there are a whole lotta conceptual themes in what Eddan and Matt and others
off-list have brought up that sound really right-on. Huzzah! I think these
bear repeating for the conversation about developing a board.
So, to wit, the ideas that seem relevant: a leadership-oriented board,
where they proactively take responsibility for the inclusion and enabling
of member initiative... and, doing so with accountability... and, in
alignment with commonly-held goals.
See you all tonight and maybe continue this discussion!
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)clear.net> wrote:
Thanks for this! and not just because it's info-graphic.
Especially alongside the Board conversation taking place, I'd be
interested in having a more shared sense of what do-ocracy means. Not in an
encyclopedic manner, but a clear and conspicuous outline of Sudo social
There's a lot to add to and comment on, but the major thing I've been hung
up on recently is what a 'deliberative do-ocracy' would look like. A
consensus decision-making and project prioritizing collaboration with
collective goals and general accountability, that gets cool shit done.
Relatedly, I think Matt H.'s compelling arguments in favor of a leadership
oriented Board on the other thread are worth taking seriously. I differ
slightly in thinking there's a way for the Board to initiate and steer
general productivity as separate from consent decision-making. I most agree
with the sentiment that If we're gonna have a Board, then let's do it right
and leverage the opportunity to get our house in order. It is clear from
the nominations so far that this is the criteria people implicitly have
mind even when supposedly it was thought to have no significance.
Structurally, I'm thinking in particular of the relationship between the
European Commission in the European Union and the Council and Parliament as
a potential model for the leadership role of the Sudo Board. The Parliament
is the proportional democratically elected body and the Council is the
representative nation decision-making body (analogous to our Senate). The
Commission launches initiatives and lays out the direction of things -
substantively having the biggest impact on how legislation is shaped, but
cannot (or should not be able to, rather) really make any law without
advice and consent of the other bodies.
sent from eddan.com
On Oct 24, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Danny Spitzberg <stationaery(a)gmail.com>
there's been a whole lotta talk and excitement about "do-ocracy" and,
occasionally, adhocracy. That's rad!
I'd like to question the notion that "do-ocracy" is the logical end of
collective efforts. In my view, do-ocracy is a great practice and ethic
that is best served embedded in a loaf baked with intention, care, and...
To substantiate that, I'd like to share a one-page doc I composed that
situates do-ocracy as a phase between two others, one the early "dream"
state and the other an advanced "democracy" (so-called). While these phases
exist on a gradient and can (and should) organically bleed into one
another, there are important distinctions and caveats.
I hope this sparks some constructive conversation around accountability
alignment within the group. Really, I do!
<Screen Shot 2013-10-24 at 5.47.19 PM.png>
sudo-discuss mailing list