[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [kFW] Needed: Collaborative systems for driving consensus...



Hi David and All,

At 11:50 29/10/01 -0800, David Morris wrote:
>Kendra has been a true democracy to date and a very effective one.

Really?!?! I'm confused by the word "democracy" as everyone seems to have a different take on it these days. But as far as I can tell Kendra Initiative seems to be more of a pseudo dictatorship with yours truly on the blasted thrown - a situation which I don't think benefits Kendra moving forward in the least but one we are stuck with until we can come up with something better. So, good, we are discussing other ways of structuring Kendra Initiative...

>Everyone
>gets to discuss their points of view on every topic.

Granted. And any person can get the newsletter and join discussion lists and list themselves as a participant on the website with no intervention from me or anyone else. But beyond the discussion, the writing and sending of the newsletter and the content on and updating of the website is currently done by me (or on my say so).

This all has to change. The question is: to what? And so, we design the "what". And the "what" is the same "what" in "whatever works".

>This is good way to
>interact when you have a small group, however more structure is need in a
>larger group.

Cool. What does the structure, that you suggest here, enable us to do better? What are the problems it is solving? How do you know when you have a good structure? Please do read my response to Toby's email:
http://www.kendra.org.uk/lists/archive/k-general/msg00091.html
What do you think?

>Without the structure, large democracies can fall under their
>own weight.  This is an impediment to growth and development.  I believe
>that we should consider instituting a formalized structure on to Kendra.

Wicked! Cool! Does this mean Kendra Initiative gets to be a legal entity? I am mindful of my own unlimited liability in all this currently. Perhaps you could take a look at a previous email on the subject here:
http://www.kendra.org.uk/lists/archive/k-framework/msg00001.html

>This will compartmentalize discussions by subject to the interested and
>knowledgeable parties.

We kind of have that with these discussion lists, don't we? What problems do you perceive currently with these discussion lists? How will what you suggest improve or enable discussion.

>We are not attempting to impede the flow of
>information, just modify the flow.  Each team could work independently and
>bring their findings before the all members to review, debate and ratify.

How is this done? Mailing lists? Could you elaborate?

>So, we could chose to restructure how the information flows within the
>groups and the organization.

Yeh! Please elaborate on what information you're talking about and then kind of where you think it should flow.

>Again, we are not attempting to impede the
>flow of information, just structure it for greater efficacy of the
>organization.

I hear you loud and clear gooood buddy. Totally with you here...

>I propose that we elect a short term governing body from the members at
>large.

Thwack! I lost the thread. Please could you show logical progression from your initial thoughts to this conclusion.

>Their purpose is to build the new framework for the Kendra
>Initiative.

Aren't we building the framework right here, right now? You and I and other people on this list? What is wrong with the way we are doing it now? And what are the problems that a governing body would solve? These are not defensive questions? I am not precious about what we have in place now. I genuinely want to know your answers. We should put in place whatever works best...

>After careful consideration, the governing body should bring
>its proposal(s) before the members to vote in whole or segments.  The
>following position would be up for nominations from the members at large:
>
>President
>Vice President (Europe)
>Vice President (US)

Could you explain your methodology for how you have divided up the planet? Wouldn't we have representatives from China, India, Africa and other places too?

>Secretary
>Treasurer
>Counsel (legal, if possible)
>Senior Advisor (3)
>
>What do ya'll think?

I think this is getting really interesting and I'm encouraged that we are getting further down the line in terms of how we want to structure this initiative. I feel we need to keep discussing and building the ideas until they are really concrete. Yeh?

I look forward to your response...

Cheers Daniel