expand_less
VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGi3tum7PB0
Recap
The purpose of Salon 1 of the Distributed Governance Series was to ground salon collaborators in a common language about distributed governance. Salon 2-5 delve more deeply into specifics while salon 6 will bring it all together.
After welcoming people to this session, we jumped back to remind people of ideas discussed in the previous Salon on Thrivability. We quickly scanned through some systems and living systems language including Anti-fragility, Symmathesy, Polarity Management, and spectrums as well things like paradox. A big theme for us lately has been Course Correction. We also touched on the specifically human parts like Tricksters and Irrational Humans that Care (rather than the hyper rational, homoeconomicus). Jean pointed out that we can often get lost in which conversation we are having and names a spectrum from ontological to the nitty gritty.
After reviewing what will be included in this series and upcoming Salons, definitions of “distributed” and “governance” were proposed.
We took some time to share with each other what we each thought it was and why we were here, then came into groups of four before sharing as a whole.
Jean linked in the idea of Network Organisms, a topic we have been exploring as the theme of the month, this brought up the question of whether we even are an individual or a network already. And then how we might increase choicefulness and agency in a network for better results. Speaking of choicefulness, the behavioral economics term is choice architecture. We explored together some of the dimensions that might be considered when shaping choice architecture.
From there we went to what freedoms create safety, borrowing from Graeber and Wengrow’s Dawn of Everything: to disagree or disobey, to leave or walkaway, and to form new social forms. With that safety in mind, what then can bring us together? One angle might include common ground (shared principles and beliefs) or common purpose or common defense. Another angle might explore Belonging, Becoming, Believing, Being, and Beauty.
With the big picture “yes” and “no” covered, we went over an example of simple principles for organizing, ala Elinor Ostrom’s research on commoning. Then we discussed whether economics already imposes some assumptions, which may show up even in the fringes. And whether knowledge commons have similar constraints and scarcity as physical commons which flowed into our review of the session and notes for next time. After that we had a casual chat including things like, should this be arranged in a fashion more akin to distributed governance models itself.
VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGi3tum7PB0
Recap
The purpose of Salon 1 of the Distributed Governance Series was to ground salon collaborators in a common language about distributed governance. Salon 2-5 delve more deeply into specifics while salon 6 will bring it all together.
After welcoming people to this session, we jumped back to remind people of ideas discussed in the previous Salon on Thrivability. We quickly scanned through some systems and living systems language including Anti-fragility, Symmathesy, Polarity Management, and spectrums as well things like paradox. A big theme for us lately has been Course Correction. We also touched on the specifically human parts like Tricksters and Irrational Humans that Care (rather than the hyper rational, homoeconomicus). Jean pointed out that we can often get lost in which conversation we are having and names a spectrum from ontological to the nitty gritty.
After reviewing what will be included in this series and upcoming Salons, definitions of “distributed” and “governance” were proposed.
We took some time to share with each other what we each thought it was and why we were here, then came into groups of four before sharing as a whole.
Jean linked in the idea of Network Organisms, a topic we have been exploring as the theme of the month, this brought up the question of whether we even are an individual or a network already. And then how we might increase choicefulness and agency in a network for better results. Speaking of choicefulness, the behavioral economics term is choice architecture. We explored together some of the dimensions that might be considered when shaping choice architecture.
From there we went to what freedoms create safety, borrowing from Graeber and Wengrow’s Dawn of Everything: to disagree or disobey, to leave or walkaway, and to form new social forms. With that safety in mind, what then can bring us together? One angle might include common ground (shared principles and beliefs) or common purpose or common defense. Another angle might explore Belonging, Becoming, Believing, Being, and Beauty.
With the big picture “yes” and “no” covered, we went over an example of simple principles for organizing, ala Elinor Ostrom’s research on commoning. Then we discussed whether economics already imposes some assumptions, which may show up even in the fringes. And whether knowledge commons have similar constraints and scarcity as physical commons which flowed into our review of the session and notes for next time. After that we had a casual chat including things like, should this be arranged in a fashion more akin to distributed governance models itself.