Barbara (12 Dec 2006)
In my participation at Pacific Integral -- one of the issues that came up was how to make some forums (or votes) "read-only".
I offered up this idea of creating votes/discussions that could take place within a larger community, but only as a "fisbowl" to others in the group.This reminds me a little of what Gary was saying about the structure of SI's Core Organizer group meetings whereby non-organizers could witness the collaborative process, but not contribute to the voting process directly...
I will offer up a book review that describes this and the response that came to me from Geoff Fitch (a faculty member of Pacific Integral):
Book recommendation: Collaborating Together: Learning Together in Community is the latest book on online teaching and learning by Rena M. Palloff and Keith Pratt.
Excerpt from book review:
Part two consists of a series of clear ideas and examples to use for online collaborative activities. They include role playing, simulations, case studies, questioning techniques for collaborative discussions, dyads, small-group projects, jigsaw activities, blogs, virtual teams, debates, fishbowls, learning cycles, and webquests. Specific instructions are given on how to carry out each type of activity as well as how to assess it. Instructional designers can use the activities as they are presented or modify them to suit their own purposes. This section of the book is very brief, with approximately two pages devoted to each example. The resource section that follows is also very brief, with only a couple of resources listed under each topic. (http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=11798)
Response From Geoff Fitch - Faculty member of Pacific Integral
When I hear fishbowl, I usually think of a process where a group engages in a process in the middle of a room (the fishbowl) and others observe from the outside quietly.
Now, you could do that with a read only forum. Usually, though, the fishbowl is followed by a whole group discussion. The point is not so much to exclude the larger group, but to allow a specific process to occur in the smaller group while they observe. So, aside from not "writing" into the fishbowl, the observers are there to intently listen and watch the process. That can't be done by just making it read-only but requires intention.
So, you might do this mostly with facilitation, creating a fishbowl forum (could be read only), and organizing an occasion where the observers are expected to observe and later join in a dialog about the process (which could occur in another forum that's not read only.)
I suppose that what I'm saying is that it *might* be possible to set up polls that are specifically meant for the Salon Leaders' Council & this would allow the SLC to function inside of Integral Worldspace.
However, my guess is that it could get a little hairy -- even though the benefit would be MUCH greater transparency.That's why the cautious side of me is recommending that we create an informal Yahoo discussion group for SLC that would allow the ~12 of us to continue our conversations.However!! --- if our goal is to empower other salon leaders & enable them to "silently" participate in the holacratic process (as learners) then this could possibly serve as an option.
I'm just realizing that one possible downside of SLC existing in a "fishbowl" is the situation whereby one person casts a vote against a member's request to join Integral Worldspace & then that SLC member is out-voted and then the new member joins & then becomes aware of the other members' reservations...
Lynne (12 Dec 2006)
I've worked with fishbowls, and find them most useful when a group of experts presents a discussion to inform and to collaborate while those less well informed in essence learn from the discussion, and later chime in. I dislike any attempt to assess an individual to be done in public. This is not meant to be a Green (however healthy) enterprise, but rather to use discrimination and discernment for the highest good, however it be perceived. I have been privvy to discussions over this type of discernment that made individual distinctions based on the individual's own capacity to grow still further, for the candidate to receive specific mentoring from a specific individual to assist his growth, or the determination that the candidate's motivations needed to mature before permitting the person into the collective individualism of the group.
Gary (12 Dec 2006)
I think there's an easier way to do both. We could make the SLC list open for all to read, but only members may post (same with the IWS list). On super sensitive issues, we could resort to private email lists managed by our own personal email clients, i.e., I would just email everyone that I had a sensitive issue to discuss with everyone, but it would not go through, or be saved on, the SLC list. I could set up a folder on my client to keep copies of all conversations for
future reference.
We could make the IWS members aware of our intention and invite to read and follow as they desire. Any discussion of the SLC activities from the IWS perspective could take place on the IWS list, which we would be members of.
Why add more compexity when simplicity will do? :)
For clarification, Sociocracy/Holacracy (called S/H from here on out for simplicity, I'll elaborate on the differences if anyone cares) has no YES/NO componenent. It is a consent process. YES/NO is consensus (1st tier), consent is a 2nd tier process (according to Brian R).
So, in the example where we would be approving a new member for the SLC, we would find out who they are and what their qualifications would be to be a member of the Leadership group, and then see if there are any reasoned objections. Reasoned Objections might be "I don't have enough information," or, "They've never led a salon, what will they contribute?" The idea that the SLC website would be open for anyone to read, member or not, provides accountability for objections, and ensures they don't get personal, as does the consent process. S/H is a beautiful process. (if we need to, we can communicate privately around sensitive issues or where it serves the greatest good).
This is such an interesting idea! BUT I do understand why you feel cautious about it.
What are the psychological ramifications of reading leaders' discussion, but not having a voice in them? Seems like that could trigger some heavy shadow stuff.
I love the fishbowl idea, but it seems risky.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.