►
Description
The Softgov Working Group researches and applies best practices for governance, social collaboration and contribution rewards while implementing Ostrom’s 8 principles for governing the commons in its foundation.
We gather every Tuesday at 7pm CET.
Steward: Liviade
🙏 Thank you for watching! Hit 👍 and subscribe 🚩 to support this work
🌱Join the Community🌱
on Discord https://discord.gg/uM4ZWDjNfK
or say hello on Telegram https://t.me/tecommons
Join the conversation https://forum.tecommons.org/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tecmns
Learn more http://tecommons.org/
A
Most
of
them
actually
were
mentioning
this,
this
corner
here,
the
spiritual
and
community,
so
inner
wealth
and
social
wealth
as
the
most
abundant
and
the
individual
wealth
and
material
wealth
as
the
least
abundant
or
the
lacking
ones,
and
I
thought
maybe
this
reflects
a
little
bit
on
the
challenges
we're
having
in
the
community
like
individually.
A
We
are
kind
of
manifesting
the
challenges
we
have
collectively,
or
maybe
it's
the
opposite.
The
collective
is
manifesting,
the
challenges
we
have
individually
and-
and
so
I
was
I
I
don't
know
if
it's
worth
digging
more
into
it,
but
maybe
like
what
what
makes
it
difficult
for
us
to
or
for
the
ones
who
express
that
who
were
the
majority
to
connect
with
this
individuality
when
we
are
so
community
driven
and
with
material
wealth,
when
our
values
are
often
of
a
more
community
social
wealth.
A
So
in
our
values,
we're
always
preaching
the
the
values
of
the
whole
to
have
a
decentralized
community
that
will
benefit
all
that
relationships
are
in
first
place,
cultures
in
first
place
and
then
maybe
we're
losing
a
little
bit
the
balance
on
on
the
material
and
how
to
ground
that.
So
that
was
just
something
interesting.
I
I
noticed
and
also
on
the
leadership
side.
This
has
been
brought
up
a
lot.
So
how
what
someone
said
this
last
week?
We
need
to
talk
about
what
individual
experiences
people
have
and
how
are
we
developing
the
leadership
from
everyone?
A
So
maybe
this
is
also
connected,
and
this
came
up
in
many
calls
and
many
working
groups
for
a
long
time
of
how
we
can
spread
leadership
a
little
bit
more
and
that
maybe
this
has
been
quite
centralized
and
with
the
talk
we
had
in
the
in
the
stewards
called
this
week
of
like
oh,
maybe
we
have
too
many
stewards.
Maybe
the
cost
of
the
stewards
to
the
organization
are
being
high
costs
and.
A
What
are
the
impact
we're
seeing
right
now?
So
maybe
the
answer
lies
under
those
like
threads
that
are
starting
to
open
up.
You
know
like
focusing
a
little
bit
more
on
the
individual,
a
little
bit
more
on
the
material
and
a
little
bit
more
on
individual
agency
and
leadership
for
multiple
people,
so
I'll
open
this,
like
very
open
question
of
how
does
this
resonate
to
you
guys
and
what
are
some
thoughts
here,
I'll
pass?
You
gideon.
B
I
don't
know
I'll
just
say
the
thing
that's
popped
in
my
mind,
because
it's
something
I'm
I'm
thinking
about
a
lot
right
now.
I
think
that
you
know
we're
struggling
with
this
notion
of
permissionlessness
right.
B
C
B
Like
we
don't
we
can't
screen
people
in
advance.
We
don't
want
to
screen
people
in
advance.
That's
the
design
of
this
structure.
Permissionless
is
like
anybody
can
join,
but
I
think
we
we
haven't
figured
out
how
to
deal
with
the
people
who
are
just
showing
up
right.
We
don't
know
how
to
plug
people
in
in
ways
that
that
stick.
B
You
know
some
people,
a
small
percentage
of
people,
actually
do
stay
and
engage
and
get
really
involved,
but
there
are
lots
of
people
who
kind
of
just
come
in
and
look
and
then
maybe
wander
off,
and
I
think
that
that
is
a
little
bit
related
to
the
pressures
that
we're
facing.
You
know
it's
it's.
We
don't
have
the
economics
yet
to
be
able
to
really
support
lots
of
people
coming
in,
and
so
we
rely
on
on
kind
of
volunteer
contributions,
but
we
don't
really
have
good
accountability
systems
for
tracking.
B
When
somebody
says
I'm
going
to
do
this,
you
know
how
do
we
know
that
that's
actually
gonna
happen,
so
it
does
feel
to
me,
like
I,
don't
know
we're
facing
kind
of
a
challenge
of.
It
feels
like
there's
so
much
work
to
do
and
we're
making
traction
in
certain
areas,
but
it
also
feels
like
we're
not
making
traction
in
in
other
areas
and
that
a
lot
of
the
work
is
following
is
falling
onto
the
shoulders
of
a
relatively
small
number
of
people.
D
Yeah
thanks,
I
feel
like
our
system
overall.
Is
you
know
good
that
probably
do
not
need?
D
You
know
a
group
of
people
coordinating
to
the
whole
commons
like
I
feel
like
it
also
do
not
escalate,
like
you
know,
like
the
star
wars.
Cannot,
you
know,
imagine
like
the
commons
having,
like,
I
don't
know,
20k
people
like
and
having
like
10
10
or
five
one
thousand
working
groups,
like
you
know,
having
steroids
all
over
the
place.
I
don't
think
that
makes
sense
at
all.
D
Like
I
I
like
more
like
the
approach
of
having,
like
you
know,
all
these
working
groups
working
independently,
but
for
following
same
mischievous
values,
and
then
you
know
like
the
inevitable
goal,
is
like
rich
like
accordingly
to
the
governor,
because
otherwise
like,
if
you
don't
do
not
make
proposals
according
to
the
government,
are
not
going
to
pass.
D
D
I
don't
know
what
com?
Well,
probably,
what
comes
yes,
but
I
don't
know
like
I,
don't
feel
like
it's
necessary,
like
deeper
coordination
between
with
like
legal
communities,
for
example.
I
don't
know
like
you
know,
I
don't
feel
like
it's
necessary,
and
this
is
every
time
we're
coordinating
like
using
like
everyone's
time.
That's
that
you
know
time
is,
is
money
also
so
yeah?
E
Yeah,
thank
you
septi,
so
I
would
maybe
kind
of
disagree
with
the
idea
of
that.
We
don't
need
coordination.
How
I
see
it?
I
think
it's
it's
really
interesting,
because
I
really
go
back
to
this
idea
of
decentralization
you
know
and
how
I
see
the
house
and
all
of
this
space.
It's
kind
of
you
know
like
a
network
or
like
a
like,
like
an
ecosystem
in
nature.
You
know,
like
a
rainforest,
for
example,
that
everything
works.
Everything
has
its
own
function.
E
Everything
is
coordinated,
but
not
like
in
a
formal
or
restricted
way,
but
it's
like
organic.
You
know
everything
grows
and
organizes
in
an
organic
way.
I
think
part
of
this
is
kind
of
like
reaching
that
place,
but
to
reach
that
place.
I
think
it's
really
complex
right,
because
we're
talking
about
people
and
about
changing
systems
that
they've
always
been
there
and
yeah,
we
might
not
have
the
answers
yet
right.
E
We
are
still
figuring
out
how
to
organize
ourselves
in
a
way
that
is
yeah,
decentralized
and
and
transparent
and
accountable,
and
that
also
accomplishes
whatever
purpose
we
have
in
the
organization
so
yeah.
I
think
it's
a
challenge
and,
for
example,
something
that
I
see
a
lot
here
is
you
know
this
part
of,
I
would
say,
maybe
like
commitment
or
time
from
people
that
you
don't
really
know
like
who
is
part
of,
for
example,
each
working
group.
E
You
know
like
it's
really
hard
to
tell
who
is
truly
committed
or
how
many
hours
are
they
committing?
You
know,
how
can
you
rely
on
on
people
to
get
things
on?
If
you
don't
really
know
right
and-
and
I
think
you
know
that's
one
of
the
questions
to
answer
right,
how
are
we
gonna
deal
with
that
because
it's
not
about
you
know
like
going
back
to
traditional
organizations
where
there's
like
positions
and
you
get
that
position
and
you
get
a
contract
for
a
certain
amount
of
time.
Yeah
we
don't.
We
don't
want
that
right.
E
We
want
that
flexibility
of
people
coming
and
going,
and
even
with
with
that
that
progress
still
can
be
done
right.
So
so,
how
I
see
things
is
that
I
think
we
we
need
to
rely
more
on
processes
and
more
on.
E
Objectives
and
ideas
than
on
people-
you
know,
I
think,
if
we
have
like
a
clear
objective
on
whatever
we
do,
any
people
that
comes
in
they
can.
You
know
like
read
something
learn
really
quickly
about
it,
and
then
they
can
keep
going
with
the
work
that
the
previous
person
that
left
did
before
right.
So
you
know
trying
to
achieve
that.
E
That
dynamic,
you
know,
but
it's
hard.
I
think
it's
it's
hard,
yeah
yeah,
so
I'll
just
pass
it
to
within
it.
C
At
the
moment,
I'm
more
like
an
observer
than
a
knower
about
everything
that's
going
on.
I
I
have
taken
the
approach
of
popping
up
in
meetings,
so
I
can
sense.
I
I
I
do
like
this,
what
you're
doing
in
it
in
this
doubt
I
I
until
the
moment
I
have
found
that
some
of
the.
C
Disorientation
I
have
about
what's
what's
going
on,
what
can
I
do?
Where
can
I
participate?
How
do
things
get
managed?
And
all
of
that
I
I
haven't
mind
about
it.
It's
not!
It's
not
been
a
discouragement,
because
I
have
this
my
motive.
C
What
has
drawn
me
here,
it's
like
a
bigger
than
just
thinking
about
immediate
games.
For
me,
this
experience
has
a
real
value
in
into
building
what
I
want
to
build
and
participate
in
the
world
so
and,
for
instance,
what
you
mentioned
about
these
two
words
is:
is
that
a
a
greater
cost,
but
I
didn't
notice
that
so
it's
something
that
gets
me
real
curious
about.
I
I
want
to
observe
more
about
these
stewards
roles
and
what
you
mentioned
about
people
coming
and
and
not
staying
to
participate.
C
It's
like
I
I'm
settled
to
stay.
I
haven't
participated
yet
because
I'm
sensing,
because
I
don't
want
to
commit
to
something
that
I
won't
be
accountable
about
with
myself
or
with
you,
but
like
yeah.
You
need
to
to
be
convinced
that
this
is
what
you
want
to
build
in
order
to
build
it.
It's
not
like
I
arrive,
and
it's
done
right
tell
me
that
it's
organized
and
you
don't
have
conflict
and
no
nobody
that
goes
into
a
dow
goes
for
that.
C
So
that's
I
don't
know
if
you
have
any
questions
about
my
participation,
it's
like
you
can
ask,
but
I
don't
know
much,
but
that's
what
I
can
share.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
Oh
that's
awesome
to
have
you
here
with
such
an
open
and
sensing
energy
yeah,
something
something
bear
said
pop
pop.
Let
me
find
it
here.
A
Here
when
you
said
that,
I
think
we
need
to
rely
more
on
processes
and
objectives
and
ideas
if
we
have
a
clear
objective,
everyone
that
comes
in
can
do
something
really
quick
about
it.
Well,
that's
the
biggest
challenge,
because
when
that's
that's
the
main
difference
of
centralization
versus
decentralization
because
in
centralized
organizations
one
person
could
set
what
is
that
we
should
be
looking
at
like
what
is
the
clear
objective?
A
Someone
just
comes
in
and
says
it
out
loud
and
then
others
start
picking
things
up
to
do
according
to
that
one
objective,
and
when
you're
in
a
decentralized
organization
like
who,
how
why?
How
do
I
know
that
the
objective
I'm
thinking
is
also
not
as
important
as
the
objective,
the
other
person
is
thinking
and
then
it
starts.
A
A
How
do
you
call
it
ramify
again,
because
people
have
very
different
ideas
about
how
we're
going
to
achieve
that
mission
and
then
all
of
those
things
are
costly
and
require
different
processes.
So
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
of
that
challenge.
We're
going
through
now-
and
this
reminded
me
of
when
I
worked
in
the
genesis
dow,
this
other
community.
A
There
was
an
artist
called
joss
that
she
passed
a
proposal.
That
was
the
museum
of
unfinished
ideas,
and
that
was
so
brilliant
because
she
wanted
to
expose
people's
failures
like
I
want
to
put
on
a
wall
everything
that
you
started,
and
you
didn't
finish,
and
that
was
it
and
and
he
passed
as
a
proposal
when
that
happened.
But
then,
after
that,
I
kept
thinking
of
how
amazing
it
would
be
to
have
a
live
museum
of
unfinished
ideas
that
people
could
just
come
and
continue
the
work
of
others
like
we
have.
A
E
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
that's
a
great
great
idea
living
what
about
what
you
were
saying
about
the
the
objective
and
comparing
it
with
traditional
organizations.
Yeah
you're
completely
right,
and
I
think,
that's
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
right,
like
as
a
community
being
able
to
agree
on
an
objective
that
we
all
share.
I
think
that's
difficult,
because
every
everyone
have
like
their
own
opinion
about
what
has
to
be
done
and
what
is
relevant
at
the
moment
or
whatever
right.
E
So
this
idea
of
objectives
processes
we
would
have
to
find
maybe
a
way
in
which
we
can
all
agree
on,
and
maybe
this
can
also
relate
with
what
septic
was
was
saying
right,
like
a
network,
it's
also
composed
from
like
bigger
cells,
but
then
like
also
smaller
cells
right.
So
this
idea
of
having
smaller
groups
where
more
specific
objectives
can
be
worked
on
and
then
that'll
once
that
objective
is
accomplished,
it
will
affect
like
a
bigger
scope
of
a
bigger
work
or
whatever
you
know
so
that
way.
E
Maybe
the
world
can
be
more
like
focused
no
on
on
on
a
certain
a
certain
thing
and
the
people
we
will
able
to
have
more
control
over
it
right,
it
will
be
more
independent
and
it
will
be
more
free
in
a
certain
way.
I
would
say,
and
and
then
you
also
have
on
the
other
side,
this
topic
about
resources
right,
because
that
we
can
have,
for
example,
have
these
this
museum.
That
is
great,
but
then
how
are
we
gonna
decide
on
the
resources
that
we
have?
E
Where
are
they
gonna
go
to
what
project
who's
gonna
decide
that
right?
If
people
start
picking
up
what
they
think,
they
could
continue
that
that
would
be
great
but
the
resource
allocation.
I
think
it
would
also
be.
It
would
also
be
something
to
consider.
B
Yeah
I
let's
see
there
are
a
lot
of
ideas
that
are
resonating
here.
For
me,
one
is
zepty's.
B
Comment
about
scaling
and
how
important
that
is
to
be
able
to
scale,
and
I
think
that
this
is
also
tied
into
this
idea
that
bear
you're
talking
about
about
you-
know
smaller
cells,
folding
up
into
bigger
entities.
B
B
B
But,
since
you
know
just
recently,
I've
been
I've
been
looking
at.
I've
been
re-reading,
frederick
lalu's
reinventing
organizations
book,
and
it's
really
good
and
it
talks
a
lot
about
self-directed
work
teams,
and
you
know
the
the
way
to
you
know.
It
explains
how
holacracy
actually
works,
and
I
actually
think
that
an
organization
like
the
tc,
which
is
pretty
good
at
dealing
with
complex
ideas
of
coordination,
could
actually
do
it.
B
And
so
I
guess
what
I'm
suggesting
here
is:
well,
I'm
not
suggesting
we
just
embrace
holacracy,
but
I
think
that
self-directed
work
teams
there's
a
lot
of
really
good
experience
out
there
that
others
have
distilled
they've
gone
before
us
on
and
we
could
learn
from
because
I
think
the
last
point
I
just
wanted
to
reemphasize
something
that
bear
said,
which
is
we
don't
want
to
go
backwards
to
centralized
bureau.
You
know
like
power,
centric
organizations
like
that.
That's
not
the
future,
but
we
haven't
figured
out
that
future.
B
Like
we
don't
know
how
accountability
at
least
here
in
tec,
we
haven't
quite
figured
that
out
yet,
and
I
think
that
once
we
figured
out
that
problem,
that's
things
are
going
to
feel
a
lot
better.
A
A
It's
one
of
the
if
I
hadn't,
if
I
started
to
put
my
my
paintings
up
on
the
museum
from
finished
ideas
and
accountability
mechanism
would
be
one
of
them
because
again
in
the
genesis
tower,
I
think
the
biggest
failure
we
had
was
because
of
a
lack
of
accountability.
A
A
A
E
Yeah
so
that
you're
saying
that
I
I
go
back
for
like
one
of
the
reasons
that
I
really
loved
all
of
this
technology
and
blockchain,
it's
exactly
that
right.
It's
it's
accountability,
and
what's
one
of
the
biggest
problems
in
in
our
world
with
politics
with
politicians
with
people
promising
things
are
not
being
accountable
for
right.
So
when
I
realized
that
blockchain
allowed
you
to
have
a
certain
type
of
accountability,
I
said
well
like
that's.
That's
amazing.
E
E
F
So
I
have
a
different
view
on
this.
It
seems
to
me
that
I
mean
some
of
you
might
have
seen
this.
This
graphic
that
I
made
for
me.
Accountability
is
only
necessary
and
an
abusive
extractive
system.
F
It's
it
seems
to
me
that
that
the
the
word
accountability
and
the
and
the
idea
behind
it
are
like
a
holdover
from
that
system.
If
we
were
to
educate
and
trust,
create
enough
like
to
use
the
gravity
terms
right,
it
feels
to
me,
then
then
it
would
be
it's
sort
of
inevitable
that
so
what
I'm
seeing
is
is
that
that
we
skip
over
step
two
here.
F
You
know
their
stuff
done,
so
you
know,
and-
and
I
I
often
talk
about
you-
know-
managing
complex
change
in
some
of
the
groups
that
I'm
participating
in.
So
I'm
looking
for
the
managing
complex
change.
F
Accountability
all
the
time,
but
in
in
many
ways
we
don't.
We
don't
think
about
necessarily
the
roadblocks
that
a
person
who
would
be
held
accountable
might
run
into
in
a
situation
like
this
right.
F
So
if
you
have
all
of
the
vision,
skills,
incentive,
resources
and
action
plan
to
get
everything
done,
then
it's
perfectly
reasonable
to
hold
a
single
person
accountable
for
that,
on
the
other
hand,
if
if
a
person's,
confused
or
anxious
or
has
resistance
to
things
or
is
frustrated
and
can
start
and
stop
you,
you
have
to
be
able
to
not
only
have
accountability,
but
also
to
be
able
to
to
look
into
the
not
only
accountability
on
a
per
person
basis,
but
but
structurally.
How?
F
Where
did
we
not
provide
the
skills
or
the
incentives
or
the
resources
or
the
action
plan
to
get
the
particular
thing
done?
So
so
I,
from
my
perspective,
this
is
kind
of
a,
and
I
think
things
like
liberating
structures
are.
You
know,
would
ritualize
the
conflict
necessary
to
surface
this
kind
of
stuff
and
make
it
so
that
we
could
focus
on
what
I
think
we
should
be
can
focus
on,
which
is
this.
You
know
the
process
of
breaking
up
and
decentralizing
power
and
re-educating
ourselves.
F
So
to
some
degree
we
need
to
hold
ourselves
accountable,
but
we
need
to
hold
ourselves
accountable
to
the
right
thing,
which
is
to
what
degree
have
we
decentralized
power?
Do
we
have
metrics
about
that?
To
what
degree
have
we
re-educated
people
with
the
the
dow
philosophy
that
you
know
and-
and
I
just
so
when
we're
talking
about
accountability,
I
think
it
goes.
You
know
a
bit
further
than
perhaps
we've
been
talking
about
it,
so
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there
thanks.
D
D
You
know
like
I'm
doing
like
I'm
being
uncomfortable,
because
I'm
I'm
doing
those
I'm
doing
what
I
said
and
people
voted
to
that
to
happen,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that's
the
fish
in
the
efficient
way
right
like
if
you
go,
you
know
like
if
you
are
efficient,
like
you,
I
don't
know
like
you,
you
do
it
under
a
market
value
like
you
know
how
much
this
does
cost
in
the
market.
Probably
you
know
I
feel,
like
some
tasks
in
the
tc
are
being
overpaid.
In
my
opinion
and
yeah,
I
just
wanted
to.
A
D
I
was
just
I
was
just
going
to
introduce
and
talk
like
we're
talking
about
accountability
in
the
tc
and
the
methods
we're
using
and
how
good
are
we
on
that?
If
you
want
to
comment,
thank
you.
A
I
think
yeah,
I
think,
that's
a
very
interesting
topic
and
thanks
for
the
for
the
different
perspectives
to
it
that
we
had.
I
think
what
you're
saying
durga
does
also
relates
to
what
we
were
talking
about
in
the
beginning
of
the
call
that
it
seems
from
the
answers
that
we
got
that
people
feel
like
they.
Their
wealth
belongs
more
to
the
spiritual
and
community
side
rather
than
the
individual
and
material
side,
at
least
from
the
majority
of
the
people
we
heard
last
week
and
staff
government.
A
I
think
lack
of
accountability
is
a
symptom
of
somehow
forgotten
individual
autonomy
agency
material,
like
it's
related
to
that
part,
and
I
think
in
general,
in
society.
This
feels
like
it
feels
like.
We
only
relate
to
the
individual
as
in
individualistic
instead
of
relating
to
the
individual
as
part
of
the
whole,
and
I
think
accountability
is
this
individuality
that
is
integrated
to
the
whole,
because
you're
accountable
to
others,
and
so
it
creates
a
self-responsibility.
A
So
you
see
yourself
as
yourself,
but
you
see
that
you're
integrated
in
a
system
that
it's
greater
than
you
and
that
influences
you
and
then
this
feedback
loop
is
part
of
the
accountability
process.
So
maybe
there's
something
on
the
self
development
side
that
we
could
start
to
look
at
to
understand
accountability
more
from
this,
not
just
as
a
symptom
like
you
said,
durga
does,
but
as
something
deeper
there.
F
Well
see
if
I
can
just
so
the
reason
why
I'm
saying
step
number
two
is
so
important
is
because
I
feel
like
in
order
to
do
the
thing
that
you
just
said.
That's
the
step
number
four
in
my
thing,
which
is
to
be
deliberately
developmental,
so
everyone
is
then
grounded
in
where
their
ground
feeling
about
themselves
and
the
community
they're
participating
in
is
decentralized.
F
I
don't
think
everybody
has
that
feeling
right
and
and
it
because,
because
the
the
culture
of
the
wider
culture
they're
participating
in,
is
still
highly
centralized
and
getting
worse
and
getting
more
extractive
and
more
oppressive
every
day,
and
so
how
is
it
that
we
can
educate
and
offset
our
place,
not
just
as
a
coping
mechanism
for
that,
but
as
a
real
sort
of
growth
pattern
to
to
sort
of
lead
the
way
right?
F
So
it's
one
thing
to
say
that
we've
got
an
environment
here
where
everyone's
nice-
and
you
know
you
have
different
things,
but
but
is
that
just
a
you
know
like
a
coping
mechanism,
or
is
that
real
growth
right?
And
so
you
know,
I
think
we
need
to
be
able
to
make
distinctions
of
that
nature
like.
Is
it
protective
use
of
force
or
is
it
violence
right?
Is
it?
Is
it
a
coping
mechanism
or
is
it
real?
You
know
change
right,
so
you
know
these
kinds
of
things.
F
B
This
is
building
off
of
part
of
what
you
were
saying
earlier
during
us,
but
I
think
another
challenge
that
we
have
is
related
to
the
decentralized
nature
of
what
we're
trying
to
do,
and
so
sometimes
to
me.
It
feels
like
there
are
lots
of
different
things
going
on
across
this
community
that
don't
always
pull
in
the
same
direction,
and
so
just
like
the
old
ways
of
doing
things
with
hierarchy
like
positional
power,
we
don't
want
to
copy
that.
B
I
think
we
also
don't
want
to
have
top-down
strategies
where
it's
like.
Oh
here's,
the
vision,
everybody
everybody
do
this
and
everybody
align
right,
but
we
still
need
ways
for
everybody
to
align
around
common
vision
and
that's
part
of
what
gets
people
excited
like
if
they
know
if
people
know
what
they're
doing
contributes
to
something.
That's
that's
much
bigger
than
them.
B
That's
one
of
the
most
powerful
attractors
that
there
is
so
this
is
why,
like
this,
what
I'm
like
the
experiment,
I'm
doing
with
the
sampo
strategy,
I
feel
like
that
was
way
more
top-down.
Like
me,
writing
that
thing
than
I
would
like.
Ideally,
but
one
of
the
reasons
I'm
so
excited
about
this
polis
tool
is
that
I
think
that
tools
like
that
can
help
us
to
assess
almost
like
pull
together
an
inter-subjective
reality
right.
This
is
what
everybody
thinks
about
this
set
of
strategies.
B
Oh
there's,
there's
real
disagreement
about
this
part
of
it.
Okay,
let's
change
that
part
and
and
try
to
come
together
on
a
unified
strategy
that
everybody
has
participated
in
and
agrees
in
and
buys
into,
and
then
they
can
see
how
their
work
fits
into
that.
I
think
that
this
is
another
piece
of
of
the
challenge
here.
F
Well,
in
in
a
in
a
ddr
organization,
what
you
would
do
is
you
would
you
would
have
tools
to
compare
the
the
the
mission
that
you're
all
on
with
the
self-development
of
the
individuals
participating
in
the
system?
So,
for
example,
I'm
a
person
that
talks
a
lot
so
yeah.
Maybe
if
we
created
a
tool
for
participation
in
token
engineering
commons,
I
could
have
you
guys
all
have
an
app
saying.
We
just
kept
his
trap
shut
today
and
that's
against
his
general
nature.
So
so
I'm
going
to
reward
him
for
that.
F
You
see
what
I'm
saying
and,
and
so
like
you
know
what
I'm
saying
just
because
then
that
would
help
with
my
self-development.
I
would
help
with
my
own
listening.
It
would
help
me,
but
it
would
also
you
know,
bring
a
balance
generally
to
the
organization
and
to
the
meetings
and
this
and
that
you
see
what
I
mean.
F
So
it's
it's
where
those
two
two
things
sort
of
match
up,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
if
I
just
do
a
poll
you
know,
there's
gonna
still
be
a
lot
of
people
who
are
coming
from
this
extractive
mindset.
I'm
still
bothered
by
the
fact
that
we
still
call
this
cost
off
governance
instead
of
just
collective
decision
making.
You
know
it
is
a
very
different.
You
know
view
on
what
governance
is
it
feels
top
down
and
feels
you
know
like
the
old
system
it
to
me
versus
you
know
collective
decision
making.
F
G
I
agree
with
durgares.
I
feel
that
externally
governance,
it's
easy
to
understand,
but
internally
decision
making.
For
me
it's
what
this
sounds
better
and
it
feels
more
real
the
decision
making
title
rather
than
self
governance
or
governance,
because
it
still
is
governance.
It
still
is
a
hierarchy.
It
still
feels
like,
even
if
we
sort
of
try
to
explain
that
this
is
not
the
case
and
so
on,
it
is
still,
then
it
still
feel
perceived
as
as,
like
you
know,
hierarchical
stuff.
G
So
I
I
really
like,
in
fact,
I
have
sometimes
slip
out
the
the
concept
of
decision
making
in
some
of
the
onboardings
rather
than
sofkoff,
because
I
feel
it's
it
collectively.
It's
easier
to
understand
that
it's
open.
You
know
that
we
have
an
open
governance
and
that
everyone
can
participate
and
anyone
can
engage
and
that
we
are
just
mediators
on
the
decision
making
rather
than
you
know
anything
else
back
to
you.
A
A
A
I
don't
know,
I
don't
have
this
conflict
anymore
and
I
I
like
kind
of
self-governance.
I
don't
feel
it's
hierarchical,
but
if
there
is
this
general
feeling,
I
think
it
might
be
worth
a
poll
of
like
how
do
people
feel
about
the
word
governance
and
does
this
imply
hierarchy
just
because
we
come
from
a
governance
system
that
it's
very
hierarchical
and
that's
where
we
got
used
to
this
word.
G
I
think
I
think,
just
on
the
initial
debate
that
you
had
regarding
soft
or
hard
it's
the
answer
itself
like,
if
you
already
have
this
debate
within
yourself
about
how
it
will
look
masculine
and
note,
is
because
the
same
concept
brings
that
doubt
whether
decision-making
doesn't
bring
that
dog,
because
it's
open
it's
non-gender
and
it
doesn't
offer
any
kind
of
confusion.
A
A
Well,
is
there
anything
else
anyone
wants
to
share
from
everything
we
talked
and
also
I
wanted
to
ask
since
we've
been
talking
about
that,
and
that
was
one
of
the
initial
topics
of
the
shared
leadership
and
rotative
facilitation.
B
A
No
I'll
be
here,
I'm
just
asking
if,
since
we're
talking
about
leadership
and
rotative
facilitation,
if
there's
anyone
that
wants
to
facilitate
next
week.
F
A
I
think
the
only
other
people
who
facilitated
beside
me
has
been
benz
and
edu
and
griff
and
time.