to show you what I mean here.
>> > There may be a few other points I'm making in the giant email but i
>> > think these are the main issues for me.
>> > Alex
>> > 2009/5/25 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> Hi Alex,
>> >> Based on the case for supporting a level of group unity at the start so
>> >> as
>> >> to minimise the chances of silent dissent or complex decision making
>> >> too
>> >> early I have redrafted the Cooperator as attached. What do you think?
>> >> Is it
>> >> too complex? Would it help the objective?
>> >> Chris
>> >>> Hi Chris, I started working on the section we refered people to in the
>> >>> new draft to develop an activity name and realised that perhaps it
>> >>> could all be integrated into one print out (The Co-operator) including
>> >>> the decision-making process. See draft idea attached.
>> >>> Alex
Hi Chris, I have attached a new draft here. There are so many changes
I wasn't able to show them all. One of the key ones is that I dropped
the brainstorm for the title. I think this is unnecessary because once
they sort out the description the name should easily come. On the
other hand if they try and do a title I think they will have to have
much the same discussion as they would to find an activity
description.
I've also dropped some things I thought made it all look too complex
like the little notes in each box and the silent brainstorm has been
re-arranged so that all the PINs go up and are then discussed. You'll
need to refer to your old copy to see all the changes - sorry I don't
know how else to demonstrate them to you. If the logic isn't clear for
the change I'm sure you'll question it.
I think this process would be pretty straight forward and intuitive
for an individual or a group to follow and could be done pretty
quickly. It is perhaps still a little complicated and may stil need a
bit of simplifying.
> 2009/5/26 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> Hi Alex,
>> In your decision making steps which you incorporated into the silent
>> brainstorming, you wrote 'continue this until minority reduces' Would you
>> add 'at which point the decision goes with the majority'?
> My new draft does this I think - very limited word opportunity as this
> is a poster which is already a bit too wordy.
>> Regarding the times when there is deadlock (no reduction in minority), did
>> you see my addition referring to Talking Point in my draft? That is a
>> process we offer to overcome situations where there is a lengthy issue or
>> deadlock.
>>People without computers need to refine their position through
>> discussion. They need to engage with each other outside group time. I know
>> most people won't have computers but we at least need to acknowledge the
>> need for lengthy deep discussions to be had without imposing on the group.
> Depending on the groups interest and commitment to consensus I think
> they will either keep discussion going or simply go with majority rule
> - this will leave minorities to either go along with majority or start
> a new activity - our suggestion to give minority a voice is probably
> about as much as we can do. I know this may be another point of
> contention but I see no real potential for a reference to TP on the
> poster - it just seems like concept overload to me. I think we should
> have a decision making link under the Co-operator tool link which
> provides a context for the decision-making process we recommend (the
> draft you did) and the link to wiki and we can refer people to TP and
> the need for it here also.
> Alex
>> Chris
>>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>>> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 21:56:26 -0700
>>> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
>>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> Attached is a draft I think could work.
>>> Alex
>>> 2009/5/25 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
>>> > Hi Chris,
>>> > I can see what your trying to do here and I think it would be great if
>>> > people could remove the tension from co-operation - just cooperating
>>> > where there was obvious common ground but I have to say this process
>>> > doesn't work for me on a number of levels. To try and summarise that
>>> > giant email I just sent:
>>> > 1. To assume that people will not launch into full blown negotiation
>>> > and decision-making as soon as they engage with an idea is unrealistic
>>> > in my opinion. If they fully support an idea and are coming in behind
>>> > it they will still quickly find room for difference and while
>>> > splitting up is always an option it is certainly not the first port of
>>> > call as suggested in step 3-4. People will necessarily look for
>>> > understanding and win win or even an acceptable compromise so they can
>>> > retain the benefit of cooperation. I think people would find splitting
>>> > up highly unsatisfactory - more than this I think they would find it
>>> > unacceptable as a first port of call. I don't think that people think
>>> > this way in groups and asking them to walk down this path is just too
>>> > different. While there are exceptions, I think people are generally
>>> > seeking common ground to cooperate from, not seeking a forum for
>>> > personal idea expression and group division. For this reason the
>>> > process comes across as prescriptive, counter-intuitive and complex to
>>> > me.
>>> > 2. This process assumes a very strong individualistic approach to idea
>>> > development which I think is inconsistent with the reality that many
>>> > ideas evolve out of groups bouncing thing around with no individual
>>> > needing or wanting personal responsibility. I think that the
>>> > opportunity for individual idea development needs to be there but to
>>> > have a process that neglects group idea development would be a big
>>> > problem. In a collective PIN idea description, if they don't have
>>> > common ground they will be helped to see that straight away because
>>> > PIN makes all agendas clear. The bigger group will either negotiate
>>> > common ground from there or not it doesn't really matter - but that is
>>> > the path they will want to travel down and it can be traveled down
>>> > respectfully with PIN and a good decision-making process. I just think
>>> > to take it further than that becomes too artificial.
>>> > 3. Even if there are enough individual ideas in the group the notion
>>> > that all would develop them at the same time is practically very
>>> > problematic when I consider the typical group setting. It makes the
>>> > application of our process a much bigger exercise (almost like a
>>> > planning day) than it needs to be. Ideas usually just bubble up or are
>>> > brought in by one person and groups simply need a way to reject them,
>>> > refer them to a smaller group or chase them. Our process just provides
>>> > a few simple tools to make that natural process they are already
>>> > following much better. Like the brainstorming of jobs it is just an
>>> > intuitive process improved by PIN and a good decision-making process
>>> > which can be as simple as a show of hands and a platform for the
>>> > minority and another show of hands.
>>> > Re decision making, I think a simplified decision-making process can
>>> > just be integrated with the silent brainstorm to form one definative
>>> > process that is easy to use for every step. We can recommend more than
>>> > this but the group will use it to the extent that they are committed
>>> > to consensus. I'll also do a draft to show you what I mean here.
>>> > There may be a few other points I'm making in the giant email but i
>>> > think these are the main issues for me.
>>> > Alex
>>> > 2009/5/25 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>>> >> Hi Alex,
>>> >> Based on the case for supporting a level of group unity at the start so
>>> >> as
>>> >> to minimise the chances of silent dissent or complex decision making
>>> >> too
>>> >> early I have redrafted the Cooperator as attached. What do you think?
>>> >> Is it
>>> >> too complex? Would it help the objective?
>>> >> Chris
>>> >>> Hi Chris, I started working on the section we refered people to in the
>>> >>> new draft to develop an activity name and realised that perhaps it
>>> >>> could all be integrated into one print out (The Co-operator) including
>>> >>> the decision-making process. See draft idea attached.
>>> >>> Alex
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 05:51:12 -0700
> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, see below
> 2009/5/26 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > In your decision making steps which you incorporated into the silent
> > brainstorming, you wrote 'continue this until minority reduces' Would you
> > add 'at which point the decision goes with the majority'?
> My new draft does this I think - very limited word opportunity as this
> is a poster which is already a bit too wordy.
My question was not meant as a request to insert this clarification, but to find out if that was how you intend your process to conclude. I understand it is your intention to use majority rule and that strikes me as contrary to NTW for which the Cooperator is primarily created. Majority rules is also related to the idea that the group should initiate the description - let me explain.
Unless NTW and its Cooperator process is there primarily to support the individual and the minority to cooperate to achieve things we know are minority projects (like social and environmentally sustainable living rather than consumerism), minorities or individuals wanting to do such things that the social majority won't support will always be outvoted - ie it is a process that would undermine individuals or minorities with NTW's aims.
The only way for a minority interest to get something off the ground is for what it intends to be described first, thus specifically attracting the minority interest and discouraging the majority voter from getting involved because they are not interested.
That is not to say that social majority groups couldn't use the Co-operator for organising their interest (eg consumer) - any idea would benefit from the Cooperator, including a consumer idea which could likewise support social majority cooperation.
The process I suggest would have no less appeal to the social majority, but it would empower the individual and the minority.
What you propose would disempower the minority and your minimised concession to allow the minority some extra time to speak is bound to be ineffective because (in the absence of a minority description), they are bound to be in the context of social majority groupthink.
The individual or the minority have the option to leave as you say, but because the process you suggest always ends up in the social majority's hands it is not one that would support minority projects or ideas. Worse than that, leaving is too difficult a decision in your process - it would set you up as being against the group and banished.
My process would avoid that because it would be legitimate to drift without implying criticism and you would have a supportive process to re-establish your idea within a smaller group consistent with your interest.
I feel as though we are not really discussing this issue yet, just presenting opposing drafts which come out of different perspectives.
The concrete points seem to be
Whether to strongly encourage activity description by the originator of an idea as the first step in the process before opening it up to group collaboration
From Alex 25.5
"I'm suggesting that we should encourage 1 and 2 to be done privately"
The question then becomes how do we encourage this and should it be an integrated part of the process. If so, how?
Whether to strongly discourage those with contrary descriptions in mind from joining the 'idea development group' that forms around it at step 3 .... and so to reinforce a group identity also at the outset to identify joiners as being united by the idea described thus far.
I believe you think it would be ideal to start with a group that began with some common understanding of the proposal, but you think this can't be done without being too prescriptive, or making the process difficult &/or complicated. (I'm not sure how this sits with your support for encouraging private description by the originator)
What decision making process can be encouraged to support (without requiring) the ideal of unanimity
Although you have upheld this in the past, I don't think your revised decision making process reflects this.
I am also concerned that TP isn't offered. As we have identified, a separate forum is needed by any group to avoid the issues it is designed for (time wasting, lack of focus, unnecessary meetings, complex issues etc). As well as to giving any group a needed forumIt serves NTW purposes for engagement of its potential in minority social interests.
I think you have been too quick to reject its inclusion in the process.
Perhaps I should tell you what I understand of your perspective so you will know that I do take it on board.
I know that in the past you have made your commitment to these principles clear.
Your focus now is to draft a process that is as uncomplicated as possible.
You think that the way I propose to incorporate the ideals adds too much complexity to the draft and makes it unworkable.
The challenge would seem to be to do drafting that upholds all the ideals and is workable.
In your current draft, your step one does not encourage private description by the originator - it's barely mentioned and only as an option which in a group process would be overtaken by the group.
You mentioned elsewhere a form that originators could take away to work on as a separate process to the Cooperator - is that what you are still relying on? I can't see how this has any chance of success ... but if you do I need to see a Cooperator draft that reflects this.
Regarding decision making I can't see how your suggestion which deletes 50%+X upholds the ideal of consensus.
> > Regarding the times when there is deadlock (no reduction in minority), did
> > you see my addition referring to Talking Point in my draft? That is a
> > process we offer to overcome situations where there is a lengthy issue or
> > deadlock.
> >People without computers need to refine their position through
> > discussion. They need to engage with each other outside group time. I know
> > most people won't have computers but we at least need to acknowledge the
> > need for lengthy deep discussions to be had without imposing on the group.
> Depending on the groups interest and commitment to consensus I think
> they will either keep discussion going or simply go with majority rule
> - this will leave minorities to either go along with majority or start
> a new activity - our suggestion to give minority a voice is probably
> about as much as we can do. I know this may be another point of
> contention but I see no real potential for a reference to TP on the
> poster - it just seems like concept overload to me. I think we should
> have a decision making link under the Co-operator tool link which
> provides a context for the decision-making process we recommend (the
> draft you did) and the link to wiki and we can refer people to TP and
> the need for it here also.
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> Attached is a draft I think could work.
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/5/25 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Chris,
> >> > I can see what your trying to do here and I think it would be great if
> >> > people could remove the tension from co-operation - just cooperating
> >> > where there was obvious common ground but I have to say this process
> >> > doesn't work for me on a number of levels. To try and summarise that
> >> > giant email I just sent:
> >> > 1. To assume that people will not launch into full blown negotiation
> >> > and decision-making as soon as they engage with an idea is unrealistic
> >> > in my opinion. If they fully support an idea and are coming in behind
> >> > it they will still quickly find room for difference and while
> >> > splitting up is always an option it is certainly not the first port of
> >> > call as suggested in step 3-4. People will necessarily look for
> >> > understanding and win win or even an acceptable compromise so they can
> >> > retain the benefit of cooperation. I think people would find splitting
> >> > up highly unsatisfactory - more than this I think they would find it
> >> > unacceptable as a first port of call. I don't think that people think
> >> > this way in groups and asking them to walk down this path is just too
> >> > different. While there are exceptions, I think people are generally
> >> > seeking common ground to cooperate from, not seeking a forum for
> >> > personal idea expression and group division. For this reason the
> >> > process comes across as prescriptive, counter-intuitive and complex to
> >> > me.
> >> > 2. This process assumes a very strong individualistic approach to idea
> >> > development which I think is inconsistent with the reality that many
> >> > ideas evolve out of groups bouncing thing around with no individual
> >> > needing or wanting personal responsibility. I think that the
> >> > opportunity for individual idea development needs to be there but to
> >> > have a process that neglects group idea development would be a big
> >> > problem. In a collective PIN idea description, if they don't have
> >> > common ground they will be helped to see that straight away because
> >> > PIN makes all agendas clear. The bigger group will either negotiate
> >> > common ground from there or not it doesn't really matter - but that is
> >> > the path they will want to travel down and it can be traveled down
> >> > respectfully with PIN and a good decision-making
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 05:51:12 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris, see below
>> 2009/5/26 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > In your decision making steps which you incorporated into the silent
>> > brainstorming, you wrote 'continue this until minority reduces' Would
>> > you
>> > add 'at which point the decision goes with the majority'?
>> My new draft does this I think - very limited word opportunity as this
>> is a poster which is already a bit too wordy.
> My question was not meant as a request to insert this clarification, but to
> find out if that was how you intend your process to conclude. I understand
> it is your intention to use majority rule and that strikes me as contrary to
> NTW for which the Cooperator is primarily created.
In the instance where minority vote stagnates or is reduced your
decision-making draft proposed that the decision should go with a
majority. We discussed this the other day and I thought we agreed that
this would be the case unless the issue was constitutional and
required full consensus. How is my draft inconsistent with that?
>Majority rules is also
> related to the idea that the group should initiate the description - let me
> explain.
> Unless NTW and its Cooperator process is there primarily to support the
> individual and the minority to cooperate to achieve things we know are
> minority projects (like social and environmentally sustainable living rather
> than consumerism), minorities or individuals wanting to do such things that
> the social majority won't support will always be outvoted - ie it is a
> process that would undermine individuals or minorities with NTW's aims.
> The only way for a minority interest to get something off the ground is for
> what it intends to be described first, thus specifically attracting the
> minority interest and discouraging the majority voter from getting involved
> because they are not interested.
> That is not to say that social majority groups couldn't use the Co-operator
> for organising their interest (eg consumer) - any idea would benefit from
> the Cooperator, including a consumer idea which could likewise support
> social majority cooperation.
> The process I suggest would have no less appeal to the social majority, but
> it would empower the individual and the minority.
As you will see in my latest draft step one is presented as either a
group process or an individual process. If an individual chooses to
describe the project (and this is an if because in many instances they
wont want to by themselves) the effect is as you say that individuals
establish the basis of the activity and this is foundational to who
gets involved and the future direction of the activity.
> What you propose would disempower the minority and your minimised concession
> to allow the minority some extra time to speak is bound to be ineffective
> because (in the absence of a minority description), they are bound to be in
> the context of social majority groupthink.
Why do you think it is so minimised - it is in the context of
discussing a specific idea-card so the process needs to be streamlined
but I don't think it is any different to the process you presented in
the decision-making draft which it came from. There is not an 'absense
of a minority description' it is clearly offered as one of two ways to
fill in step one. I think the reality of the group setting demands
that we have both options available.
> The individual or the minority have the option to leave as you say, but
> because the process you suggest always ends up in the social majority's
> hands it is not one that would support minority projects or ideas. Worse
> than that, leaving is too difficult a decision in your process - it would
> set you up as being against the group and banished.
An individual can describe an activity for others to join and in the
case where a group described an activity and a minority didn't like
it, their banishment depends solely on how difficult they plan to be
about not getting their minority way. On one extreme they can just
politely remove themselves after the step 1 description doesn't go
their way and on the other extreme they can make one hell of a fuss -
the process you recommend, where people only join activities they
describe or have been already described by others is different only in
one regard - it makes no allowance for a group to describe an
activity and I have said why I think this is not workable. I have
tried to include both group and individual processes because I know
they are both essential.
> My process would avoid that because it would be legitimate to drift without
> implying criticism and you would have a supportive process to re-establish
> your idea within a smaller group consistent with your interest.
This point boils down to one thing - you are ruling out group
descriptions of an activity. I don't think that is workable. If we are
going to have a way groups can describe an activity than individuals
must be able to leave if the description isn't what they want. Yes
when an individual describes an activity another individual can take
it or leave it but this is only one way activities bubble up.
> I feel as though we are not really discussing this issue yet, just
> presenting opposing drafts which come out of different perspectives.
> The concrete points seem to be
> Whether to strongly encourage activity description by the originator of an
> idea as the first step in the process before opening it up to
> group collaboration
That's assuming their is one originator of an idea - in some cases
there is in some there is not. In the Christmas example I gave you
where one person (the originator presumably) says what are we doing
for xmas this year and the activity ball rolls from there our process
would be next to useless if it required an individual description from
that person developed in parallel to other activity descriptions.
After a rather unnatural group process of personal rather than
collective activity you then end up with a whole bunch of activities
that people must try and assess and if they want any hope of having an
xmas party with anyone other than themselves they have to try and get
their heads around everyone else's ideas and merge with them.
Practically this is the way ideas come up and having a way that they
can work together and see together each others description and
negotiate is essential - this is the intuitive direction. In the case
where an individual does have a specific plan (which also is likely)
they can use the exact same step to present this plan to others and
find support.
> From Alex 25.5
> "I'm suggesting that we should encourage 1 and 2 to be done privately"
> The question then becomes how do we encourage this and should it be an
> integrated part of the process. If so, how?
I have integrated this in my last draft. It may not have the emphasis
you think is needed but it does make allowance for a practical
application.
> Whether to strongly discourage those with contrary descriptions in mind from
> joining the 'idea development group' that forms around it at step 3 .... and
> so to reinforce a group identity also at the outset to identify joiners as
> being united by the idea described thus far.
People are in a group because they are like minded and want to develop
things and proceed as a group - if a person has a clear agenda they
should develop their own description and seek support based on it. If
they don't get their agenda furthered through a group process to their
satisfaction they are likely to use the individual description the
next time. If they are only offered a personal process I don't think
they will use it at all - it's complicated and counter-intuitive in a
group setting.
> I believe you think it would be ideal to start with a group that began
> with some common understanding of the proposal, but you think this can't be
> done without being too prescriptive, or making the process difficult
> &/or complicated. (I'm not sure how this sits with your support for
> encouraging private description by the originator)
I propose two options as per my last draft.
> What decision making process can be encouraged to support (without
> requiring) the ideal of unanimity
> Although you have upheld this in the past, I don't think your revised
> decision making process reflects this.
It reflects the draft you gave and the discussions we have had for the
past two weeks - unanimity only insisted on in constitutional matters
and a process of hearing minority views until the shrink or stagnate.
> I am also concerned that TP isn't offered. As we have identified, a separate
> forum is needed by any group to avoid the issues it is designed for (time
> wasting, lack of focus, unnecessary meetings, complex issues etc). As well
> as to giving any group a needed forumIt serves NTW purposes for engagement
> of its potential in minority social interests.
I Know TP has to be part of the mix and I'm looking for a place for it
but to start talking about TP in the middle of the poster where we are
putting many other concepts in a poster format has overload issues
> I think you have been too quick to reject its inclusion in the process.
I think it does need to be included I'm just not sure where. The third
sheet that refers people to the computer to improve and deepen the
cooperator may be the place. We must remember there are clear limits
to how much can be done in a poster or group setting.
...
> >> 2009/5/26 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > In your decision making steps which you incorporated into the silent
> >> > brainstorming, you wrote 'continue this until minority reduces' Would
> >> > you
> >> > add 'at which point the decision goes with the majority'?
> >> My new draft does this I think - very limited word opportunity as this
> >> is a poster which is already a bit too wordy.
> > My question was not meant as a request to insert this clarification, but to
> > find out if that was how you intend your process to conclude. I understand
> > it is your intention to use majority rule and that strikes me as contrary to
> > NTW for which the Cooperator is primarily created.
> In the instance where minority vote stagnates or is reduced your
> decision-making draft proposed that the decision should go with a
> majority. We discussed this the other day and I thought we agreed that
> this would be the case unless the issue was constitutional and
> required full consensus. How is my draft inconsistent with that?
Because although we did discuss this aspect of the decision making process I supplied your editing of that process has now deleted the 50%+X. One interpretation of this which could only be made out of the context of the draft from which the 50%+x was drawn is that 51% is 50%+x, but we both know well that is not what was meant. Its purpose was to encourage groups to acknowledge the ideal of 100% agreement and to move from whatever value they wanted to place on x to a progressively higher value until 100%. There is nothing of that in the process you provide - just a flat majority which is the usual model that is contrary to the ideal.
> >Majority rules is also
> > related to the idea that the group should initiate the description - let me
> > explain.
> > Unless NTW and its Cooperator process is there primarily to support the
> > individual and the minority to cooperate to achieve things we know are
> > minority projects (like social and environmentally sustainable living rather
> > than consumerism), minorities or individuals wanting to do such things that
> > the social majority won't support will always be outvoted - ie it is a
> > process that would undermine individuals or minorities with NTW's aims.
> > The only way for a minority interest to get something off the ground is for
> > what it intends to be described first, thus specifically attracting the
> > minority interest and discouraging the majority voter from getting involved
> > because they are not interested.
> > That is not to say that social majority groups couldn't use the Co-operator
> > for organising their interest (eg consumer) - any idea would benefit from
> > the Cooperator, including a consumer idea which could likewise support
> > social majority cooperation.
> > The process I suggest would have no less appeal to the social majority, but
> > it would empower the individual and the minority.
> As you will see in my latest draft step one is presented as either a
> group process or an individual process.
If the ideal is for the originator to offer some description before the group takes an idea over I am certain that the way you have given this as an individual option is guaranteed to be too little too late, and I'm sure you could clearly see this.
Once the poster goes down in front of a group they will read the large print and be off - the originator will be just one on the group. The only likely way for an originator to set the scene is for them to have described the idea somewhat before suggesting anything to anyone (UNLIKELY) - OR for them to be asked by the poster to take that step right there and then. For that to happen, the invitation to do so would have to be Step 1 of the process and would have to be as big as the invitation to the group to brainstorm their additions to the description.
If an individual chooses to
> describe the project (and this is an if because in many instances they
> wont want to by themselves) the effect is as you say that individuals
> establish the basis of the activity and this is foundational to who
> gets involved and the future direction of the activity.
We both agree that individuals will probably not go away by themselves to take this ideal step - therefore it would be good to have it as Step 1 in the process when the poster goes down in a group setting.
> > What you propose would disempower the minority and your minimised concession
> > to allow the minority some extra time to speak is bound to be ineffective
> > because (in the absence of a minority description), they are bound to be in
> > the context of social majority groupthink.
> Why do you think it is so minimised
It is minimised compared to the original which was 3 minutes. I am not saying it should be 3 mins here. I am saying that this reduction along with the fact that there is no procedural encouragement to increase x and the inevitability that the group will take off making their own definition which will inevitably tend towards social majority attitudes will mean that individuals with minority views will inevitably be overtaken.
- it is in the context of
> discussing a specific idea-card so the process needs to be streamlined
> but I don't think it is any different to the process you presented in
> the decision-making draft which it came from.
There is no longer any process to encourage growth to unanimity - and taken as a whole with the factors above it becomes just a social majority rules thing.
There is not an 'absense
> of a minority description' it is clearly offered as one of two ways to
> fill in step one.
As I say above, it is not an offer but a faded and bound to be swamped option which we both agree no one will take away.
I think the reality of the group setting demands
> that we have both options available.
The option for the group to proceed without this idea description should be in the faded small writing and the encouragement for the originator to write a few tickets should be as bold as the current invite to the group to just start.
> > The individual or the minority have the option to leave as you say, but
> > because the process you suggest always ends up in the social majority's
> > hands it is not one that would support minority projects or ideas. Worse
> > than that, leaving is too difficult a decision in your process - it would
> > set you up as being against the group and banished.
> An individual can describe an activity for others to join
... only if they read the fine print in Step 1 and don't make the mistake of doing what the process calls for - ie to put this poster in front of the group.
and in the
> case where a group described an activity and a minority didn't like
> it, their banishment depends solely on how difficult they plan to be
> about not getting their minority way.
Yes, but remember that sustainability ideas will be a minority idea in a majority ruled by consumerism. The challenge is to create a space for them the minority where they do not have to be either compliant or banished because they are being difficult for the social majority.
On one extreme they can just
> politely remove themselves after the step 1 description doesn't go
> their way
I covered this option in my earlier post when I said that unless they then go and modify the process we recommended and describe their idea beforehand, they will never find a setting where that doesn't continue to happen to them.
> and on the other extreme they can make one hell of a fuss -
They can make all the fuss they like - they will be outvoted every time if they are in a group with a social majority perspective.
> the process you recommend, where people only join activities they
> describe or have been already described by others is different only in
> one regard - it makes no allowance for a group to describe an
> activity and I have said why I think this is not workable.
I have never excluded group adding to the definition - in the draft I did it was clearly identified in red immediately after Step 2. I see nothing unworkable in that. I acknowledge that there could then be a misinterpretation of PINs that could mean someone wrongly thought they were suggesting a supportive description when they were being contrary, but that would be immediately recognised and either they would negotiate or would leave because everyone had understood that the process was to develop the idea with positive additions. In this situation there would be no animosity, just a clarification of purpose as understood by the majority. That clarification would support the idea put forward whether it be a social minority idea or a social majority idea the group had formed around.
I have
> tried to include both group and individual processes because I know
> they are both essential.
The draft I supplied certainly did this. The one you supplied would go straight to the group because as we agree, individuals will not take an idea away to prepare a presentation and there is not Step in the Cooperator for them to do it in the group.
Hi Chris, I'm getting to your other email but below I have tried to
respond to your latest cooperator draft point for point.
1. . Use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ below to suggest ACTIVITY NAME/S
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
it is unclear who this is intended for an individual a group?? This
could be fixed with a word or two.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2. Stick a chosen
ACTIVITY NAME here:
3. Now use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to DESCRIBE that Activity so others
might join
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
It is now clear here that it is an individual you are referring to and
NOT a group
It is not a matter of a word change here - this step necessarily rules
out group idea development – because the following steps would make no
sense if this step allowed a group description. As groups will want to
develop ideas together this makes the process unworkable in what I
think are going to be many instances where a group want to proceed as
a group – they have one basic idea and there is no one originator.
While I also see a need for an individual description for all the
reasons you say, I also like the group aspect of the description
process and believe it contains very important values of its own like
group, as opposed to individual, ownership of an idea. As in consensus
I think a group definition, where an individual isn’t in control
because they are clearly not the ‘originator’, can provide an
important activity foundation of it’s own. I see your argument about
the majority and the need for the individual or the minority to assert
themselves but I think the whole story can be told in reverse as well
- where the originator becomes the leader, the powerful individualist,
and it is the group and the group knowledge and voice that is
alienated. I'd like to have a process that can be used both ways but
your process necessarily can't because the description is always
started by an originator and if you alter that what follows makes no
sense.
This is also very awkward if it is done in a group setting – how do
you address one idea at a time - which is the natural inclination of a
group? Do you need a situation where every goup memebr has an idea
before one idea can be developed? Do you have to have a major planning
session every time you want to organise one activity? I’d like to make
using this process as casual as possible so that it can be started
without even thinking.... "What are we doing for xmas" - and the PINs
start flowing - we are not far off this now because all they need to
do is a description and jobs brainstorm - two intuitive brainstorms
which if done in two 5 min sessions and some discussion can happen
quite naturally. This can't be compared to what you are suggesting.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Join the Activity you like, then redo 3 together, but only adding
descriptions that all immediately agree to.
(If a description you want included is not, leave & start by yourself
at step 1.)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You have written this as one small (16 point ) sentence on the poster
but it is by far the biggest part of the whole process you recommend
– let me explain what I mean.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Join the Activity you like"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Tobe accessible this should be a step in itself. It involves people
(20 in the over 50s) looking at and getting their head around 20
descriptions. Which ones do they join? What if they want to join all
20? How are these displayed? Are people walking around the room?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
redo 3 together
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This should also be a step in itself to be accessible as it's even
bigger than the last process – it involves 20 people doing potentially
19 new brainstorms – all this while also accepting or rejecting 19
brainstorms being added to their own activity. This is expediential –
there are now 361 (19x19) brainstorms supposed to be happening
simultaneously, and all while each of them are supposed to be
accepting or rejecting 19 brainstorms on their own activity.
At the end of all this who added what to what – what’s in and what’s
out? If this is as unworkable as I’m suggesting, what’s the
alternative… to do all 20 activities one at a time? That is also not
going to happen as it would exhaust the group. Do you just let the
originator do their brainstorm and make 20 separate meeting? That’s
not going to happen for obvious resaons. You might think the number of
20 is excessive but even if you make it a group of 5 the numbers are
unworkable and we must assume 20+.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"...but only adding descriptions that all immediately agree to.
(If a description you want included is not, leave & start by yourself
at step 1.)"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This is also quite a concept and would need its own presence on the
poster to be comprehendable. But even if we managed that attempting to
avoidi the need for decision-making doesn’t work at all in my opinion.
I think this process will involve as much discussion as starting from
scratch and will only be made more agonizing by the juggling of
numerous parallel processes. The idea that an ‘originator’ will
happily just reject (or a new contributor will simply accept a
rejection) of an addition and move on is unworkable to me. I don’t
think such defeat in attempts to cooperate will ever be accepted or
taken lightly by people. They will naturally want to understand each
other better – hence unavoidable discussion and decision-making. You
may disagree but the fact that there is even a chance of this makes
this step in the process hopeful - something it obviously can't be.
This process recommendation goes against the grain of group
participation - which is to act as a group and seek understanding.
People wont do it.
That they should just walk away and start at 1 again just continues
the already expediential nature of this process - now it’s 20 + 20
activities and all the brainstorms that are supposed to go along with
it.
In conclusion, these processes you have added in one sentence in 16
point to the poster have implications that are much bigger and more
involved than all 4 of the other steps combined. I just can’t see how
a group or individual would get their head around it let alone pull it
off.
We know that this process must be simple and intuitive to have any
chance of success. I think this is neither simple nor intuitive for
the reasons I have stated above and to even begin trying to make it so
is very difficult for me because from step one the group has
necessarily lost the chance to use the process for something I think
they will want to use it for – developing the description together
(not on the back of an originator's description).
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
4. Now use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to suggest JOBS for the agreed activity
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
People have done 20 (+ brekaways) brainstorms each already. I don’t
think that people will look happily on the notion that they now face
doing job brainstorms for jobs on 20+ activities.
All up in a group the size of the over 50s group this process
recommends up to 40 (+ break away brain storms) each. Even in a group
of only 5 people they would have to do as many as 10brainstorms +
breakaways each. This compared to the 2 brainstorms each (description
and job list) of the process I’m recommending – no matter what the
size of the group.
This process becomes unviable the moment people present parallel
personal brainstorms and that is very early and foundational to this
whole approach so reforming the idea is not really possible.
The part which I think can be taken out of this is that an individual
(away from the group) can develop and set down their own activity
description and at a time when they and the group agree they can put
it in front of the group and see if any cooperation is possible – even
if there is only one person, they have found them and they can meet
together. If I have under emphasized this personal option I’m happy to
consider how the emphasis could be worked on but to begin from your
draft, which necessarily excludes a group description excepton the
back of an originators description, or try and include your new steps
just seems far too problematic to me.
Alex
2009/5/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> 2009/5/26 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > In your decision making steps which you incorporated into the silent
>> >> > brainstorming, you wrote 'continue this until minority reduces' Would
>> >> > you
>> >> > add 'at which point the decision goes with the majority'?
>> >> My new draft does this I think - very limited word opportunity as this
>> >> is a poster which is already a bit too wordy.
>> > My question was not meant as a request to insert this clarification, but
>> > to
>> > find out if that was how you intend your
>> >> 2009/5/26 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > In your decision making steps which you incorporated into the silent
>> >> > brainstorming, you wrote 'continue this until minority reduces' Would
>> >> > you
>> >> > add 'at which point the decision goes with the majority'?
>> >> My new draft does this I think - very limited word opportunity as this
>> >> is a poster which is already a bit too wordy.
>> > My question was not meant as a request to insert this clarification, but
>> > to
>> > find out if that was how you intend your process to conclude. I
>> > understand
>> > it is your intention to use majority rule and that strikes me as
>> > contrary to
>> > NTW for which the Cooperator is primarily created.
>> In the instance where minority vote stagnates or is reduced your
>> decision-making draft proposed that the decision should go with a
>> majority. We discussed this the other day and I thought we agreed that
>> this would be the case unless the issue was constitutional and
>> required full consensus. How is my draft inconsistent with that?
> Because although we did discuss this aspect of the decision making process I
> supplied your editing of that process has now deleted the 50%+X. One
> interpretation of this which could only be made out of the context of the
> draft from which the 50%+x was drawn is that 51% is 50%+x, but we both know
> well that is not what was meant. Its purpose was to encourage groups to
> acknowledge the ideal of 100% agreement and to move from whatever value they
> wanted to place on x to a progressively higher value until 100%. There is
> nothing of that in the process you provide - just a flat majority which is
> the usual model that is contrary to the ideal.
I can add 50%+X but to me it actually looks even more like we are
saying 51% because people see the 50% and in their minds just at one.
When we say just a majority people have to think about that and in my
mind a majority sounds like more than 51% - what constitutes an
appropriate majority is a matter a lot of groups think about but
putting 50%+X seems to undermine that.
I'd rather you didn't make these points while accusing me of
undermining the ethic - I can assure you that movement toward
consensus was well in my mind and just because you don't read it that
way doesn't make it so.
>> >Majority rules is also
>> > related to the idea that the group should initiate the description - let
>> > me
>> > explain.
>> > Unless NTW and its Cooperator process is there primarily to support the
>> > individual and the minority to cooperate to achieve things we know are
>> > minority projects (like social and environmentally sustainable living
>> > rather
>> > than consumerism), minorities or individuals wanting to do such things
>> > that
>> > the social majority won't support will always be outvoted - ie it is a
>> > process that would undermine individuals or minorities with NTW's aims.
>> > The only way for a minority interest to get something off the ground is
>> > for
>> > what it intends to be described first, thus specifically attracting the
>> > minority interest and discouraging the majority voter from getting
>> > involved
>> > because they are not interested.
>> > That is not to say that social majority groups couldn't use the
>> > Co-operator
>> > for organising their interest (eg consumer) - any idea would benefit
>> > from
>> > the Cooperator, including a consumer idea which could likewise support
>> > social majority cooperation.
>> > The process I suggest would have no less appeal to the social majority,
>> > but
>> > it would empower the individual and the minority.
>> As you will see in my latest draft step one is presented as either a
>> group process or an individual process.
> If the ideal is for the originator to offer some description before the
> group takes an idea over I am certain that the way you have given this as an
> individual option is guaranteed to be too little too late, and I'm sure you
> could clearly see this.
I think there is an ideal that can be made for both - having said that
I can see that my draft has a stronger group emphasis which I am happy
to address.
> Once the poster goes down in front of a group they will read the large print
> and be off - the originator will be just one on the group.
>The only likely
> way for an originator to set the scene is for them to have described the
> idea somewhat before suggesting anything to anyone (UNLIKELY) - OR for them
> to be asked by the poster to take that step right there and then.
Yes in a group they are just one person in a group and the only
challenge to that our process can address in my opinion is that they
get to do a PIN which they add to the collective PINs
When the person is alone with the poster they have no option but to
describe the activity themselves - the note i provided just gives them
permission to do this. Small is ok because it is a personal note not a
group note. So that the emphasis can include a personal description
the very introduction to the process before they hit the link could
invite both a personal and a group use of the process so people know
the two ways it can be used from the outset. If something more needs
to be added to the poster itself that can be looked at also.
>For that
> to happen, the invitation to do so would have to be Step 1 of the process
> and would have to be as big as the invitation to the group to brainstorm
> their additions to the description.
...no not their additions to the description this is where your draft
doesn't work. The group must have the option to do a description from
scratch for all the reasons I outlined.
> If an individual chooses to
>> describe the project (and this is an if because in many instances they
>> wont want to by themselves) the effect is as you say that individuals
>> establish the basis of the activity and this is foundational to who
>> gets involved and the future direction of the activity.
> We both agree that individuals will probably not go away by themselves to
> take this ideal step - therefore it would be good to have it as Step 1 in
> the process when the poster goes down in a group setting.
My point here was that many people will be happy to develop ideas as a
group not that people who need to won't develop their own ideas - I
think they will.
>> > What you propose would disempower the minority and your minimised
>> > concession
>> > to allow the minority some extra time to speak is bound to be
>> > ineffective
>> > because (in the absence of a minority description), they are bound to be
>> > in
>> > the context of social majority groupthink.
>> Why do you think it is so minimised
> It is minimised compared to the original which was 3 minutes. I am not
> saying it should be 3 mins here. I am saying that this reduction along with
> the fact that there is no procedural encouragement to increase x and the
> inevitability that the group will take off making their own definition which
> will inevitably tend towards social majority attitudes will mean
> that individuals with minority views will inevitably be overtaken.
I have given my rationale for dropping 50+X and any calculation of
giving people 3min in the context of dealing with every iea note
becomes pretty unworakble. I have tried to reduce the process so it is
accessible and used - it is a first attempt and may lack something but
you must see that this needs to be done or it won't be used. By
accusing me of minimising it you seem to be suggesting that I care
less about the ideas than you do. I think you have no basis for this
and it just makes this whole process harder.
> - it is in the context of
>> discussing a specific idea-card so the process needs to be streamlined
>> but I don't think it is any different to the process you presented in
>> the decision-making draft which it came from.
> There is no longer any process to encourage growth to unanimity - and taken
> as a whole with the factors above it becomes just a social majority rules
> thing.
If you think 50+X does this it can go back in but it also has the
problem I have raised.
> There is not an 'absense
>> of a minority description' it is clearly offered as one of two ways to
>> fill in step one.
> As I say above, it is not an offer but a faded and bound to be swamped
> option which we both agree no one will take away.
Of course it will be swamped in a group setting - it is not a message
for the group. It for an individual when they are alone with the
poster.
> I think the reality of the group setting demands
>> that we have both options available.
> The option for the group to proceed without this idea description should be
> in the faded small writing and the encouragement for the originator to write
> a few tickets should be as bold as the current invite to the group to just
> start.
I don't agree with that at all for all the reasons I've outlined - the
group setting is no place for an individual description - it is
unviable. The group needs a group description and the individual
...
Hi Chris,
I think the attached draft treads the middle ground.
I think..
It strongly encourages a personal process - which describes before it
invites involvement
It easily allows for a group process.
It warns about the perils of a group process
It works for people who find it on the net
It works for people who find it in a group
It mentions forums in the decision-making process which shows our
preference for agreement not majority (50%+X is back also - unless
something better can be found)
It's simple, intuitive and involves only two and a bit brainstorms
It is not located within a group setting so makes perfect sense to an
individual who finds it and wants to either take an idea to a group or
take one to a neighbour.
>>> >> 2009/5/26 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>>> >> > Hi Alex,
>>> >> > In your decision making steps which you incorporated into the silent
>>> >> > brainstorming, you wrote 'continue this until minority reduces' Would
>>> >> > you
>>> >> > add 'at which point the decision goes with the majority'?
>>> >> My new draft does this I think - very limited word opportunity as this
>>> >> is a poster which is already a bit too wordy.
>>> > My question was not meant as a request to insert this clarification, but
>>> > to
>>> > find out if that was how you intend your process to conclude. I
>>> > understand
>>> > it is your intention to use majority rule and that strikes me as
>>> > contrary to
>>> > NTW for which the Cooperator is primarily created.
>>> In the instance where minority vote stagnates or is reduced your
>>> decision-making draft proposed that the decision should go with a
>>> majority. We discussed this the other day and I thought we agreed that
>>> this would be the case unless the issue was constitutional and
>>> required full consensus. How is my draft inconsistent with that?
>> Because although we did discuss this aspect of the decision making process I
>> supplied your editing of that process has now deleted the 50%+X. One
>> interpretation of this which could only be made out of the context of the
>> draft from which the 50%+x was drawn is that 51% is 50%+x, but we both know
>> well that is not what was meant. Its purpose was to encourage groups to
>> acknowledge the ideal of 100% agreement and to move from whatever value they
>> wanted to place on x to a progressively higher value until 100%. There is
>> nothing of that in the process you provide - just a flat majority which is
>> the usual model that is contrary to the ideal.
> I can add 50%+X but to me it actually looks even more like we are
> saying 51% because people see the 50% and in their minds just at one.
> When we say just a majority people have to think about that and in my
> mind a majority sounds like more than 51% - what constitutes an
> appropriate majority is a matter a lot of groups think about but
> putting 50%+X seems to undermine that.
> I'd rather you didn't make these points while accusing me of
> undermining the ethic - I can assure you that movement toward
> consensus was well in my mind and just because you don't read it that
> way doesn't make it so.
>>> >Majority rules is also
>>> > related to the idea that the group should initiate the description - let
>>> > me
>>> > explain.
>>> > Unless NTW and its Cooperator process is there primarily to support the
>>> > individual and the minority to cooperate to achieve things we know are
>>> > minority projects (like social and environmentally sustainable living
>>> > rather
>>> > than consumerism), minorities or individuals wanting to do such things
>>> > that
>>> > the social majority won't support will always be outvoted - ie it is a
>>> > process that would undermine individuals or minorities with NTW's aims.
>>> > The only way for a minority interest to get something off the ground is
>>> > for
>>> > what it intends to be described first, thus specifically attracting the
>>> > minority interest and discouraging the majority voter from getting
>>> > involved
>>> > because they are not interested.
>>> > That is not to say that social majority groups couldn't use the
>>> > Co-operator
>>> > for organising their interest (eg consumer) - any idea would benefit
>>> > from
>>> > the Cooperator, including a consumer idea which could likewise support
>>> > social majority cooperation.
>>> > The process I suggest would have no less appeal to the social majority,
>>> > but
>>> > it would empower the individual and the minority.
>>> As you will see in my latest draft step one is presented as either a
>>> group process or an individual process.
>> If the ideal is for the originator to offer some description before the
>> group takes an idea over I am certain that the way you have given this as an
>> individual option is guaranteed to be too little too late, and I'm sure you
>> could clearly see this.
> I think there is an ideal that can be made for both - having said that
> I can see that my draft has a stronger group emphasis which I am happy
> to address.
>> Once the poster goes down in front of a group they will read the large print
>> and be off - the originator will be just one on the group.
>>The only likely
>> way for an originator to set the scene is for them to have described the
>> idea somewhat before suggesting anything to anyone (UNLIKELY) - OR for them
>> to be asked by the poster to take that step right there and then.
> Yes in a group they are just one person in a group and the only
> challenge to that our process can address in my opinion is that they
> get to do a PIN which they add to the collective PINs
> When the person is alone with the poster they have no option but to
> describe the activity themselves - the note i provided just gives them
> permission to do this. Small is ok because it is a personal note not a
> group note. So that the emphasis can include a personal description
> the very introduction to the process before they hit the link could
> invite both a personal and a group use of the process so people know
> the two ways it can be used from the outset. If something more needs
> to be added to the poster itself that can be looked at also.
>>For that
>> to happen, the invitation to do so would have to be Step 1 of the process
>> and would have to be as big as the invitation to the group to brainstorm
>> their additions to the description.
> ...no not their additions to the description this is where your draft
> doesn't work. The group must have the option to do a description from
> scratch for all the reasons I outlined.
>> If an individual chooses to
>>> describe the project (and this is an if because in many instances they
>>> wont want to by themselves) the effect is as you say that individuals
>>> establish the basis of the activity and this is foundational to who
>>> gets involved and the future direction of the activity.
>> We both agree that individuals will probably not go away by themselves to
>> take this ideal step - therefore it would be good to have it as Step 1 in
>> the process when the poster goes down in a group setting.
> My point here was that many people will be happy to develop ideas as a
> group not that people who need to won't develop their own ideas - I
> think they will.
>>> > What you propose would disempower the minority and your minimised
>>> > concession
>>> > to allow the minority some extra time to speak is bound to be
>>> > ineffective
>>> > because (in the absence of a minority description), they are bound to be
>>> > in
>>> > the context of social majority groupthink.
>>> Why do you think it is so minimised
>> It is minimised compared to the original which was 3 minutes. I am not
>> saying it should be 3 mins here. I am saying that this reduction along with
>> the fact that there is no procedural encouragement to increase x and the
>> inevitability that the group will take off making their own definition which
>> will inevitably tend towards social majority attitudes will mean
>> that individuals with minority views will inevitably be overtaken.
> I have given my rationale for dropping 50+X and any calculation of
> giving people 3min in the context of dealing with every iea note
> becomes pretty unworakble. I have tried to reduce the process so it is
> accessible and used - it is a first attempt and may lack something but
> you must see that this needs to be done or it won't be used. By
> accusing me of minimising it you seem to be suggesting that I care
> less about the ideas than you do. I think you have no basis for this
> and it just makes this whole process harder.
>> - it is in the context of
>>> discussing a specific idea-card so the process needs to be streamlined
>>> but I don't think it is any different to the process you presented in
>>> the decision-making draft which it came from.
>> There is no longer any process to encourage growth to unanimity - and taken
>> as a whole with the factors above it becomes just a social majority rules
>> thing.
Interspersed below you will see that I have not completed my reply because we met and I think covered the issues in person.
I think it is now clear to both of us that you misunderstood what I have been on about. In addition, the latest draft supplied by you would seem to start to deal with the issues I am concerned about. I won't respond to you other (2?) emails sent after this one for the same reasons - I'll just respond to the draft.
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 06:24:39 -0700
> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, I'm getting to your other email but below I have tried to
> respond to your latest cooperator draft point for point.
> 1. . Use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ below to suggest ACTIVITY NAME/S
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> it is unclear who this is intended for an individual a group?? This
> could be fixed with a word or two.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> 2. Stick a chosen
> ACTIVITY NAME here:
> 3. Now use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to DESCRIBE that Activity so others
> might join
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> It is now clear here that it is an individual you are referring to and
> NOT a group
I was hoping the language in this step was inclusive of either a group or an individual. If it is not, perhaps there is a better way to encourage individual input and/ or group input.
> It is not a matter of a word change here - this step necessarily rules
> out group idea development – because the following steps would make no
> sense if this step allowed a group description.
I disagree, but if it can be improved without losing the individual encouragement, great.
As groups will want to
> develop ideas together this makes the process unworkable in what I
> think are going to be many instances where a group want to proceed as
> a group – they have one basic idea and there is no one originator.
I don't have a problem with that - my problem, which I don't think is properly addressed yet, it that we should encourage the individual to start the description where that is best and not leave a disempowered person with such an idea to fall on their face.
> While I also see a need for an individual description for all the
> reasons you say, I also like the group aspect of the description
> process
Me too
and believe it contains very important values of its own like
> group, as opposed to individual, ownership of an idea.
An implication here is that what I am suggesting contains a value for individual ownership of an idea. I don't agree with that implication - the process of the group adding descriptions shifts the ownership to the group. The important thing in this transition is however that those who are forming the group need to own the idea described, not try to change it by majority rule or groupthink in any way that pulls the rug out from under what the originator and those who liked that idea came together for.
As in consensus
> I think a group definition, where an individual isn’t in control
> because they are clearly not the ‘originator’, can provide an
> important activity foundation of it’s own.
I agree. But again here there is an implication that I reject. In my version it is not a case of an individual being in control. It is a matter of an idea being in control, unless there is unanimous agreement to change the idea (note here, it would not be necessary to have unanimity to add positively to an idea - that would be done by discussion &/or decision making).
I see your argument about
> the majority and the need for the individual or the minority to assert
> themselves but I think the whole story can be told in reverse as well
> - where the originator becomes the leader, the powerful individualist,
> and it is the group and the group knowledge and voice that is
> alienated.
Now I am pretty sure that you have not uderstood the dynamic I am trying to develop. If this is the case then no wonder you are more opposing rather than working toward a resolution.
>I'd like to have a process that can be used both ways
I don't want any process which encourages or supports a leader - I thought that would long have been clear. Because of this it should also be clear that either I am mad and being contradictory to my own position, or that you have misunderstood my efforts. (I would have hoped the latter would have been more obvious to you)
but
> your process necessarily can't because the description is always
> started by an originator and if you alter that what follows makes no
> sense.
Only if you thought that it was a process for a leader to lead.
> This is also very awkward if it is done in a group setting – how do
> you address one idea at a time - which is the natural inclination of a
> group?
If one person has an idea they can present that idea to anyone. If they are inclined they can use the Cooperator process to do so. If they do follow its recommendations they will do a few PINs to go with their presentation. Any who are interested in THAT idea as described so far will then use the cooperator to flesh it out by adding supportive descriptions - this makes it theirs too and whether there is subsequent debate about what is supportive & what not, everyone knows that they are expected to be supportive because that is what everyone came together around in the first place. Spoil sports or agenda stealers will be disarmed somewhat.
Do you need a situation where every goup memebr has an idea
> before one idea can be developed?
No - anyone can do it any time. Or any group can do it without an initiator, or the whole group can do it together - by simply recognising it as a group process from the start, not one originated by anyone.
Do you have to have a major planning
> session every time you want to organise one activity?
No - but you could.
I’d like to make
> using this process as casual as possible so that it can be started
> without even thinking.... "What are we doing for xmas" - and the PINs
> start flowing -
I agee
we are not far off this now because all they need to
> do is a description and jobs brainstorm - two intuitive brainstorms
> which if done in two 5 min sessions and some discussion can happen
> quite naturally.
I agree
>This can't be compared to what you are suggesting.
I think the only reason why you think this is because until you have assumed some things and rejected rather than explored my idea.
> Join the Activity you like, then redo 3 together, but only adding
> descriptions that all immediately agree to.
> (If a description you want included is not, leave & start by yourself
> at step 1.)
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> You have written this as one small (16 point ) sentence on the poster
> but it is by far the biggest part of the whole process you recommend
> – let me explain what I mean.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "Join the Activity you like"
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Tobe accessible this should be a step in itself. It involves people
> (20 in the over 50s) looking at and getting their head around 20
> descriptions.
I think you will have seen now that this is not the idea at all. You could do such a session and there might be a time for it (pre annual planning or something)
>Which ones do they join? What if they want to join all
> 20? How are these displayed? Are people walking around the room?
In an annual planning session I guess that could be the process.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> redo 3 together
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> This should also be a step in itself to be accessible as it's even
> bigger than the last process – it involves 20 people doing potentially
> 19 new brainstorms
Not everyone has to brainstorm every idea, only those interested - if they are interested in all 20 ideas on a planning day they just have to either realise tey can be in all places at once and choose - or add to the cooperator for other descriptions/jobs later.
It is more likely that ideas will attract some and not others.
If an activity has no originator but is a group idea that everyone wnats to be involved in (let's have a party), I guess they would need some sort of planning day & up to 20 people would all want input on this one idea - the process could handle that input as it did on the Over 50s day.
– all this while also accepting or rejecting 19
> brainstorms being added to their own activity. This is expediential –
> there are now 361 (19x19) brainstorms supposed to be happening
> simultaneously, and all while each of them are supposed to be
> accepting or rejecting 19 brainstorms on their own activity.
I think you will see this is not what I am suggesting - but without looking into this if you think I haven't understood your point 'll come back.
> At the end of all this who added what to what – what’s in and what’s
> out? If this is as unworkable as I’m suggesting, what’s the
> alternative… to do all 20 activities one at a time? That is also not
> going to happen as it would exhaust the group. Do you just let the
> originator do their brainstorm and make 20 separate meeting? That’s
> not going to happen for obvious resaons. You might think the number of
> 20 is excessive but even if you make it a group of 5 the numbers are
> unworkable and we must assume 20+.
I'm having trouble holding on to where you are coming from with all this and what I mean .... so perhaps we
...
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)
c of the silent brainstorm
We discussed 'if a group involved' sounded like a group may not get
involved.Changed 'If' to 'When'
Under decision making process - the forum message needed to
encouraging consensus
It reads: 'To reach the ideal of full agreement (where X = 50%),
online forums can help'
Alex
2009/5/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Interspersed below you will see that I have not completed my reply because
> we met and I think covered the issues in person.
> I think it is now clear to both of us that you misunderstood what I have
> been on about. In addition, the latest draft supplied by you would seem to
> start to deal with the issues I am concerned about. I won't respond to you
> other (2?) emails sent after this one for the same reasons - I'll just
> respond to the draft.
> Chris
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 06:24:39 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris, I'm getting to your other email but below I have tried to
>> respond to your latest cooperator draft point for point.
>> 1. . Use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ below to suggest ACTIVITY NAME/S
>> 3. Now use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to DESCRIBE that Activity so others
>> might join
>> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>> It is now clear here that it is an individual you are referring to and
>> NOT a group
> I was hoping the language in this step was inclusive of either a group or an
> individual. If it is not, perhaps there is a better way to encourage
> individual input and/ or group input.
>> It is not a matter of a word change here - this step necessarily rules
>> out group idea development – because the following steps would make no
>> sense if this step allowed a group description.
> I disagree, but if it can be improved without losing the individual
> encouragement, great.
> As groups will want to
>> develop ideas together this makes the process unworkable in what I
>> think are going to be many instances where a group want to proceed as
>> a group – they have one basic idea and there is no one originator.
> I don't have a problem with that - my problem, which I don't think is
> properly addressed yet, it that we should encourage the individual to start
> the description where that is best and not leave a disempowered person with
> such an idea to fall on their face.
>> While I also see a need for an individual description for all the
>> reasons you say, I also like the group aspect of the description
>> process
> Me too
> and believe it contains very important values of its own like
>> group, as opposed to individual, ownership of an idea.
> An implication here is that what I am suggesting contains a value for
> individual ownership of an idea. I don't agree with that implication - the
> process of the group adding descriptions shifts the ownership to the group.
> The important thing in this transition is however that those who are forming
> the group need to own the idea described, not try to change it by majority
> rule or groupthink in any way that pulls the rug out from under what the
> originator and those who liked that idea came together for.
> As in consensus
>> I think a group definition, where an individual isn’t in control
>> because they are clearly not the ‘originator’, can provide an
>> important activity foundation of it’s own.
> I agree. But again here there is an implication that I reject. In my version
> it is not a case of an individual being in control. It is a matter of an
> idea being in control, unless there is unanimous agreement to change
> the idea (note here, it would not be necessary to have unanimity to add
> positively to an idea - that would be done by discussion &/or decision
> making).
> I see your argument about
>> the majority and the need for the individual or the minority to assert
>> themselves but I think the whole story can be told in reverse as well
>> - where the originator becomes the leader, the powerful individualist,
>> and it is the group and the group knowledge and voice that is
>> alienated.
> Now I am pretty sure that you have not uderstood the dynamic I am trying to
> develop. If this is the case then no wonder you are more opposing rather
> than working toward a resolution.
>>I'd like to have a process that can be used both ways
> I don't want any process which encourages or supports a leader - I thought
> that would long have been clear. Because of this it should also be clear
> that either I am mad and being contradictory to my own position, or that you
> have misunderstood my efforts. (I would have hoped the latter would have
> been more obvious to you)
> but
>> your process necessarily can't because the description is always
>> started by an originator and if you alter that what follows makes no
>> sense.
> Only if you thought that it was a process for a leader to lead.
>> This is also very awkward if it is done in a group setting – how do
>> you address one idea at a time - which is the natural inclination of a
>> group?
> If one person has an idea they can present that idea to anyone. If they are
> inclined they can use the Cooperator process to do so. If they do follow its
> recommendations they will do a few PINs to go with their presentation. Any
> who are interested in THAT idea as described so far will then use the
> cooperator to flesh it out by adding supportive descriptions - this makes it
> theirs too and whether there is subsequent debate about what is supportive &
> what not, everyone knows that they are expected to be supportive because
> that is what everyone came together around in the first place. Spoil sports
> or agenda stealers will be disarmed somewhat.
> Do you need a situation where every goup memebr has an idea
>> before one idea can be developed?
> No - anyone can do it any time. Or any group can do it without an initiator,
> or the whole group can do it together - by simply recognising it as a group
> process from the start, not one originated by anyone.
> Do you have to have a major planning
>> session every time you want to organise one activity?
> No - but you could.
> I’d like to make
>> using this process as casual as possible so that it can be started
>> without even thinking.... "What are we doing for xmas" - and the PINs
>> start flowing -
> I agee
> we are not far off this now because all they need to
>> do is a description and jobs brainstorm - two intuitive brainstorms
>> which if done in two 5 min sessions and some discussion can happen
>> quite naturally.
> I agree
>>This can't be compared to what you are suggesting.
> I think the only reason why you think this is because until you have assumed
> some things and rejected rather than explored my idea.
>> Join the Activity you like, then redo 3 together, but only adding
>> descriptions that all immediately agree to.
>> (If a description you want included is not, leave & start by yourself
>> at step 1.)
>> You have written this as one small (16 point ) sentence on the poster
>> but it is by far the biggest part of the whole process you recommend
>> – let me explain what I mean.
>> Tobe accessible this should be a step in itself. It involves people
>> (20 in the over 50s) looking at and getting their head around 20
>> descriptions.
> I think you will have seen now that this is not the idea at all. You could
> do such a session and there might be a time for it (pre annual planning or
> something)
>>Which ones do they join? What if they want to join all
>> 20? How are these displayed? Are people walking around the room?
> In an annual planning session I guess that could be the process.
>> This should also be a step in itself to be accessible as it's even
>> bigger than the last process – it involves 20 people doing potentially
>> 19 new brainstorms
> Not everyone has to brainstorm every idea, only those interested - if they
> are interested in all 20 ideas on a planning day they just have to either
> realise tey can be in all places at once and choose - or add
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 17:17:14 -0700
> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> 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'
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.
‘When others involved, briefly discuss each ‘idea note’. 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.’
This wording would mean that someone would clarify and agree with the initiator’s description (whether done by an individual or a group) before joining it and that both of them and any additional joiners would then decide what to add or merge.
It would also mean that all ‘members’ would know that in ‘out voting’ anyone to delete anything they were going against an earlier agreement between them. This is not foolproof, and a majority COULD outvote a minority holding to earlier agreements about the activity, but they would only do so knowing it was a serious thing to do and not just a matter of winning. The voting system would therefore properly mostly be called on to resolve problems with additions that might be controversial.
I also think the wording allows for when a group is the initiator and is seeking to clarify the activity, make additions and share authority.
> Under decision making process - the forum message needed to
> encouraging consensus
> It reads: 'To reach the ideal of full agreement (where X = 50%),
> online forums can help'
What about 'where x can equal up to 50%'
Regarding the forum idea I thought that one of the purposes of referring people to OUR forum was that we wanted to use the Cooperator to try to involve them in NTW?
> 2009/5/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex
> > Interspersed below you will see that I have not completed my reply because
> > we met and I think covered the issues in person.
> > I think it is now clear to both of us that you misunderstood what I have
> > been on about. In addition, the latest draft supplied by you would seem to
> > start to deal with the issues I am concerned about. I won't respond to you
> > other (2?) emails sent after this one for the same reasons - I'll just
> > respond to the draft.
> > Chris
> >> 3. Now use the ‘Silent Brainstorm’ to DESCRIBE that Activity so others
> >> might join
> >> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> >> It is now clear here that it is an individual you are referring to and
> >> NOT a group
> > I was hoping the language in this step was inclusive of either a group or an
> > individual. If it is not, perhaps there is a better way to encourage
> > individual input and/ or group input.
> >> It is not a matter of a word change here - this step necessarily rules
> >> out group idea development – because the following steps would make no
> >> sense if this step allowed a group description.
> > I disagree, but if it can be improved without losing the individual
> > encouragement, great.
> > As groups will want to
> >> develop ideas together this makes the process unworkable in what I
> >> think are going to be many instances where a group want to proceed as
> >> a group – they have one basic idea and there is no one originator.
> > I don't have a problem with that - my problem, which I don't think is
> > properly addressed yet, it that we should encourage the individual to start
> > the description where that is best and not leave a disempowered person with
> > such an idea to fall on their face.
> >> While I also see a need for an individual description for all the
> >> reasons you say, I also like the group aspect of the description
> >> process
> > Me too
> > and believe it contains very important values of its own like
> >> group, as opposed to individual, ownership of an idea.
> > An implication here is that what I am suggesting contains a value for
> > individual ownership of an idea. I don't agree with that implication - the
> > process of the group adding descriptions shifts the ownership to the group.
> > The important thing in this transition is however that those who are forming
> > the group need to own the idea described, not try to change it by majority
> > rule or groupthink in any way that pulls the rug out from under what the
> > originator and those who liked that idea came together for.
> > As in consensus
> >> I think a group definition, where an individual isn’t in control
> >> because they are clearly not the ‘originator’, can provide an
> >> important activity foundation of it’s own.
> > I agree. But again here there is an implication that I reject. In my version
> > it is not a case of an individual being in control. It is a matter of an
> > idea being in control, unless there is unanimous agreement to change
> > the idea (note here, it would not be necessary to have unanimity to add
> > positively to an idea - that would be done by discussion &/or decision
> > making).
> > I see your argument about
> >> the majority and the need for the individual or the minority to assert
> >> themselves but I think the whole story can be told in reverse as well
> >> - where the originator becomes the leader, the powerful individualist,
> >> and it is the group and the group knowledge and voice that is
> >> alienated.
> > Now I am pretty sure that you have not uderstood the dynamic I am trying to
> > develop. If this is the case then no wonder you are more opposing rather
> > than working toward a resolution.
> >>I'd like to have a process that can be used both ways
> > I don't want any process which encourages or supports a leader - I thought
> > that would long have been clear. Because of this it should also be clear
> > that either I am mad and being contradictory to my own position, or that you
> > have misunderstood my efforts. (I would have hoped the latter would have
> > been more obvious to you)
> > but
> >> your process necessarily can't because the description is always
> >> started by an originator and if you alter that what follows makes no
> >> sense.
> > Only if you thought that it was a process for a leader to lead.
> >> This is also very awkward if it is done in a group setting
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 17:17:14 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> 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."
> 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.
> ‘When others involved, briefly discuss each ‘idea note’.
> 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 originator may
have additions which should also be discussed.
> This wording would mean that someone would clarify and agree with the
> initiator’s description (whether done by an individual or a group) before
> joining it and that both of them and any additional joiners would then
> decide what to add or merge.
> It would also mean that all ‘members’ would know that in ‘out voting’ anyone
> to delete anything they were going against an earlier agreement between
> them. This is not foolproof, and a majority COULD outvote a minority holding
> to earlier agreements about the activity, but they would only do so knowing
> it was a serious thing to do and not just a matter of winning. The voting
> system would therefore properly mostly be called on to resolve problems with
> additions that might be controversial.
> I also think the wording allows for when a group is the initiator and is
> seeking to clarify the activity, make additions and share authority.
>> Under decision making process - the forum message needed to
>> encouraging consensus
>> It reads: 'To reach the ideal of full agreement (where X = 50%),
>> online forums can help'
> What about 'where x can equal up to 50%'
OK
> Regarding the forum idea I thought that one of the purposes of referring
> people to OUR forum was that we wanted to use the Cooperator to try to
> involve them in NTW?
I don't think our forum is well set up to facilitate discussions on
various group organisers. As it stands, if people went there they
would find a whole bunch of discussions that look very official and
alien (it ain't people organising activities - it's us talking very
BIG picture stuff) For them to get amongst that and assert a space for
their over 50s tea party, and for people nation wide and even
globally, to do the same would seem unlikely. If they did start using
it our email discussion could quickly get lost in the avalanche of
discussion - as may theirs. We would be getting it ALL into our
personal email accounts as well. These discussions are also public and
not private as many groups will want. The easy answer is just to refer
people to email or forum discussion.
The size of the input and the public issue aside we could set up a
friendlier looking Co-operator forum that specifically supported
'public' activity co-operator discussions. We could put a few examples
and a clear a specific welcome and that may encourage the right sort
of discussion. Another advantage of this is that it could facilitate
the sharing of organisers and the sharing of input into organisers.
People can attach their (completed or evolving) access or excel file
and others can find it. (although, if finding it involves wadding
through conversations this might get a bit unviable???)
This can easily be a direct link from the co-operator open page like
the Co-operator itself, the rationale behind the co-operator and the
video. Like the rest of the co-operator stuff this could have a link
to NTW, but, as in the co-operator pages, NTW wouldn't be in the for
front. In TP, NTW is in the forefront. so in short there are 2 reasons
why a new forum would be better.
Advantage of new as opposed to TP
1. the welcome and the few examples can clearly invite Co-operator
discussion (NTW wont be in the for front confusing people)
2. we wont have our NTW discussion swamped - can personally choose
weekly summary posts from that forum and maintain direct posts from
TP. We could even send weekly summaries to TP if it got going and TP
wanted a regular report. This summary report each week as opposed to
what could easily become a domination of TP, would seem more inkeeping
with the NTW focus on TP.
The advantage over just refering them to personal email or forums
1. we get to provide examples from a direct link
2. it may facilitate sharring of co-operators
3. it can link to NTW
Disadvantage
1. people may be more likely to use their personal email (which they
can do anyway)
2. people may resent public discussion (can choose personal email)
3. the forum may be swamped if too many people use (people can set up
their own gg)
4. if unused would look 'un-happening' (examples should help)
5. involves us setting up another forum (once set up takes care of itself)
>> 2009/5/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex
>> > Interspersed below you will see that I have not completed my reply
>> > because
>> > we met and I think covered the issues in person.
>> > I think it is now clear to both of us that you misunderstood what I have
>> > been on about. In addition, the latest draft supplied by you would seem
>> > to
>> > start to deal with the issues I am concerned about. I won't respond
>> > to you
>> > other (2?) emails sent after this one for the same reasons - I'll just
>> > respond to the draft.
>> > Chris
> >> 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.
> > 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.
> > ‘When others involved, briefly discuss each ‘idea note’.
> > 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 originator may
> have additions which should also be discussed.
I see your point, so my wording needs work. However I think the work you have done also needs work - i
"they write" was meant to be a third reinforcement of the point made in the Step 1 note, ie that after the originator has written a few descriptive PINs and is now involving others, those others write their own PINs to add to that description. That is still implied in your words, but it is not so clear either here or even with the wording "starts this description" above it. I would really like to be sure that it is clear because newcomers gain equal ownership right at the point where they add their description and it is accepted.
> > This wording would mean that someone would clarify and agree with the
> > initiator’s description (whether done by an individual or a group) before
> > joining it and that both of them and any additional joiners would then
> > decide what to add or merge.
> > It would also mean that all ‘members’ would know that in ‘out voting’ anyone
> > to delete anything they were going against an earlier agreement between
> > them. This is not foolproof, and a majority COULD outvote a minority holding
> > to earlier agreements about the activity, but they would only do so knowing
> > it was a serious thing to do and not just a matter of winning. The voting
> > system would therefore properly mostly be called on to resolve problems with
> > additions that might be controversial.
> > I also think the wording allows for when a group is the initiator and is
> > seeking to clarify the activity, make additions and share authority.
> >> Under decision making process - the forum message needed to
> >> encouraging consensus
> >> It reads: 'To reach the ideal of full agreement (where X = 50%),
> >> online forums can help'
> > What about 'where x can equal up to 50%'
> OK
> > Regarding the forum idea I thought that one of the purposes of referring
> > people to OUR forum was that we wanted to use the Cooperator to try to
> > involve them in NTW?
> I don't think our forum is well set up to facilitate discussions on
> various group organisers. As it stands, if people went there they
> would find a whole bunch of discussions that look very official and
> alien (it ain't people organising activities - it's us talking very
> BIG picture stuff) For them to get amongst that and assert a space for
> their over 50s tea party, and for people nation wide and even
> globally, to do the same would seem unlikely. If they did start using
> it our email discussion could quickly get lost in the avalanche of
> discussion - as may theirs. We would be getting it ALL into our
> personal email accounts as well. These discussions are also public and
> not private as many groups will want. The easy answer is just to refer
> people to email or forum discussion.
> The size of the input and the public issue aside we could set up a
> friendlier looking Co-operator forum that specifically supported
> 'public' activity co-operator discussions. We could put a few examples
> and a clear a specific welcome and that may encourage the right sort
> of discussion. Another advantage of this is that it could facilitate
> the sharing of organisers and the sharing of input into organisers.
> People can attach their (completed or evolving) access or excel file
> and others can find it. (although, if finding it involves wadding
> through conversations this might get a bit unviable???)
> This can easily be a direct link from the co-operator open page like
> the Co-operator itself, the rationale behind the co-operator and the
> video. Like the rest of the co-operator stuff this could have a link
> to NTW, but, as in the co-operator pages, NTW wouldn't be in the for
> front. In TP, NTW is in the forefront. so in short there are 2 reasons
> why a new forum would be better.
> Advantage of new as opposed to TP
> 1. the welcome and the few examples can clearly invite Co-operator
> discussion (NTW wont be in the for front confusing people)
> 2. we wont have our NTW discussion swamped - can personally choose
> weekly summary posts from that forum and maintain direct posts from
> TP. We could even send weekly summaries to TP if it got going and TP
> wanted a regular report. This summary report each week as opposed to
> what could easily become a domination of TP, would seem more inkeeping
> with the NTW focus on TP.
> The advantage over just refering them to personal email or forums
> 1. we get to provide examples from a direct link
> 2. it may facilitate sharring of co-operators
> 3. it can link to NTW
>> >> 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.
>> > ‘When others involved, briefly discuss each ‘idea note’.
>> > 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 originator may
>> have additions which should also be discussed.
> I see your point, so my wording needs work. However I think the work you
> have done also needs work - i
> "they write" was meant to be a third reinforcement of the point made in the
> Step 1 note, ie that after the originator has written a few descriptive PINs
> and is now involving others, those others write their own PINs to add to
> that description. That is still implied in your words, but it is not so
> clear either here or even with the wording "starts this description" above
> it. I would really like to be sure that it is clear because newcomers gain
> equal ownership right at the point where they add their description and it
> is accepted.
OK - I don't think 'they write' can be used however - as I said it
excludes the author - this is particularly a problem for step 2 where
input is needed from everyone and all ideas needs to be discussed.
I'm not sure what to do here - I think the problem really needs to be
fixed with clearer wording under step 1??
What if it said: 'Note: Whether one person alone or a group begins
this description, it is the basis for inviting new 'idea notes' &
sharing authority.'
Currently says: 'Note: Whether one person alone or a group starts this
description, it is the basis for inviting cooperation, adding input &
sharing authority.'
>> > This wording would mean that someone would clarify and agree with the
>> > initiator’s description (whether done by an individual or a group)
>> > before
>> > joining it and that both of them and any additional joiners would then
>> > decide what to add or merge.
>> > It would also mean that all ‘members’ would know that in ‘out voting’
>> > anyone
>> > to delete anything they were going against an earlier agreement between
>> > them. This is not foolproof, and a majority COULD outvote a minority
>> > holding
>> > to earlier agreements about the activity, but they would only do so
>> > knowing
>> > it was a serious thing to do and not just a matter of winning. The
>> > voting
>> > system would therefore properly mostly be called on to resolve problems
>> > with
>> > additions that might be controversial.
>> > I also think the wording allows for when a group is the initiator and is
>> > seeking to clarify the activity, make additions and share authority.
>> >> Under decision making process - the forum message needed to
>> >> encouraging consensus
>> >> It reads: 'To reach the ideal of full agreement (where X = 50%),
>> >> online forums can help'
>> > What about 'where x can equal up to 50%'
>> OK
>> > Regarding the forum idea I thought that one of the purposes of referring
>> > people to OUR forum was that we wanted to use the Cooperator to try to
>> > involve them in NTW?
>> I don't think our forum is well set up to facilitate discussions on
>> various group organisers. As it stands, if people went there they
>> would find a whole bunch of discussions that look very official and
>> alien (it ain't people organising activities - it's us talking very
>> BIG picture stuff) For them to get amongst that and assert a space for
>> their over 50s tea party, and for people nation wide and even
>> globally, to do the same would seem unlikely. If they did start using
>> it our email discussion could quickly get lost in the avalanche of
>> discussion - as may theirs. We would be getting it ALL into our
>> personal email accounts as well. These discussions are also public and
>> not private as many groups will want. The easy answer is just to refer
>> people to email or forum discussion.
>> The size of the input and the public issue aside we could set up a
>> friendlier looking Co-operator forum that specifically supported
>> 'public' activity co-operator discussions. We could put a few examples
>> and a clear a specific welcome and that may encourage the right sort
>> of discussion. Another advantage of this is that it could facilitate
>> the sharing of organisers and the sharing of input into organisers.
>> People can attach their (completed or evolving) access or excel file
>> and others can find it.
> >> >> 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
You forgot a draft, but as you revisit this wording again below I respond below.
> >> > 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 originator may
> >> have additions which should also be discussed.
> > I see your point, so my wording needs work. However I think the work you
> > have done also needs work - i
> > "they write" was meant to be a third reinforcement of the point made in the
> > Step 1 note, ie that after the originator has written a few descriptive PINs
> > and is now involving others, those others write their own PINs to add to
> > that description. That is still implied in your words, but it is not so
> > clear either here or even with the wording "starts this description" above
> > it. I would really like to be sure that it is clear because newcomers gain
> > equal ownership right at the point where they add their description and it
> > is accepted.
> OK - I don't think 'they write' can be used however - as I said it
> excludes the author - this is particularly a problem for step 2 where
> input is needed from everyone and all ideas needs to be discussed.
> I'm not sure what to do here - I think the problem really needs to be
> fixed with clearer wording under step 1??
> What if it said: 'Note: Whether one person alone or a group begins
> this description, it is the basis for inviting new 'idea notes' &
> sharing authority.'
> Currently says: 'Note: Whether one person alone or a group starts this
> description, it is the basis for inviting cooperation, adding input &
> sharing authority.'
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.
The words 'idea notes' also adds confusion - is it referring to new activity ideas or to new descriptive words? This is a problem in both versions of the brainstorming point c which we are also now working on - (‘c. When others get involved, briefly discuss each new ‘idea note’ they write … merge or add new ‘idea notes’ as agreed.’)
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 someone else or the group has started it. That is why I had 'they write' - it was a shorthand attempt to encourage their input to be written on PINs for that step. I acknowledged that it could exclude the initiator, but whatever the solution to avoid that, it also needs to incorporate the importance of getting new people to have a go at this step and have their written description incorporated.
> >> > This wording would mean that someone would clarify and agree with the
> >> > initiator’s description (whether done by an individual or a group)
> >> > before
> >> > joining it and that both of them and any additional joiners would then
> >> > decide what to add or merge.
> >> > It would also mean that all ‘members’ would know that in ‘out voting’
> >> > anyone
> >> > to delete anything they were going against an earlier agreement between
> >> > them. This is not foolproof, and a majority COULD outvote a minority
> >> > holding
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."
Chris
> >> >> 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 originator may
> >> have additions which should also be discussed.
> > I see your point, so my wording needs work. However I think the work you
> > have done also needs work - i
> > "they write" was meant to be a third reinforcement of the point made in the
> > Step 1 note, ie that after the originator has written a few descriptive PINs
> > and is now involving others, those others write their own PINs to add to
> > that description. That is still implied in your words, but it is not so
> > clear either here or even with the wording "starts this description" above
> > it. I would really like to be sure that it is clear because newcomers gain
> > equal ownership right at the point where they add their description and it
> > is accepted.
> OK - I don't think 'they write' can be used however - as I said it
> excludes the author - this is particularly a problem for step 2 where
> input is needed from everyone and all ideas needs to be discussed.
> I'm not sure what to do here - I think the problem really needs to be
> fixed with clearer wording under step 1??
> What if it said: 'Note: Whether one person alone or a group begins
> this description, it is the basis for inviting new 'idea notes' &
> sharing authority.'
> Currently says: 'Note: Whether one person alone or a group starts this
> description, it is the basis for inviting cooperation, adding input &
> sharing authority.'
> >> > This wording would mean that someone would clarify and agree with the
> >> > initiator’s description (whether done by an individual or a group)
> >> > before
> >> > joining it and that both of them and any additional joiners would then
> >> > decide what to add or merge.
> >> > It would also mean that all ‘members’ would know that in ‘out voting’
> >> > anyone
> >> > to delete anything they were going against an earlier agreement between
> >> > them. This is not foolproof, and a majority COULD outvote a minority
> >> > holding
> >> > to earlier agreements about the activity, but they would only do so
> >> > knowing
> >> > it was a serious thing to do and not just a matter of winning. The
> >> > voting
> >> > system would therefore properly mostly be called on to resolve problems
> >> > with
> >> > additions that might be controversial.
> >> > I also think the wording allows for when a group is the initiator and is
> >> > seeking to clarify the activity, make additions and share authority.
> >> >> Under decision making process - the forum message needed to
> >> >> encouraging consensus
> >> >> It reads: 'To reach the ideal of full agreement (where X = 50%),
> >> >> online forums can help'
> >> > What about 'where x can equal up to 50%'
> >> OK
> >> > Regarding the forum idea I thought that one of the purposes of referring
> >> > people to OUR forum was that we wanted to use the Cooperator to try to
> >> > involve them in NTW?
> >> I don't think our forum is well set up to facilitate discussions on
> >> various group organisers. As it stands, if people went there they
> >> would find a whole bunch of discussions that look very official and
> >> alien (it ain't people organising activities - it's us talking very
> >> BIG picture stuff) For them to get amongst that and assert a space for
> >> their over 50s tea party, and for people nation wide and even
>> >> >> 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 originator may
>> >> have additions which should also be discussed.
>> > I see your point, so my wording needs work. However I think the work you
>> > have done also needs work - i
>> > "they write" was meant to be a third reinforcement of the point made in
>> > the
>> > Step 1 note, ie that after the originator has written a few descriptive
>> > PINs
>> > and is now involving others, those others write their own PINs to add to
>> > that description. That is still implied in your words, but it is not so
>> > clear either here or even with the wording "starts this description"
>> > above
>> > it. I would really like to be sure that it is clear because newcomers
>> > gain
>> > equal ownership right at the point where they add their description and
>> > it
>> > is accepted.
>> OK - I don't think 'they write' can be used however - as I said it
>> excludes the author - this is particularly a problem for step 2 where
>> input is needed from everyone and all ideas needs to be discussed.
>> I'm not sure what to do here - I think the problem really needs to be
>> fixed with clearer wording under step 1??
>> What if it said: 'Note: Whether one person alone or a group begins
>> this description, it is the basis for inviting new 'idea notes' &
>> sharing authority.'
>> Currently says: 'Note: Whether one person alone or a group starts this
>> description, it is the basis for inviting cooperation, adding input &
>> sharing authority.'
>> >> > This wording would mean that someone would clarify and agree with the
>> >> > initiator’s description (whether done by an individual or a group)
>> >> > before
>> >> > joining it and that both of them and any additional joiners would
>> >> > then
>> >> > decide what to add or merge.
>> >> > It would also mean that all ‘members’ would know that in ‘out voting’
>> >> > anyone
>> >> > to delete anything they were going against an earlier agreement
>> >> > between
>> >> > them. This is not foolproof, and a majority COULD outvote a minority
>> >> > holding
>> >> > to earlier agreements about the activity, but they would only do so
>> >> > knowing
>> >> > it was a serious thing to do and not just a matter of winning. The
>> >> > voting
>> >> > system would therefore properly mostly be called on to resolve
>> >> > problems
>> >> > with
>> >> > additions that might be controversial.
>> >> > I also think the wording allows for when a group is the initiator and
>> >> > is
>> >> > seeking to clarify the activity, make additions and share authority.
>> >> >> Under decision making process - the forum message needed to
>> >> >> encouraging consensus
>> >> >> It reads: 'To reach the ideal of full agreement (where X = 50%),
>> >> >> online forums can help'
> I'm Ok with the this but think the sentance is too long and contains
> too many concepts. It probably needs two sentances.
> Alex
> 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."
>> Chris
>>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>>> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:54:14 -0700
>>> Subject: Re: Co-operator - integration
>>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>>> Hi Chris see below
>>> Alex
>>> 2009/6/1 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>>> > Hi Alex
>>> > See below,
>>> > Chris
>>> >> >> 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 originator may
>>> >> have additions which should also be discussed.
>>> > I see your point, so my wording needs work. However I think the work you
>>> > have done also needs work - i
>>> > "they write" was meant to be a third reinforcement of the point made in
>>> > the
>>> > Step 1 note, ie that after the originator has written a few descriptive
>>> > PINs
>>> > and is now involving others, those others write their own PINs to add to
>>> > that description. That is still implied in your words, but it is not so
>>> > clear either here or even with the wording "starts this description"
>>> > above
>>> > it. I would really like to be sure that it is clear because newcomers
>>> > gain
>>> > equal ownership right at the point where they add their description and
>>> > it
>>> > is accepted.
>>> OK - I don't think 'they write' can be used however - as I said it
>>> excludes the author - this is particularly a problem for step 2 where
>>> input is needed from everyone and all ideas needs to be discussed.
>>> I'm not sure what to do here - I think the problem really needs to be
>>> fixed with clearer wording under step 1??
>>> What if it said: 'Note: Whether one person alone or a group begins
>>> this description, it is the basis for inviting new 'idea notes' &
>>> sharing authority.'
>>> Currently says: 'Note: Whether one person alone or a group starts this
>>> description, it is the basis for inviting cooperation, adding input &
>>> sharing authority.'
>>> >> > This wording would mean that someone would clarify and agree with the
>>> >> > initiator’s description (whether done by an individual or a group)
>>> >> > before
>>> >> > joining it and that both of them and any additional joiners would
>>> >> > then
>>> >> > decide what to add or merge.
>>> >> > It would also mean that all ‘members’ would know that in ‘out voting’
>>> >> > anyone
>>> >> > to delete anything they were going against an earlier agreement
>>> >> > between
>>> >> > them. This is not foolproof, and a majority COULD outvote a minority
>>> >> > holding
>>> >> > to earlier agreements about the activity, but they would only do so
>>> >> > knowing
>>> >> > it was a serious thing to do and not just a matter of winning. The
>>> >> > voting
>>> >> > system would therefore properly mostly be called on to resolve
>>> >> > problems
>>> >> > with
>>> >> > additions that might be controversial.
|
