Cycle 3 Anchor

I couldn't find it in me to create a formal invitation to cycle 3.

I feel we are in cycle 3, it has a fuzzy beginning and has a fuzzy feeling.

There are times when the fuzziness feels sleepy and I want to shake it off, but most of the time I am OK with the fuzziness.

I sense that we arrived at a soft agreement that cycle 3 is about fleshing-out the generative process that was placed at the altar. That feels like a clear invitation to me and, though slower than I would like, that fleshing out is emerging from me.

I offer this fuzziness as an invitation to cycle 3 and, as always, invite us all to unfold this invitation with whatever is alive in you.

@Josh Fairhead I just want to make it explicit that though you did not reply to the pole, I take it, based on past interactions, that you do not have any objections. If this is not correct, even though the pole has closed, please feel free to express your position in response to this thread.

I am now wondering what would be a good way to do this. This is a process that is currently alive for me:

1. One of us (in this case myself or Josh) have a one-on-one conversation with the "candidate" to introduce the crew and what we've been doing. During this conversation extend the invitation to join and ask for feedback and/or interest in the invitation.

2. Inviting the candidate to a gathering where we can get acquainted, ask questions, share thoughts, wishes feelings.

3. If, after the gathering, there is a mutual interest, an official proposal will be made to invite the "candidate" in. If there is consent the invitation will be extended to the candidate.

4. Because the crew is an established space, the candidate will be joining for an initial "test" phase (can be firmly or loosely defined) during which we can all get a feel if the addition feels good.

Any thoughts, wishes around this?

Thanks for tagging; I thought I had replied but apparently not... Assumed correctly, I have no objections.

In response to process;

1. Fine but:

   1. This statement begs the question of coherent messaging, I wouldn't be surprised at all if each of us articulates what we've been doing in differing ways. At least, I believe that I'd have difficulty formulating a representative view of what we're doing bar the basics (I'm not entirely sure we're even doing "Microsolidarity" but rather our own approximate flavor which leans on Richards writing). Feedback from the outside about our 'self-representation' would be welcome in that regard.

   2. 1:1's feel like the way to introduce a new candidate; however I'm inclined to addend a proportional amount of 1:1's to the group size to increase variety for the candidate (like being in a crew to feel at home in a congregation). In this specific case, myself and Maija already have a pre-existing relationship ('dyad') and as such feel it should be up to other members to integrate that relationship into something of higher order by building relationships with her directly, rather than through me as proxy; I think a triad is probably the minimum viable 'route in' at the crew level.

      1. Tangential note; typing this response up reminds me of the three-body problem in orbital mechanics; two-ness remains a closed system... I've always felt Richard missed something by skipping from dyad to crew, this situation reminds me why!

2. Fine

3. Fine

4. Fine also.

   1. But begs a question around off boarding; I assume Maija will be fine with us but what happens if I turn into a complete prick, or something else happens in the space we've created? Since were talking about on boarding, it might be an appropriate moment to meditate on an off boarding process also (planning for the future; perhaps also think about how any potential practices might translate to the congregation level). This would be significant step for us as its equivalent to evolving ourselves a metabolism! (which regulates the flow of energy and resources across our membrane)

Thanx @Ronen Hirsch for the blueprint and @Josh Fairhead for the comments.

Fine but:

1. This statement begs the question of coherent messaging, I wouldn't be surprised at all if each of us articulates what we've been doing in differing ways.

We have left a good trace at Loomio and Discord of what we are doing, which I think that also speaks pretty well for itself. I would invite the candidate to read it. Conversely, I would love to read any trace of her/his work, when available.

I'm not entirely sure we're even doing "Microsolidarity"

I am still not sure what microsolidarity is. For me, even the naming is confusing. Imagine microfriendship, microcompassion, microempathy, microsupport... Really, I do not get it. And what united us is precisely the skepticism of some of its tenets, like the need for physical gathering.

I've always felt Richard missed something by skipping from dyad to crew, this situation reminds me why!

Totally. I have some notes for the Pantheon book regarding this, drawing from the amazing intuitions of George Simmel on the dyad and the triad. Even the order is not right. As Simmel wrote, before being alone you have to be with someone else. Otherwise, that cannot happen.

But begs a question around off boarding;

I agree as well. I read a few days ago a brilliant talk of James Hillman on the goddess Hera, where he said that "At the moment of marriage, the widow is also there and the divorcee is also there". It made me think a lot about that any agreement/covenant of being together is like that. Avoiding that dimension is somehow like an elephant in the room. Even if someone has not off boarded or has not the intention to, but you feel that has off boarded because of low (quality) interaction.

Ronen does not like to think in terms of generations, but I do. I think each generation supports different pressures. I think that millennials, for understandable reasons, prefer joining groups with low entry and exit costs. I expect Maija to want this.

Sergio and I talked without drama about the possibility of breaking apart at the same time when we decided to partner. Our model was open source communities: the horizon of forking. And not necessarily because we were mad at each other but, for instance, because of growth: the need to split and form two crews of 7 members instead of being one of 14. All our work is open source so no ownership there to fight about. Credit for contributions exquisitely maintained so we gain the reputation we deserve. That kind of organizational decisions makes the conversation today and in the future easier by design.

We have left a good trace at Loomio and Discord of what we are doing, which I think that also speaks pretty well for itself.

Spot on, for some reason that didn't occur to me.

Conversely, I would love to read any trace of her/his work, when available.

Speaks to the personal artifacts discussion of blogs, sites, outputs, portfolios discussion.

I am still not sure what microsolidarity is. For me, even the naming is confusing. Imagine microfriendship, microcompassion, microempathy, microsupport... Really, I do not get it. And what united us is precisely the skepticism of some of its tenets, like the need for physical gathering.

😂😂😂🤘

I have some notes for the Pantheon book regarding this, drawing from the amazing intuitions of George Simmel on the dyad and the triad. Even the order is not right. As Simmel wrote, before being alone you have to be with someone else. Otherwise, that cannot happen.

Tangential: I've been with the H3uni people for about a year and a half, Anthony was one of John Bennets research fellows as well as having worked under Stafford Beer also. I'm probably gonna do the qualitative systems course, perhaps you might be interested in the QualSystems as a taster? Its April 14th at 8pm CEST if so

"At the moment of marriage, the widow is also there and the divorcee is also there". It made me think a lot about that any agreement/covenant of being together is like that. Avoiding that dimension is somehow like an elephant in the room.

This is a nice thought on potentialities and possibilities Tony, thanks for that share.

I think that millennials, for understandable reasons, prefer joining groups with low entry and exit costs. I expect Maija to want this.

Hmm, maybe they do, maybe they don't. I feel that its more that we live in an enviroment of abundant information and scarce attention so cheap entry/exit decreases risk. I don't know why you'd expect that of Maija though?

All our work is open source so no ownership there to fight about. Credit for contributions exquisitely maintained so we gain the reputation we deserve.

True for code, but not for brand. Forking can be expensive as you lose opportunity or have to ostrisise yourself from other members of the group. This is my issue with DAOs; there's room for forking/entropy but not spooning/extropy/intergration. In crypto space forking is kinda reified as a mantra to everything, but its not, very often its a toxic ideology. In many cases forking is a zero sum game so context and potential outcomes need consideration.

That kind of organizational decisions makes the conversation today and in the future easier by design.

💯- the issue is usually bootstrapping as bad governance decisions made too early can leave the organism in 'technical debt' and also lead to a lot of wasted energy (forking etc.) down the road.

Hmm, maybe they do, maybe they don't. I feel that its more that we live in an enviroment of abundant information and scarce attention so cheap entry/exit decreases risk.

Of course, it is just an heuristic. Also, what I expect is either that or the opposite, since this appears to be a pivotal issue nowadays. Hence the "micro" of the "microsolidarity". That is my interpretation of such naming.

I don't know why you'd expect that of Maija though?

Oh, because I have not many inputs about her; even her "generation" is a guess. As I just said, I am totally open minded to find the opposite case because of saturation.

True for code, but not for brand. Forking can be expensive as you lose opportunity or have to ostrisise yourself from other members of the group. This is my issue with DAOs; there's room for forking/entropy but not spooning/extropy/intergration

I think ours is a different case, because size/scale matters, and because of our activity and value proposition. After two years, nobody buys Pantheon but Sergio and/or Toni. Also, we put care, mutual support, and credit/reputation in the equation in a way that I do not things DAO do because of their ontological obsession with the individual.

We know how traumatic forks can be, I even tackled this subject a little bit when talked with Amish about their different branches...

1: Coherent Messaging

I hear you @Josh Fairhead and while I understand the challenge and agree with youf raming it does not feel real to me.

The framing that is guiding me: we are an oganism and if we add another person we become a new organism. While there will be continuity, and a dominant presence of the past ... we are opening ourselves to becoming something new.

I am grateful for @Toni Blanco 's reminder that we have all this stuff here in Loomio ... but then I remember "shit, all this stuff in Loomio" ... I would NOT want to be obliged to ingest so much material at once as a criteria for joining a crew ... and so I would not place that on someone else. I WOULD make it available and refer to it as needed.

I would venture and say that the point of such a shift (inviting another member) is to shift coherence ... from one intangible to another (hopefully wholer, fuller, refined, better, more beautiful) intangible!?

2: Dyads

Thank you for making this explicit :)

For me, this exists ... in a fuzzy way. I have had the pleasure of one-on-one's with all of you ... all of which left me feeling dyad-ic in different ways :) At the present moment I do not feel a personal need to explictly introduce more of this.

Do you feel this needs to be structurall re-inforced? Made more explicit/intentional?

3: Off-boarding

Though I believe in living each day as if it were my last, I am not planning my funeral :)
I DO plan my funeral on dark days ... and even then I find myself gravitating to via-negativa: no "men-of-god" and no concrete!

I also want to express a feeling of trust ... because of "how we are" holds the keys to mitigating stress or crisis.

I also want to presence, here too, that I do not feel any personal need to tend to this. This is not alive for me. I AM available to tend to it if anyone else DOES feel a need.

Lastly, I would like to bring something else you said @Josh Fairhead as a question in this context:

[bad] governance decisions made too early can leave the organism in 'technical debt' and also lead to a lot of wasted energy down the road

Coherent messaging

@Ronen Hirsch - I'm not sure how I framed this (and can't find what you're specifically referring to). None the less I can appreciate yours.

Dyads

I've also had one:one's with everyone and don't feel a need for more of them within the group we've created. I feel they will arise at the appropriate moment anyway, but I would probably feel like an outsider if just joining our group. While I'm not sure that structural enforcement is necessary; I would like to be mindful of balancing in/out group dynamics.

Off boarding

Yeah, its not alive for me ether at the moment tbh; probably just my Stoic tenancies to think about these things.Being prepared for worst case scenarios has to preempt and bounce back from catastrophes to large degrees. Often they are unlikely to happen but when they do occur recovery is often contingent on preparation.

Question

Lastly, I would like to bring something else you said @Josh Fairhead as a question in this context:

Whats the question here @Ronen Hirsch? To add context I was thinking about the notion of Kairos, so it applies to "[good] governance issues made too early" as well ;)

Just wanted to signal that I had a pleasant 2-hour conversation with Maija (on Sunday, May 26th) and extended an invitation to join our crew.

We spent some time getting to know each other. It turns out she comes from a rural background where being in warm winter is correlated to a pile of wood that shrinks over winter. Like all of us, she is seeking meaningful and sustaining work. Like most of us, she is already very busy with a full-time job, a child to raise, and additional volunteer engagements.

I shared about our work (remote microsolidarity) and the way we go about it - our culture (prioritizing mutual care and collective well-being). I shared about how we work (prioritizing asynchronous, Loomio, discord, sandbox, showing up as you are, no shoulds or oughts).

I left her with an open invitation. She said she would like to take a couple of weeks, I invited her to take as long as she needs. I felt, and expressed, that the invitation is open as long as it lives in both of our hearts.

Thanks for signalling this Ronen, she mentioned so in Gronigen the other week. She expressed similar about her available time/slack but I had a sense that something wasnt fully expressed; I'm not sure and have no way of knowing, but I thought I'd express that I felt sense of hesitancy her side when we talked about it. I would welcome her to join us none the less.

Maija reached out to me and we had a 2nd conversation. It took place in my morning, on the same day of Gathering 14 with Jennifer & Robert. That coinciding made the day feel special.

When Maija reached out to me I was pleased and genuinely surprised. The feeling of surprise indicated to me that I indeed was not attached to any outcomes from the initial conversation with her. In our first conversation, I conveyed to her that I wanted to extend the invitation, but that I was leaving it in her hands, that I would not be doing any more inquiring and prodding, that it was up to her if we ever speak again.

I did not make any assumptions about what was on her mind, and was curious about what prompted her to ask to speak again.

As Josh predicted, the issue of low entry/exit costs came up. I replied that the only way to really tend to her questions and doubts was to try and see what experiences arise for her and for everyone else in the crew. I felt and feel confident that the foundations that have arisen between us, create good conditions for this kind of exploration.

I offered and Maija accepted that we speak again after I return to Romania. Now that the generative process is available and shareable, I feel that it may be a good "entry experience". So I'm going to share it with her and we'll see where that leads us.

Also, since some time has passed, and now Jennifer & Robert are amongst us, I want to ask everyone to review our conversation about inviting someone in and to reconsider our conclusions.

Thanks for the update, Ronen.

I've looked back through this thread as you requested. This conversation was on my mind at the end of our conversation with @Robert Damashek and @Jennifer Damashek which is why I didn't immediately suggest that they join us here in Loomio/Discord; that said, I was relieved when the suggestion arose swiftly and spontaneously anyway. In other words, trusting that it felt right at this point without having to get too "policy-y" about it, while still attending to the policy-like implications of our choices.

I feel similarly about the invitation to Maija. I'm glad that we're having these conversations about tending to the boundaries of the group while also stretching ourselves towards growth. The process that is unfolding feels trustworthy. Also, I would be more than happy to speak with Maija as well if a conversation with another person in the crew would be supportive to the process.

One thing I would like for us to offer to Maija in the context of "trying and seeing" would be an invitation to ask for what she needs in order to create an experimental container with us that works for her. That could be one way to address the "entry/exit cost" issue directly. But as always, I trust the process and trust @Ronen Hirsch to hold this piece however feels right to him.

Same here :-)

I had read through this thread before our conversation on the 29th. I just read it through again. I think it's a remarkable coincidence that Maija reached out to Ronen on the same day that Robert and I had the meeting with you. I feel I need to be more grounded with all of you to say anything else right now, other than I trust you and whatever process unfolds.

Thank you Alex, I will extend to Maija the invitation to speak with you during my next conversation with her.

Robert's conflict on the 7th is a doctor's appointment as a follow-up to surgery. I will see if we can reschedule so the meeting could be on the 7th of October.

We were able to move the doctor’s appointment to the afternoon of October 7th, so we can make the crew meeting that morning.