Go back to overview >> readme
A key ingredient of the GRID is collaboration.
The GRID is about collective collaboration. But in addition to that, the individual minds and the unique personalities are valued. This leads to the need that we have to balance out individuality and collective mechanisms. For collaboration, this is important to keep in mind.
In this context some aspects can be reflected ...
- There will always be a situation which leads to potential conflicts. Conflicts are to solve, not to prevent in any case. Because we want to grow and learn.
- Critical thinking quickly can be surpressed if happiness and politeness are the most dominant parameters of a team culture. We want to create ideas, not smiling faces alone. Some ideas will be challenging.
- We don't have to agree in all aspects, that is simply not necessary. But we have to agree, that the ability to exchange multiple opinions is good.
- The subject influences the collective (passive or active influence), the collective on the other side has an implicit normative effect on how the individuals does what. Both is valid, but we need to be aware of this circular connection to make something useful out of it.
- As collective, We should always be open to search for the best arguments, the most touching ideas, the most valuable or relevant approaches - it is not about who is right, it is about what seems to be best based on what we know or based on the arguments we discuss.
- Sharing of information and the openness towards new thoughts will be a collective foundation, which can be super valuable on an individual level.
- Every gridster is free to opt-out, if the collective offering is not suitable. That is important to mention, because we need to deeply understand, that each of the gridster contributes on a voluntary level. Blaming what all volunteers are doing, is a NO-GO! Only constructive proposals can be a vehicle to change what pisses one off. So only contribution can be the medium to change the organism. Trolling, poisoning of thoughts, blaming, bullying and similar behavious are not compatible to the GRID. Emotional positioning in the context of constructive thoughts is fully ok, as we are all human.
- To create and sustain an environment in which thoughts can be articulated and discussed, it is more important to show respect to others than to pretend artificial politeness. But of course each social environment is a better place to be if all people also focus on enjoyable relationships instead of frustration. We should act by reason and aiming for something which is enjoyable.
- The collective is the organism which can create a huge impact to the world. But the soul of the collective is the subject. That is why the correct picture of the GRID collective is the co-existence of multiple entities which together form a virtual body. A wrong assumption of the GRID collective would be the picture of a homogeneous mass of centrally controlled entities. The design of the GRID is conceptualized to integrate subject and collective into a meaningful co-existence. Neither the collective is right, nor the subject. Only both is true. For the collaboration methodologies this implies a lot. For instance, that mass consensus is not the only truth. For instance, that normative aspects need to be understood as service for the subject, not as power to fit the subject into the big picture. And so on ... In conclusion, the GRID has to be and to remain a LAB for collaboration. A lab which researches on ways to integrate the collective and individual needs and potentials. More than that, we are convinced, that this is needed for the entire world.
Without having a code of conduct, we aim for some behavioural attitudes, which makes collaboration easier:
- Show respect
- Respect diversity
- Be open for new ideas
- Discuss through arguments
- Allow emotional behaviour
- Accept failure
- Accept wrong assumptions
- Trade thoughts
- Focus on conclusions or experiments
- Discuss concerns, but let other make the point first
- Do not try to moderate each and every bit, because this reduces authenticity
- Be aware of the channel you use, for instance: solving conflicts via e-mail most probably will not be successful
- Leave if you want to leave, but understand that this is communication, too
- Try to be fair
- Aim for reason
- Remember, that all others are there to collaborate with you
Decisions are necessary in various constellations. If a group is not able to decide how to move forward, then it might be that there will not be a move forward. There are several questions connected to a decision making process.
Like:
- How to make decisions, if the participation of (for instance) a voting-procedure is low?
- Which apsects require consensus, which aspects require a critical mass of supporters?
- Which apsects are best maneuvered through representation and which aspects require a voting of all involved?
- For which aspects would you prefer a veto-approach and how would this be operationalized?
- Which aspects are just part of the individual or daily decision making and which aspects vitally require a buy-in of the group?
- How does the right balance between openness for incremental evolution and agreement of foundational approaches look like?
- What positive or negative impact can decision making create for the individual flexibility or the autonomy of subgrids?
- Who triggers which kind of decision making process?
etc.
In the GRID we have not answered all questions and most certainly will never do.
But that an organism needs to be able to move forward, is not to debate. We learned in early meetings, that consensus based on the assumption that most people will contribute with their vote is highly inefficient. Two consequences came out here. First, sometimes it's better to let things go and wait for veto than to wait for consensus and do nothing. Second, some aspects could be decided in the group of people who participate in a vote to achieve a commons sense. In other words, focussing on the critical mass of people who are willing to contribute with their votes is better than waiting for all people who perhaps do not even care about the outcome.
For aspects this learning could not be applied, since there will always be the need for decisions of a higher impact, which should be driven by consensus within the significant part of the collective. A good practice is, that such votes are triggered by the collective. To give an example, if there is a current way of doing things, a common practice which people want to challenge or change. Then this could be raised, as some sort of veto-approach or change-request.
This finally means, that there are two types of trigger for decision making processes.
- A decision needs to be made to move forward. The people who want to move forwards trigger a vote. This vote is either oriented after a timely approach, so that a critical mass is preferred. OR the vote requires a broader consensus, so that the ambition has to be to involve a significant number of gridster to contribute with their opinion.
- A current practice is questioned. A veto has to be raised in form of a change-request. In best case, a constructive proposal would be added to illustrate what could be done better.
Both approaches could be applied to the dimension of a subgrid or also for the entire GRID. Global GRID-approaches should be raised towards the coreGrid, so that the facilitation of a general change can be supported. This would also be important, to allow a double check on the possible aspects to consider. For example, if the change would affect the standard communication routines, then of course the gridCore needs to change everything in consequence by its administrative function. Another example is, that some changes might cause the need to inform all gridsters on new practicalities. To ensure this to happen, the gridCore has to be involved. Finally, the overall maintenance of this GRID only can be ensured by giving the gridCORE a veto right on requests for change. A veto needs to be well argumented in any case and has to be communicated of course.
There are tools to do quick polls or even surveys. Voting in regards to the ambition of consensus is also driven by the mechanics behind. There are concepts of liquid democracy for instance, which we think are a better fit to most problems than classical votings.
Today, we do not have the one golden standard. And it is to question that there will be the only one answer to consensus. That's why we try to be open for many approaches and in addition to that we want to become a laboratory for challenges connected to consensus.
Voting, as a more or less quantitative approach, is one thing. The other, perhaps more important foundation, is the qualitative discussion of topics. That's where we invest more.
Depending on the GRID's size and complexity, it can become inefficient for the decision making process to focus on the qualitative debate. That's why we always need to be open for approaches connected to voting, consensus, decision making.
If you think of budgeting or co-funding then the context of a collaborative way to decide a budget could be explained like:
- You need a funding of an initiative and promote it to the group, you also show what the funding target is
- The group is able (on an individual basis) to discuss the initiative and spend a certain amount of budget to fund the initiative
- The timeline for the funding is determined, if the goal is achieved, the budget would be in place. If not, then the funding was not successful.
NOTE: If budgets (like, based on artificial tokens / points as internal currency for weighting / value expression) or real money is collected, depends on the case. Today, the GRID has no financial backing and is non-commercial. As such, there is no real budget to spend. If the need will show up, we have to find ways of how to deal with funding and budget-assessment. This is already a preparational task of the gridCORE, but is also connected to legal and compliance aspects, so that we do not tackle this until the day we really need it.
If a subgrid wants to discuss initiatives, there are no formal rules of how this needs to happen. This is the case, because of the autonomy of the subgrids.
But in any subgrid there will evolve the need to sort out which shared initiative will become hot or not.
The BOGI is one of the existing approaches, which easily can be adapted by subgrids to qualify ideas or initiatives on the subgrids agenda. Here is also a small text related to the promotion of ideas.
Every gridster needs to deeply understand, that every idea counts. Perhaps even the bad ideas ;) The promotion of ideas is not about ego, it is about assisting the idea to grow. For the group discussion of ideas, it is important to respect other opinions and to focus on arguments. Only the qualitative discussion of many ideas will open up new opportunities for the individual and for the group.
Then again it is clear, that the GRID (or subgrid) impact is only real, if ideas will be realized. That is why the qualification of ideas needs to be also driven by the will to realize something. Having a minimal or lean approach of assessment in place, makes life easier.
Voting is perhaps not always the best approach, but can be. The discussion of what a subgrid wants to achieve is a good foundation for the assessment of new ideas in the group.
Finally. The battle of ideas should be fun. So be curious, which ideas will be brought up.
The GRID has an AGENDA. The agenda of the GRID is the consequence of
- The GRID VALUES
- The focus areas we think are important for us on a personal level
- The space in which we consider the GRID to contribute with ideas and initiatives
Subgrids also form out own agendas, driven by the special approach of each subgrid. It is most likely, that the GRID agenda and the subgrid agendas are influencing each other over time and also, that there are many connections. All in all the agenda is a vital construct to sharpen the attention towards actionable areas in the surrounding reality, like the global society. Agendas are not meant to be written ins stone, not meant to be static. But it can be reflected as the bottom-up or distributed accumulation of areas where we see the need for change. As the GRID fundamentally values utopian drafts of what could be, the agenda also represents areas for which we see the need for visions, utopical concepts and new thinking.
Initiatives and methods therefore are somehow interwinded with agenda items or based on the rational of where we see the need for change. What we do, for instance which activity we plan, could be matched against the agenda to assess a fit. By doing so, we quickly can assess if we are acting towards the outcome we expect by ourselves or if we do random stuff.
Random stuff is not bad in any case. But if we want the GRID to be a collective which creates an impact, then we should reflect our decisions related to our very own agenda setting.
The contribution to the agenda, updates, additions or other modifications, can be raised at any time. How we maintain the agenda needs finally to be found as a best-practice. The gridCORE is also taking care on the maintenance of the agenda, so that for instance discussions will be triggered throughout the GRID. The more vital and relevant the agenda is, the more precise our actions can become.
Collaboration as a form of dialogue and activity towards a group output is not self-explaining. Our most precise explanation for collaboration is the agenda. Working on the agenda is collaboration as such.
What are the ambitions behind our will to collaborate?
a) The world has changed and new forms of collaboration will become necessary
We do not live in tribes anymore, we are not organized by bureaucratic systems like religions anymore in total. The world has become a global network of human beings. Our technology has changed the way we approach reality dramatically. But some aspects fell behind. We did not spend enough time on out-thinking or re-designing concepts like nations, work, social systems and much more. Most of the stuff we do, we do on the basis of legacy rationals. We jsut added new features to the old concepts. Changed it a bit here and there. But the main logic remained the same.
If we would not limit ourselves to this linear thinking, then it quickly could become obvious that other variants of how to do things would be more reasonable. Work for instance is in most cases the source for individual income, property or power - on the basis of money. But why is work dominated by this concept? Work could be used to achieve a world of unlimited chances for the individual progress and the collective future. So why is that? The answer might be very simple - work is offered by people running companies. Their major concern is revenue, shareholder value, return on invest etc. - you name it. It is not the fault of those individuals to offer other people jobs. It's not the fault of people who exchange their livetime and working effort for money and perhaps influence. The biggest bug here is, that we are too lazy to invest more time in thinking alternatives, we then also try out.
Mass collaboration of individuals is one of the alternatives. In that scenario people could create their sources for income, they could combine power, skills and resources to achive higher impact. People could emancipate themselves from the need of joining the classical market game by backing up each other. By doing so, they could focus their efforts on activities they think are valuable for society, not for the shareholder. Enablers for this new opportunities are some technologies, which allow global mass collaboration or even exchange of values without man the middle. Other enablers for this new world of work are social and historical achievements, for sure. The democratization of means of production (especially in the creative space) and the shift from an agrucultural focus of man to a highly differenciated education and economy forces into a direction, by which niches are easy to find and fill for the individual. There is always more demand of more new stuff. It's not about blind consume, it is about the logic of differnciation and it exponential consequence.
The big power player, like nations, gatekeeper or opinion leader, enterprises, rich families, bureaucratic institutions etc. of course are not interested in changes which would introduce negative impact for them. So that it is only natural, that they aim for further growth or further influence and not for shrinking and loss of influence. That might explain why most people work a significant amount of lifetime (even in bullshit-jobs) in a world of technological automation.
To conclude, in a world that changes, new forms of collaboration has to be researched. The ambition is to identify changes to increase the individual opportunities and a new thinking model for what the human collective might become, if we try.
b) Trading
Collaboration is trading. You trade ideas, skills, thoughts, time, support etc. Trading is nothing bad, since it only works out well, if all parties see a benefit.
One ambition of the GRID as a collaborative is to establish a mega trading platform. If a massive collective would trade all skills, ideas etc. over the barriers of nations, religions, colors and other fictions, then image the potential of this collaborative.
Collaboration as a_quid pro quo_ paradigm could integrate the egoistic ambition of the subject with the bigger progress of the group.
Collaborations opens many options to accomplish an own project idea with the help of others, but allows the collective to aim for higher targets. So collaboration as a form of trading is deeply embedded in the existing logic of the homo oeconomicus, but paves the way for a new form of collective collaboration. The ambition can only be to let people form syndicates to make positive impact to the world they live in.
c) Utopia(s)
A main theme for the GRID is the design of utopical concepts. We want to articulate possible visions for the future, against or towards which we then can position ourselves. We love ideas, creativity, the imaginary power of the human being. The GRID shall be a place to cultivate the work on ideas and vision for the future.
This is not naive.
This is luxury.
By using our collaborative powers to work on utopical ideas, we enhance the individual possibilities to think in alternatives. So working on utopia is not only an attitude, it is also a technique to think in variances for how present challenges could be mastered.
The way we collaborate will change over time. Collaboration in the GRID shall be open for change and new methodologies and practices can be integrated. The idea of collaboration will most probably change also over time.
Evolution is an important principle for all dimensions of the GRID.
Collaboration will change the face of the GRID itself.
Subgrids will differ over time in the way how the collaboration is cultivated and which approaches work out pretty well. Therefore subgrids are influencal incubators of new practices and collaboration ideas. The exchange of this DNA and the survival of the fittest concepts for collaboration will have no definite end.
We think, incremental change, adaption to new challenges and mutation or experimentation enrich the foundation of the GRID.
Deep Diving means, that the GRID is a place for deeper thoughts, complicated discussions and exploration of the unknown. The GRID collective needs to be capable of surviving discussions, debates, critical thoughts and voices, also conflicts. Diving deep is a quality which got a bit lost in our modern times. At least more information is driven by a low-hanging-fruit mentality. Efficient communication, usage of modern technology for exchanging thoughts, all of this is no excuse to not dive deeper.
As explorers of the unknown, as utopists and critical minds, we always want to understand the next level of depth. This attitude of course is not valid for every gridster and is not a requirement for becoming a gridster. But it has to be a common sense, that deeper thoughts, critical debates of complex topics or holistic thinking are not an enemy. On the contrary, it has to be a foundation we share among the GRID.
Deep Diving should not be mixed-up with trolling, elitary behaviour or the attitude of exclusion of others from a dialogue. Deep Diving shall be the synonym for the discoursive exploration of a next level.
The GRID experiments on collaborative practices, models and concepts. Besides agreed practices, new approaches can be tested.
What we want to achieve is a lab-approach besides existing best-practices already rolled out. To test new collaboration practices, we should analyse the outcome of the approach and share insights. This will allow other groups (e.g. subgrids) to iterate on findings and follow own hypothesis.
So testing and experimentation should be connected to transparency and sharing.
Rolling out a new practice should be done with the integration of the gridCore, so that all administrative consequences can be tackled. Changing the way we do things in general is a natural process of evolution. But depending on the impact, the gridCore shall be actively involved here.
Read more about the stack of tools we use.
New gridster may have a look at the main channels to start step by step.
The Grid strictly is against:
- Harmful ignorance or intollerance
- Any form of sexism, harrassment, racism, fashism, anti-semitism
- Reactionary or populistic behaviour
- Misuse of power
- Insults and abuse
- Cruelty and violence against other beings
For the sake of a positive collaboration culture, the GRID does not support the following:
- Intentional misuse of time and ressources of others for personal benefits, especially if not traded as act of fair collaboration
- Blaming, trolling or bullying and verbal attacking of individuals
- Searching for faults in the work of others without offering anything
- Intransparency and irresponsibility