I have added John Connell's comments to this plan and responded.

I have added some comments to this plan. As suggested in another thread, I think it would also be a good idea to incorporate some of June Holley's Characteristics of Natural Network Weavers. ~ Habib

Copied content as of March 30, 2007 to: http://emergingfutures.net/wiki/ Network_Weaving_Plan .... It is difficult to navigate documents here... and the wiki is wide open.

Back to discussion

Practical Steps for Local Network Weavers

The future is full of possibilities but we have to choose the ones that suit us. What can We do to make Our community a better place to live?

Principles:

1. 1. A Network Weaver seeks to establish new connections between people and organizations.

1. 2. A Network Weaver does not seek to compete with existing organizations, but seeks opportunities to create "win-win-win" situations that benefit existing organizations, the Network Weaver(s), and the community as a whole.

Does the network weaver also work to create tools and work practices that spur cooperation? (for instance, mutual credit networks to reduce or eliminate the exerience of scarcity of capital or web 2.0 –tagging etc. to reduce the experience of scarcity of attention) ~ JC

I would expect REDI to be a founding member and recieve increased attention about tools to address scarcity of capital. I have a proposal for the software developers that would require the reader of any comment to rate the comment based on relevance, etc. - so that comments in a particular discussion could be easily and reliably filtered for the most important content. (I can't find it right now but I will post a link if I do find it.) ~ DB

I suggest breaking principle 1 into 2 parts: 1a. A Network Weaver seeks to establish and strengthen connections among people and organizations. 1b. A Network Weaver does not seek to compete with existing organizations, but seeks opportunities to create "win-win-win" situations that benefit existing organizations, the Network Weaver(s), and the community as a whole. ~ Habib

2. A Network Weaver seeks to establish new connections across boundaries of interest and expertise for the purposes of discovering shared interest and opportunities for mutual benefit through cooperation.

I think that there are a number of types of Network Weavers, and that we do many different types of things. Principle 2 covers some of what some of us do. However, some of us also work to establish and strengthen connections within boundaries of interest and expertise. A post on the NetworkWeaving.com blog by Jack Ricchiuto lists the following types of Network Weavers: boundary spanners, inter-network weavers and the shameless idea butterflies and bumblebees. There are probably lots more! ~ Habib

I note your concern and agree. I entitled the page specific to "local network weavers" but, even then, a particular network weaver might be "of a different type". ~DB

As above so below! I find that the level of scale or proximity doesn't matter, except that there are fewer of each type in a small town! ~ julie

3. Within every locality, all of the residents share a mutual interest in a healthy local economy and a healthy local environment.

Given the chance, all people would support the well-being of all other people. The context of scarcity we have created for ourselves forces us to choose putting some people's well being over that of other people's (or some types of well-being over other types or well-being now over future well-being) or to choose vicarious satisfactions because be believe that well-being just is not possible. ~ JC

Most people are focused on what they need to do to obtain what they need from the value flows. We are primarily unaware of our collective power to change the pattern of those flows in ways that work better for all of us. That is the purpose of organizing around the question "What can We do . . . " ~ DB

Forgive me for being so literal. I want to be clear that I understand why you are including this principle. My impression is that you are trying to make a case, and leading us in a certain direction of thinking. Is that correct? Principle 3 does not seem to pertain directly to Network Weavers themselves, but to the context within which we may work. ~ Habib

Network Weaving should have a goal. Looking at June's website, that goal seems to be primarily becoming more effective in the business world. I am working on the goal of building better communities. I don't think I am trying to lead "all network weavers" in this direction - I would like to find those with a similar interest and share information - and share information with network weavers interested in different goals. ~DB

By the way, David, when people start talking about value flows, it kindof loses me. I think that this is a tremendously important concept. But, it is not immediately intuitive to me, and my guess is that it is not immediately intuitive to many other people. So, if you are only talking about value flows as a shorthand among those who are "in the know," that's fine. But, if you are intending to communicate with "newbies" like me, could you please explain a bit more about what you mean? ~ Habib

Sorry about the jargon. Most people are concerned with how they will earn enough money to survive in the system and are unaware of our collective power to change the way the system works so it works better for everyone (only its not just about money - there is also other "value" that is exchanged through our connections in the community). ~DB

Hmmm... I have trouble with all or non-language. This value doesn't gel with me, although it's a nice prayer. ~ julie

4. Shared economic and environmental interest can form the basis for a growing sense of community within the locality.

This principle isn't bad. But, I just want to mention that I'm not sure that the causal progression is in this order. I think that a sense of community may just as easily create a shared environmental interest, or a concern for the economic well being of members of the community. I think these are all interrelated. ~ Habib

Interesting view - I was thinking that within a locality we share economic and environmental interests whether we know it or not - and that realizing the shared interest is the essence of a sense of community. Suggestions on how we might clarify the statement? ~DB

If I were writing this statement as a principle, it might read, "Network Weavers can strengthen shared economic and environmental interest through strengthening bonds and connection within local community." We are doing this with our Peace Park effort. ~ julie

5. A Network Weaver seeks to bridge barriers between members of the community for the purpose of exploring potential to make the community a better place to live.

Once again, this seems to emphasize only that aspect of Network Weaving that focuses on bridging barriers. I agree this is tremendously important. But, there is also a LOT of work that needs to be done to weave networks between people who already share fundamental values, and just don't happen to know one another yet. ~ Habib

To me it's more about connecting and building on existing strenths that seeking to bridge barriers. ~ julie

I could amend the title of this document to David's Plan for Network Weaving in Denver - and we could set up a new workspace for the overall definitions with separate "plans" for each type of weaver. However, I suggest we continue working here for now and make that decision later. ~DB

I've heard participation defined as doing your part while being responsible for the whole. I see the role of a network weaver as

I absolutely love that first sentence. Mind if I quote you? :-) ~ Habib

1. creating a space where the “whole” (the underlying values that everyone can support) can be defined
2. facilitating everyone doing their part: helping people and groups of people connect with the resources (including distinctions--ways of being, practices—ways of doing, information, connections, facilities, tools, time and money) they need to do their part ~ JC

I love this formulation!!! ~ Habib

I also like this formulation. ~ julie

To be continued ~ Habib

Great contributions so far Habib - I look forward to more. ~DB.

Organizational Structure

1. The network weaving structure is an asset of the community and every individual, business, governmental agency and special interest group is already a member.

I think it would be better to say “anyone can be a member”. This way, people don't have to be a member if they don't want to be, and membership requires some conscious commitment from people joining—even if it is just designating that they want to be a member. ~ JC

I actually prefer to think of it as "everyone is already a member of the community" and the choice is whether to participate or not. ~ DB

I think David is right. But, this way of thinking is new. Perhaps it would be helpful to say something like ...is already a member and already contributing in their own ways. This could be tied in nicely to JC's suggestions in the section above regarding "facilitating everyone doing their part" ~Habib

2. Part of that asset is an open source software designed to facilitate communications among members of the community (and for such other functionality that the community should desire) which anyone is entitled to use in accordance with its purposes.

(“Its” refers to the software or the member? I think it should be clear that the software can be used for any purpose that furthers the good of the community—but not for things like spam) ~ JC

"Its" refers to the software in my mind. If FRED is an association of associations, and sponsors the platform for use by any member of the community, it is the members of FRED through the BOD that determine functionality - and it would seem that decision should be based on what is most "useful" to the user. ~ DB

I agree with JC. It is not clear what "its" refers to. You should probably do something like change "its purposes" to "the software's purposes." ~Habib

However, this would then raise the question of exactly what the software's purposes are. I think that's important to address. And, frankly, I think the first question that needs to be addressed is why you are opting for a software program in the first place. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing to do. But, I don't think that you should assume, just because you use the Internet and are comfortable with it, that everybody does the same. And, even people who use the Internet a LOT (like me!) are hesitant to learn and spend time on yet another software program unless there is an extremely good and clear reason to do so. ~Habib

3. The primary organizational unit is the neighborhood, and each neighborhood shall be entitled to representation in the voting membership. What constitutes a neighborhood shall be determined by the residents thereof.

This is not necessarily a bad organizational unit. However, by organizing things in this manner, you are inherently creating a certain kind of focus for the work that you are doing. At least in Seattle, there are already neighborhood and community councils in just about every neighborhood. They typically focus on issues like safety, development, parking etc. They are used to focusing on those types of issues. I'm not an expert at such things, but I have heard of very few cases where neighborhood/community councils per se focused on broader issues. (This may be a very different situation in the case of poorer neighborhoods).

On the other hand, within broader neighborhoods, there have emerged a large number of what I call "neighbornets," which are "affinity" groups that care about certain types of issues. One such example is Sustainable Ballard. I encourage you to become familiar with their excellent work -- they are already serving as a model for a number of other neighborhoods in the Seattle area. http://www.sustainableballard.or g

If you are using an organizational unit of "the neighborhood" as defined by residents themselves, the area covered by Sustainable Ballard actually includes a number of separate "neighborhoods." Ballard is a reference to the greater neighborhood. The specific neighborhoods include Crown Hill, Loyal Heights, Downtown Ballard etc. I don't believe Sustainable Ballard would have ever emerged if it had been dependent on any one of those self defined neighborhoods. Instead, Sustainable Ballard was a self-defined network (or what I would call a neighbornet) that spans whatever area it needs to.

Hope this makes sense -- I'll try to talk about it with you "in person" sometime. ~Habib

4. Organizing at levels above the neighborhood, such as municipal or regional, or such as to promote local production for local consumption, or sustainable production practices, can be facilitated in response to demand.

I'm not sure that referring to levels "above" the neighborhood is an ideal way to look at things. Perhaps the neighborhood is really what should be above the other elements, such as municipal or regional. Or, perhaps we can look at neighborhoods as more fundmental. I'm quibbling about semantics, here... ~Habib

5. Each organization that pays a fee, as determined by the Board of Directors, and each neighborhood shall be a voting member, and shall designate, from time to time, a representative to cast the vote of the organization or neighborhood on any matter submitted to a vote of the members.

What kinds of organizations are you talking about having as members? ~Habib

6. The voting members shall annually elect a Board of Directors consisting of no less than three and no more than fifteen?. (This is a number that can be adjusted based on interest in participation at a Board Member level of activity).

To tell you the truth, the more you talk about this type of structure, the less it interests me personally. Different people are different. But, this sounds like you are trying to create entire new organizations. Organizations have their own dynamics, their own power issues. Is that really needed to facilitate networking? Or is that the goal? Maybe I've lost touch with the goal... ~Habib

7. The Board of Directors shall appoint such officers and grant officers such powers as they shall determine to be necessary or convenient from time to time.
8. The Board of Directors shall establish procedures for transparency in decision making and transparency in accounting.
9. The Board of Directors shall establish rates for sponsorships of neighborhood activities, and community activities at higher levels, in such manner and at such prices as to further the principles, provide for its overhead expense, develop the community software asset, and support community efforts to improve conditions in the community.

Procedures:

1. Each neighborhood and each organization, as defined by the neighborhood or organization would have an entry portal into the software network,(or web site?) with locality specific information such as a community calendar, local business listing, and local issue discussions. Any individual logging into the site could choose the portal through which they wanted to enter. Each portal could have a sponsor with a portion of the sponsorship fee going to overhead, software and a fund at the disposal of the neighborhood. Additional sponsorships would be made available to support community events.
2. The software should allow businesses to rate themselves according to those categories of significance to community residents:

1. Local Ownership
2. Local Employment/Operations
3. Sustainable Production Methods
4. Member of Chamber of Commerce, BBB, Balle, BIBA? . . .
5. Sustaining Sponsors?
6. approved by ReDirect Guide

(it occurs to me that it would be more useful to have respected third parties do these ratings also. Although I think self-ratings might be useful for organizational introspection, I don't think they would have much value for people trying to compare organizations). ~ JC

We have also talked about a reputation currency based on customer experience. I would have no problem with something like ReDirect Guide requiring certain characteristics in order to use their name as the selection criteria. ~ DB

3. Stimulating participation at the neighborhood level would be the function of associations of homeowners in conjunction with associations of local businesses, and supported by participation from local elected officials.

Just want to point out that there may be one or two other kinds of people in your neighborhood. Folks that rent, people who happen to be homeless etc. Are they going to have a place in this new system? If so, what is that place going to be?

4. At higher levels of community, participation would be the responsibility of the Network Weaver to identify people and organizations seeking positive change in the community and bringing those people together to find a way to accomplish that change.

Some "final" comments. I think that there is something of value here. But, I'm not sure how I feel about the way you're approaching it. As far as I can see, you're trying to define a set of structures in advance. I wonder how much you have talked with (a broad range) of members of the community to find out what structures are needed -- if any??? Furthermore, I don't think that it is realistic to develop an "ideal" structure without practice. I would suggest scaling down this whole effort to start with a MUCH smaller project. For example, starting with one neighborhood and trying out some of the ideas. I think that would be much more practical -- and helpful -- than spending a whole lot of time trying to define the "perfect" structure before getting a lot of experience with small scale initiatives first. ~Habib