These are the notes from re-reading our email archives, a look back at arguments that got lost, or discussions that were left unfinished, partial - or to put it simply: at anything that sheds additional light on the theory we developed so far, or asks a question that we consider valid. Also, emails from which our core arguments followed. (toni,21 Jan 04).

Our public discussion on this list starts with its first message at Sun, 9 Jun 2002 00:42:15 +0100 (BST).

what drives todays organizations (22-Jun-02)

pure science, good practice, and human ethics, or individual interests? 600 workers gets fired and large part of european internet infrastructure remains running un attended. workers get very pissed off. Toni's attempt at marxist interpreation of it through use&exchange-value and ethical decisions.

great art is to be simple! (12-Jul-02)

Richard's drama teacher thought that great art is to be simple.

O-O as a self-organising organism/system! (13-Jul-02)

Are open organizations self organizing? argument developed at SystemsViewOrganizations

O-O intro start, our first meeting (10-Sep-02)

Agenda draft and minutes.

Here's a quote from those minutes, goal that we still didn't meet. We're much closer thou.

goal: to write a short introduction to the concept of Open Org.
      it turned quickly into a redefining session of clarifying what  
      we meant with certain terms and what the Open Org should/could be.

autonomy <-> accountability in practice (16-Sep-02)

an example from Indymedia. Ford foundation might fund indymedia, and some people like that, so they work in. On a closed email list, unfortunatley. When some other people find out, they freak out, for explicit political reasons, and some organizational principles too. Peope working on it drop their application, but decide to follow it as an autonomous group, to do almost the same thing: to fund project within indymedia i.e. they decide not to be accountable to the network. Tactical fund group claimed that it will fund autonomous projects i.e. not within indymedia, like this one. See indymedia archive on this.

LA-IMC charter (29-Sep-02)

Charter of an IMC, from Los Angeles, USA, which advocates similar values to our framework. Complete charter is attached below as a pdf file. However, what i semi-autonomous (how this charter calls them) working groups do a terrible job at tasks that are crucial in society? How to aviod unnecessary competition (waste of energy, tons of useles consumer goods produced) or monoploy? Was Lenin on the right track when he wrote in 1917 about compulsory assocciation?

zones of secrecy/distrust

zones of secrecy/distrust - how does one reconcile the need for thorough critique of someone who is important partner, and the need for openness? isn't thorough critique easier in some cases behind the closed doors? especially when there is clear line of demarcation i.e. two organizations, or two sides, involved in some work. even more so when power positions aren't equal and when there is hierarchical relationship (council and small collective example is given)?

radical liberal-democracy: removal of elected public officials

Article 72 of The Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 provides a mechanism for removal of elected public officials. What parallel mechanism does it exist in open-org framework? Parallel to elected officials would be, i guess, a working group. What is the mechanism for showing that continuation of existance of a working group is contrary to the charter, or that it would endanger existance of the organization?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. To contact us, please use the openorg-dev mailing list.