You can see the slides and the thoughtful comments, ideas, and reflections from SoFA members on the slides:
Please add your comments as a reply to this post.
I’m looking forward to learning what evolves.
Of course, all circles who are touched by this discussion are free to act on whatever is in their domain, without any permission process. Just go do. The rest will emerge.
If you have questions/topics that require discussion, find the appropriate circle for it in SoFA and have the discussion.
Congratulations everyone. I would have liked to be present, but I did not know about this event. Discussions about sociocracy are always useful, so good luck!
It was an interesting reading, particularly after taking part to the event with Otto Scharmer.
I see all these movements as parts of an evolving organism.
Each one seems a sense organ specializing (not still specialized) in sensing in a different environment (ICs, corporate, agile, SMEs, activism,…).
Fractally I see the same evolution inside SoFA, with circles evolving towards the edges and growing.
My feeling about this discussion is that we are too much focused on the central nervous system, while the growth, the evolution, always start where the organism get in touch with the external world (in a fractal way), i.e. on the edges.
I watched the recording carefully, and what I heard reminded me of the idea presented in the picture.
We are each on one face of the cube and the colors are mixed.
In order to reach an integrative solution, we should “solve” the cube, and this would probably be possible in repeated rounds, in a circle made up of representatives of different organizations that are interested in such a topic.
Until then, which are the facets we are considering within the organization?
From the vision, mission, aims, circles and domains perspective things are well established. The circulation of information is theoretically taken into account, practically there are still syncopes. But what do we do with that unspecified virtual-layer on which the entire functioning depends, the network of human connections. Do we need a more consistent approach to human connections or is this not important?
If within a single organization it is so difficult (yet) to achieve a group consciousness, how could the philosophies of so many organizations that practice almost the same things but often call them differently be integrated?
In the end, everything has to do with people. Is it or not?
About competition
My friend Priel introduced me to the concept of coopetition (cooperation in competition or competition in cooperation).
I think it applies very well to my former organic metaphor.
Even inside a single organization there is always a bit of competition to innovate, within themselves and as a benchmark.
We experiment, exploring different “prototypes” and there is a sort of “selection of the fittest” process, tool, practice,…
As far as we’re commoning our “discoveries”, it is functional to the growth of the movement.
What about who doesn’t put in commons?
Well: I suppose we, as human beings, are opposing the darwinian selection of the most fragile between us, and usually being closed and self-replicating goes against resilience in case of chaos/nonlinearity/randomic mutations. Time will tell if being open or closed is better for the survival of the whole movement.
