Everything in life is a broccoli. Take a broccoli, and snap off a piece. The piece of broccoli is a broccoli in itself. Take that piece, and snap off yet another piece. Again, that piece is a broccoli in itself.
In short, broccoli is self-similar. It is fractal. It is a holacracy.
You will find broccolis all over the place.
A portfolio is comprised of products. A product or a system consists of essential parts. Each part consists of subparts, and so on.
An organization consists of units, divisions, departments, groups, teams, squads, individuals. All broccolis within broccolis.
An initiative consists of programs, programs, in turn, consist of projects, projects have milestones, milestones take a couple of sprints to complete, sprints take one or two weeks.
Transcript of Howard Rheingold’s TED-2005 talk about the coming world of collaboration, participatory media and collective action—and how Wikipedia is really an outgrowth of our natural human instinct to work as a group. As he points out, humans have been banding together to work collectively since our days of hunting mastodons.
Sanne Roemen en Daan Kortenbach doen een oproep om een coöp van briljante programmeurs op te zetten. Wat mij betreft breiden ze dat uit naar briljante ontwerpers, designers, architecten en projectleiders. En dan lekker agile aan de slag.
Als we dat nou eens naadloos kunnen samenvoegen met grote bedrijven op dit gebied. Een organisatievorm vinden waarbij beiden elkaar versterken. De groten zijn zeldzaam, veerkrachtig, geworteld en enorm. De eenpitters, tweepitters en gasstellen zijn met velen, klein, wendbaar en innovatief. Hoe kunnen ze elkaar versterken?!
Hey Sanne, Daan, Ik wil meedoen! Gaan we in augsutus om de tafel om dit verder vorm te geven?
Mijn gedicht “Wanneer Dan” vat het geheel samen.
Harry van der Velde tipped me on Cambrian House some time ago. What a wonderful holacratic way of turning thoughts into things. Community-owned—so “Dee Hock” in its chaorganization. So co-creative.
While preparing a proposal for Andarr this morning, I decided to sign up. Looking forward to participation.
As a member of the Identity Commons mailing list for several years now I find many of the organizational conversations very interesting. Especially the dialogs on principles, articles, bylaws, organization, etc.
I feel compelled to contribute in some way, but force myself not to for the simple reason that I know that I cannot sustain the level of contribution that the IC needs. And I must set and keep these expectations right in order not to disappoint either of us. Please forgive me for that.
Anyway, Eugene’s (again excellent) summary on last week’s (3/28/2007) call mentioned the subject of voting again. This triggered me to send them this article on Holacracy from Drian J. Robertson from the Cutter Consortium. You probably already know about it, but I just want to make sure you wouldn’t miss it.
Please allow me to quote from page 12:
- On votes
- Another common question is about the “possible votes” in integrative decision making. At first it can sound like there are two possible votes on a proposed decision—”consent” or “object”—though that’s missing a key point. Consent isn’t about “votes”at all; the idea of a vote doesn’t make sense in the context of consent. There are no votes, and people do not vote.
- People do say whether they know of a reason why the proposed decision is outside the limits of tolerance of any aspect of the system, and then decision making continues to integrate that new information. This isn’t the same as most consensus-based processes—either in theory or in practice—although it does sound similar at first, especially before an actual meeting that seeks consent is witnessed.