Slack Time, Flexibility, and Natural Conversation with Cagendas

Slack Time, Flexibility, and Natural Conversation with Cagendas

• As a general note, I think that the group should agree to provide some flexibility and room for flexibility…

• Also, we should remember that these systems can help guide us and call less opinions to find consensus in the group, but we should also retain some flexibility for adjustments all along the way, especially as we are trying these out for the first time. For example, if there aren’t enough delegates at the meeting to vote to move onto the next agenda item, then we can get a more casual or less formal, feel for consensus, and move onto the next topic.

• The group agrees that there is some slack time to provide flexibility and room for serendipity. For example, there may be some situations in which a respected community member wants to jump in and share an important message for a minute or two before the first agenda item. The community should respect the topic proposal process and refrain from making undue interruptions, but also be relaxed and understanding to allow conversation to flow naturally when helpful.

• The topics provide structure to the meeting, similar to how topics provide structure to a show like the Hot Sauce, Giveaway Show, or Fireside Chat. The topics provide structure to the meeting similar to how songs provide structure to a concert. In both cases, there is room for improvisation. Improvisations is essential at many times. It’s great to have a setlist for a concert and agenda of topics for a show. Then during the show or concert, and in between topics and songs, it’s often best to play it by ear at various times.

• Remember Consensus Signals and Formal Power article. And discussion with Tadas during Creator Talk. And with Patrick during interview. I can and should curate this in it’s own article separate from the consensus article and include these links and timestamp here. Then include this here to remind people that these are community processes to help guide our behavior. We should aim to respect the process and follow the process, but of course each person has the power to opt out and it’s also an early iteration that will need some tweaking. So the group doesn’t need to abide by this entirely, only insofar as it makes sense. Ie right now one thing that could be a flaw here is that it requires 3/4 councils to agree to move onto the next topic. That’s fairly high to move on. If half the councils don’t agree, then they can stall the ability for community to vote on any other proposals during that week. Maybe that’s a good thing and for the best? Hmmm consider, it might be best this way…. Or is it better in some situations to override a delegate and vote on the next proposal anyway? I think it would require a very high burden of proof/ROI to move on to the next proposal anyway - def best to honor the process in majority of situations like this, but there could potentially be some situations in which people may want to opt out of the process or collectively decide to improve upon the iteration in realtime. For example, what if several delagates are missing?

The shared understanding for some buffer time to allow for serendipity and flexibility.