pirateparty.gr forum

http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/01/swarmwi ... apter-six/

Απο το κεφάλαιο 6.
(Καλέ θεέ των Πειρατών, σε παρακαλώ, ας έχουμε διαβάσει τα προηγούμενα 5 κεφάλαια)

Αντιγράφω τα σημεία που μου άρεσαν

herefore, legitimacy in the decision making of the swarm comes through the fact that people are volunteers in the first place and choose to be part of the swarm, with all the values that come with it.

The process of voting creates losers.

So, in effect, there are two good ways to resolve conflicts in a swarm.
The first is organizational, and means that we negate the possibility of one person determining what another can do in the first place. Nobody gets to tell anybody else what to do. This is the norm for a swarm. Some people call it a “do-ocracy.”
The second effective method is a consensus-making decision process where everybody can veto the way forward. This method is much more costly, but can (and should) be used in rare and carefully selected scenarios.

“democratic legitimacy” is a contradiction in terms in a swarm organization. The process of voting actively reduces the legitimacy of decision making and involvement, and should be avoided as much as possible.

influence is achieved by individual leadership and individual appreciation — if you think something needs to be done, you just do it, without asking anybody. If other people think that your initiative is good, they will join in of their own accord. If not, they go elsewhere.

I solved this by establishing the already-mentioned three-pirate rule immediately, which was later set in stone as a core organizational principle in the Swedish Pirate Party. As I explained it then, people didn’t need to ask permission, and the concept went beyond that: they were specifically banned from doing so. Their own judgment was the best available in the organization for their own social context, and they were required to use that judgment rather than aspiring to hide behind somebody else’s greenlighting.
Asking permission, after all, is asking somebody else to take responsibility — no, accountability — for your actions

For if it doesn’t matter how many safeguards you put in place against PR gaffes, there is no point to bother with such safeguards in the first place. Instead, you can focus on optimizing the swarm for speed, passion, and mobility, and we can communicate to the swarm that mistakes will happen, and when they do, we fix them, learn from them, and move on.

When forming a swarm, everybody is venturing into unknown territory. By definition, it’s a trial-and-error venture. Everybody is breaking new ground in changing the world in a way that has not been tried before — both on the individual and the organizational level.

The conclusion here is that you must allow things to be tried. The good stuff won’t appear if you don’t allow the bad stuff to be tried, too. You only know which is which once they’ve had a chance to work out.

Για το πως λύνονται οι διαφορές διαβάστε όλο το "THE MAGIC OF THE CONSENSUS CIRCLE" και να το δοκιμάσουμε live, γιατί μόνο έτσι γίνεται.

Συνεχίζεται...

From the very first day of the swarm, you will have people who claim that the swarm would work much better if it were organized in their favorite manner. More often than not, these people will fall into one of two categories.
The first category is technical people, who see everything as technical building blocks.

..............

The second dangerous type of wannabe “fixers” is the MBA-type people,

There will be no shortage of people who want to reorganize — or even organize, as they will call it. I call these people “organizational astronauts” derogatorily and intentionally, as they will have missed that any organization at its core is about people, and the more you can use the way people behave naturally to further the swarm’s goals, the faster you move.
The swarm is a disorganization by design. Some would prefer to call it a self-organization. In either case, there’s nobody assigning everybody to boxes, tasks, and activities. That’s why the organization works so well. Organizing it in the manner of organizational astronauts kills the swarm’s ability to function as a swarm.

The swarm’s rules, by the way, are by and large that there are no rules. These people will seek to impose them.

(καλέ θεέ των Πειρατών, πότε θα το καταλάβουμε αυτό, θα αποδεχθούμε ο ένας τον άλλο, και θα πάμε παρακάτω, χωρίς φόβο μη κάνουμε λάθη).

some people will insist on “democratic control” over these resources. But again, doing so will turn the swarm into something it is not — there are no formal mechanisms for collective decisions, and there should not be. There are senses of rough consensus created by activists moving between initiativε

The key thing to rewards from a leadership position is to understand that attention is reward. If you are yelling at somebody who did something bad, you are giving him or her attention, and he or she will adapt his or her behavior to get more attention of the yelling kind. If you are praising somebody who did something good, he or she will adapt his or her behavior to get more attention of the praising kind.

So what behavior do we want to see growing?
Initiatives. Even initiatives that fail.
Supporting others. Actually, this one is quite important. I frequently emphasize that helping others excel is just as valuable as excelling on your own.
Creativity and sharing ideas.
Helping people get along.
While these are just examples, the criteria for rewards tend to converge on three key factors — helping the energy, the focus, and the passion of the swarm.

After all, people have joined you in the swarm to accomplish something specific

Every exclusion is a failure. Just because you don’t see any people being formally excluded, that doesn’t mean people don’t feel excluded. Every exclusion is a failure.

You will never be able to convince the maverick that he or she has bad ideas (and especially so if all he or she wants in the first place is attention for his or her person, rather than recognition for ideas). You will never be able to win that person.

Πόσους maverick έχουμε/είχαμε?

Always remember that an organization is people, and that attention is reward.

Αυτά...
Αντε διαβάστε το όλο και ξαναδιαβάστε τα υπόλοιπα κεφάλαια.

Και μην ακούσω @@ για "ακόλουθους", ξαναλέω: ο άνθρωπος το δοκίμασε αυτό που λέει και πέτυχε. Δε χάνουμε τίποτα να δοκιμάσουμε/δοκιμάζουμε, κάτι θα δουλέψει και με εμάς τους περίεργους

After all, people have joined you in the swarm to accomplish something specific

Παγκόσμια ειρήνη.

The conclusion here is that you must allow things to be tried. The good stuff won’t appear if you don’t allow the bad stuff to be tried, too. You only know which is which once they’ve had a chance to work out.

The swarm’s rules, by the way, are by and large that there are no rules.

Δύσκολα πράγματα ζητάς.

pav έγραψε:

After all, people have joined you in the swarm to accomplish something specific

Παγκόσμια ειρήνη.

Όποιος ήρθε για αυτό να φύγει τώρα

pav έγραψε:

The conclusion here is that you must allow things to be tried. The good stuff won’t appear if you don’t allow the bad stuff to be tried, too. You only know which is which once they’ve had a chance to work out.

The swarm’s rules, by the way, are by and large that there are no rules.

Δύσκολα πράγματα ζητάς.

Μα όλο το νόημα είναι να μην φοβόμαστε να κάνουμε λάθος. Δεν είναι κακό, και μόνο δοκιμάζοντας θα δούμε τι δουλεύει και τι όχι. Μπορούμε ακόμα και μας παίρνει να κάνουμε λάθη, δεν είμαστε και κυβέρνηση (ό μη γένοιτο! Θεός φυλάξοι!) ούτε κρίνεται το μέλλον της χώρας απο εμάς

οσον αφορα στον τιτλο ...μαζι σου !!! [εδω που εχουμε φτασει ]

οσον αφορα στο συστημα "trial and error" ισως να μην ειναι προφανες οτι σε χωρα με τοσο εντονη πολιτικη πολωση, οπως η Ελλαδα, που θα γινεται ολοενα εντονοτερη οσο θα φαινεται οτι το "πειραμα" οδευει προς τα κατω, με συνεπεια να οδηγηθουμε ενδεχομενως σε ενα νεο διχασμο του τυπου νεοφιλελε vs κρατιστες, ειναι εξαιρετικα επικινδυνο το παιχνιδι με το "λαθος" για ενα νεο πολιτικο κομμα. Μπορει να το οδηγησει παρα πολυ γρηγορα στον πολιτικο καιαδα, βλεπε οικολογους...

απο την αλλη ειναι τοσο χαοτικα διαφορετικες οι "πολιτικες" αντιληψεις των περισσοτερων εδω μεσα που ειναι εξαιρετικα πιθανο να συμβουν "μοιραια" λαθη κατ' επαναληψιν. Οποτε τι θα κανουν οι υπολοιποι ;;; θα βγαινουν να μαζευουν τα σπασμενα καθε φορα ;;;

πρεπει να καταλαβουμε οτι ειμαστε μια κοινωνια ριζικα διαφορετικη απο τη σουηδικη.
Ενω δεν διαφωνω με την κεντρικη ιδεα , προσωπικα δεν εχω πειστει οτι τα μοντελα των σουηδων μπορουν να λειτουργησουν με επιτυχια στην "ανατολικο-ορθοδοξη" παραδοση !
εχουμε πολυ δρομο μπροστα μας...

ekfrasi έγραψε:http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/01/swarmwise-the-tactical-manual-to-changing-the-world-chapter-six/

Απο το κεφάλαιο 6.
(Καλέ θεέ των Πειρατών, σε παρακαλώ, ας έχουμε διαβάσει τα προηγούμενα 5 κεφάλαια)

Αντιγράφω τα σημεία που μου άρεσαν

herefore, legitimacy in the decision making of the swarm comes through the fact that people are volunteers in the first place and choose to be part of the swarm, with all the values that come with it.

The process of voting creates losers.

So, in effect, there are two good ways to resolve conflicts in a swarm.
The first is organizational, and means that we negate the possibility of one person determining what another can do in the first place. Nobody gets to tell anybody else what to do. This is the norm for a swarm. Some people call it a “do-ocracy.”
The second effective method is a consensus-making decision process where everybody can veto the way forward. This method is much more costly, but can (and should) be used in rare and carefully selected scenarios.

“democratic legitimacy” is a contradiction in terms in a swarm organization. The process of voting actively reduces the legitimacy of decision making and involvement, and should be avoided as much as possible.

influence is achieved by individual leadership and individual appreciation — if you think something needs to be done, you just do it, without asking anybody. If other people think that your initiative is good, they will join in of their own accord. If not, they go elsewhere.

I solved this by establishing the already-mentioned three-pirate rule immediately, which was later set in stone as a core organizational principle in the Swedish Pirate Party. As I explained it then, people didn’t need to ask permission, and the concept went beyond that: they were specifically banned from doing so. Their own judgment was the best available in the organization for their own social context, and they were required to use that judgment rather than aspiring to hide behind somebody else’s greenlighting.
Asking permission, after all, is asking somebody else to take responsibility — no, accountability — for your actions

For if it doesn’t matter how many safeguards you put in place against PR gaffes, there is no point to bother with such safeguards in the first place. Instead, you can focus on optimizing the swarm for speed, passion, and mobility, and we can communicate to the swarm that mistakes will happen, and when they do, we fix them, learn from them, and move on.

When forming a swarm, everybody is venturing into unknown territory. By definition, it’s a trial-and-error venture. Everybody is breaking new ground in changing the world in a way that has not been tried before — both on the individual and the organizational level.

The conclusion here is that you must allow things to be tried. The good stuff won’t appear if you don’t allow the bad stuff to be tried, too. You only know which is which once they’ve had a chance to work out.

Για το πως λύνονται οι διαφορές διαβάστε όλο το "THE MAGIC OF THE CONSENSUS CIRCLE" και να το δοκιμάσουμε live, γιατί μόνο έτσι γίνεται.

Συνεχίζεται...

疲勞與T英語

Rainmaker έγραψε:
疲勞與T英語

Ναι δε λέω κουραστικό είναι τόσο σεντόνι, αλλά διάβασε το όλο το άρθρο από την πηγή του.