3 ms·
Basic Idea: In small groups management can be automated. If it can be automated well enough, a hierarchy is not necessary. Small groups need to be able to switc
by spiritplumber 12y ago
Basic Idea: In small groups management can be automated. If it can be automated well enough, a hierarchy is not necessary. Small groups need to be able to switch quickly beteween adhocracy and democracy while preserving fairness. The following principles are a first attempt to provide a framework for this.
Principle: An operating ageement should be written with a specific purpose, in very simple language or ideally in pseudocode or actual code.
Corollary: This document should contain a way to programmatically deal with issues such as "there is no person to do job X", by random selection or by rotation or by whatever other method is agreed upon.
Corollary: This document should contain a way to programmatically allocate revenue and split profits.
Principle: Job titles are optional. Hats worn are necessary. Everybody should list the jobs they are happy to do in order of expertise.
Corollary: Hats needed should be specified as soon as the scope of the project is determined.
Corollary: Any hats left unworn by unwillingness should be traded around with some frequency.
Principle: Everybody contributes to a common diary or blog, at least once a day, with at least one sentence, explaining what they did during that day.
Corollary: Everybody should be able to identify at least one useful thing they did each day they are working.
Corollary: Anybody wanting to not work for a time should let everybody know in advance.
Principle: Everybody gets one vote. Tie breaks are decided by whoever is wearing the largest hat in that area or as specified by the operating agreement.
Corollary: Votes are called when there is a disagreement and resolved as close to immediately as possible.
Corollary: Valid vote outputs are yes, no, don't care, don't know enough.
Principle: Every rule agreed upon after the starting document is generated should carry an explanation as to in response to what event it was made.
Corollary: The reason for the starting document itself is assumed to be "To accomplish our primary goal", which should be specified.
Corollary: The more a rule can be automated, the more it should be, but this machine must never override anybody.
Principle: Any procedure that gets in the way of the stated goal must be moved out of the way.
Corollary: When in doubt between toss and keep, default to keep.
Corollary: When in doubt between open and closed, default to open.
Principle: Nobody should create emergencies. Everybody should react to emergencies.
Corollary: Emergencies should be definied strictly.
Corollary: Emergency response is coordinated by anybody who is there and knows what they are doing.
(c)mkb2012
- Retra 12y ago>Any hats left unworn by unwillingness should be traded around with some frequency. This reminds me of a useful reflection on social moral processes. If you have a group of people who all have agreed to achieve some goal, say, "everyone should be happy," then you have to support it with a rule: "Any person has the power to demand change, and no other person has the power to veto this." So if one person is unhappy, they simply say "change," and something is required to change. Even if everybody else is happy and they all disagree. Even if all known changes result in fewer people being happy. The goal was not met. So implicitly, the real goal is that nobody demand change. You can't get stuck in a local maximum if you're looking for a global maximum. You have to prove that you are at a global maximum to resist change, and you have to prove it to those who demand change. The only way to get there is to find out what people actually want and need, and to deliver it.
- breischl 12y agoIt's an interesting point to think about. But my first thought was what would happen if you accidentally let a troll into your group. ie, someone who enjoys yelling "change" just to watch everyone else jump. Heck, that person might be genuinely unhappy unless everyone is changing! Add in someone else who hates all change, and you have an unresolvable contradiction.
- Retra 12y agoThere is no such thing as a troll, they are fictional creatures. I'm talking about humans. >Add in someone else who hates all change, and you have an unresolvable contradiction. No, you have a meta-problem. One that can be solved by a suitable virtual reality pretty handily.
- breischl 12y agoI'm aware that bridge-dwelling, toll-collecting trolls do not exist. I was referring to an internet-style troll, "a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people... with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. ... Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment." [1] If one person is only happy when things change, and someone else is only happen when they don't change, I don't see how there is any way to resolve the difference. I'm curious what solution you see for this, and especially in how a virtual reality would help. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29