Thoughts and reflections (and Todo)
I liked the call very much and think it is time well spent. I did many telephone conferences before but they were more agenda driven, less flexible and not so much fun.
I’d think more people would be reached if one did not need exactly THAT slot of time for exactly THESE participants - but you could “connect with the conversation” after it is over as well. So recording it, then posting it and commenting (mentioning people) at certain times (important) to integrate it into the rest of the platform conversation would be cool. This caught me a ToDo where I’ll try to set this up. If anyone wants to help me it is appreciated cause I do it for the first time… Question is how we can easily have people comment on e.g. soundcloud - perhaps a shared account? And how public should it be? [edit: check out progress here]
I’ll have to think about how I most effectively throw in my ideas into the community. Images may help. Several layers of increasing detail perhaps. But I would also like to make many people look at it at the same time - so the chances for interaction (not only with me) are higher. Of course I need to remember that other people have important work to do and won’t be happy if I say: LOOK! NOW!
So how is this best resolved? I’ll think about that a little longer.
I had the feeling that I came across as a douche bag with regards to OSCE-days (perhaps also because lack of audio-feedback). I really did not mean to. I actually happily pushed the event announcements through my networks and know it went on at least one activist mailing list.
I would like to know more about this goal-setting thing @Nadia mentioned relatively early. I also wonder how many people share what concepts of thought (I want to avoid the phrase “world view” here), such as complicated vs complex, self organized criticality, linear growth vs percolation threshold, etc. Could nice names (narratives) be found for them so we have an easier time communicating important aspects (I think that is pretty important [edit: @ola - found your method-kit very cool!]). Example: Parkinson’s law (of triviality) vs bike shed and nuclear reactor (or “Vicious University Politics”). Perhaps one could extend the mention function to include those? A little like calling out fallacies to correct people on the interwebs. Is it worth the effort? Is it better to explain this (perhaps p2p)? Dunno. Just know I won’t integrate that.
A general comment on suggesting and then having to do it: This is a dynamic that is extremely common (perhaps for neurological reason as well) - BUT - 2 things:
It incentivizes self-censorship on a very low level, very dangerous in a “brain storm”-kind of setting.
It passes over a chance for making a mini-collaboration. If we think the best results generally come from collaborations - and we’re working on a platform that is made for collaborations - why do this?
[Exaggerating a little:] We could say any task should be done in pairs. (Even if they just agree between the two of them who will do it alone in the end.) One could say: by default the suggester is one of these two (not necessarily the lead). The other one can either be found through a member in the conversation, or be one of the members of the conversation. Just an idea. I want to think about making incentives for listening in to conversations a lot, so you can find mutually beneficial tasks more often (stuff they had to/want to do anyway) and match the right people. If participating and being there just lands you in a lot of extra work, people tend to quit when they can. Also we should try to keep work away from facilitators (includes note takers, and moderators) and spread it around very evenly. Perhaps also as some form of invitation. I know this is supposed to be a do-ocracy and I think that is extremely important. Is there a way we can foster that at the same time - so the stuff that is being done is also the right stuff? Please don’t be shy and comment critically!