This vote is for discussion. Our objective will continuously be refined. A vote is not required at all because our objective is whatever we have collaboratively edited in the doc. We never have no objectives or final objectives.
I'd say we aim for autonomy and collaboration at scale and have objective leading us on the path.
We are responsible to comment on and update the docs.
In diglife.com we are employing sociocratic and self management principles delegating authority and consent to good enough and safe to try solutions in linked teams. There are many good reasons for us to try that here is order to create a scalable organization.

Our objective will continuously be refined. A vote is not required at all because our objective is whatever we have collaboratively edited in the doc. We never have no objectives or final objectives. I'd say we aim for autonomy and collaboration at scale and have objective leading us on the path. We are responsible to comment on and update the docs.

I like this perspective, it gives me a vision of an ongoing process where we as a network continue to grow and learn from our work together and our discussions.

+1 we do "connected work"

@jimwhitescarver

" We never have no objectives or final objectives"
I'm not sure I agree or understand exactly what you are saying...?

"There are many good reasons for us to try that here is order to create a scalable organization."

I agree completely.

" In diglife.com we are employing sociocratic and self management principles delegating authority and consent to good enough and safe to try solutions in linked teams. "

I would go as far as suggesting the a newly formed CTA, consisting of many of the other groups that are working on exactly the same mission as you are at Diglife, and we are here, should probably borrow / build on some of the lessons you have learned at Diglife, your structure of "linked teams" and possibly even the software I saw demonstrated in your / DigLife's excellent video presentation

@lynnfoster I'm all up for an "ongoing process" but not a structure-less one... ;)

I'm all up for an "ongoing process" but not a structure-less one... ;)

@olisb yes, and I am not anti-structure. It is just a balancing act that every group has to work through, and will be different for different purposes and for different stages of network development. I started a thread so we can discuss this more, I'm interested in any specific ideas relative to the OAE. And I think all of the various organizational experiments are interesting in this transitional phase.

@mozboz Didn't quite understand what you mean

@asimong Can you reword it ?

@gregorycassel Do you think we can work together without any formal objective ?

Yes I could try a tentative rewording -- give me a short while...

@gregorycassel Do you think we can work together without any formal objective ?

Depends IMO on what we mean with "work together"!

I think that any group of people can (potentially) have mutually beneficial discussions without sharing an objective.

Beyond "just talking": I have personal technical definitions for coordination and collaboration.

Coordination can happen/emerge "naturally", but it often requires (or improves by) identifying a shared objective.

I think that collaboration rarely works without a shared objective. Even then, though, it doesn't necessarily have to be a formally (or officially) identified objective. However, formally identified objectives are typical and helpful. They reduce risks and misunderstandings.

I think an agreed upon set of objectives would be good. I have no big disagreement with that has been written so far. I do think we are getting ahead of ourselves in the OAE (for those of us who think it is an ecosystem of apps that will be used by possibly different ecosystems of organizations and people but that this is about the apps). I think we could make a lot of headway in the next few weeks, though.

For those who are more concerned with the organization or organizations of people, yeah, some goals and definitions and agreements would be useful, too.

The differences between those focuses and goals and conversations gets pretty confusing, though.

The differences between those focuses and goals and conversations gets pretty confusing, though.

It's really hard for diverse people to have reasonably well-organized discussions in simple discussion forums (including Loomio) where new comments are just tacked onto the end of threads. The ability to host proposals and polls here is unparalleled, but otherwise frankly it's a rather typical forum.

I don't mean to imply that we should use another discussion forum tool. I don't know of any which have most of the features I desire. I just think we all need to have some patience for dealing with the limitations of the medium.

If anyone's especially interested in learning to have more effective and efficient discussions with one or more currently available online tools, I suggest checking out Enspiral's Comms Guidelines as food for thought. I don't think those guidelines are perfect, but I do think they've often been helpful. They could probably be used to start drafting an alternative set of guidelines for something like OAE. (Among other things, I'd recommend using Mattermost or RocketChat instead of Slack. And of course, some of the Enspiral-specific stuff wouldn't apply.)