"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"
