- Someone used Firestarter to ask what everyone’s favorite dessert was.
- Using Dotstorm, some ideas for a house retreat were posted.
- A Twinklepad was used to start a list of our favorite websites.
- Somebody used Points of Unity to launch principles related to food buying and eating
- Another used the Resolve tool to propose that we build a house on an island in Maine
Friday, April 26, 2013
All of us who have ever been part of a group decision know that it can be a big challenge to reach consensus. If the issue is small enough we have lots of tools to help us reach an agreement: short e-mails, quick informal chats, short phone calls, and so on. When it comes to larger or more complicated decisions, if they require the input of everyone in the group these tools become mostly useless. This makes asynchronous decision making at best strained and at worst impossible.
This is where the Co-op Startup Fund comes in. Last year the Boston Collective House Assembly began trying to come up with the outline for a loan fund that would help to fund the formation of new co-ops. They did most of the discussion in person, with asynchronous communication delegated to e-mail and wiki editing, and in May of last year that discussion petered out. This isn't surprising to me.
I can't count the number of times I've had similar experiences, where the medium for discussion makes it impossible to come communicate effectively.
As soon as a topic gets too big to put in the first paragraph of an e-mail, or as soon as the discussion gets heated enough, I find myself staring at my inbox with dread as the little number next to the reply count continues to tick up and up. From how often these sorts of things get resolved, I'm sure I'm not the only one who does this. Most of the time discussion gets pushed off to the next in person meeting, or delegated to a single person to take charge of, but these solutions aren't always feasible. Some co-ops meet less than once a month, and sometimes there's no one with the time to take full responsibility for a big decision.
As Charlie mentioned in his previous blog post, there are many reasons why he's interested in decision making tools, especially when it comes to coordinating a single group. But the bigger and more disparate the group the more useful the tools become.
So here's where InterTwinkles comes in, and how it grows from a group decision making platform to a clustered one. We're hoping to get lots of co-ops involved in using and perfecting the tools on their own in their regular meetings and decisions. Some of these tools are new, and still quite rough around the edges, and we need people to give us good feedback on how well they work.
Thus empowered with these tools we aim to re-ignite the conversation about the Co-op Startup Fund. The participating groups should now be familiar with how the tools work and should be able to jump right in to making and adapting proposals. Our hope is that not only will we learn a lot about how these tools can help facilitate group decision making, but we'll provide the platform that the Co-op Startup Fund needs to get out of the discussion phase and become a reality.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
- informed constituents
- accessible and respectful participation of all stakeholders
- full discussion by constituents in which all can speak and all can be heard
- equal input among constituents in the decision-making process
- trust in the process and in participants
|Points of Unity|
- enabling constituents to share information and ideas (Firestarter & Dotstorm)
- facilitate participation by constituents, even when they are not in the same geographic place
- promote discussion by providing a platform for each participant to share their ideas in words, drawings, photos etc. (Dotstorm & Twinklepad)
- allows participants to help one another in achieving equal participation and power in decision-making
- Clarify proposals and vote on them (Resolve)
- Develop shared statements of principles or values (Points of Unity)
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Many of the tools including the Twinklepad are familiar and useful for helping people work together remotely while very thoroughly retaining the integrity shared information. The Twinklepad offers real time text editing by numerous writers from remote locations. Resolve is an on-line tool that allows group members an opportunity to draft resolutions, amend them and vote on them without committing to regular face-to-face meetings. The potential for saving energy, travel time, while including busy participants with conflicting schedules makes the Twinklepad and Resolve both great options for members of housing cooperatives who might not otherwise find time to regularly meet to arrive at decisions and determine common goals.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
I've been working on online tools for consensus for the last 2 years. Here's what motivates me to work on this.
1. The water heater
For my first five years in Boston, I lived in a housing co-op in Dorchester. It's a classic Boston triple-decker, which the 13 residents own collectively. That means that we didn't have a landlord, but we were in charge of the mortgage, maintenance, utilities, and everything else. The house operated by consensus, and all decisions happened at weekly house meetings.
At one point, one of the three water heaters that serviced the house died, which left our main kitchen without any hot water. One of the residents (a well meaning, competent, and all around good person) took on the task of fixing this, and called up a plumber for an emergency job. The plumber charged us the emergency rate; almost $2000 to install a new water heater, very similar to this model here, which rings in at $358 at Home Depot:
In retrospect, we needn't have payed the emergency rate. We could have gotten by with only two-thirds of our water heaters for a week or two. We could have gotten a more energy efficient water heater that would have kept long term costs down, and we could have done all of that for less than half the cost. But the consensus process that could've allowed the house members to express their opinions was too slow, and we had no process in place to make decisions between meetings. Could we have had an effective consensus process that could respond to an urgent need like this?
2. Anti-war protests, 2002-2003
In 2002 and 2003, protests against the Iraq war erupted all around the world – some of the largest protests ever. Over a million people turned out in Rome, half a million each in London and New York, and over 200,000 people in San Francisco.
These protests, and direct actions that followed, were led by small affinity groups of 10 to 20 people who organized into clusters to coordinate their actions. My experience of participating in these protests demonstrated the power of small consensus-oriented groups to organize, motivate and mobilize people. This same style of small-group organizing formed the seed for Occupy Wall Street a decade later.
These clusters have tended to be short-lived, even as the issues they organized to tackle have continued to impact people. Is there a way to facilitate cluster organizing that is lower cost to the participants, so that the same power of coordinated autonomous groups can work even in times of peace?
3. Apex organizations
For the last 2 years, I've served on the board of an NASCO, an organization that supports housing cooperatives across the US and Canada. This professional non-profit draws its board members from four time zones, and with a miniscule budget, runs a conference, a land trust, an education and training network for tens of thousands of people, and a development consultancy that helps new co-ops to get started.
The board operates by consensus, and holds only a few in-person meetings and conference calls throughout the year. But when staff turns over or crises strike, it can become very difficult to maintain effective communication between meetings, especially when we lack the budget to fly everyone across the continent to meet. Could geographically distribute organizations find better ways to get work done between meetings, while still maintaining the values of inclusion, participation and consensus?
Consensus decision making processes have shown themselves to be extremely effective in encouraging full participation and equality in groups that practice them. But they're less functional in times of urgency, at larger scales, and in geographically distributed contexts. Can we meet some of those needs while staying true to the values of participation, democracy and understanding?
InterTwinkles is the culmination of my work on so far on these questions. It is a collection of light-weight tools that groups can use for brainstorming and decision making, and inspired by the effective in-person tools that already exist. I hope you'll consider trying it out, and joining us to help build a resource for all types of co-ops and democratic groups.
Cross-posted at civic.mit.edu.