Framework Session 2
This session is now over, here’s the recording! Thanks to all who came by. Unfortunately, users’ cursors don’t appear in the recording, so you won’t see the Assembly Fields as they work during the call. Nevertheless, the video, audio, and chat are here!
This Saturday we’ll build understanding and agreement about the Design Premises of the proposed Kielest Framework. This new framework is intended to help work contributors save time, strategize, collaborate, and take care of each other at Resonate. If you haven’t seen the proposal, read it over or watch the last session. After Saturday’s session, we’ll once again meet on Topia for casual hangout and conversation. @brndnkng @ode12 @directors @maintainers @workers
Poll: Design Premises
Using the poll below, please share your view on each Design Premise from the Proposal. If any of the terms are unfamiliar, ask questions or see the proposal for more information. Based on the results, we’ll prioritize discussions at the Saturday call. See you then!
Rate each statement below by how strongly you agree or disagree with it:
- 5 = strongly agree
- 4 = somewhat agree
- 3 = neutral
- 2 = somewhat disagree
- 1 = strongly disagree
Enabling reflection: A collaboration framework will make it easier to reflect and improve on how we work together.
Adaptive scale and shape: We can’t predict which working groups we’ll need and when because our structure will depend on the capacity, skills, and number of our work contributors.
Centered around volunteering: Resonate will depend heavily on volunteer engagement for the foreseeable future and will be more stable in the long run if volunteering is emphasized.
Short-term and long-term: We’ll need both temporary working groups and more permanent ones. A good framework should find a way both can work together.
Relationships enable self-management: A group will self-manage more effectively if they’ve first had the opportunity to get to know each other in a lower-stakes context.
Self-management enables democratization: Workers will be more enthusiastic for democratic engagement as a membership class if they first have positive experiences self-managing at the Team level.
Goals enable focus and reflection: When a working group has a Goal to pursue it will be more satisfying than a continuum of tasks, and will create opportunities for reflection, optimization, recognition, celebration, and news-sharing.
Experience enables estimation: Offering an accurate estimate for when a Goal will be reached is dependent on the group doing the work having prior experience reaching Goals together. Setting deadlines before we have the experience to meet them will lead to demoralized workers, low quality results, and more work in the long run.
Exec capacity: An efficient and effective way for the Exec to influence Resonate’s priorities and culture without overextending themselves is by prioritizing the setting of an Exec Goal, the approval of Pilots to lead Initiatives, the running of the monthly Pilot Collective meetup, and the appointment of Advisors to consult with working groups.
Rapid role creation: While public, written role descriptions can clarify rights and responsibilities effectively, creating such descriptions takes effort and time. An fast and effective way to delegate rights and responsibilities is to launch an Initiative with a Goal and Pilot.
Goals structure collaboration: For short-term projects with an explicit Goal and potentially fluctuating participants, democratization is less relevant since the Goal provides focus and puts a boundary around the Pilot’s authority. For short-term projects, we should focus on giving a motivated individual a unique opportunity to lead, host others, and be recognized for their drive.
Goals guide accountability: Accountability is better provided by transparent reference points such as a Goal and Exec Goal than it is provided by deference to authority. If a Team does not regularly achieve their Goals or if those Goals do not align with the Exec Goal, then their ability to self-manage in a way that brings value to the co-op is automatically in question.
Right to self-management: Any working group with committed and consistent participants should have the right to self-manage their work, assuming they regularly reach Goals which align with the Exec Goal. It should be left up to the participants when or if self-management is pursued. The initiating act of democratization and Team formation should be the election of a facilitation role which can guide the democratic maturation of a Team.
Entrusting creativity: Entrusting Pilots and Teams to manage their own work toward transparent goals will make Resonate a unique and attractive environment for creative people to collaborate and have ownership over their work in a way Capitalism does not offer them.
Co-leadership enables quick decision-making and prevents burnout: Due to Workers being spread across time zones and folks having other jobs, it may be difficult for a Team to meet up and make decisions. If a Team has two co-leadership roles working together (Pilot + Steward), these folks will be able to meet up, continue work, and make urgent decisions when their Team can’t.
Flexible cadence: In Scrum (a different framework) groups work in a strict cadence called a Sprint. Each Sprint has a Sprint Goal. Each Sprint is the same length and has regular meetups at the same time each Sprint. Due to Resonate being both volunteer-oriented and international, it is not expected that all Workers would be able to commit to Sprints, so we need a less strict approach.
Advisory roles support agency: Workers need to know that they have the agency to do their work. Demarcation between working roles and advisory roles will allow for the best of both: more creativity from workers and clearer guidance opportunities from advisors.
Formalizing power dismantles invisible privilege: If rights and responsibilities are not clearly delegated, workers must resort to permission-seeking, do-ocracy, or unilateral decision-making to get things done. This behavior tends to be wasteful, unpleasant, individualistic, lonely, and exhausting. It tends to centralize power among privileged people in ways that are invisible and unaccountable.
Verb-based naming: Names for roles and groups should emphasize activities and relationships rather than authority and status. Each role is best named after defined behavior it is expected to model for others to emulate (stewarding, piloting). A role should be framed less as the owner of an activity, and more as its teacher and guide.
Hey, you did them all? Thank you
Reminder that this call is tomorrow. Hope to see you there!
If you have time to look at the Design Premises above before arriving, that will help us prioritize our discussion time. My hope is that these Premises will get us on the same page about how the Kielest framework could help us out – or what specifically may need to be adjusted.
If we get through the premises quickly, my thought is that we could chat more about the patterns which folks identified last week.
Results of poll at start of session
I’m leaving the poll open, so if you haven’t participated go for it! I’ll update results after more votes come in.
- Flexible cadence | 5555555
- Enabling reflection | 5555554
- Short-term and long-term | 5555554
- Goals enable focus and reflection | 5555554
- Entrusting creativity | 5555444
- Co-leadership enables quick decision-making and prevents burnout | 55554
- Advisory roles support agency | 5555444
High Agreement to Neutral
- Right to self-management | 5555443
- Adaptive scale and shape | 5555443
- Verb-based naming | 5555543
- Centered around volunteering | 5555443
- Experience enables estimation | 5555443
- Goals guide accountability | 5555433
- Formalizing power dismantles invisible privilege | 5555443
- Rapid role creation | 5544443
- Exec capacity | 5444333
- Goals structure collaboration | 5444422
- Self-management enables democratization | 5544432
- Relationships enable self-management | 5555431
Unfortunately, users’ cursors don’t appear in the recording, so you can’t see the Assembly Fields in action.
Folks arrived slowly – it is a Saturday after all! We started after an explanation of the Assembly Fields with @LLK and @tshiunghan expressing interest in using them.
I shared results from the Premises Poll. We talked about Exec capacity and Goals structure collaboration. These Premises were felt to be unclear and discussing them led to a broader convo about terminology and the process of approving Initiatives in Kielest. Goals structure collaboration was felt to be too broad and should be simplified. There was not time to discuss Self-management enables democratization or Relationships enable self-management.
- Folks are interested in role-playing concepts from the Kielest Framework at our next session on October 1st, to build understanding and get to see ideas in action. Folks will share their ideas in the forum for how parts of the framework could be playtested at a meetup.
- There was interest in creating a rubric which could help the Exec when analyzing and approving an Initiative. Such a rubric could be a useful reference point for workers and a training tool for future Execs.
- If there were other outcomes you noticed or notes you took, please share below.
I had a great time on this call! I was excited to facilitate using the Assembly Fields model I designed, as it had been some time since using them at Resonate. I’ve had some absolutely wonderful meetings using the Assembly Fields. However, the best meetings have been those where I could focus fully on facilitation.
This call was a lot to juggle as I was simultaneously facilitating, answering questions, and explaining concepts from Kielest. For me, this experience today reinforced the Pilot/Steward distinction in Kielest that I and others feel is valuable. Trying to play very different roles at the same time is a lot!
We had some fun conversation about terminology today. I’ve rewritten some snippets from the Kielest Glossary:
Exec Goal: The Exec chooses the Exec Goal, a single longer-term objective for the co-op. When reached, a new Exec Goal is chosen.
Goal: A single shorter-term objective being worked toward by an Initiative or Team. The more measurable a Goal is, the clearer it is. All Goals should move the co-op toward the Exec Goal.
Initiative: When a Pilot and Goal are approved by the Exec, an Initiative is launched. The Pilot seeks collaborators or works solo. When the Goal is reached, the Initiative ends and the Pilot leaves their role.
Team: If a Steward is chosen by an Initiative, the Initiative becomes a self-managing Team able to choose a new Goal, Steward, or Pilot as they wish. When a Team reaches their Goal, they must choose a new Goal or disband.
Milestones: Optional subgoals set by an Initiative or Team which help them track progress toward their Goal.
Tasks: Work items toward a Goal.
Subtasks: Work items which are part of completing a Task.
Proposal: a potential Goal, Task, or Need, often represented by a topic in the Proposals category of the forum.
Last call to participate in the Design Premises poll!
I will be closing the poll by Monday, so that everyone who participated can see the results. Don’t hesitate!
Interesting to see I’m highly divergent from the tendencies in some respects.
I tend to believe that with building a platform some key goals can be identified from the outset and some plans should be made to fund work.
Looking forward to discussing further.
The Design Premises poll above has closed! View above to see the average score for each premise.
While averages are valuable, IMO it is just as valuable to know where the differences in opinion are. When I have some time, I’ll go through the results and share a detailed breakdown. Thank you to all who participated in this not-so-short poll!