\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}

\usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}

\renewcommand{\rmdefault}{ptm}
\renewcommand{\sfdefault}{phv}
\renewcommand{\ttdefault}{pcr}

\usepackage[british,french]{babel}
\usepackage{t1enc}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage[pdftex,bookmarks,colorlinks,a4paper,pdfstartview=FitH,urlcolor=blue]{hyperref}

\title{Open Organizations, A Framework}

\author{Toni Prug, \href{mailto:toni@irational.org}{toni@irational.org}}

\date{Version 0.2.1 \\ 13 June 2002}

\begin{document}
\selectlanguage{british}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
This document outlines the Open Organizations Framework.
\end{abstract}

\tableofcontents
\newpage

\section{Status of this Memo}

This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does not specify an
official standard of any kind, and does not necessarily represent the views of anyone
other than its authors. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

\section{Methods and Licensing}

This is an early version. Some of the important working practices we subscribe to are
those known in computer programming community of Free
Software\footnote{\href{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html}{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html}}:
`release early, release often', and `given enough eyeballs, all bugs [inconsistencies,
shortcomings, etc.] are shallow [easy to spot]' \footnote{
  \href{http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/x147.html}{http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/x147.html}}.
By requesting your comments we aim to improve aspects that we didn't have time yet to deal
with, that we simple didn't see or come across. Such practice of public request for
comments and joint development is less common when the task involved is to write a text.
However, since theory and practice (will always) reciprocate\footnote{ New observations
  will lead to modification of the theory. New developments of the theory will be applied
  to its implementation --- the practice.}, our task is ongoing: \textbf{\emph{these papers   are are not meant to be finished, ever.}}  Since writing mostly involves a final product,
stressing this difference is crucial: as the practice evolves, so will the framework and
methods used to work on it.

We looked into releasing these documents under the GFDL
\footnote{\href{http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html}{http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html}}
license, but so far couldn't convince ourselves that such move wouldn't discourage others
from contributing and in that way hinder the collaborative development. Other argument not
to do so for now is that the concept of `copyright to be able to protect' is somehow
contrary to our thinking. We seek to protect the freedom of anyone to use this framework
and documents that describe it without affirming that such freedoms cannot exist, by
accepting the concept of copyright.  As well, copyright imposes the concept of fixed
authorship in the face of law, which in this case would mean accepting and affirming
another thoroughly false notion. This framework is about methods as much as it is about
the outcome.

\section{Introduction: From Practice to Theory and Back}

The idea of Open Organizations is one of a framework for the organizations. It aims to
represents a set of values. It comes out of practice and, we believe, should continue to
be developed through practice. This document is part of a set that starts an ongoing
conversation with such practice. As the practice develops, so will these documents to
reflect it. However, exact implementations will vary since we encourage organizations and
working groups to use this framework primarily as the starting point, to think about the
way (process) they work and organize, rather then as the end point to reach.

\section{Discussion: Why Do We Need Evolving Models for Organizations?}

The desire and determination not to replicate certain organizational structures and to
work in more egalitarian and collaborative environment is what drives us to work on this
framework. It comes from our experience that no matter how much we strive to different
models using collection of tactics, it is not enough.

Denouncing (rejecting) old paradigms about the ways how to organize and work, but without
having anything formalised to replace it, we are stuck in limbo. Our often expressed
commitments to autonomy, diversity and inclusiveness, unless captured in new paradigms
will most often amount to mere rattling of chains.

We believe that only by changing one's paradigm about the structures of organizations and
ways to work does one become free of the old paradigm. Only through constructive action,
through the creation, or mere recognition of a new paradigm, can we set ourselves free.
That is the main difference between negation and formalized creation. We say `formalized'
since people do create, even while still at paradigms they denounce, but such creation,
until recognized in some pattern or model, isn't moulded into a new paradigm and therefore
cannot set them free from the paradigm they denounce.

We are here stepping into new direction by formalizing patterns that we recognized within
the networks we operate in. The model we're outlining can by no means be the only one, nor
suitable to all organizations who subscribe to values that it promotes, but it can
be an alternative for some.

In short, to be able to shift paradigms we need models and patterns --- we need new to
replace the old. Or, to paraphrase D H Lawrence: `the shout of the non-hierarchical will
be just another rattling of chains'.

\section{An Open Organization}

An Open Organization is described in
\href{http://www.open-organizations.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/OpenOrgGuideFrame}{Guidelines
for Open Organizations}.

\section{Objectives of the Framework}
The core objectives of Open Organizations Framework are to promote and enable
transparency, inclusiveness (participation), autonomy, recognized interdependency, and
diversity.  It is important to note that the extent of diversity within an organization
directly depends on the extent to which that organization is inclusive, and the extent to
which interdependencies are recognized. The more we know about how we depend on each
other, the more we can develop what is specific and therefore be more autonomous
i.e. diverse.

\section{Transparency and Inclusiveness} 
These two can hardly be discussed separately. The use of publicly archived email lists to
work and make decisions means that most information from which decisions are made is
available to all involved, and that internal processes of the organization are visible to
anyone.  This makes the organization accountable to general public (anything can be
challenged, since the process and decisions are available) and makes it easier for people
to get involved, since they can observe well, and in detail, prior to making the
decision. However, this brings up a new paradigm of information overload --- too much of
it, rather then too little --- and the way this is addressed is by writing mandatory
summaries. More on this can be found in paper on working groups.

\section{Inclusiveness}
Inclusiveness is ensured by diversity of working practices and mandatory written
summaries.  That way people with less time and Internet access can still keep up with the
information overload, and broad range of tactics can develop through different methods of
organizing and work. Equally important, transparency makes it easy for new people to get an
overview of the organization before they decide to join.

\section{Autonomy and Recognized Interdependency: accepting diverse tactics}
This is the most important concept to understand. One that advocates, and makes possible,
high level of autonomy of working groups. Higher autonomy is, more diverse working
practices are developed and, as a result of that, more inclusive and healthy an
organization is. It relies on an active approach of recognizing interdependencies within
an organization. Our experience showed that when interdependencies aren't thought through,
autonomy and individuality suffer immensely from unnecessary limits imposed in the name of
the common goal, usually out of concern how different working practices might fragment the
organization. These concerns aren't valid ones if looked at from different perspective.
On the contrary, it is exactly the idea that we should all work and pursue common goals
using a single strategy, a single path, or one set of working practices --- it is this
idea that imposes superficial collectivism. The results are highly damaging: denial of
ourselves and our diverse ways of thinking and being, and thus, it is comparable with the
single-minded culture that the capital imposes, the one which we strive to replace. In
extreme cases, like capitalism, but with different ideological forces, it can render
culture\footnote{see Frederick Jameson: {\em Postmodernism or the cultural logic of late
capitalism}} meaningless.  The solution we propose, and present here, is in finding
interdependencies. That will allow piece of mind for everyone to pursue diverse approaches
towards the agreed objectives. The more clearly interdependencies are recognized the
greater the autonomy, and therefore diversity, can be. In short: it is a strategy for
ensuring freedoms necessary for diverse tactics to emerge.
 
An important notion to consider here is that with fast developments of communication and
collaboration tools, many different cultures around the globe are coming together to work
on common goals. The diversities they possess, now when they are in the process of
becoming linked, in global networks and organizations, are under threat.  The intention of
this framework is to show how those cultures can coexist together, and how calls for
unification beyond agreed objectives, as we argued above, are completely unnecessary,
damaging and represent superficial thinking which makes organizations closed,
exclusive, against diversity and therefore, in the context of networks that the model
of Open Organizations is drawn from, prone to fail in the long run. We believe that this
framework offers a viable alternative, as we have learned, and continue to learn from the
practice.

\input{inc-context_history}

\end{document}