What is our work?

[George Por]

Hosting is about inviting every concerned party into the conversation, facilitating it and harvesting its highlights, and helping them discover new patterns of meaning emerging from the spoken and written words.

Hosting is as much about boosting the larger group’s collective intelligence and eliciting its collective wisdom, as dealing with the design and logistics of its meetings, and co-evolving its technical and other infrastructures with the changing needs of the group.

The work of the hosts includes:

1. hosting oneself - keeping ego out of the way

2. creating a safe container, where everyone can feel seen, heard and loved

3. stewarding the process that guides the larger group towards realizing its mission, by:

• designing and hosting community events
• seeding, feeding, and weeding the community's knowledge garden
• facilitating, weaving, and summarizing conversations
• periodical conference calls with other team members to sense together where we are and what is needed next 

[Janos Abel]

I believe that Not-Two Is Peace needs to be among the guiding tools of Commons Emerging.

(the uploaded file has the "confidential" water mark because I am still waiting for copyright information from some Adi Da people).

[Janos Abel]

Dear George, Mark,

About point 3, the "mission" (objective, rather?) is the first matter that needs elaboration.

As you both may have gathered, I think that we can keep learning, hoping for perfect knowledge, indefinitely without committing to action. By action, I mean changing things, not just "raising awareness" which can also go on indefinitely---people do not necessarily do things just because they know things are not going right. In other words, we already have all the knowledge about what and how things need to change. The methodologies in systems thinking are also at our disposal and so are a range of competent advisers through their published works.

So I propose that we think in terms of promoting the formation of inter-connected "think-tanks with teeth", that is, not just knowledge units but units with the capacity to effectively deploy existing knowledge.

I am thinking on these lines because actualities are the final outcome of a long series of germinative changes. If this sounds abstract, the rise and triumph of the market-fundamentalist revival from Hayek's Road to Serfdom and the founding of the Mont Pelerin Society to the Thatcher/Reagan re-engineering of Western capitalism, is a concrete example. To stop undesirable actualities erupting action has to be used as early as possible during the gestation stage

The converse is that we use existing knowledge already nurtured to help desirable actualities manifest, and that takes us back to point 3, and the mission

[George Por]

Thank you Janos for upping how we hold the "what is our work" question! I woke up this morning with a similar concern that you expressed here:

we can keep learning, hoping for perfect knowledge, indefinitely without committing to action. By action, I mean changing things, not just "raising awareness" which can also go on indefinitely...

Well, the focus of Commons Rising is definitely not awareness-raising, and we may need to get ready to stand up to the Green pressure to water down our commitment to be an action platform, not a discussion club. From the perspective of "changing things, not just raising awareness", the best way of learning is learning-by-doing. Learning how to build new commons and commons institutions that make them sustainable, by doing it, (not just reading the Quilligan lecture notes, although that could be one of the useful first steps). That's why I encourage the formation of Working Groups and would like to attract to CR those committed to reclaim the commons in their life and work and needing help with it.

Janos, your calling our attention to the primacy of changing the system not only accumulating knowledge is very important and timely! I do not think that we already have all the knowledge of what it takes to build the new, commons-based society because it can come only from the practice of building it. Or, putting it differently, we as humanity, we do know all what  it takes but that knowledge is fragmented and exists only in the still disjoint struggle of the multitude.

Given that, I see the most important work of Commons Rising is to become a service-oriented commons, where our primary service to the other commons and commoners around the world is to build collective sensing and meaning-making organs for the movement, which can reflect back and amplify its knowledge-in-action, and enhance its collective intelligence and consciousness, thus increase the effectiveness of the change efforts by all. (The link in the previous sentence points to things I wrote in the context of Occupy, but my guess is that they may be valid for the Commons movement, as well.)

If you guys are with me so far, let's consider a practical next step. The scope of what we are talking about here is definitely larger than what called Commons Rising into being in the wake of the Quilligan Seminars, when we just wanted to provide a focal point, a meeting place for those who want to bring the commons alive in their life and work. This expansion of the perspective from which we would hold space for the emergence of CR as a commons, can become effective only if and when  the Convergence Working Group embraces it will be willing to present it as a proposal to the community.

That's a big IF but not impossible if between now and the June meeting those who are interested to explore further and refine these ideas will engage in a collaborative inquiry of what would all that mean in practice, how would it support and amplify the work of all of us engaged in commons-building.

I realize that this conversation is misplaced in its current location, inside the Hosting Team group space because the context in which this team was formed was hosting  our face-to-face and virtual meetings, not hosting the evolution of the movement for a commons-based society, which is this post is really about. So this is just a temperature check to find out whether there's  any resonance with this. If there is, let's widen the conversation, by convening a conference call that involves all interested members of the community.

[Andy Paice]

Hi,

I'm really happy to read the above comments.

Janos and George this conversation resonates strongly with me.

Here are my thoughts:

Janos - "By action, I mean changing things, not just "raising awareness" which can also go on indefinitely..."

Yes I think we have arrived at a critical juncture now. I sense that the next step is birthing a new level - the "we" that is an entity in and of itself, an authentic, indivisible collective intelligence, greater than the sum of the individuals we are - a third entity

As I see it we can actually make the next step. We need to engage together and elicit the perspectives from this level which is something of a different order and much more powerful than consensus or compromise. I sense that there are a huge number of win/win solutions and actions "out there" waiting to be harvested. In order to get to them we have to have conversations that elicit participants' individual uniqueness and authenticity. This will inevitably produce creative friction, but this is also where the skill of facilitation plays an important role in birthing the "we" breakthroughs.

From my training in relationship systems facilitation and dynamic facilitation I feel I've learned the skills and knowledge to hold the safe spaces which will bring out the unique contributions of participants in face to face 'live' conversations.In this respect points 1 and 2 are absolutely necessary steps without which realising our missions in 3 is impossible.

My sense is that we need to host such conversations that elicit our response-ability i.e "what are we actually going to do?" Bemoaning present unfortunate realities only creates a feeling of disempowerment. We have to look at the real situation and look at our real options, who we know, what steps we can actually take to change something. But I've come to realise just how important the facilitation is in coming to joyful group alignment and co-creative action: the facilitator must hold the awareness of the "we" entity in order for a group conversation to self-organise effectively.

So George, yes, building "collective sensing and meaning-making organs for the movement, which can reflect back and amplify its knowledge-in-action, and enhance its collective intelligence and consciousness..." I can see the value in this. The only danger is  if we create online conversations that people dip in and out of with varying degrees of engagement we only come up with interesting things to read.

That's why I feel that at least until appropriate technology is developed we still need to congregate physically for our conversations to have the heart and commitment that will enable authentic "we" choices and paths of action. We really need to develop this skill of bringing forth this higher level of intelligence. Occupy/15M has been an initial step in this direction but I feel we can also hone and appropriate the skills that have also been emerging outside of activist circles, in the domain of business and coaching.

I (and I believe Mark Jagdev too) would like to offer our facilitating skills in this respect and I think this Hosting Team is the ideal vehicle. In return we'll garner the experience to get even better and provide value to support our individual and collective livelihoods.

So yes I would love to design and host community events. One thing I can propose straight away is to offer my Dynamic Facilitation skills for a chosen issue of immediate importance for the SoC or one of its working groups.

Also yes to George's proposition of a conference call about this!

[Helene Finidori]

George,

Your outlined quite well in another post a "commons adoption" cycle modeled on innovation adoption cycles:

1. From not knowing to awareness
2. From awareness to interest
3. From interest to trying
4. From trial to commitment to action
5. From commitment to action to continually improving the practice

I think our role is to facilitate this process by bridging the different steps and the different perspectives. From awareness to action through inspiration (knowledge, conversation), empowerment (realization of possibilities), enablement (actual facilitation and tools)... by facilitating the journey through the adoption cycle.

This means conversations constructed more around and/and (bridging) than around either/or (choosing a truth) to facilitate a convergence... Our role as a host is to provide the conditions for this to happen.

I agree with Andy, ideally this would be well served by a platform but for now, listening to each other experiences and to the experiences of the world out there is a good way to make meaning and sense of the bridges that need to be built to set the journey in motion.

George,

Your outlined quite well in another post a "commons adoption" cycle modeled on innovation adoption cycles:

1. From not knowing to awareness
2. From awareness to interest
3. From interest to trying
4. From trial to commitment to action
5. From commitment to action to continually improving the practice

I think our role is to facilitate this process by bridging the different steps and the different perspectives. From awareness to action through inspiration (knowledge, conversation), empowerment (realization of possibilities), enablement (actual facilitation and tools)... by facilitating the journey through the adoption cycle.

This means conversations constructed more around and/and (bridging) than around either/or (choosing a truth) to facilitate a convergence... Our role as a host is to provide the conditions for this to happen.

I agree with Andy, ideally this would be well served by a platform but for now, listening to each other experiences and to the experiences of the world out there is a good way to make meaning and sense of the bridges that need to be built to set the journey in motion.

[George Por]

Andy, thank you so much for insights and offer!

> I've come to realise just how important the facilitation is in coming to joyful group alignment and co-creative action: the facilitator must hold the awareness of the "we" entity in order for a group conversation to self-organise effectively.

That's a precious realisation, particularly, because some of us in the Hosting Team may not have yet the full appreciation of the importance of high-quality hosting of (online or on-site) conversations of consequence, let alone the training helpful to deliver it. I trust that your awareness of the role of good facilitation will help strengthening the desire in us to intentionally hone and practice or talents and hosts.  

> we have to have conversations that elicit participants' individual uniqueness and authenticity...  I've learned the skills and knowledge to hold the safe spaces which will bring out the unique contributions of participants in face to face 'live' conversations.

Nothing will ever fully replace live conversations, not even when we can send a full-size, 3-D  hologram replica to represent us in a meeting. Having said that, I think if we limited the essential, commons-building conversations relationship, possibility and action to our f-t-f meetings, one of two things would happen: 1. we would not be able address in a timely manner the opportunities and dangers that the commons is facing, 2. people would get early meeting-fatigue and burn out.

The question is not on-site or online, but how to integrate them skillfully, in a way optimized for bringing out the synergy of those two modes of interactions. Can anything from your understanding of how to elicit participants' individual uniqueness and authenticity in physical setting be transposed in the context of online collaboration?

> The only danger is  if we create online conversations that people dip in and out of with varying degrees of engagement we only come up with interesting things to read.

That's definitely not the intention of this space. The problem is that many people are so used to that kind of non-committed communication that they either don't understand or just conveniently ignore:

the profile question:

Commons Rising is an *actionplatform* for commons builder, not for general conversations about commons. To what specific present or future commons do you want to contribute to?

and the welcome message:

This community is a nascent social, cultural, and knowledge commons for the Commons, helping commons-builders & activists learning by doing. We're an actionplatform, not a place of general conversations about the commons, for which we recommend the message board. 

I guess the best way to address the issue of low-engagement is just to focus our attention not on it but on the work of the working groups and and strengthen them by our committed participation, and trusting that over time, when people feel more comfortable with our commons-bulding orientation, they will find a way to engage with the commons.

 

[Helene Finidori]

Groan Zone:

I sense a tension on the purpose of our interactions on this platform. A tension between:

On one hand, a need expressed for conversation in order to get to know each other, explore the possibilities of our gifts and commitment to the group and the commons, to set interactions and relationships into motion and get to learn how to use this tool. This is illustrated by invitations we receive to discover, comment and be heard in various areas of the platform... in brief, to engage.

On the other hand, an assertion that our role is in action, in learning by doing, that we are not a place for general conversation, especially not about the commons that we are invited to talk about on another forum, meetup: yet another (divergent?) channel for conversation in our ecosystem... .

Confusion? (gr... gr... ;-)

OK this is a normal phasis in the hosting process as explained in one of the videos of the resource page. Except maybe here, what makes it even more confusing is that the divergence is not between different views. It is within the same view...

I tend to think (with a lot of humility because I am part of the "some of us in the Hosting Team [who] may not have yet the full appreciation of the importance of high-quality hosting of (online or on-site) conversations of consequence, let alone the training helpful to deliver it") that it is easier to create interactions, engagement and cohesiveness around an "object" that can drive action, within an environment that attracts convergence (power of pull). An object is a purpose that takes a material form. I sense we are failing to get a grasp on the object or object(s) of our interactions because we are focusing on a process and the subjects before we have an object, and our reflections get lost in the meanders of a social platform thread structure...

How could a hosting process take place right here to give us some clarity and convergence on an object around which we will be able to unleash our conversations, processes and actions? How can our hosting capability, tools and processes be built so as to facilitate convergence rather than divergence...

If the object of our activity here (and conversation even dipping in-out is activity and a premise to action when facilitated and held within an environment that allows building up rather than divergence) is the facilitation of the commons adoption process (or engagement for the commons), how could we get our conversations, relationships and actions to revolve around that?

I will retain two words here: Engagement and Convergence.

[George Por]

> How could a hosting process take place right here to give us some clarity and convergence on an object around which we will be able to unleash our conversations, processes and actions?

That's an essential and brilliant question. My guess is that one such object may be the design of a formative meeting of the community, next month that I hope to become a focus of creative conversations in both the Convergence WG and the Hosting Team.

[Mark Jagdev]

As a nascent Knowledge Commons the idea to have a focal point which brought CR into being was and remains crucial. The focal point was:

A meeting place for those who want to bring the commons alive in their life and work.

To me bringing commons alive in their life and work, suggests a radical need, a need to protect and manage their resources that may be under threat, by market and/or state, either immediately or at some time in the future. So I would propose changing it to something like:

A learning space for those who want to bring commons alive in their life and work, by discovering insights that encourage and result in, committed action. 

In that kind of focal point we don't have a confused message whether it is informal 'meeting place' because we are clearly stating it is more than that; and in doing so the call to join CR meets their radical need to make it real, not just theory. 

Thanks George for bringing in the next step of movement sense-making. I have two points.

1. It shouldn't really be a big step for people to make in that most of the threats that created the need to try commons-based approaches arises from the wider global market-state system. So the commitment to not only research for themselves the actionable material re: health/occupy/housing/ etc but to now also do this because it is pertinent to the evolution of the movement is within their interest to overcome the threat they face.
2. It may still be too early to declare it part of, or an addition to the focal point. Newcomers may not resonate with sense-making until they discover the systemic and global shortcomings that have brought about this threat. Even then the silo culture, and super-autonomous nature of some groups may mean sense-making doesn't really motivate them to engage as much as the first amended focal point could do. I do feel this is a step we as the hosting team should hold space for, and express it in the about/what we do section of CR, but not the central focus. The amended focal point in my opinion would do a better job of garnering engagement, so long as we actively engage, elicit and support them in discovering/re-discovering their (radical) need to bring commons into their lives. 

Helene's idea of an object to 'unleash our conversations, processes and actions' is a great idea especially welcome in these early stages of the community. It also gives the hosting team opportunity to re-engage with the focal point, while we work towards putting on an event at the end of the month. 

George's point about on-site and online facilitation and "how to integrate them skillfully, in a way optimized for bringing out the synergy of those two modes of interactions," is very interesting to me and I would be happy to explore this with Andy (thanks Andy for raising it!) in our work on facilitation, with George, and the rest of the team.

My initial thoughts are that firstly I think when we get clear about what we are facilitating for, things become a lot more tangible. If that clarity was the amended focal point that I suggested above then in this sense there would be a vast amount of knowledge for each WG to reflect upon and collectively decipher through collaborative online tools -what stays in and what gets left out in re: to e.g., creating actionable material that is essential for each of the WG members, and if they collectively agree upon the need for it, doing this to sense-make for the entire movement. The need for face to face meetings will arise depending on circumstances e.g., location of the members, the needs or stage the group is at etc. This kind of thing falls into co-governance , much of which will emerge as we begin to co-produce. So I guess general guidelines can be proposed by the hosting team such as those that will limit meeting burn-out etc can be the start of an organic bottom up process do define how each WG wants/could work better - via our facilitation towards that. 

[George Por]

A learning space for those who want to bring commons alive in their life and work, by discovering insights that encourage and result in, committed action.

How about this?

This community is a nascent, cultural and knowledge commons that helps its participants learning together how to  bring the commons alive in our life and work, by doing it.  

[Andy Paice]

Thanks everyone for this discussion.

Can anything from your understanding of how to elicit participants' individual uniqueness and authenticity in physical setting be transposed in the context of online collaboration?

- Thanks George. That's a question I will hold and let it work on me. In order to elicit the unique contribution of others I suppose we have to make others feel heard and respected through our online interactions (which is not so easy as we often have a different kind of presence when online.) So as yet I don't have an answer to this question...

Secondly I'm an advocate of Plain English and whilst our discussions will inevitably cover complex issues I'd like to see at least in our statements that things are kept simple so as not to alienate potential participants.

So here's my suggestion:

A space in which we meet, learn and participate together and in doing so bring the commons into to being in our life and work.

[George Por]

> I'm an advocate of Plain English and whilst our discussions will inevitably cover complex issues I'd like to see at least in our statements that things are kept simple so as not to alienate potential participants.

I cherish and am grateful for that intention. I feel my writing frequently can benefit from "Plain English editing." 

A space in which we meet, learn and participate together and in doing so bring the commons into to being in our life and work.

I think the following shortened version can make it even clearer. 

A space in which we meet and learn bringing the commons into to being in our life and work.

What do you think?