Monday, November 26, 2012

David Z's resignation letter

"As a basis for considering governance models the article was useful, although rather narrow in scope. Other governance models to consider may include, but not be limited to: direct democracy, consensus democracy, sociocracy, demarchy, panarchy, sortition and heterarchy. All of those can be looked up on Wikipedia for a quick overview. Bashing out the pros and cons of each model might prove a fruitful exercise for determining which model provides the most appropriate basis for our needs. From there onwards we may be able to develop a model that is specifically tailored to the RBEM. Currently our model is closer to a benevolent dictatorship with elements of feudalism than to anything else, sadly, and all is done to a highly unprofessional standard.
Two issues here stand out to me:

1. In order to select an appropriate governance model we need to clarify what kind of entity we are - i.e. are we a movement or an organization. Currently TZM seems to have an identity crisis - marketing itself as a movement but trying to behave like an organization without the professionalism required to make that work. I think that once a choice is made there we can tailor our governance structure to suit.

2. Presumably if we are to walk our talk and be the change (any other over-used kitschy phrases I should chuck in there?) we should be implementing the governance model that would be used in the RBEM. In order to do this we need to clarify what it is. Thus far we haven't really done that - although I have attempted to raise the topic a couple of times in this group. If we aren't clear on the details of the RBEM economy, governance and culture we can't exemplify that which we wish to create (and yes... I know it is stated in brief, and speculated on ad infinitum all over the place... but there is no complete emergent design model).
The system needs to be designed and clarified. Unfortunately Fresco's RBEM isn't a complete design - or at least there isn't a full design that I have been able to find either by myself or through asking around. I have seen complete systems designs from other organizations and nutted out the basics for the RBEM myself (I've attached the PPT slides that accompanied my presentation at the QLD systems design studio earlier this year - I've sent these out before but received no feedback - ironically I've received a lot of feedback outside of TZM and this has got us places). What I'd really like for us to do is clarify all of these and then start exemplifying our talk.

Okee - so - whatever this team decides to go ahead with I'm sure I'll have little influence. It seems to me that some here are more equal than others, and 2 have bailed (Jen & Jason), leading me to speculate that this is not a real core team at all as I am certain that they remain active and influential at the core.

However, I see it as worth pointing out that Integrative Services, the organization I co-founded along with 5 other systems thinkers (3 PhD's and a shit-load of scientific publications between them humbles me massively! Our group is made up of: an architect-turned ethics-oriented systems designer; a geologist & marine biologist who works in environmental policy; the creator of the Carrying Capacity Dashboard; the creator of the world's first robust open-source knowledge repository; and another programmer... I'm the education guide and do a lot of front-of-house stuff as what I lack in technical expertise I make up for in communication skills when it comes to conveying the complexities to multi-level players...) has taken the time to come up with our governance model before rushing into operations. We started with a sociocratic model which leaves us room to breathe and work on our areas of expertise while coming together for consensus regarding major decisions (major defined as those which impact others - not just our own workflow). At present I'm beefing up the knowledge repository with some research into the various governance models.

Once I've extracted and shaved up the data regarding pros and cons (need evidence weighted for reliability for each) it goes into the knowledge repository which crunches the weighted data and comes up with a suitable answer to the question asked - i.e. what is the most appropriate governance model for achieving xyz? I explain that stuff really basically because I really am not at all savvy about the techy side of the supercomputer :-P Anyways - the point is we took 6 months (with several 3-4 day-long residential marathon planing sessions) to come together and come up with a working model from which to develop. From there the original 6 co-founders were able to start connecting with others who are able to fill our skills-related gaps and assist us with the physical infrastructure to put our model in the petri-dish, so to speak.

I would have loved it if I had received more positive feedback from TZM regarding this as I previously felt that TZM should absolutely be involved in such ground-breaking projects. However, having received either no feedback or negative feedback (along the lines of "we're not ready so you can't do it") I settled for just getting on with what needs to be done at the pace I work at. I think it's past-time for TZM to really be able to be involved as the team don't take us seriously (they take me seriously as they've experienced working with me - but want nothing to do with TZM) due to our obviously malfunctioning half-baked system. Anyways - regardless my obvious disenfranchisement with TZM and our current self-defeating structure I will share the model Integrative Services have been working with in order that this group can at least have some food for thought to take on board. You'll do with it what you will. Anyways - the following is the approach we've used for systems design and implementation:

T - Threats
I - Interests
M - Metaconstitution
E - Ethics
S - System/s
----------------------
P - Policy
S - Strategy
O - Operations

The Threats stage involves collaboratively establishing consensus regarding what universal threats humanity faces. This seems pretty straightforward, but you'd be surprised (perhaps) to see how many discrepancies can arise due to worldviews that are not identical from one person to the next. Arguably TZM has made assumptions regarding these, but gone through no same-paging exercise. The Interests stage involves collaboratively establishing consensus regarding what universal interests humanity shares. Again, this seems pretty straightforward, but, again, you'd be surprised (perhaps) to see how many discrepancies can arise due to worldviews that are not identical from one person to the next. Arguably TZM has made assumptions regarding these, but gone through no same-paging exercise.

The Metaconstitution stage is where it all starts to get really interesting. This stage involves "metaconstituting" in preparation for constituting - meaning consensus is attained regarding participatory principles such as appropriate rules of engagement, metacommunication, priorities-setting, etc. I can provide the working document we've developed for this upon request. TZM has not attempted this stage, instead making assumptions and setting some protocols and procedures, which are often broken by those who set them. I have attempted to address this with the GCA and global core, but to no avail. The Ethics stage forms the basis of a constitution, as, arguably, ethics must be the foundation of the principles of any system. Again, there may be assumed consensus regarding ethics, but it is an area where, in practice, many differences become evident and consensus isn't necessarily easy to reach and cannot be taken for granted. I occasionally mention this philosophical concept here in the core team, but it's never addressed.

The System/s stage is, for me, the most fun part - designing a system (or "systems-corrective" measures to address threats and interests) based on all of the above. The system obviously has to address all universal threats and interests, and be rooted in ethics. With a working metaconstitution the design of this system will be possible to achieve via consensus, although this cannot be a rapid process and will forever be improved upon via the knowledge-repository feedback-loop. Now, TZM has not gone through this process at all, but adopted TVP's RBE, arguably without clear comprehension on the part of all involved - including Jacque Fresco - as to what the design of a whole system requires, and how to go about it. I fear we've been somewhat lazy in taking this all for granted, and have attempted to address the need for same-paging the system with this core team... again to no avail.

OKee.... so I guess that's a lot of information for now, but there's more....

The Policy stage refers to what happens after the systems design - i.e. designing appropriate policies to ensure that the system can function from a philosophical and governance perspective. This is the stage many reformist groups that exist to address flaws in our political system are at. It is a vital step, but should not be approached as sewing on a patch, instead being only really useful once the T -> S stuff has been addressed. TZM tends to gloss over the need for this, misunderstanding policy as partisan politics and governance... and replacing it with nothing really...

The Strategy stage refers to planning the logistics of how the required process and infrastructure, etc, of a system could be transitioned toward and implemented. Again, TZM misses this stage, rather blurring what is needed or just being vague, not recognizing this as a step at all or just "leaving it up to the experts" like TVP, who haven't been through this stage either.

The Operations stage refers to the actual infrastructure - the design and implementation of whatever is needed - both in the techy and non-techy senses. TZM are not at this stage and do not consider that we are capable (although PJ perhaps has some ambitious plans for the Global Redesign Institute - presumably to redeem the Movement post-TVP by showing them "we can do it too"?), leaving it, generally, to TVP - who are almost entirely functional at this level despite having left out most of the preceding stages (meaning that the likelihood of them having "the right answer" is slim and largely based on chance).

Okee - so I guess it's pretty apparent that most established institutions of society are operating at the P-S-O levels, and not appealing to anything from the T-I-M-E-S levels, meaning that they keep failing to make meaningful change due to having not addressed the most fundamental stages. This is what Fresco means when he refers to "patchwork", although he makes the same mistake himself.

Anyways... where am I going with all this? Well I'd like to see this process incorporated into a Wiki so that anyone joining such a project can actually go through these stages at their own pace, in collaboration. A Wiki provides a platform for engagement of this sort that doesn't hold back those who have already collaboratively completed parts of the journey whilst facilitating an un-rushed staged journey for newcomers through the gate. It also provides a vital feedback loop, meaning that we don't have to treat the process as linear, constantly refining each stage based on what comes up from its subsequent stages, and so on.
in what I call an "Integrity Challenge" (see third attachment for stages of integrity development" - would love some feedback on that, as well as the other 2 docs).

Okee... I think I've talked enough for one day and have work to get back to... Looking forward to some feedback/questions/engagement emerging from all of the above. Cheers & take care"

 

Friday, November 9, 2012

Project Americana all over again

"WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Invite Jacques Fresco of the venus project to the white house as a consultant on rebuilding a sustainable economy.
Jacques Fresco is a world renowned and respected futurist, scientist, engineer, and problem solver. He has created well thought out technologies and solutions to the economic issues that America faces. His ideas and solutions go beyond conventional thinking and political bickering. He has ideas to improve manufacturing, education, eliminate poverty, clean the environment, wean the country off fossils fuels, and the overall well being for all Americans.

Jacuques contribution of ideas and solutions to Americas problems can be a valuable resource to the Obama administration. Americas infrastructure is crumbling and we are dependent on foreign sources of energy. Jacques has scientifically sound solutions that we need to seriuosly consider to make America a sustainable, strong, & stable nation"


Created: Nov 09, 2012
Issues: Economy, Environment, Government Reform

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Douglas Mallette is looking for a million dollars


$16,373 Was Pledged

Founding Donor
$10 USD
Thank you! Even the smallest contributions add up. You will be officially recognized on the CFS website as a Founding Donor.
claimed
Founding Donor + Pen
$50 USD
Thank you! In addition to being officially recognized on the CFS website as a Founding Donor, you'll also receive a CFS Pen!
claimed
Founding Donor + Coffee Mug
$100 USD
Thank you! If just 4,500 people around the world contributed like you, CFS would be ready to go. In addition to being officially recognized on the CFS website as a Founding Donor, you'll also receive a CFS Pen and Coffee Mug!
claimed
Founding Donor + Flash Drive
$500 USD
Thank you! In addition to being officially recognized on the CFS website as a Founding Donor, you'll also receive the pen, coffee mug and a 2GB CFS Flash Drive!
claimed
Special Consideration
$1,000 USD
Thank you! Please contact CFS directly for details related to your contribution at info@cyberfarmsystems.com.
claimed
Special Consideration
$2,000 USD
Thank you! Please contact CFS directly for details related to your contribution at info@cyberfarmsystems.com.
claimed
Special Consideration
$5,000 USD
Thank you! Please contact CFS directly for details related to your contribution at info@cyberfarmsystems.com.
claimed
Special Consideration
$10,000 USD
Thank you! Please contact CFS directly for details related to your contribution at info@cyberfarmsystems.com.
claimed

Jared Lee Loughner sentenced to life in prison

Thursday, November 1, 2012

The Zeitgeist Movement "Rational Consensus" challenged


"Rational Consensus"

Rational Consensus is not to be confused with the historically failed traditional Mob Rule Democratic Process of "one person - one vote". TZM does not condone total, open mob rule democracy as it is based on the faulty assumption that each participating party is educated enough to make the most intellectually appropriate, unbiased decision.
Proper Decision Making has nothing to do with the interests of a group of people, nor the interests of a single person. Proper Decision Making is a purely technical process of logical assessment of a given set of variables and hence can only be based on upon tangible, technical referents - not abject, unsupported mass value opinion, which is what the pure democratic theory erroneously assumes holds integrity. In other words, each argument of a given member must be logically supported by an external referent/set of external referents – clearly reasoned in communication to support the conclusion given. The manifestation of this reasoning could be called a "Case".
Using the example of a Chapter scenario: When a conflict of agreement occurs between the group, the process of Rational Consensus is commenced which requires each conflicting party to present their Case to everyone else. This Case must consist of technically reasoned factors/instances/examples which can be evaluated outside of the expression of the person who is presenting the problem. In other words, insinuation, assumptions and predispositions have no value. If the argument cannot be quantified in some manner - it isn't valid as an argument.
Let's assume a Member has a problem with a Coordinator's actions and would like to see the removal of that Coordinator. Let's assume the Case reasoning is that the Coordinator is not properly representing the interests/ideas of the majority of the group.
In this scenario, a set of technical examples would need to be provided by which the group itself can review. Then a rational "democratic" consensus is made within that group based solely upon the evidence presented - not the expression of any persons themselves. Now, while this process is simple and direct enough - resembling traditional democracy - the decision can still be overridden in the event the conclusions made are suspect as to their technical reasoning by the next tier degree in the Chapter Structure. This extended evaluation is there to protect from erroneous conclusions made by a possibly un-knowledgeable or biased Chapter Membership.
In other words, for example, the removal of a State Chapter Coordinator, while meeting Rational Consensus in the respective Chapter, might still need to meet Rational Consensus on the State Tier on the Structure. [ie. Consensus by all 50 states] to protect against erroneous or biased group decisions or even infiltrations by 3rd parties with the intent of problem generation. Since these situations are very rare and occur usually within very small, lower tier Chapters, the factors which comprise such an intervention naturally exist on a per case basis.
As an aside, it is important to point out that there is nothing to gain personally by being a Coordinator of any Chapter or Team in and of itself. Abuse of this position offers nothing in self-interest return, except perhaps Ego Satisfaction. There is no pay and typically it is a higher stress position due to the responsibility inherent. Many who come from the hyper-democratic conditioning assume that mass consensus is the only thing we can trust while the individual is not trust worthy at all. This cynical view needs to be adjusted to understand that in an environment where a person cannot find reward for their narrow self-interest, they will have no reason typically to perpetuate that narrow self-interest. This is one of the core reasons, as an aside, The Movement operates without money overall - as money always sets the stage for corruption on a basic level, as history has shown.