<gerryg> This will clearly be a work in progress. We are trying to understand Stewardship and this type of leadership and group formation generally as we work together.

<tropology> +1 gerry

<tav> -1 <tav> sorry guys, but i've found that great communities often kill themselves when they start defining structure and "fixed" roles

<Suresh> Need to realize that this is more than a community, it is one that has specific intentions, goals etc.

<gerryg> tav, I think I agree, but that doesn't mean no structure, it means fluid structure and accountability

<tropology> tav: not trying to asster fixed roles by any means .. hence we couple with adhocracy and merit. freedom to act ... "Management and Ownership" appear more heavily structured in the way you reject (and which I tend to reject)

<Suresh> +100: accountability

<tav> Suresh: really? does it have to be? can't it simply be the best open space out there? and one which has lots of PROJECTs -- from mapping to platforms to ... ?

<tropology> plurality of projetcs <tropology> generous fuzziness

<Suresh> We need to have direction and there needs to be sense that we want to MOVE FORWARD, and that there is a PLAN to do so

<gerryg> tav, exactly

<yeoman> multiplicity in the userland

<Suresh> tav - interesting point you are raising... <chriswaterguy> tav: I thought Suresh wasn't defining fixed roles, but describing how things are expected to emerge. But having said that, you might have a point that defining even to this degree isn't the best way forward. Maybe.

<gerryg> I think what tav is saying is that we can see OK as a container from projects, including the projects to build and create tools for OK

<tav> whilst i'm not suggesting that we subject ourselves to the tyranny of structurelessness -- http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html (excellent essay!) -- i wonder if we need to get specific except besides intentions/actions anytime soon?

<Suresh> I am approaching this from the perspective that comes from my background in investment banking and financing tech projects

<Lucy_> in open collaboration ad hoc roles might work better.

<tropology> also.. rathe r than "asserting stewardship" on any exclusive basis, we are establishing principles of stewardship, and inviting others to join with us in stweardship, and work

<Suresh> I want to get this to the point where we can raise a few hundred grand and define a team <Suresh> If that is going to be possible, we need to think about it a certain way

<Suresh> I might be in minority on this, but I want to get paid for the work that I am doing here

<tav> Suresh: sure, but can't all of those be for creating services to support OK rather than *as* OK? <Suresh> tav - yes

<gerryg> No, you are not, just a discussion about the structure that best carries that off <yeoman> OK as a platform shall be *adaptive* in its very nature. eh?

<Suresh> we need to think about the model

<chriswaterguy> later all (but a quick +1 on getting paid, if that's possible)

<tav> +5 on bringing in resources (especially financial ones)

<gerryg> For me the questions of stewardship and ownership connect to currencies. I see these as the architecture for open collaborations. Then specific groups have resource pools that they govern, but there is none in the center really.

<tropology> +1 an area to explore gerryg

<yeoman> Amazon, Google, others paid their devs in "script" as they were starting up

<gerryg> yeoman: issued currencies of the organizational nodes of the network can function like script. Not floating with the value of the company, but more like bonds.

<tropology> in the meritocracy -- what determines merit? there are objective and subjective components, and temporal and dependent components of value of an act

<tropology> i think we need to find time to more deeply explore this part of the discussion ... several people have had to leave already

<gerryg> To challenge tav WRT stewardship, I will claim that some commons spaces need active stewards. In natural commons this situation comes up when the shared resource has scarce and valuable items that can be poached.

<tav> gerryg: yes -- though that's not a challenge -- as i agree with you ;p

<tav> stewardship is vital in the natural commons -- just in the cultural commons, i'm not so sure -- most *actions* are not mutually exclusive <tav> whereas they are in the natural commons <tav> and thus we could have a thousand different intentions -- some of which overlap and some of which don't <tav> we should celebrate that!

<yeoman> +1

<tropology> tav: in the so called cultural commons .. there is still an ecology where we have tremendous waste, we need to all be more stewardly there .. but we have freedom to fork as well, as needs arise. but better to have space for future integration

<gerryg> While that is generally true, tav, many times a project occupies a critical place in the eco-system and if those who own the key fork are unfriendly, it can hurt the whole field.

<tav> tropology: agreed

<tav> gerryg: agreed too

<tropology> Kantian dictum applies to all our discourse: never to fight in such a way as to preclude a future peace (not saying we need to fight at all, but sometimes it could appear that way)

<tav> the point is though, is that can't be "worked away" by organisational structure or management -- it requires soft processes

<gerryg> So, I do see the need for articulating principles of good stewardship for our group and to make it clear what that means.

<yeoman> working for years at Wikipedia/Wikiversity I've seen how the fork occurs in nature... Wikipedia was a restrictive effort to produce encyclopedic content, but the need for a free learning community emerged quite naturally..

<tropology> the soft processes benefit by some articulation ... not as Laws, but as intentions, which we may at times fall short of , we're mostly human here

<gerryg> tav, yes <gerryg> soft processes

<yeoman> hence Wikiversity emerged almost on its own

<gerryg> +1 tropology

<tav> tropology: articulation sounds brilliant!

<tav> i guess my bigger concern is that OK tries to become yet-another-attempt at becoming the uber network above all else

<tropology> I want to reframe a bit around "prioriities, next steps, and sub groups' ... we need to be clear in communicating "next steps for any of the sub groups, inviting others to help us achieve them , or so we can let people know where we are .. it's kind of Scrummy

<Suresh> Lets just be the successful one ;-)

<gerryg> yeoman, you brought up that the Wv stewards are maybe too connected to the WIki* brands, even though this space has different needs. This is an example of too much structure. The project may eventually need recue ;)

<tav> Suresh: hehe -- there already is a successful one -- humanity!

<Suresh> tropology +1

<yeoman> gerryg: that's becoming evident

<yeoman> tav: i think OK will be a humble toolkit