[08/17/04-13:00] toni_user: thanks of the book!
[08/17/04-13:00] toni_user: just got it.
[08/17/04-13:01] toni_user: i read it already, all of it. but fast, and onlne (reading). very happy to have hard copy, and to read it with more attention again.
[08/17/04-13:03] ben_geer: you're welcome!
[08/17/04-13:03] ben_geer: I really enjoyed the stuff about his childhood.
[08/17/04-13:06] toni_user: http://lists.socialtools.net/wws/arc/openorg-dev/2004-08/msg00025.html
[08/17/04-13:06] toni_user: extended your meeting notes.
[08/17/04-13:08] ben_geer: good, but there seems to be a little confusion between 'descriptive' and 'theoretical'.
[08/17/04-13:08] ben_geer: " descriptive (WHAT)"
[08/17/04-13:08] ben_geer: but then
[08/17/04-13:09] ben_geer: "WHY are descriptive docs. "
[08/17/04-13:09] toni_user: yes, they are both descriptive, that's correct.
[08/17/04-13:09] ben_geer: So what's the difference between WHAT and WHY?
[08/17/04-13:09] toni_user: WHAT it theoretical side of open-org framwork (current intro doc)
[08/17/04-13:10] toni_user: WHY is thinking through (in form of texts) which we reach WHAT
[08/17/04-13:10] toni_user: and theoretical core on/.through which we think to reach WHAT.
[08/17/04-13:10] toni_user: so, WHY is pure theory + our texts on thoughts in progress about WHAT.
[08/17/04-13:11] ben_geer: ok I've fixed it to say that
[08/17/04-13:11] toni_user: makes sense?
[08/17/04-13:11] ben_geer: I also don't think we should keep IntroToOpenOrg in its present form.
[08/17/04-13:11] ben_geer: It has some WHAT and WHY in it, mixed together with the HOW.
[08/17/04-13:11] ben_geer: "will finally contain full version of what is today IntroToOpenOrg" sounds like we're not going to change it.
[08/17/04-13:12] toni_user: ah, no
[08/17/04-13:12] toni_user: i meant, "will contain all the content currently in intro, put in new (several) place2"
[08/17/04-13:13] toni_user: you analysis is correct, i agree 100% with 
[08/17/04-13:13] toni_user: "It has some WHAT and WHY in it, mixed together with the HOW"

[08/17/04-13:13] ben_geer: So do we need to have an Intro in 3 parts, for WHY, WHAT and HOW?
[08/17/04-13:13] toni_user: i just didn't write it clearly enough.
[08/17/04-13:13] ben_geer: Or should the Intro just be HOW?
[08/17/04-13:13] ben_geer: or WHAT?
[08/17/04-13:13] toni_user: that's a good question.
[08/17/04-13:14] toni_user: i though about it a bit. we need to discuss it.
[08/17/04-13:14] ben_geer: I'm having a hard time thinking in terms of WHAT. Maybe you could give some examples?
[08/17/04-13:14] ben_geer: Does WHAT mean accountability, self-management, etc?
[08/17/04-13:14] toni_user: yes, np
[08/17/04-13:14] ben_geer: While WHY means explaining why accountability and self-management are good things?
[08/17/04-13:14] toni_user: WHAT means all our conclusion form current intro (processes and funcational rules)
[08/17/04-13:14] toni_user: which does not specicy any implmentation.
[08/17/04-13:15] toni_user: or, we should separate it from implementation, since that is HOW.
[08/17/04-13:15] toni_user: i started doing that by creating ModInternetOrg and ModDelegate pages.
[08/17/04-13:15] toni_user: pulling implementation (HOW) out of it.
[08/17/04-13:15] ben_geer: processes and functional rules are 90% of the Intro. what do you mean by 'conclusion'?
[08/17/04-13:16] toni_user: conlusions = processes and functional rules.
[08/17/04-13:16] toni_user: core conclusions from all our work so far.
[08/17/04-13:16] toni_user: they are WHAT is open-org (in my head).
[08/17/04-13:16] ben_geer: So the conclusions are basically the whole Intro...
[08/17/04-13:17] toni_user: possibly. i didn't re-read intro since we spoke about it.
[08/17/04-13:17] ben_geer: But I think some of them are more HOW (like you must have a charter) and others are more WHAT (like you must be accountable).
[08/17/04-13:18] toni_user: yes, good point.
[08/17/04-13:18] ben_geer: I think the distinction between WHAT and WHY is good, but we need to clarify it.
[08/17/04-13:18] toni_user: charter is HOW to be accountable.
[08/17/04-13:18] toni_user: one of the elements of accountability.
[08/17/04-13:18] toni_user: yes, this needs work, of course. edit of your notes is what i did in an hour this morning.
[08/17/04-13:19] ben_geer: So I think that for a newcomer, we should provide three short intro pages: (1) What are the goals? (2) How does it work? (3) Why do it this way?
[08/17/04-13:19] toni_user: yes.
[08/17/04-13:20] ben_geer: Then each of those can have links to more detailed explanations.
[08/17/04-13:20] toni_user: however, that mixes terms that we just used
[08/17/04-13:20] ben_geer: does it?
[08/17/04-13:20] toni_user: let's try, what is (1) in your head?

[08/17/04-13:21] toni_user: in my head, 1 is extended version of patrice's short paragraph.
[08/17/04-13:21] toni_user: (2) is HOW (implementation details i.e. you must have charter, you can be an InternetOrg, you can have delegation etc)

[08/17/04-13:21] ben_geer: (1) is accountability, transparency, self-management, open participation, Best practices, Respect for skill and Public ownership of knowledge.
[08/17/04-13:22] toni_user: (listening)
[08/17/04-13:22] ben_geer: (2) is charter, working groups, consensus/delegation, trust, coordinating, excluding
[08/17/04-13:23] ben_geer: (3) is well-being, self-determination, interdependencies
[08/17/04-13:23] ben_geer: That's roughly it in my head, but some of them could be in more than one category.
[08/17/04-13:23] toni_user: ok.
[08/17/04-13:24] toni_user: we have to think this through carefuly.
[08/17/04-13:24] ben_geer: All the things in (1) should be qualities that an organisation should have. But it's not obvious from those qualities how they should be implemented.
[08/17/04-13:24] toni_user: it is very easy to turn it all around.
[08/17/04-13:24] ben_geer: (2) is really specifically what steps you have to take in order to have those qualities.
[08/17/04-13:24] ben_geer: (3) is the more general ethical stuff and basic political principles.
[08/17/04-13:24] toni_user: one could easily say, isn't it 3 that is the real goal? and 1 are proceses that need to be inplacc to achive 3?
[08/17/04-13:25] toni_user: ah, 3 is goal for society. 1 is goal for an open-org.
[08/17/04-13:25] ben_geer: Yes 3 is the real goal, that's what makes it the WHY. Why are we doing all this? To reach a certain ethical goal.
[08/17/04-13:25] ben_geer: Yes exactly.
[08/17/04-13:25] toni_user: we have to be very careful with words on this all.
[08/17/04-13:25] toni_user: ok. gotta go.
[08/17/04-13:25] ben_geer: It's a hierarchy. We start with (3), our goals for human beings in general.
[08/17/04-13:25] toni_user: we surely know far more then 48 hrs ago.
[08/17/04-13:25] ben_geer: That justifies (1), which justifies (2).
[08/17/04-13:26] toni_user: it was very useful to open these issues.
[08/17/04-13:26] ben_geer: yes, can you save log of this somewhere?
[08/17/04-13:26] toni_user: on sec
[08/17/04-13:27] ben_geer: Also (3) has to include things like why we think competition and markets can't achieve the ethical goals we have in mind.
[08/17/04-13:27] ben_geer: Maybe that's another level, (4).... :)