►
Description
Discussion issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/book-clubs/issues/7
A
So
everyone,
this
is
our
last
heating
of
the
book
club
on
data
work
together
and
today
we
have
a
very
special
guest.
It's
Richard
outlet,
one
of
the
writers,
maybe
which
you
want
to
do
a
quick
introduction,
Porthos
watching
the
video
I
guess
everybody's
reading.
The
book
is
already
familiar
with
you
know,
but
I
guess
it's
just
for
everybody
else.
Yeah.
B
So
I
came
in
very
much
on
the
software
angle
and
then
over
the
past.
Well
yeah.
What
is
it
eight
years
I've
my
perspective
has
evolved
to
be
less
about
software
and
more
about
what
are
the
human
relationships
and
cultural
patterns
and
stuff
that
makes
decision-making
go
well
or
go
poorly.
So
now,
I'm,
like
I,
don't
have
much
to
do
with
software
anymore
and
I'm
much
more
on
that
in
the
human
side
of
things.
A
A
You
saw
that
it
was
a
few
weeks
ago
about
the
emotions
and
remote
room,
and
so
somebody
posted
is
trapped
inside
they're,
doing
check-ins
and
I
trying
to
be
emotionally
open
with
everybody
and
the
reactions
in
the
threat,
but
like
a
lot
of
people
were
horrified
that
they
do
this
and
they
could
never
imagine
doing
this.
You
know
like
in
the
traditional
business
setting,
and
so
if
you
questions
around
this,
so
the
first
one
is
so
it's
understand,
you're
rocking,
like
doing
coaching
of
organizations.
A
B
I
guess
we
work
with
quite
unique
organization.
You
know
I
would
say
that
my
partner
in
a
Nazi
and
I,
we
do
a
lot
of
coaching
consulting
training,
facilitating
supporting
organizations
that
are
trying
to
be
decentralized
and
for
us,
when
we
say
decentralized,
we
mean
the
power
is
decentralized
like
the
decision-making
is
distributed,
but
there's
not
one
central
point
of
command
and
control.
That's
governing
everything
that
it's
more
of
a
network.
B
People
interacting-
and
you
know
it's
more
dynamic
than
just
having
this
old-fashioned
hierarchy,
and
we
I
mean
almost
exclusively
we're
working
with
people
that
or
have
already
crossed
some
kind
of
threshold
where
they
say
we
want
to
be
this
way,
and
it's
not
them
yeah.
It's
not
our
job
to
convince
people
why
they
should
you
know
it's
not
really
I'm,
not
really
in
the
business
of
saying
like
yeah.
This
is
how
something
should
be,
how
you
should
be
organizing
or
workplace
should
look
like
it's.
B
We
work
with
the
people
that
have
ready
for
some
reason
they
woke
up
believing
that
it
decentralized
collaborative
you
know,
horizontal
self.
Managing
way
of
doing
things
is
the
way
they
want
to
do
it
and
we
support
them.
So
we
are
working
with
quite
a
yeah,
it's
quite
a
unique
set
of
people.
I
guess
and
I
have
really
studiously
avoided
old-fashioned
hierarchies
for
most
of
my
life,
so
I
haven't
got
much
experience
with
them.
B
The
emotion
thing
it's
really
like
for
me:
I
guess,
I
guess
one
way
to
think
about
it
is,
you
know
a
couple
of
years
ago:
Google
did
a
big
study
of
their
teams
and
what
made
a
high-performing
team
and
basically,
that
study
popularized
some
older
research,
which
found
that
the
number
one
factor
that
makes
the
difference
is
if
this
thing
they're
called
psychological
safety.
So
let's
think
people
feel
safe
to
be
themselves,
they
can
suggest
an
idea
like
they
can
risk.
B
Take
that
risk
of
taking
a
little
step
out
of
their
comfort
zone
and
saying
hey
what
about?
If
we,
you
know-
and
they
can,
they
can
risk
disagreeing
with
the
group
and
and
not
feel
like
there's
some
kind
of
threat
to
their
to
their
sense
of
connection
and
the
team
if
they,
if
they
disagree
or
if
they
have
to
stand
up.
B
Something
like
there's
a
this
there's
a
number
of
these
different
facets
of
the
single
psychological
safety,
which
basically
it's
the
strongest
predictor
of
a
high-performing
collaborative
team,
and
that
that
kind
of
got
attention
in
the
last
sort
of
two
years
or
so
two
or
three
years
and
and
that's
coming
from
Google
studying
their
thousands
of
teams
and
so
like
that's
kind
of
giving
it
a
bit
more
credibility.
And
it's
a
little
bit
less
like
you
know,
like
my
background,
is
coming
in
from
kind
of
a
radical
activism
perspective.
B
B
If,
if
people
were
resistant
to
sharing
their
emotions
with
their
colleagues,
you've
gotta
ask
why
you
know
like
what
is
it
that,
but
that
Sears
to
someone
I
should
censor
my
experience
like
what
is
it
that
says,
I
should
container
and
I
don't
know.
This
may
be
a
question
for
you.
Folks,
I
I
haven't
made
a
net
experience
for
a
long
long
time
where
I
felt
like
I
had
to
yeah
we're
a
mask,
will
constrain
myself
or
or
or
that
I
would
be
fearful
of
revealing.
My
true
experience.
This
is
yeah.
A
B
Before
the
practices,
I
think
I
think
there's
like
there's
a
deeper
layer,
then
a
practice
which
is
the
way
that
I
think
about
it
anyway,
is
rank
it's
about.
Well,
you
can
think
about
it
as
one
person
like
the
if
I'm,
if
I'm
the
chair
of
the
meeting
or
the
facilitator,
or
something
or
I'm
hosting
or
I'm
like
in
some
kind
of
leadership
position,
just
the
way
that
I
show
up
has
a
huge
impact
on
how
people
feel,
and
especially,
if
I'm,
in
a
position
of
any
kind
of
leadership.
B
The
kind
of
behaviors
that
I
bring
are
really
gonna
set.
The
tone
for
other
people
and
even
beyond
just
the
one
person
is
also
like
I,
really
think
of
the
leadership
of
relationships.
So,
like
I
mentioned
my
partner
natty,
we
do
a
lot
of
work
together
and
the
reason
that
we
work
together
is
so
much
of
what
we're
trying
to
help
teams
get
a
hold
on
is
bitter
relationships
and
the
way
that
we
do,
that
is
by
having
a
great
relationship
and
showing
it
you
know
so
like
it's
really.
B
Some
of
it
can
be
very
subtle
so
like
if
we
are,
if
we're
doing
a
training
where
the
team
will
intentionally
disagree
with
each
other
in
a
constructive
way
to
show
just
like
you
know,
this
is
one
of
the
things
that
good
relationships
can
handle.
Is
that
people
have
different
points
of
view
and
they'll
disagree
with
each
other,
and
it's
not
that
a
problem.
It's
not
a
conflict,
it's
not
as
something
that
needs
to
be
fixed.
It's
like
this
is
really
healthy
and
there's
there's
hundreds
of
little
gestures
like
that
which
help
yeah.
B
It
helps
I.
Think
it
almost
like
at
an
unconscious
level
that
you
don't
have
to
specifically
say.
Oh
now,
we
are
disagreeing
with
each
other
constructively.
It's
like
much
more
implicit
than
that
and
when
we
have
their
space
to
like
kind
of
yeah
just
to
show,
rather
than
to
tell
like
a
different
way
of
being.
Usually
what
we
find
in
the
team
is.
B
You
know,
like
you,
start
a
meeting
in
you
hear
how
people
are
feeling
or
what's
going
on
for
them
or
like
what's
on
their
mind,
or
you
know,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
a
very
profound
thing,
but
this
recurring
habit
of
practicing
self-awareness
like
well.
How
am
I
feeling
right
now,
you
know,
and
it
like
for
me,
I
think
that
was
the
my
first
introduction
to
like
an
actual
self
awareness
practice
was
joining
a
team
where
they
had
the
habit
of
doing
check-ins
and
I.
B
Actually
had
this
thing
like
oh
yeah,
I
do
have
an
emotional
state,
I
do
have
a
physical
state,
it
comes
and
goes
you
know
because
asking?
How
are
you
for
me,
like
I,
mean
assuming
you
actually
mean
it
rather
than
the
kind
of
like
British?
How
do
you
do
like?
Assuming
you
mean
it,
and
people
are
listening,
it
sort
of
implies
there.
B
There
are
some
days
where
you're
going
to
be
feeling
really
up
and
really
high
and
really
good
and
there's
gonna
be
other
days
where
you're
not
feeling
so
good
and
and
the
dynamic
range
is
acceptable.
You
know
that
you're
allowed
to
come
and
go
and
no
one's
expected
to
just
be
perfect
every
day.
I
think.
B
Maybe
yeah
trying
to
find
some
actual
practices,
I
mean
we
I
really
like
to
use
silence
so
like,
especially
when
things
are
really
divergent
or
tints
or
there's
just
a
lot
of
stuff
going
on.
We
have
this.
We
have
all
these
communication
norms
and
I
like
to
disturb
the
communication
norms
and
see
what
happens,
and
one
of
them
is
think
using
silence
intentionally
and
just
saying.
Okay,
look
we're
it's
very
easy
to
have
a
conversation
where
it
feels
that
we've
got
to
fill
up
every
moment
and
oh
look.
B
What
I'm
sticking
and
we're
gonna
run
at
a
time
when
we're
a
little
bit,
and
you
only
really
hear
from
the
people
that
are
like
the
most
energetic,
the
most
confident
the
most
willing
to
like
step
forward
and
share
their
perspective
and
just
by
saying,
hey,
look,
let's
take
30
seconds
and
just
shut
up
and
reflect
for
a
second.
Alright,
sometimes
we'll
do
chickens
or
will
they
check
outs
on
remote
calls
we'll
do
them
by
text.
B
B
What's
the
one
thing
you're
leaving
with
or
it
can
even
just
be
like
you
know,
are
there
any
other
really
urgent
things
that
we
need
to
get
to,
but
just
giving
that
space
for
people
that
relax
for
a
second
and
it's
so
hard
to
listen
and
think
about
what
you
need
to
say
at
the
same
time
you
know
it's
kind
of
impossible
and
and
beyond
the
link.
Let's
have
a
moment
of
silence.
There's
also,
you
know
we'll
often
win
winner
in
this
kind
of
hyperactive
mode.
B
Sometimes
we'll
come
in
and
just
say:
can
we
use
silence
as
in?
Let's
really
listen
for
the
silence
at
the
end
of
someone's
contribution
before
you
jump
in
with
your
one.
So
just
really
let
that
second
of
silence
happen
between
speaking
and
there
as
well
helps
people
to
really
like
focus
in
on
listening
and
paying
attention
to
each
other
and
then
having
a
little
breath
and
in
their
breath
like
because
I'm,
the
kind
of
person
that
can
just
jump
and
jump
and
jump
and
I'm
really
energetic.
B
But
having
that
little
breath
so
often
what
will
happen
is
someone
else.
That's
like
not
quite
as
aggressive
or
as
confident
as
me
will
they'll
step
in,
and
so
you
hear
a
different
balance
of
voices.
I
mean
it's
another
thing
that
they
found
in
their
google
study.
Was
there
another
predictor
of
high-performing
teams
is
how
well
they're
sharing
the
turn-taking.
You
know
like
if,
if
you
have
a
team,
where
there's
like
one
person,
that's
dominating
the
airwaves,
it's
not
it's
not
gonna,
be
effective.
Generally,
if
they're
doing
like
collaborative
innovative
work,
I.
A
A
C
Thank
you
Ott's.
So
one
thing
I
was
thinking
while
reading
the
out
beyond
consensus,
there's
a
field
I'll
meet
you
there,
which
I
love
the
Rumi
quote
right
off
the
bat,
but
while
I
was
reading,
then
I
was
comparing
these
these
ways
to
get
consensus
and
advice
and
consent
to
how
open
source
projects
are
generally
structured.
C
So,
depending
on
the
open
source
project,
it
seems,
there's
somewhat
of
a
trend
either
have
a
single
what
they
call
benevolent
dictator
for
life,
which
is
a
one
individual
or
a
group
of
individuals
who,
through
I,
would
say
meritocracy,
essentially
involvement
with
the
product
and
project
contributions.
Over
time
they
there's
kind
of
a
small
group
who
earns
the
ability
to
merge
to
master
basically
affect
the
end
product,
and
they
have
the
final
say.
I
was
wondering
how
might
like
these
traditional
open-source
government
models,
governance
models,
adapt
or
improve
to
use
the
advice
and
consent
processes.
B
It's
a
really
interesting
open-source
project.
It's
it's
really
like
becoming
a
ecosystem
of
projects.
You
know
so
there's
like
a
lot
of
different
moving
parts
and
people
with
like
a
federation
we're
about
what
do
they
call
it.
The
scuttlebutt
consortium
you
know
so
they've
got
representatives
from
different
apps
that
are
all
trying
to
collaborate
on
producing
a
unified
protocol
and
things
like
this
and
they
some
of
the
core
developers
they're
people
from
loomio
and
Inspiral,
and
so
like
they've,
brought
in
a
real
conscious
approach
to
the
governance
and
decision-making
design
and
so
on.
B
B
You
know
like
it's
really,
not
that
straightforward
and
so
to
me
what
I've
found
with
the
groups
that
we're
working
with
introducing
the
distinction
between
consensus
and
consume
and
whether
you
use
their
language
or
you.
You
know,
construct
your
own
language
for
your
context.
But
to
me
it's
really
about
the
difference
between
I
love.
It
and
I
can
live
with
it,
and
and
that's
something
that
people
people
come
to
terms
with
by
lived
experience.
B
You
know
like
when
you've
participated
in
a
lot
of
decisions
when
you've
brought
your
own
proposals
or
in
the
in
the
software
context,
that
when
you've
brought
your
own
branches
and
asked
them
to
be
merged,
the
difference
between
I
I
love,
it
and
I
can
live
with
it.
You
know
like
is
it?
Is
it
great?
Is
it
the
best
thing
ever
I
mean
that's
one
question,
but
the
other
one
is
like.
Is
it
valid?
Is
a
good
enough
like
does
it?
Does
it
meet
some
minimum?
You
know.
Is
it?
B
Is
it
crossing
a
minimum
threshold
or
is
it
meeting
our
maximum
expectation
and
those
are
two
completely
different
approaches
to
decision
making
there
get
muddled
underneath
this
language
of
consent
and
consensus,
because
those
are
such
I
find
them
really
confusing
terms
at
the
best
time?
And
it's
like
it's
my
specialty,
so
I
don't
expect
people
who
are
not
specializing
in
it
to
have
a
real,
clear
model
in
their
head,
so
like
I,
really
yeah
I'm,
quite
a
believer
in
in
making
the
decision
protocol
explicit
and
and
saying
make
yeah
periodically
having
conversations
going.
B
How
are
decisions
happening
they?
How
does
it
actually
work?
There
was
whole
concept
of
a
meritocracy,
I
think
kind
of
obscures
a
bunch
of
dimensions
of
what's
happening
because
there's
the
mirror
of
I've
contributed
a
lot
and
there's
the
mirror
of
I
write
the
code
and
then
there's
the
merit
of
I,
understand
relationships
and
the
kind
of
internal
politics
and
I
know
how
to
get
stuff
done
and
and
to
me,
that's
essential.
B
So
yeah
I
have
my
little
hiccups
and
hang-ups
about
this
idea
of
meritocracy,
but
I
really
I
guess
my
thing
is
that
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
perfect
decision
protocol
I,
think
decisions
are
always
essentially
compromised
at
one
kind
or
another.
You
know
like
you're,
always
optimizing,
there's
always
a
trainer
if
you're
always
optimizing
for
some
variables.
It's
like
there's
some
time
there
are
some
decisions
where
I
think
it
really
pays
to
just
take
the
time.
B
You
know
like
just
to
really
put
the
hours
in
to
get
a
consensus,
to
really
hear
each
other
out
and
make
sure
that
this
decision
we're
taking
together
it's
the
best
thing
we
can
come
up
with
and
and
we're
gonna,
let
it
buy-in
and
then
there's
other
times
where
it's
not
important.
You
know
where
it's
like.
Well,
you
should
be.
Instead
of
prioritizing
unity,
you
should
be
prioritizing
getting
the
product
out
and
seeing
how
users
respond
to
it.
B
You
know
there's
a
lot
of
times
where
that's
what
should
be
happening
is
you
should
be
getting
some
some
real-world
feedback
and
if
you,
if
you're
trying
to
do
everything
on
a
consensus
model
where
you
turn
to
everything
on
an
autocratic
model
or
everything
on
it
advice
model
you
lose
out
on
their
dexterity
and
the
ability
to
choose
like
what's
the
right
method
for
the
right
scenario
that
we're
in
and
so
that's
why?
I'm,
like
yeah,
making
things
explicit
and
growing
a
shared
language
around
I'm
gonna.
Take
this
decision
by
advice.
B
These
are
the
people
that
I
want
to
hear
from
I'll
make
a
decision
by
this
time.
You
know
this
is
what
kind
of
input
is
required
or
I
need
your
consent
on
this
thing
or
I
think
this
is
important.
We
should
get
consensus
like
having
whether
it's
that
language
or
a
different
stack
of
language,
but
the
ability
to
say,
there's
a
kind
of
a
flowchart.
B
The
organizational
transparency
that
you
folks
have
is
really
a
perfect
example.
You
know,
like
the
handbooks
that
you
guys
put
it
together.
It's
like
really
exceptional
and
I'd,
be
basically
taking
their
approach
and
applying
it
more
to
the
way
that
software
is
produced,
make
just
make
things
explicit
document
it
and
have
a
process
where
you
can
update.
You
know
like
hey,
where
our
behavior
has
deviated
from,
what's
written
in
the
book.
What
do
we
do
about
that?
It's
you
know.
So
it
becomes
a
kind
of
microgram,
constitutional
legislation,
process.
C
B
A
I'm
a
real
nerd
when
it
comes
to
documentation
and
I'm
styling
myself
to
be
like
the
world's
librarian
for
decentralized
organizations
and
I've,
been
pointing
it
for
a
long
time,
because
I
think
it's
a
really
like
it's
a
gold
standard
of
making
your
work
process
is
explicit.
You
know,
I
think
that.
B
B
What
do
we
like
to
happen
when
there's
a
disagreement
like
how
does
that
go
well
and
just
having
those
conversations
about
this
question
of
how
are
we
relating
to
each
other
and
how
would
we
like
to
be
and
making
that
a
shared
responsibility?
You
know
that
everyone's,
so
it's
almost
like
say:
do
it
like
good
citizenship
or
something
you
know
like
how
we?
How
are
we
showing
up
in
the
way
that's
gonna
be
the
best
for
everyone.
You
know,
there's
going
to
be
some
power
to
myself
from
okay.
B
I
might
be
a
little
bit
careful
about
what
I
share,
but
there
is
a
sense:
listen
the
teams
that
we're
working
with
that
these
are
kind
of
greater
good
or
like
that
we
have
once
we
understand
what
everyone's
needs.
We
can
design
a
set
of
communication
and
decision-making
norms
and
collaboration,
norms
that
make
basically
suit
everyone,
but
now
there's
nothing
really
off-the-shelf.
That
seems
to
work
for
us.
C
C
The
document
I
need
I,
feel
two
out
of
three
of
those
apply
to
me
on
a
personal
level
and
then
all
three
apply
to
the
majority
of
organizations
so
say
we're
starting
out
with
the
tool
box,
it's
already
overly
full
and
we
have
to
get
all
the
tools
to
fit
in
that
small
tool
box
just
the
ones
we
really
need.
How
do
we
go
about
like
the
process
of?
Is
it
con,
Mario
or
like
minimalism?
How
do
we
pare
down
that
list?.
C
B
So,
like
you
know,
I
mean
some
of
us
is
really
common
practice
and
organizations.
So
you
have
like
a
90
day
planning
process
or
something
you
know
where
people
sit
and
objective
and
and
then
review
it
three
months
later
or
anyone
who's
running,
agile,
iterations.
You
know
this:
the
scrum
process
of
blank
okay,
we're
going
to
break
the
work
up
and
into
little
chunks
and
every
week,
where
every
two
weeks
or
something
we
have
another
iteration
I'm,
a
really
big
of
pushing
the
communication
and
two
I
mean
a
lot
of.
B
Obviously,
a
lot
of
what
remote
workers
are
doing
is
asynchronous
communication,
but
I'm
really
into
synchronized
communication,
but
just
really
limiting
it.
Just
a
really
saying
is
these
little
these
little
pulses
in
the
calendar.
We
know
we've
got
people's
focus
and
whether
that's
yeah,
whether
that's
on
the
mailing
list
or
it's
on
a
video
call
or
it's
on
or
whatever
the
tool
is.
But
if
there's
this
kind
of
regular
pulse,
it
helps
to
create
this
kind
of
synchronization.
B
Isin,
like
you
know,
like
all
the
meet,
although
all
the
gears
of
the
system
mission
together
where
it's
like.
Okay,
this
is
where
everyone
comes
together
and
gets
aligned
in
harmonize
and
then
I
can
go
off
and
they
can
use
all
their
different
tools
and
have
their
various
dysfunctions
but
they're
these
moments,
where
we
come
together
again
and
we
and
we
focus
how
to
pare
down,
though
that's
yeah,
that's
a
it's.
A
real
puzzle.
B
I
finally,
like
I,
see
it
I
standard
in
software
and
then
move
further
and
further
away
from
it,
and
part
of
it
is
because
I
find
the
challenges
that
come
with
software,
just
so
sticky
they're
there.
So
how
do
I
say
it?
It's
like
in
most
of
the
organization's
we
work
with
there's
some
real
people
having
some
real
difficulties
with
their
information
technology
and.
B
And
it's
almost
never
the
top
priority.
You
know,
there's
always
other
things
that
they're
like
whether
it's
you
know.
We've
got
these
objectives
out
there
in
the
marketplace
or
we've
got
these
things
happening
within
hours.
You
know
within
relationships
or
promotions
or
but
the
thing
of
like
our
documentation
is
amiss,
did
I
get
this
usually
doesn't
become
top
priority,
and
so
it's
this
really
slow
process
of
accretion
and
I
haven't
got
a
really
made
like
hammer
for
going
like.
This
is
how
you
make
it
top
priority
and
get
it
cleaned
up.
B
I
mean
the
thing
that
we've
done
in
Inspiral,
that
I
learned
I,
think
I
learned
it
from
Alana
has
another
one
of
the
authors
in
the
book.
Again,
it's
explicitness
it's
about
like
what
are
the
things
we
need
to
agree
on
with
our
software
like
we
need
to
have
some
kind
of
norms
about
what
kind
of
there's
some
kind
of
tools
we
have
to
agree
on
and
there's
some
kind
of
users
uses
of
those
tools
that
we
have
to
agree
on,
and
we
would
you
know.
B
Usually
we
put
a
bit
of
effort
into
it
like
really
visualizing
and
drawing
these
are
all
the
tools
and
needs
to
have
it
fit
together.
These
are
the
essential
ones,
and
maybe
when
you
get
more
agreement
on
they're
essential
the
kind
of
trunks,
then
maybe
some
of
the
branches
can
come
like
whether
it'll
weigh
a
little
bit
and
fade
into
the
distance,
and
it
might
be
easy
to
get
rid
of
them.
I'm,
not
sure
that
it's
a
really
good
question.
C
B
B
So
the
book
is
called
The
Listening
society
by
Hansie,
Frye
Knox
and
it's
basically
introducing
a
new
Jewish
political
philosophy
which
just
hit
me
at
just
the
right
time
and
really
really
disrupted
my
view
of
the
world
and
so
like
I'm
still
in
the
process.
You
know
more
than
eighteen
months
later
of,
like
updating
my
map
of
reality
and
I've
found
that
to
be
like
extremely
stimulating
and
is
really
connected
to
me
into
a
body
of
thinkers
around
the
world
that
I
find
really
really
super
fascinating.
B
So
that's
a
good
one
and
then
and
then
more
recently,
probably
the
two
that
come
to
mind.
I,
do
like
to
try
and
read
a
lot
now:
I'm,
not
sure
how
to
pronounce
her
name,
I.
Think
it's
Rihanna
iyslah
I
I've
been
reading.
She's
got
a
huge
body
of
work
and
I.
Just
read
a
few
of
her
books,
but
the
one
that
stuck
out
for
me
is
a
book
called
nurturing
our
humanity
and
what
I
like
about
her
way
of
thinking
is.
B
She
proposes
basically
she's
an
anthropologist
that
looks
back
through
history,
but
is
also
making
claims
about
the
present
in
the
future,
and
she
interprets
all
of
this
huge,
huge
amount
of
data
and
comes
out
with
a
very
simple
model
which
sometimes
can
go
horribly
wrong.
But
I
like
it
in
this
case
and
her
model
is:
we've
used
human
societies
as
well
as
like
both
at
the
institutional
level
with
the
really
high
level,
but
also
in
the
various
intimately
well
of
people
relating
to
each
other
and
what
she
calls.
B
The
partnership
domination
spectrum
and
just
sees
like
this
is
kind
of
the
most
important
liebherr
that
you
can
push
on.
Is
they
as
your
as
your
relationship
as
your
organization
as
your
family?
Is
your
country
more
like
as
if
more
like
partnerships,
or
was
it
more
like
domination
relationships?
And
she
shows
these
examples
in
history
where
we've
had
basically
partnership,
oriented
coaches
that
have
been
really
good
places
to
be
alive?
B
And
then
there's
this
big
chunk
of
human
history,
where
it's
mostly
domination,
cultures
and
they
are
like
pretty
awful
and
and
now
you
have
the
like.
You
know
I
mean
I'm
from
New
Zealand.
So
that's
a
good
example
of
a
country.
That's
really
trying
to
trying
to
push
it
more
on
the
in
their
partnership
direction,
so
they'd
say:
I
really
just
appreciated
her
mental
model
and
the
way
that
she's
connecting
the
very
large
scale
to
the
very
small
scale.
B
That's
I'm,
a
big
fan
of
that
kind
of
fractal
way
of
thinking
about
sociology
and
another
one
that
sticks
out
for
me
is
a
book
called
San
Talk
by
Tyson,
Janka
Porter
and
he's
like
an
indigenous
guy
from
Australia,
and
he
understands
for
fixity
science,
and
so
it's
kind
of
like
indigenous
complexity.
And
it's
just
another
one
of
those
that
completely
mind-blowing
books,
where
I
just
felt
like
I
was
dropped
into
a
different
way
of
viewing
the
world
and
and
and
yeah
I
feel
like
it's.
B
The
kind
of
book
I'm
gonna
come
back
to
five
or
six
times,
because
it's
just
it's
just
super
super
deep.
You
know
I
mean
like
a
tiny
example
of
it
is
that
he
explains
how
how
you
know
in
in
indigenous
culture
in
Australia.
It's
like,
like
all
indigenous
cultures,
its
oral
rather
than
a
written
culture,
and
so
he
explains
just
a
little
tiny
little
glimpse
of
how
an
oral
culture
works
like
if
you
can't
store
your
information
by
writing
it
down,
and
you
have
to
store
it
in
your
memory
like
how
does
that
actually
work?
B
And
when
sage
of
the
book
he
takes
you
through
an
exercise
in
to
encode
his
kind
of
major
thesis
on
to
the
on
to
the
joints
of
your
fingers
and
on
to
the
points
of
your
hand
and
make
so
I've
got
a
memory
now
of
like
what
all
of
these
just
just
mean
as
they
as
they
yeah
he's
kind
of
like
downloaded
half
of
his
book
into
my
hand
and
I
can
remember
it
because
of
the
way
he's
take,
got
this
technique
for
for
a
really
sophisticated
use
of
memory.
So
it's
that
kind
of
thing.
D
A
B
I
guess
I'm
really,
you
know
my.
My
attention
is
just
completely
enveloped
by
this
pandemic,
because
I'm
in
Italy
and
and
I
feel
kind
of
two
weeks
ahead
of
most
of
most
Westerners
I'm
thinking
about
this
and
as
someone
who
works
with
teams
and
as
in
networks
of
like
facilitators
and
coaches
and
stuff,
the.
B
This
such
a
is
such
an
extraordinary
moment
of
focus
right
now
on
what
the
heck
is.
This
remote
work
thing
you
know
like
this:
it's
it's
really
extraordinary.
How
I
mean
you
know
you
folks
have
been
doing
this
for
a
long
time
and
there
are
other
organizations
that
have
been
doing
it
for
a
long
time
and
then
you've
got
the
vast
majority
of
people
working
in
offices
who
the
technology
has
been
there
for
a
long
time.
You
know
the
ability
to
do.
B
This
has
been
a
for
a
long
time,
but
this
is
just
giving
them
the
disruption
they're
like
oh
wow,
okay,
so
we
can't
do
things.
The
way
it
used
to
do
things
with
to
innovate,
will
answer,
testing
your
patterns,
and
so
I
guess
the
question
I
have
is:
do
you
have
a
sense
as
as
a
distributed
team?
Do
you
have
a
sense
of
like
what
what's
the
most
urgent
lesson
for
for
an
organization
or
a
team?
That's
just
for
the
first
time.
B
You
know
this
month,
stepping
into
the
world
of
doing
things
without
having
that
face
to
face
office.
Time
is
this
something
that
floats
to
the
top
view
of
like
this
is
the
really
important
thing
that
they
need
to
be
paying
attention
to
make
that
just
do
this?
One
thing
and
you'll
be
you'll,
be
safe
or
yeah.
I'd
love
to
hear
I
love
to
hear
what
you've
learned
from
that
experience.
D
We
go
around
us,
I
guess
I'll
start
so
for
me
and
I.
Think
for
me
sometimes
I
sort
of
couple
in
my
head.
The
way
you
get
lab
works
with
the
way
you
have
to
work.
If
you
want
to
work
remotely,
which
are
not
the
same
things
like
some
of
the
things
we
do
I
think
any
organization
trying
to
coordinate
remotely
would
have
to
do,
but
some
things
I,
don't
so
like.
We
have
a
very
heavy
focus
on
working,
asynchronously,
I,
don't
think
that's
required.
D
You
can
have
a
remote
organisation
where
everybody
is
in
basically
the
same
timezone.
You
might
do
a
lot
more
from
a
software
engineering
perspective.
You
might
do
a
lot
more
pairing
than
we
do.
For
instance,
you
know
of
a
video
course
so,
but
for
me
I
think
the
most
important
thing
is
not
going
silent,
like
I
think
anybody
who's
worked
remotely
or
from
home
or
whatever
in
a
company
or
an
organization
that
sort
of
office
based
will
know
the
feeling
of
just
like
missing
out
on
everything.
D
D
Although
I
would
argue,
that's
that's
the
best
way
to
do
it,
but
it
does
have
to
be
like
disseminated
to
everybody
like
everybody
needs
to
be
able
to
feel
in
the
loop
and
that
they
understand
what's
going
on
like
across
as
much
of
the
organisation
as
they
need
to
know
to
do
their
job,
but
to
feel
like
they're
part
of
the
organization,
because
that
sense
of
belonging
is
the
more
important
thing.
I.
D
Think,
fundamentally,
like
you
can't
you
can't
do
anything,
you
don't
feel
like
you
belong
really
because
you
won't,
you
won't
feel
comfortable
stepping
in
so.
For
me,
me,
that's
the
big
thing
is
just
keeping
that
context.
I
guess
going,
because
you
have
to
think
about
how
you
give
people
that
context
running
all
in
the
same
room.
So
is
it
writing
things
down
and
putting
them
in
the
handbook?
Is
it
like
I,
don't
know
a
daily
call,
you
all
get
on.
Is
it
something
else?
D
C
A
B
I'm
most
like
curious,
rarely
to
this
I
think
Shawn.
You
mentioned
the
asynchronous
nature
of
the
work
there.
The
way
that
get
lab
works
and
to
me
asynchronous
work
has
been
a
real
breakthrough,
especially
you
know,
with
the
focus
on
decision
making.
It's
just
think
when
it
comes
to
important
decisions,
very
very
few
groups
would
think
to
do
that.
Asynchronously
and
I.
Wonder
if
you
have
a
any
sense
of
like
you
know.
D
Yeah
I'm
just
gonna,
go
along
the
same
lines.
I
think
the
the
nice
thing
about
asynchronous
communication
is
that
you
can
spend
as
much
time
as
you
want
like
preparing
you
know,
reading
what
the
other
person
has
said,
and
you
know
preparing
what
you
want
to
say
in
response.
The
problem
is
sometimes
you
can
read
too
much
into
what
they've
said.
You
know
you
can
you
can
like
over
overanalyze.
It
read
something
into
it.
D
They
didn't
actually
say
or
didn't
mean
to
like
imply,
and
that
sort
of
thing
is
much
easier
to
resolve
in
a
call
or
even
in
a
chat.
Sometimes
like
you
know,
like
I,
think
there
are
sort
of
different
tiers
of
communication.
Like
you
know,
something
like
a
chat
would
be
in
between
a
video
call
and
a
you
know,
an
issue
tracking
system
and
I
think
that's
I.
A
B
B
B
This
new
consensus
that
high
priority
is
on
inclusion
and
equity
and
making
sure
they
differ
once
heard,
and
that's
the
thing-
and
until
is
the
thing
that
comes
after
that,
so
that's
like
much
more
freedom,
much
more
delegation
still
with
this.
This
background
principle
of
inclusion,
but
we're
not
putting
inclusion,
is
the
top
priority
all
the
time.
It's
more
like
a
more
trusting
sort
of
empowered
follow
the
people
with
expertise,
kind
of
approaches
it's
it's
kind
of
like
a
I.
B
B
It
just
seemed
really
natural
to
to
step
out
of
always
being
in
a
circle
and
to
get
more
comfortable
with
the
idea
of
being
a
network
where
we
have
this
dynamic,
competence-based
hierarchies
that
make
temporarily
a
symbol,
and
then
they
reassemble
in
different
contexts
that
that
came
to
us
naturally
over
time,
as
we
realize
that
it
doesn't
actually
make
sense
to
always
do
consensus
like
it.
Just
it
just
is,
there's
just
no
way,
that's
the
most
effective
way
of
getting
something
done,
and
so.
B
The
focus
that
I've
had
is
really
on
that
transition
point
and
that's
why
I
like
at
the
start,
I
said
I,
don't
have
that
much
experience
with
traditional
organizations
because
they're
in
a
whole
different
ballpark,
but
the
ones
that
are.
You
know
like
a
lot
of
the
people
we're
working
with
like
small
technology,
coops
or
NGOs
or
like
activist
groups.
People
are
they're.
You
know,
like
a
lot
of
the
groups
were
working
with
now.
They'll
explicitly
have
a
framing
around
feminist
leadership,
for
instance.
B
You
know
because
it's
it's
a
trick
to
often
those
people
can
get
into
like
basically
like
a
defensive
posture
because
out
in
the
wider
world,
there's
not
a
lot
of
inclusion.
There's
not
a
lot
of
equity.
There's,
not
a
lot
of
fairness.
There's
there's
a
lot
of
people
that
feel
like
they
don't
have
their
voice
heard,
and
so
when,
when
I
come
in
and
say,
hey
I
see
that
you've
got
this
lovely
equity
and
inclusion
and
fairness
and
I
want
to
change
it.
Obviously
they
can
feel
like
I'm
attacked.
B
A
B
Pleasure
to
meet
you
three
and
one
of
a
distant
phone
call
yeah
I'm
serious
about
this
thing
that
you
know
get
lab,
has
really
got
an
expertise
at
the
moment.
That
is
certainly
an
extremely
high
demand,
so
I
hope
that
I
hope
that
people
are
nothing
when
your
door
and
asking
how
to
do
it,
because
from
what
I
can
tell
from
the
outside,
it
really
seems
that
you've
got
you've,
got
some
real
skill.
There's
a
real
resource
there
that
yeah.
D
We
have
a
person
whose
job
title,
who
was
kind
of
a
remote
who's,
basically
responsible
for
sort
of
coordinating
all
this
stuff
and
they've
been
doing
a
great
job
over
the
last
week
or
a
couple
of
weeks,
sort
of
getting
things
out
there,
like
they've
added
some
stuff
to
our
handbook.
Sort
of
that's
not
directly
relevant
to
us,
but
like
is
useful
to
other
organizations
like
if
I
want
a
bootstrap
like
working
remotely
in
my
organization.