collaboration at scale
via
P2P Foundation (@P2P_Foundation) tweeted at 5:03 AM – 19 May 2019 :
Catalysing collaboration at scale https://t.co/2ASoxNTOul (http://twitter.com/P2P_Foundation/status/1130066342101639168?s=17)Indra Adnan from The Alternative; Nathan Schneider from the Platform Cooperativism Consortium; Matthew Schutte from Holochain; Laura James from Cambridge Computer Laboratory; Josh Fairhead author of Harmonious Working Patterns; Oliver Sylvester-Bradley from The Open Co-op
nathan – platform co op, matthew – holochain, .. oliver and dil green moderating
indra: @indraadnan (also w the alt @AlterUK21: pat kane, indy johar, jonathan rowson,
laura: @LaurieJ
oli: @DefactoDesign
matthew: @matthewjosef
notes/quotes from 2 hour video (from open 2019 april):
4 min – oli: we’ve got 100s of groups/communities.. working on similar ideas.. a better world.. but we have not really learned how to collab very well yet.. all working in silos.. hard to get this big pic and overlap.. where possibility of increased collab lie.. also interested in collab w/in groups
let’s just facil daily curiosity ie: cure ios city.. via 2 convers as infra.. tech as it could be..
7 min – indra: how to get over clashes of ideas and work as people in a community
via listening to every voice/curiosity first thing.. everyday.. and facil ing (aka: augmenting our interconnectedness) that ie: curiosity over decision making
indra: what we’re doing 1\ address clashing narratives
imagine if we don’t see them as clashing.. imagine we listen to each and group together the like ones (not to mention the detox embed to get at the heart of us.. so that many of the supposed narratives.. becomes irrelevant in the first place)
indra: 2\ initiative collab amongst people that need to come together in 12 yr window 3\ find ways for people living in places to meet each other better in face of divicive narratives.. *a practical way on the ground.. we’ve developed ideas for collaboratories..
10 min – matthew: want to focus on intra and inter because it makes the boundary line the group.. and therein lies the problem.. when you do that.. we’ve accidentally accepted the invisible architectures of the failed system
12 min – matthew: that focus on efficiency and on creating alignment in order to max efficiency is what we’ve been focused on for a really long time and i think it’s actually the problem..
efficiency ness
matthew: so .. we’re (holochain) trying to shift how people can communicate/coordinate by building this new framework.. this way that people can build/run applications.. and the core of what we’re trying to do is to recognize that in order for people to coordinate.. for them to do something together.. there needs to be some shared grammar.. some shared form of info.. right now.. we’re making use of sound/light/camera/internet-protocols.. many layers there.. but even if we were just in a room and there was no light.. we had air in the room and vocal cords and eardrums.. we could use sound to communicate.. and thanks to that ability to express/receive info.. we would have an ability to try and start coordinating something in some way
but language is a barrier.. perhaps we try.. idio-jargon/self-talk as data
13 min – matthew: we may learn how to dance together well.. now the dancing we do could simply be singing.. and we adjust our notes and start to harmonize.. and then more stuff can happen there.. but this idea of coming into alignment w a party you’re interacting with can enable.. essentially.. a relationship there.. and some ability to learn how to dance and dance more coherently in the context that you find yourself in..
14 min – matthew: but if we try to generate that alignment from the top.. from some group wide defn .. we fairly quickly reach a sort of max scale of coordinative capacity.. and when you look how natural living system do coordination.. they don’t incorporate.. they don’t define the purpose of the forest.. the forest doesn’t have some set of letters embossed on the wall saying.. we’re dedicated to blank.. that’s not the way that forests do their coordination.. and the result is that they are capable of doing so much richer coordination as a result..our goal is to enable humanity to leverage some of these patterns that can lead to far greater complexity on the *solutions side.. already as humanity we are facing incredible complexity on the problems side.. and the institutional/collab techs we are making use of are incapable of matching that complexity
huge.. and this is why we need to start w 7b curiosities first.. everyday.. because it’s not even about ie: *the solutions side (if we were truly augmenting interconnectedness we’d find the problems we are seeking solutions to.. aren’t even the real problems..)
15 min – matthew: if you have simple solutions and complex problems .. you go extinct.. because world around you is changing faster than you can respond.. so what’s needed is increased complexity on the solution side.. on the *responsive ness side.. and we’re trying to **create tools/tech that can foster that type of coordinative capacity
and if again.. we are focusing on the wrong problems.. you go extinct.. because spinning wheels.. by ie: *responding to things.. rather than listening to every voice/curiosity deep w/in each soul.. everyday
**tech as it could be…. man.. because biggest problem is.. you can’t hear me/all-the-authentic-voices.. everyday
17 min – (on better alt to the boundaries) matthew: mental shortcuts.. simplifications.. a really useful thing.. but it’s not actually what’s happening.. boundaries constantly interacting w world around it.. it’s not an object.. it’s a dance.. w things around it that are themselves dances.. and that sounds super abstract.. but that’s a more accurate description of what’s happening..
embodiment ness
18 min – matthew: and each of the dancers in the world has a perspective.. ie: grammars that they are sensitive to
19 min – matthew: our attempts to org the activity by seeing the system from above w boundary lines.. useful tool for helping people come into alignment.. but not actually how boundary gets aligned.. boundaries are actually formed by actions.. reduce complexity by making it be filtered by whoever the mapper is
21 min – matthew: police et al.. tools for enforcing boundaries from above.. but the cost of enforcing boundaries is an inability to deal w the complexity of what’s actually happening.. we lose the variation of perspective.. which enable us to see blind spots
22 min – laura: i think boundaries have a role.. that we’re pursuing diff goals..
25 min – nathan: i think .. shared purpose.. is crucially human.. enables us to achieve things that are not as achievable in the forest.. ie: solidarity and forms of connection.. 3 ie’s of patterns of collab: 1\ associated press – a narrow point of overlap among people who are competing (they all hated each other).. the dynamic of combining competition w clearly defined collab can be quite powerful.. 2\ rural electric co ops – made possible by top down process.. enabled bottom up result 3\ collab on emerging blockchain protocols.. ie: ethereum yelling at each other.. doing politics all over again.. trying to develop tools for coord thru blockchain.. but so much of the horror of communication happen thru chat groups.. 5000 unread messages.. can’t keep track of who’s talking to who.. the most aggravating consequence of a system that was supposed to enable us to collab better.. reminder of how much of the humanity of collab.. relationship building.. trust.. has not been built into the engineering..t and has had to happen on outside.. which is often relying on a poorly credited non male participants in the system to recognize/support the emotional and engineered qualities of the network
interpretive labor et al
29 min – nathan: so it’s just a reminder to me how little we seem to understand as collab engineers about what actually goes into successful/functional human collaboration..t
30 min – oli: yeah.. agree w all of that.. still have to have group discussion and all politics that go around that
do we really..? i think that’s a huge part we’re mistaken about
oliver: shared purpose and principles for me are essential.. because you can’t really can’t have people coming together to achieve some goal w/o articulating .. what is that goal
agree.. but they need to be deep enough for all of us.. ie: maté basic needs.. beyond that.. i don’t think labeling purpose/achievement is helpful or humane
oli: so i do wonder if there’s a need for a slightly more inclusive shared goal/purpose between all the organizations that are trying to work on similar projects
yes that.. but let’s call that similar project .. life.. rev of everyday life.. so that we can focus on just 2 things fro 7 b people.. everyday
oli: even if it was so basic as.. we rely on planet for survival and it would be a good idea to support that planet in order to ensure us
we have to go deeper than even that.. what we need most: the energy of 7bn alive people
31 min – indra: so much stands in the way of collab.. t.. 1\ in our minds/thinking 2\ in our emotions.. both can cause us not to be connected w the essential thing.. that sometimes we think is free to collab w others ie: if we imagine we are free to collab w others by choice.. that would be a fine thing.. but the question is .. are we..
32 min – indra: to what extent are our minds truly free to express our choices.. desires.. we are pre framed in our public life by groups we have decided we belong to.. or other people have decided for us that we belong to..t
exactly.. this begs we engineer detox into the mech
whales in sea world et al..
33 min – indra: blocks that people haven’t participated in the making .. they are invited to act w/in these blocks.. but also .. they start to defn themselves inwardly with those ideologies.. we’re constantly being defined by our public space.. we have less chance to define ourselves..t
invited vs invented ness
ie: supposed to’s.. of school/work
indra: maybe this is a moment where we are trying to explore ourselves more but (bound in) an era where our id’s are already decided for us
identity ness..
34 min – indra: and then there’s the moral content of a space.. does everybody enter a possible space of collab on equal terms.. unlikely..
they would/could if we listened to.. defined.. labeled.. facil’d.. by curiosity first.. everyday .. if we let that be our guide
love what you’re voicing here indra
indra: ie: diff agencies/confidence/vulnerabilities.. to that space.. and some people are more adept at manipulating others
this is again why.. we should let people voice their curiosity first.. and then gather people to a space.. via that .. this inviting ness.. to the campfire et al.. is a killer
indra: so it’s not my experience at all that we can just walk into a space and be ourselves and start from that point to collab..t
this is it.. so .. imagining we could if individual daily curiosity .. was our mech of facilitation..
today we can.. if we’re brave enough to start from that point.. everyday.. ie: 2 convers as infra
indra: and then there’s the bigger pic of the relationship between the individuals contribution and how that melds easily the social and then w the planetary
if we could trust us enough (aka: 100%; unconditional).. our undisturbed ecosystem would allow that to emerge.. everyday
indra: this idea that we are instantly social beings.. that we are in tune or somehow aligned w the planet is kind of false
only because of what you said earlier.. we have become not us.. so.. not indigenous.. but that essence is still in us.. we can still listen to it.. be it
indra: we all have diff ideas of how we can be individuals.. how we can be social..
perhaps the key is in not spending our time/energy on thinking about how to be those things.. rather.. just listening deep enough.. and being those things (to me this is similar/fractal to nathan’s 5000 messages horror – that we think we need these ideas/messages of how to be.. rather than just being)
35 min – indra: so i think there are all these obstacle to being collab beings even before we choose to be one or not
spot on.. so are we even choosing.. or is the obstacled not us ness (the whale in sea world) seemingly choosing (aka: going along w the current/flow)
oli: and i would say if we could overcome those challenges then what are the key ingredients that would make us better at collab
if we can overcome those challenges.. we wouldn’t have to discuss key ingredients.. ie: we all already have that in us.. so i guess you could say a key ingredient .. is a mech that listens to each voice first.. everyday.. and all facil-ing/collab-ing.. is based on that
indra: first of all finding spaces.. i do think the face to face is very important before we build the digital space to observe that.. it’s not my understanding that you can find that in a digital way..
because we haven’t yet used tech to truly augment our interconnectedness.. as it could be..
ie: hlb via 2 convers that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…].. a nother way
again.. like nathan referenced.. we’re all being horrified.. by the tech we engineered to make collab easier.. we’re missing the foundation of that.. we’re spinning our wheels on peripheries..
indra: so to first commit to physical human connection is more and more important.. and then to find ways that you can create the atmosphere in which people can overcome their initial obstacles quickly
here’s your daily design for that: 2 convers as infra
indra: i give a lot of credit to music and the arts.. to bring people into some sort of emotional resonance.. neutral space .. so they can begin to see each other as human beings.. and not as potential competitors in a space.. so beautiful surroundings .. help people get into an emotional readiness about *this
see.. i think the *this ness is wrong.. and messing with us.. it doesn’t have to be that way.. that we have to prep/ready to enter a space.. if we can just listen deeper (call that our prep if you like).. i think we’ll find completely diff gatherings than we’re currently trying to pre engineer..
39 min – matthew: even at 100 000 person scale.. that’s a hard thing.. to figure out the purpose/alignment.. that actually matters.. not a meaningless abstract statement that doesn’t influence what we do on a daily basis.. and when you far beyond that to million.. billion.. multi b scale.. the level of alignment in the contexts that individuals are facing on a daily basis and thus the decisions they have to make.. becomes essentially meaningless
yeah.. not buying that.. (that we can’t align all of us to some deep focus – funny that you just said.. we can’t imagine an alt).. and yeah hard to be quiet enough to hear that.. took me 10 yrs to really see/hear.. .. i believe it comes down to 2 needs/convers.. for 7b
matthew: so that’s the problem with how do we come into alignment from the top.. that’s the problem w the limitation of that pattern.. from my perspective.. in terms of the how do we go forward.. i really love what indra said about differences between face to face and video and text.. because the medium matters.. in our team at holochain we talk about warm (tone from video and face to face) & cold (text, likes) mediums
41 min – matthew: so the medium matters.. the architecture of how we are communicating w one another.. they sculpt the possibilities of what can be done..t
perhaps more..what we are communicating about ie: something we can’t not talk/wonder/do-something about..that day.. let’s listen to that
because again.. what the world needs most is for all 7b of us to be awake/alive.. every day.. the world needs that art/dance
42 min – matthew: the medium influences what kinds of coordination actually shows up in a world and for us it’s really important to recognize.. that if we do the defining of those grammars from the top.. we end up suffering from basically being bogged down in bureaucracy when we want to make them better.. t
the grammars.. ie: idio-jargon.. from each individual .. anew.. everyday.. the infra. can be said to be from the top (in the sense that it is over arching) .. though it’s perhaps more accurate to say it’s from way down deep (in the sense that it is already in each soul)
matthew: because defining it from the top makes it so that we’re going to have everyone agree that we’re going to change how we’re communicating
not so.. i think you’re focusing on the wrong focus.. ie: how we’re communicating can be universal (33 min a day of it).. the rest.. very idiosyncratic/individual/whimsical.. et al
matthew: so w holochain we’re not defining one big grammar.. we’re creating a framework that enables people to decide on what grammar is right for them
see.. i think even that ‘deciding‘ ness.. is not humane.. i think that’s something that should be and today can be.. irrelevant.. ie: it’s not about a finite number of choices of grammar..
44 min – matthew: something we call mutual sovereignty.. ie: deciding a medium .. and if works for both of you.. can continue using it.. very diff than defining group from above.. don’t have to have alignment with all .. just w/in particular relationship
45 min – matthew: we need to come into alignment.. but it’s the dancers themselves.. who on an ongoing basis need to be sensing/responding to.. ‘is this working well enough’.. and ‘i want to try something diff’
47 min – laura: we need to think about privilege and power when we think about (access to) the diff mediums
49 min – nathan: power and privilege is important here.. juliet schor’s studies.. non profit coops more homogenous.. which is dangerous.. limits ability to do solidarity.. to stand w people you don’t have the opp to be w all the time
55 min – indra: the whole demand for listening is very diff in person than it is online
indra: matthew.. you are trying to describe something we would really love for somebody to achieve.. we would really love for somebody to deliver on the complexity of people’s movements and intuitions/thoughts.. diff ways of org ing selves and yet still want to make connections between those things.. we’re waiting for that tech.. that can really carry the whole human array of warm and cold connectivity.. we haven’t seen it yet.. t
really..? i don’t know.. not enough to hear it.. believe it..
here it is .. tech as it could be.. can you hear it..?
indra: if that’s on offer.. we will want to inhabit that thing.. t
this is why a global leap is possible.. if: means for 7b souls to be heard.. then: something 7b souls are already craving
indra: we’ve got something to look forward to i hope.. that this thing will arise.. that is that sensitive.. that capable of communicating at the level where human beings can communicate w each other in a space.. that’s ultimately what we look forward to .. as far as i’m concerned..
mufleh humanity law: we have seen advances in every aspect of our lives except our humanity– Luma Mufleh
57 min – matthew: to indra.. us too.. life’s work.. i lived in my car for 1.5 years.. so i could focus and get this off the ground.. and we’ve tried to seed holochain in ways that would allow us to play by an unusual playbook.. so open source.. free.. no business model.. separate that does have bm.. owned by non profit.. et al.. we’re just now getting to building to scalable applications using holochain
58 min – matthew: and even though we’ve got this huge ambition.. what we’re doing is not very big.. because we’re not believers in the ‘tech will solve it’.. the whole point is creating a medium of communication that allows humans to solve it.. in their actual contexts they are living
yeah.. 2 convers as infra.. because it’s not just about current contexts.. (since we are all so intoxicated) .. it’s also hugely about a detox imbed.. ie: self-talk as data
1:05 – oli: if we agree the challenge is greater inter group collab.. i wonder what that git (hub) equiv is.. *ie: for red cross, world bank, et al
tech as it could be.. hlb via 2 convers that io dance.. as the day
*imagining those orgs irrelevant if we first had 7b alive people
1:06 – oli: i guess one of the things git does is get you to agree on a shared purpose.. interesting way of getting people around shared interest/vocab
not interesting enough (for what we’re capable of) .. what we need is to listen to 7b individual purposes (i’d call them daily curiosities).. first.. connect those people locally.. then no agreeing ness needed..
oli: i wonder if there’s a more organizational model that we can imagine that might enable groups to share that larger overview..t.. it’s a big subject.. and we’re all very hopeful holochain might enable some of that for us
yes.. this org model: infra.. if larger overview is deep enough.. ie: maté basic needs..
response to this tweet:
@monk51295 @ntnsndr @indraadnan @matthewjosef We’re working on solutions to enable easier, more effective collaboration at scale. Come and help answer the question “How can we support each other to take more effective action to catalyse the collaborative, regenerative economy?” at @open_coop 2019 https://t.co/dv28TviLMl
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/DefactoDesign/status/1130451131329667072
jun 27-28 in london.. 150 people together in a space.. w brainstorming and lightening talk pitches.. oi.. what we need is 7b curiosities everyday/everywhere.. no one pitching/brainstorming.. just deeper listening and facil ing
@monk51295 @ntnsndr @indraadnan @matthewjosef @open_coop This is the OPPOSITE of protest – we #love @ExtinctionR but want to encourage all Rebels to move towards working FOR proactive #solutions not AGAINST the many problems… The Gov is incapable of delivering the scale of change required in time – only positive action will save us
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/DefactoDesign/status/1130452040046530561
perhaps not even about proactive solutions.. imagining we aren’t currently focusing on a deep enough problem.. ie: the center of the (all) problem(s)
ai humanity needs: augmenting interconnectedness.. a mech to listen to every voice/curiosity (has to be everyone).. first thing (has to be first thing) .. everyday
1:08 – laura: differentiation is an important thing.. one reason can work together is because they are not the same.. for me.. what is good collab.. how can we ground the convo in something that’s real enough to know what good looks like.. ie: shared values.. values are a bit like strategy.. if no one can object to it.. it’s not really a strategy.. values and mission statements very similar
1:09 – laura: our most useful mission statement was pragmatic because it was so controversial.. so having values that people can object to is something to think about for collab..
1::11 – laura: how do you actually know your vision is agreed..
1:12 – nathan: i would just add to laura’s list.. shared infra.. we should centralize intentionally.. and be intentional about how we deploy resources..
1:15 – nathan: centralizing to some degree is a safeguard to more centralizing
1:17 – matthew: naming is useful for the ones naming.. a tool of reduction.. for the one’s reducing
1:20 – matthew: on building a shared grammar thru dance.. functionings to emerge
1:24 – matthew: i think at the end of the day .. spirituality and love.. point at this reality of being separate but also being connected
1:25 – indra: we need to ask whether we can see the woods for the trees.. we’ve presented w this climate window of 12 yrs.. and there’s a necessity to be able to see the bigger picture.. if we’re not willing to do that.. we’ve failed ourselves.. have to hold the complex individual yourself .. own your own complexity.. but go into whole in order to find results.. results is what we need right now
1:30 – josh: idea was to pair in threes.. w two can agree on a third who might add direction.. then disband.. and create another group.. with 2 of you
1:34 – matthew: (showing josh’s 3 notes.. 2 stay same.. 1 changes) ..i play keyboard often from just fumbling around.. beauty of all this.. this is not a static thing.. not objects.. it’s flows/dances.. diff between humans and notes.. humans have agency.. ‘is this working for me or not’.. if that dance doesn’t serve that agent.. eventually that thing goes away.. either they stop or they go extinct.. for us.. that is why the mutual sovereignty stuff is so important.. if not able to do that.. no feedback loops.. like indra.. my big fear.. is that we are too late.. i don’t think the alignment at the top can get us there.. awareness is not the issue.. also need diff capacity
1:38 – indra: if we can bring multiple personalities of self into a tune we’re enjoying.. that makes us happy.. we should be experiencing our own integrity et al all the time.. but enough space between us to allow others.. w/o losing our (onlyness).. to be able to own that.. i think that’s one thing we haven’t done yet.. give people permission.. to have their own (voice).. can we get there.. ?
yes.. but has to start w individual curiosity .. everyday.. first.. because ie: maté trump law.. et al
____________
____________
be you. 