Stone Soup

This article is my experince in participating for the past 25 years in the self organization of an online community centered around the 4000 year old strategy game called Go.

Being a computer scientist working on computer networking I quickly can in contact with an emerging online Go community shortly after learning the game in 1984. In the mid 1980, the online Go community was centered aroud the Usenet newsgroup rec.games.go. At that time, Usenet consisted of a loose mesh of computers at universities and research labs in business which periodically connected with each other using dialup connections to transfer accumulated newsgroup articles and email. With this technology, information propagated relativly slowly through out the network. Newgroup postings were on the order of a couple a day. The population was small and a very homogonous demographic of technical people. With the Japanese Go culture of politeness, this community was very calm and friendly so it was not noticed that there were no formal controls or moderation on the content being posted other than an admonishment of being off topic by other posters. A public shame approach.

In the late 1980s into the 1990s, The dialup connections were being replaced by dedicated links and eventually TCP/IP networks. This sped up the comminucation and increased a population a little but the community did not change much in it's friendly flavor.

1991 saw the introduction of the first Internet Go Server. Knowing the developers personally, I was able to participate in the development and debugging of its first rating algorithm. These were very exciting times watching a new era being born. Control and content moderation was enforced by the owners of the Server with a few of the users being punished with banning or ejection from the server. Most existed peacefully with this, but a few felt that free speech rights were arbitrarily trampled.

Approaching the mid 1990s, when Al Gore invented the Internet, there was a steady change in the demographic on the newsgroups. The internet is starting to open up to people outside of universities and research labs and into the general public. Traffic increased, but since Go is not well known, the population on rec.games.go is still relatively polite.

In the late 1990s and into the early 2000s, the population on th einternet and also the xposure to rec.gammes.go explodes. This brings in spammers and people who were only interested in disrupting the community. With no formal controls, rec.games.go becomes a wild west shootout and is essentually unusable for the average Go player.

In the 2000s, there were a few attempts to compensate for the problems with rec.games.go. A very successfull wiki named Senseis Library was created to act as an online repository of Go information. This was very useful but did not satisfy the conversational need previously provided by rec.games.go.

About 2006 GoDiscussions forums was created by a single individual and quickly became the premier spot for Go conversations. The forums had moderators that kept spam, flaming and off topic under control. A very cohesive community collected there and it was very successfull. Late 2008, the owner stopped working on the site and became unresponsive. Features started break and the sit slowly degrated until it was almost unusable in the fall of 2009. At the end of 2009 a few users went on a crusade to raise money to move rehost the site. Calls were made to turn the control of the site over to the community so that it could support itself. Early 2010 when all of the logistics were worked out the owner steps back in to reclaim the site and does execute the rehosting of the site bringing it back to a minimal level of functioning again. The majority of the community decides to stay hoping that the owner will take interest in the site again. But in mid April, the site fails. A partially complete replacement had been setup by another member of the community during the earlier problems with GoDiscussion at LifeIn19x19. Since the owner of LifeIn19x19 expressed a desire to open control to the community and even turning it over to the community if we can determine how to do that, a core of network developers, who offered services to GoDiscussions and were largely ignored, jump on LifeIn19x19 and brought it up to and surpassed the functional level of GoDiscussions in 3 days. Within a week that majority of the active participants from GoDiscussion had transitioned to LifeIn19x19.

What does the title "Stone Soup" have to do with all of this?

"Stone Soup" is parable that goes like this:

There once was a traveler who carried a large pot. He stopped for the night at a common traveler gathering spot, filled the pot with water, put it on a fire, added a single stone and sat back and waited.

Shortly, another traveler stops by and asks "What are you doing?"
The first traveler, says "I am making stone soup. It is the most delicious soup you could ever taste. If you want some all you have to do is contribute a small amout of food to the pot."

The second traveler decides to contribute a few carrots he is carrying for chance to try this mysterious soup.

This scenerio repeats with each new traveler that appears until there is about a dozen people, each who have contributed a small bit of food, waiting for the stone soup to be ready. The group starts various conversations while waiting, some singing and some telling stories.

After the meal, every traveler expresses thanks for the delicious meal, noticing how the stone soup was so much more satisfying than the little scrap of food would have been if eaten alone. Not only the combining of the food, but the spontainious creation of community.

The lession from this parable is that by creating a container and interest in a possibility, the possibility can easily and spontaneously appear. Life self organizing.

With rec.games.go there was a container and interest. Early on the community thrived. Later with no controls of what people can put in the container, a few started throwing in stick, mud, and even vile poisons. Thus the community was destroyed.

With GoDiscussions there was a container and interest. There were also controls to keep out the destructive contributions. But the owner failed to maintain the container, and when the container failed the community dispersed.

LifeIn19x19 improves on GoDiscussions with a shared access to maintain and improve the container. This should lead to a longer and more successful life for this community.

Enjoy your "Stone Soup".

Holacratic Party?

Politics has always had a plethora of different political parties, each pushing a specific agenda. Each trying to benefit a particular cross-section of the population or a special interest group at the expense of all others. The division has become so pronounced the even the two largest and broadest in appeal parties, the Republican and Democratic parties, can agree on nothing. There is no common ground. Government has become completely ineffectual. On the one hand this is good in that it keeps them busy bickering with each other and, arguably, to a large extent, out of our personal lives. But at what cost. The overhead of getting nothing accomplished in government is enormous. The resources wasted for no noticeable effect is staggering. I can't comprehend the trillions of dollars a year in the Federal budget.

As if two warring parties are not enough, we see the huge amount of press given to the emerging Tea Party. More people are becoming independents due to lack of faith that either of the major parties have any view of reality. The political world is becoming more fractured and dissonent. Not one of them gives more than lip service to the common good, what is need to make the world a better place. But through their actions, they show a proclivity towards personal gain or gain for a special interest.

The world seems ripe for a new approach. People asked for it during the Obama election. This was evidenced by the displayed emotion and sudden election of an overwhelming Democratic majority in government. But, mostly we still see the same old things. The back lash against the ineffectual performance is enormous as many are starting to think "just vote out the incumbent until something starts working."

Is it time for a Holacratic Party? One based on the underlying premise of listening to what is needed, what will work, what will be effective and move away from trying to force the will of a few. Treating dissenting opinions as valuable feedback as opposed to a voice that should be silenced. Listening to reality and facing it head-on.

I don't know anything about organizing a political movement, but these are ideals that I would love to support. Holacracy shows to way by saying: start where you are with the resources at hand and dynamically steer towards the goals these ideals express. Holacracy provides the basic tools. There is lots of interesting work to translate it into terms workable in a political movement. I know and feel that it is all in there. We need to pull it out and develop it. What key points would make the basis of a platform for a political party?

Is it too soon, or are we already late?

You Get What You Measure

In the Holacracy Community of Practice session today, we talked about how to align an organization around its purpose. I forwarded the idea that in organization theory today it is a common thought that "you get what you measure." This means that whatever aspect of the organization you measure and how you determine success/failure in that aspect, will determine how the organization will operate, perform and align around its purpose. This is another way of expressing "contextual thinking" as how and what you measure sets a very powerful context to operate within.

It is not only the explicit measurements but also implicit expectations and unwritten rules of operation that have a powerful effect on the organization. I have worked with organizations that explicitly express a desire for innovation and have explicit rewards for innovation, but have an implicit cultural of fear of failure to such a degree that they find it impossible to embrace anything new or different. This creates a very painful and frustrating experience for anyone wishing to innovate, thus squashing any change.

Holacracy expresses the tenet that an organization can start from where it is and iteratively change its culture and operation. This is very true as the only way to get to any destination is to start from where you are standing. But to sustain any progress, an organization must quickly look at what is measured and rewarded/punished and start changing that before anything other than superficial behavior will start to change. Otherwise, the context set by what is measured and rewarded/punished will strongly force the organization right back into the original set of behaviors.

An organization with significant experience and investment in practicing Holacracy will be able adjust what and how they measure dynamically to align with its evolving purpose. Once a critical mass is achieved, the practices of Holacracy act as a positive feedback loop to propel the organization along its purpose defined path.

Holacracy explicitly defines a place for metrics. The practices hint at metrics and provide guidance in developing metrics. Most conventional metrics are oriented towards producing stockholder value. Holacracy refines these concepts by defining two categories of metrics, Key Performance Indicators which are similar to the conventional metrics and a new set called Key Health Indicators which reflect the health of a circle towards achieving its purpose. But there is not yet an explicit set of "starter" metrics that that can help a conventional organization move towards self sufficiency in Holacracy. Discovering a good starter set will require many implementations and analysis.

The critical nature of the "you get what you measure" mantra in discovering the necessary metrics early in the process requires an experienced, observant and sensitive hand to facilitate successful implementation. The intensive CHP training class provides a good head start in developing this experience. In addition, support from others experienced in Holacracy is also necessary to increase the probability of a successful implementation.

Happiness

In the book The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World, the psychiatrist, Howard C. Cutler, MD, is discussing with The Dali Lama which is more likely to promote happiness, Individualism or Collectivism. The Dali Lama side steps this dichotomy and responds with the answer that a balance of both is needed. A deep discussion of this is documented in the book, but I will summarize my understanding of those points and relate them to how Holacracy is structured to generate happiness.

Extreme individualism typically results in alienation, isolation, loneliness and anti-social behavior. For most of us this would be a very unhappy existence. But, individualism also engenders accomplishment and productivity as well as a sense of pride in these things which adds to the individuals sense of happiness.

Extreme collectivism leads to the subjugation of the individual to the group. The individual can lose their identity and essentially become property to the group. The needs of the individual are sacrificed to the needs of the group. However, being a part of a community has many benefits such as better health, lower mortality, less crime and corruption. This sense of connection and belonging plays an important part in human happiness.

The balance between these two poles is a system of dynamic tension that needs frequent monitoring and adjustment to maintain. Without the regular maintenance, the system falls out of balance and moves to one of the extremes with a very high probability of atrocities applied to some part of the population. We see this regularly in civil wars where neighbors who were working side by side in a friendly manner one year, end up killing each other the next.

Holacracy is an organizational practice designed to maintain the delicate dynamic-tension balance between the individual and the group. It is a practice in that you need to perform the behaviors regularly to keep the system operating smoothly, thus maintaining and maximizing the happiness potential. Holacracy does not prevent pain, but, in fact, increases the awareness of pain as facing reality head on is painful. But, Holacracy does provide effective tools and processes to resolve the issues causing pain. Each painful item is processed as it is uncovered and not to fester and grow. Observing the resolution progression of these painful items leads to a sense of accomplishment and, therefor, contributes to happiness. Knowing there is reasonable resolution to painful issues will lead to a greater capacity to hold and process them.

Holacracy supports moderate individualism as individuals provide the initiative and muscle to get things done. This individualism is framed within the context of the group via regular governance meetings where the group, using an integrative decision making process, resolves tensions between individuals and refines how all of the individuals will work together. This individual action coupled with an integrative governance system provides a powerful environment to maintain the cohesiveness of the community, the sense of belonging and being important to the community as well as the health and needs of the individual. The group benefits from the individuals and the individuals benefit from the group providing a positive feedback loop of general happiness.

An important feature of Holacracy meetings which fosters a sense of community is the check-in round and closing round. In the check-in round each person has the space to express their current feelings and transition into the purpose of the meeting. This allows everyone in the meeting to understand each other on a more personal level and better able to interpret their responses. This not only allows more effecting decisions but also fosters a powerful sense of connection and community as everyone is allowed to see everyone else at the meeting in a deeper more personal level. The closing round creates space for feedback and for sharing learning. This sharing or what you got from the meeting is again a powerful creator of connection and shared accomplishment. These characteristics are significant contributors to happiness.

Holacracy extends the above model from an individual group to a large hierarchical organization using a a model of recursively embedding groups within groups and a double linking system of representation. In this hierarchy a sub-group will appear as two individuals in the higher group. A lead link to carry the aim from the higher context to the sub-group and report the progress of the sub-group to the higher context. A representative link to carry the heath and other needs information from the sub-group to the higher context. With these two links the sub-group can fully participate in the community of the higher context just like the individuals participate in the community of the the sub-group. Again, the higher group benefits from the sub-group and the sub-group benefits from the higher group providing a positive feedback loop of general happiness.

The tight feedback loops, the power of individual action, the space for connection, the community created by integrating information to create decisions, all work together to maintain and move forward the dynamic-tension balance necessary for the creation of happiness.

Why Hello Governance?

I wrote a semi-humorous blog entry for the Certified Holacracy Practitioner community discussing the derivation of the phrase Hello Governance from the word Holacracy. In forming this organization, the name Hello Governance called to me from that blog entry. Included below is the original blog text titled: Hello Governance.

Michael Dobbins, December 2, 2008 - 11:19am
I spent last Christmas in Costa Rica, where I had a week immersion in the Spanish language. With that exposure, I noticed a slightly different interpretation of the word Holacracy.

The first part of Holacracy, “Hola”, is the Spanish word for “Hello.” The suffix “-cracy” is derived from the Greek word for “form of government.” We might use this to say that Holacracy means “Hello Governance.” Of course my mind starts to race at this point and I envisioned hordes of little “Hello Kitty” characters running around screaming “Hello Governance” in high squeaky voices promoting branded merchandise like lunch boxes and backpacks (or maybe in our case, coffee cups and briefcases.) Oh, the horror of it all, I come to my senses screaming.

Back to reality. Hello Kitty is a lot of fun for many little kids, and helps them to remember their lunch boxes and back packs as they go to and from school. Holacracy also introduces a more personal relationship with governance to many people not otherwise exposed in our current organizational systems, so "Hello Governance" may be an appropriate interpretation.

Most peoples’ experience with governance is listening to rumours from friends, associates and the media then making a selection in a voting booth every year or so. Even in business, governance is determined at the top and pushed down; where everyone tries to understand the relevance and pretends to follow the directions. For most people, governance is like watching elephants mate: all the action happens in high places, there is a lot of trumpeting, everything below is trampled, and it takes about two years to see any results.

With the distributed, self-organized nature of governance in Holacracy, everyone in the organization has an up-close and personal relationship with governance. There is a vested interested in that process because each person’s view is valued, the results are immediate and the results are very relevant to the specific needs of the people and group.

So in a sense, Holacracy really is a “Hello to Governance” for many people. Now, is there an artist among us who can draw good caricatures of Brian and Tom so we can start merchandizing “Hello Governance.” :) :)