Go back to overview >> readme
Subgrids are collaborative groups or virtual environments with a focus area or discipline. The idea of subgrids evolved over time. Initially there were no subgrids in the GRID. There was only the GRID. That was for reason. The GRID itself was meant to become a social sculpture, a collaborative mesh of individuals, not divided up into groups and concepts. But we found, that taking disciplines or special interests out of the game led to loss of depth, loss of special perception. That's why subgrids were defined as special focus grids, forming the grid.
The initial grid of subgrids to start with is:
More subgrids will most certainly evolve over time. Candidates are for example dedicated to philosophical or political questions.
The sum of all subgrids is the GRID.
A subgrid is defined by a surrounding topic, discipline or mission, a mentor (or initiator), a group of individuals connected to it.
Each subgrid is unique and faces its own (makro) evolution. This mutations and unique findings enrich the overall GRID implicitly. That's why the scope, methodologies, paradigms for the GRID are not written in stone, but determined by evolutionalry principles.
Each gridster of a subgrid wants to contribute and got invited / recruited or asked to join. Subgrid groups or channels are not secret, but the group autonomy is important, that's why not everyone can just go in. A new member of a subgrid needs to be invited and onboarded by the mentor or a person of the subgrid, but every gridster is free to show interest in joining.
This also implies, that a gridster can be part of many subgrids. Subgrids therefore are no disjunct groups with a unique setup of people, even if it would be possible. The overlap of inviduals allows the exchange of best practices, trading of ideas and influence between the subgrids. Finally, the Grid Collective is all about people. Individuals and unique personalities are the GRID. Subgrids are the area of interest in which the people invest their time and attention.
Every gridster could become the trigger for the launch of a new subgrid.
Launching a new subgrid is connected to requirements:
- The constitutional topic, mission or discipline is articulated and presented to the grid.
- The gridCORE is involved to double-check a fit to the existing core values or agenda items of the grid. Meaning, the gridCore has veto-rights.
- A new subgrid needs to be planned regarding necessary infrastructure, tools, etc. (the gridCORE assists here with its service and administrative functions)
- A mentor (or initiator) needs to be in place and willing to at least be accountable for the ramp-up phase of the new subgrid.
- Each new subgrid needs to be introduced and a minimal set of collobaration touchpoints or interaction ways need to be explained to all gridsters.
In addition, everyone playing around with the idea of the creation of a new subgrid, should at least think about some aspects in advance. These aspects could be:
- What is the objective of this subgrid? Why do we need it?
- Is this subgrid unique or redundant when comparing it to other subgrids?
- For the agenda of this new subgrid - what would be a starting initiative, project, challenge, question?
- Which gridsters might be good candidates to help establishing the new subgrid?
- Who in general might be interested to join the subgrid? Like, what is its value proposition?
Launching a new subgrid is work and will require some effort to get it up and running. By launching a new subgrid others will be asked to spend time and attention. That's why the mentor / initiator of the new subgrid should have answered some questions before the launch to be prepared.
Besides all 'in-group' activity, there is of course random activity throughout the whole GRID collective. We have many channels to communicate or interact, we established some formats and activities, which are not exclusively connected to subgrids. All in all, the GRID is the people and because it is the people, there is no physical boundary separating all subgrids. Who interacts which which other gridsters is not determined at all. That's why the exchange of thoughts and ideas happens on an individual level.
All subgrids are at least compatible to some broader topics and values. That explains, why a subgrid is always connected to a broader context. Even though a subgrid might be self-sufficient as a group of individuals, each subgrid is influenced by other subgrids. For example the art and tech related ideas are always somehow connected to a broader context containing questions on society, perception, creativity etc. Because of that it is natural, that a broader overlap of topics can be used as a source of inspritation and place for interdisciplinary thinking. Meaning, each subgrid cannot exist alone, as all questions of a subgrid are linked to a broader concept of reality. Interaction between subgrids therefore is implicitly caused by the unique approach of each subgrid, which provokes another subgrid to position itself based on different view-angle.
Mechanically, all subgrids share their findings, agendas, intiatives and outcome among the GRID. The mentor also needs to maintain this transparency for the sake of the relevance of the particular subgrid. Different formats and channels or even meetings support this exchange between the subgrids, so that subgrids enrich or provoke each other. Remember, the GRID is the people, all subgrids are forming the GRID. This idea needs to be vitally maintained and even the gridCORE is focussed to maintain the trading of thoughts as some sort of operating system.
A common well-defined interaction between subgrids can be found in shared initiatives.
Example:
As part of an artGRID discourse a project idea evolves, which requires a technological approach to create the work. Think of the implementation of a chat bot in the context of a project which researches on human communication.
Then the inception of that idea to the techGRID would be a way to go. So if the artGRID-proposal finds supporters of the techGRID, then it quickly could become a shared initiative.
This kind of interaction between the disciplines, between the subgrids, is highly appreciated as it offers a lot of potential for new experiences. Learning, exploration, interdisciplinary collaboration are valued in the GRID and so initiatives which are connected to more than one subgrid are fully supported.
Special to a subgrid is (in comparison the overall GRID), that each subgrid is a GRID itself, but a special one. Each subgrid will have to face its own challenges, failures and impediments. Each of the subgrids will be a unique setup of individuals, driven by a unique agenda. Every subgrid implicitly will be special.
So, special about subgrids is the nature and the evolution of each subgrid.
But then there are formal differencies ...
The maintenance of the GRID in total has to be more general and agnostic than a highly focussed contruct driven by a topic, discipline or mission. The GRID, compared the the subgrids, offers more tools, formats, texts etc. A subgrid consumes a subset of these. In consequence the work on the GRID differs compared to the work on the subgrids in complexity and abstraction. To cover the complexity of the overall GRID maintenance the gridCORE is meant to be a dedicated service and administrative subgrid. Subgrids are more or less ready to go based on the existing infrastructure, which grows from case to case, from demand to demand.
So one of the major differencies between the GRID and subgrids is, that subgrids can and shall be more focussed on their original purpose due to the fact, that the GRID tries to make life easy for its subgrids. If this is reflected the other way round, then special about the subgrids is a lower level of administrative power compared the the sum of all parts. A subgrid can easily introduce a new best-practice or tool. But then the GRID needs to adapt to it. A subgrid cannot force other subgrids to apply to the new based on power. The administrative and serivce functions of the gridCORE can be interpreted as a formal power to influence the default Grid Mechanics, routines or standard tools. It is fair to say, that this normative power is implicitly the consequence of the maintenance focus of the gridCORE, which shall serve the GRID and push the overall evolution.