Thank you a lot Ronen for send me your explicit support, let us see how the inquiry goes. Agree with you in 2. (we just simulated using it), and I take note from 3. that the streams of proposals was a working assumption ( + are you talking about Pepo? Still maturating, but I would like to hear about you intuitions on tools, despite I am a little Amish in that sense). Regarding 4. I wonder if writing the document that you had in mind BUT with the spirit of bringing it to a sort of sacrificial ritual (LOL) would have been a better option.
Anyway, what you seeded for this cycle I think is working, or at least we will see its results in the coming couple of weeks.

Yes, I am talking about Pepo and CollectiveOne. I connected with Pepo during my time in Holochain and was (I believe) able to make some contribution to the experiment that is CollectiveOne. We eventually recognized that collaborative writing was a fundamental need and that C1 had a capacity to tend to it in an original way. I don't know where the tool stands today but I do want to point out that Pepo and I developed some protocols between us about HOW TO USE the tool (including a consent process). Since the tool could not find grounding (=people who would try to use in real life) Pepo gravitated towards the more abstract "underscore protocol". Do you know Pepo?

.. and for the record :) I treat almost everything I create (within this crew and beyond it) as sacrificial ... in the case of our crew to be consumed by our small tribal fire ... and if you put too much wood into a fire all at once you can smother it ... a good fire requires a good mixture of heat fuel and air. I didn't want to smother our fire ... it is still a small and delicate fire it needs care so it can come to burn reliably.

Thanks @Toni Blanco, that must have been a lot of reading! But I think you've brought back some fine fruit from your foraging encapsulated by the following sentence:

I ended up with the idea that while money and care was a weak point (and partially addressed by the answers to this post), the weakest point (in my view) is that we all experience a lack of clarity of what we can offer to the crew to progress into our desired outcome for this cycle

I'd say that it's fair, but more in that we don't really know what is desired as an outcome for this cycle. Is it practicing Sociocracy, honing a generative process to seed space, is it to enable more people to participate with us in something yet undefined? Riffing off whats already been posted above, I think all of these tasks are somewhat abstract while disguised as concrete actionables - maybe I'm wrong though?

1. Good stuff man, I'm curious what emerges.
2. I value consent, but the sociocratic form maybe not so much - when theres is coHEARence and we are tracking eachother and minding our impulsiveness its fine to do without IMO, but its a good failure mode otherwise. It seems reasonable in larger groups or when we feel a need to play pass the talking stick but so far in that regard I think we've been pretty civilised. That said, something that requires concrete action is maybe a different story as Ronen is suggesting below.
3. Sounds just like a handbook.
4. The original doc is pretty abstract so hard to hold in our heads until it's been practiced a number of times, I feel it's pretty intuitive aside from that though.
5. Lol, hope you had a fine sleep 🤘

@Ronen Hirsch

I am talking about Pepo and CollectiveOne

Oh, small world, I know Guillem that side and met Pepo at the Holochain hackathon in Barcelona as well. I'm not sure what the story is around C1 but _prtcl is still in progress as far as I understand it. I believe Guillems community building while coding away.

.. and for the record :) I treat almost everything I create (within this crew and beyond it) as sacrificial

Amen brother, I can pray to that alter as well. Same thing for the fire, hence not responding much last week, felt I added too much fuel the week before and am maybe doing it again now... finding equilibrium with our dynamics still I reckon.

Approaches

I am still working on the self-orientation post. In the meantime (and this is a sort of chunk of it) I would like to share some brief reflections on sequence generation, to further develop if interested.

The Christopher Alexander Way

From what I understood so far, Christopher Alexander first does some research/ethnography to identify some “living centers” in existing examples of what the sequence intends to build. To describe these centers, he designs a “pattern language”. So this is 1) how you feel “the whole” and 2) you can think/talk about it.

CA writes: “Each pattern is a rule which describes a type of strong center that is likely to be needed, on a recurring basis, through a particular environment or class of environment. Further, a pattern not only describes a recurring center, but also describes a relation between other generic centers. In some point he also explains the story about how he asks that couple to close their eyes and remember/visualize the place which made them feel more comfortable and this way they together identify the most important place of their future house.

My first hypothesis

In the context of our experience, I thought that I could understand the second cycle as the identification of centers and patterns that made (and make) us crew, for if we exist as a crew so far is because there is a generative process underneath. So this could be a matter of reflecting and documenting them, and refine the sequence according to our learnings. That idea did not stick in the group (although I still like it and save it for future experiments).

My current hypothesis

Now I am more in the sense that talking about matters of concern such money and care will lead us to identify centers and patterns, and once we have them, we will be ready to write down our generative process.

Some centers (with no clear pattern yet) that seem to emerge:

• Invitation

• Agreements

• Written sense-making and decision space

• Face-to-face orientation space

• Written self-orientation space

• Back-channel 

• Signaling of interest protocol

• Offers

• Proposals

• Face-to-face support

• Face-to-face sense-making

• Audio doors into spaces

• Shared silence

• Ethical income generator

Thoughts?

@Toni Blanco while writing my response to the money and care thread I had a crystallisation.

Aristotles 3 types of friendship

• Transactional (low trust: exchange - zero sum)

• Hedonistic (medium trust: mutual enjoyment - neutral sum)

• Spiritual (high trust: care - positive sum)

Flow

Whats interesting is that societally it often flows:
Transactional> hedonistic> spiritual

Implicitly we've been doing this in reverse:
Spiritual> hedonistic> transactional

@Josh Fairhead this is interesting, and now I wonder if a microsolidarity online platform should be able to let people flow in the path that feels more comfortable to them, instead of forcing one by design. Also if different friendships can be present simultaneously in a group (in different intensity), so the crew has to modulate the right mix. I guess that we naturally flowed initially to the spiritual because the four of us are committed to a spiritual path, but this does not have to be the case for everyone.

I will (try to) keep this brief:

1. I am enjoying the maturing thought process ... and finding centers can be a good practice.

2. I feel that this direction is somewhat informed by some of the things we talked about @Toni Blanco in our one-on-one conversation and that we are not yet caught up on as a crew! So that (catching up) I feel should come first (hopefully next week in gathering 9).

3. With that said ... listing centers, while a good practice, is also, I feel a step into a mechanistic thinking trap. A list of centers can create a gravitational pull towards thinking about "how to assemble" those centers into something whole ... and assembly is NOT unfolding!

4. I do appreciate that in all the work we've put in so far we've identified and explored an implicit list of centers (and possible patterns) ... I feel better about that "list" staying implicit until it becomes explicit through an unfolding (and not through direct listing).

5. It is useful, I think, to remember that the challenge we are facing is a meta-challenge. If to use an architectural metaphor it is not about designing a house but about HOW to design houses. Listing centers may work when someone else has answered how to design houses and you are designing A house.

6. My curiosity is about trying to unfold a generative process and discovering what centers emerge.

I intend to pick up this thread AFTER we are all caught up together :)

I kept reflecting on my petition for putting on hold our work, and while there was disorientation as we frame it in our last 1-1 conversation, I recall that the trigger was the genesis of this thread and the thread itself. In short, I was concerned about our work perceived as stuck and not valuable enough by some of us, entering the path of low participation of the general microsolidarity Loomio. So I guess that I tried to unveil/find/show/propose a more clear way to our desired outcome for the cycle. 

Not that now is vital for our crew, but maybe working on this thread can reinforce it. 

If anyone would ask me how we are working now towards our goal, I would say that we are letting dynamics and topics emerge according to the needs of the group, because needs are somehow the anchors of centers/patterns. And at some point, we will feel that we have enough material to reflect on (because of a qualitative leap in the maturity of the crew/conversation). Then, and not before, we will work in a documented "generative process". 

I think that there may be something to the "spiritual-->hedonistic-->transactional" pathway that has particular relevance for a remote crewing generative process. I'm thinking this because I don't think that transactional relationships can actually serve as the "spark" or entry point into a genuine crew in a remote context---maybe in the context of a community or congregation "already on the ground" so to speak, but I am having trouble thinking through what that could even feel like in a remote context...