m of care – jan 1

jan 1 –

simona part of diem 25

(23 here) – 15 min in to agenda

discord – john fass – for discussion/community growth

nika: how to create a situation where we can all do what we want to do.. rather than all the meetings et al.. i was thinking email ness would coord.. with links to rooms et al

david duzer: in my mind discord is right in between – forum and venue.. but a venue w a landlord.. also talked about internet archive for collected works.. but also want to have that not just at one museum.. want to have accessible from multiple places.. ie: any time in a landlords place something could happen not in will of collective.. that’s one reason email has been so good.. i was referring to platform gathertown.. much more synchronous.. like zoom.. but more of a sense of vr.. with video convos.. on zoom.. jarring to split into groups.. can a group of people move and have it split off naturally like we would in physical space

nika: who owns the content/place (where everything is setting).. m of care owns nothing.. it’s an empty space where people meet.. most valuable is the people who came there.. david on property – not just something you own.. but something you can destroy.. and can prevent others from it.. m of care should not be able to destroy anything.. should not be a subject of regulation.. but to help it happen.. so need mobility.. where people can come/go .. only come together if want to work.. so avoid meetings.. not telling anyone what to do.. i would try to use several platforms if not going to be lost.. ie: pirate bay

imagine if we ness

clive – designs for extinction rebellion

robin taylor – if you’re seriously planning a revolution you might want to do it some place more private

kacy crider – in cambridge.. in april.. friends/engineers wanted to be able to gather for parties.. we’ve now created hq of satanic temple – so a concern of privacy.. their ‘home/house’ site: https://tstvhq.com/.. and https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us (says for empathy against authority)

nika: why would you have a gathering on organization.. because i don’t want any organization.. i don’t want to build org based on want you want to propose

tj: it was just a learning.. because some don’t understand ie: consensus.. it was just to increase skills/confidence..

so assuming consensus is a good thing.. (i like nika’s mind.. i think we can legit facil that.. no org..)

gabi: on decisions group came about when trying to figure out structure of work groups.. got confusing .. so we stopped.. maybe we should re talk about structure/org

simona: why do we need a decision/structure group.. decision group is needed when you need to decide stuff.. when you have in mind a collective action.. give me ie’s of why we need to decide anything.. as i understand at moment.. m of c is lose structure that doesn’t need collective action.. so let me understand..

gabi: ie: didn’t know what time to meet.. so thought we should study dm processes

decision making is unmooring us law

simona: i’m totally interested.. something i’ve always been interested in.. dm.. not how m of c should to dm..

tj: that was my (thinking).. no conflict here..

nika: yeah.. this confusion.. we grow so much.. and i was like.. ok .. let’s do that foundation.. maybe it was emotional for me.. i don’t want to fail.. et al.. but what came out of it was maintenance work

nika: i want to create.. not meet and decide how to create..

this is huge nika.. we don’t need the structure/decision before.. we need to listen to the itch-in-8b-souls first.. and use that data to org us.. makes for less dm/consensus ness.. if at all.. but only if we trust us.. unconditionally.. which means.. we trust people to figure out what to do.. what they’ll need.. how to get it .. or how to find people to help them get it.. et al.. we don’t need to set things up for them (ie: dm process/structure) first.. because.. any form of people telling other people what to do.. is really saying.. you don’t trust them to figure it out for themselves.. (the only reason we need – at least an initial – mech to undo our hierarchical listening is because currently we all need that detox) – no one needs to manage/train/prep/teach anyone

nika: dm was like a learning group.. but then.. how you make a decision is you tell people what to do.. i think the structure should be structureless.. nobody owns the car.. the car doesn’t exist..

imagine if we – what we need is a means to undo our hierarchical listening.. like nika said: don’t want to meet and decide how to create..

nika: the aim is to escape this problem.. there is no good structure

freeman structure law (?) et al.. need to let go of any form of people telling other people what to do

begs 2 convers as infra

nika: pirate ships were a floating republic

simona: we spent 1 hr or more trying to make a decision.. who has the right.. which kind of decisions do we foresee to take – because the ones about what tools to use is quite a simple one

nika: we’re trying to invent the system in which all can be used.. so that everyone can make their own decision

ie: begs 2 convers as infra .. tech as it could be

nika: great when consensus is about not driving people to do things but allowing everyone to do whatever they want

again.. need to refocus our ‘starting place’.. so that we don’t have invisible hierarchy going gone.. i.e.: daily curiosity as our data to form org.. rather than deciding how to org.. 





museum of care

museum of care meetings