https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=RosaZ&feedformat=atomP2P Foundation - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T19:02:40ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.40.1https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Dialogue_Mapping&diff=95748Dialogue Mapping2015-12-25T19:57:28Z<p>RosaZ: /* More Information */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dialogue Mapping is a software-assisted method of non-linear group facilitation''', initially developed by Jeff Conklin. The software it uses, Compendium, is open-source shareware that is freely available through the Cognexus Institute.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
Dialogue Mapping consists of a combination of (i) a shared hypertext display, (ii) a trained facilitator, sometimes called an "info-cartographer", and (iii) a conversational grammar. <br />
<br />
Dialogue Mapping is structural augmentation of group communication. As the conversation unfolds and the map grows, each person can see a summary of the meeting discussion so far. The map serves as a "group memory," virtually eliminating the need for participants to repeat themselves to get their points made."<br />
(http://www.cognexus.org/id41.htm)<br />
<br />
Dialogue Mapping also allows participants to offer their contributions to the conversation in an organic, dialogical flow, while the facilitator maps their contribution onto an organized logic tree that is being seen by all.<br />
<br />
==How DM differs from other facilitation methods==<br />
<br />
"How is Dialogue Mapping different from traditional facilitation?<br />
<br />
We're all familiar with the role of the facilitator. This is the role of the neutral person who plans and guides a group through a meeting, keeping the group on schedule and on topic, and addressing process issues like one person dominating the conversation or group members getting stuck in a debate. The facilitator uses learned skills and intuition to interact with the group in ways that effectively “facilitate? their accomplishment of their meeting objectives.<br />
<br />
Dialogue mapping has the same intention as facilitation: to help the group members hold an effective conversation on a complex topic. By “effective? we mean a conversation that both accomplished the objectives and built higher levels of shared understanding, respect, alignment, and transparency. But dialogue mapping uses two tools that are relatively new to the conference room.<br />
<br />
The first is to capture key elements of the conversation in a shared display. This could be whiteboards or flipcharts, but more often these days it's a computer projector. Shared display means that what is projected in the display is being crafted by the group actively. People's comments are somehow reflected in the display. We're not talking about PowerPoint here!! Sometimes referred to as interactive visual modeling, shared display requires that there be someone driving the computer who has the skills and intention of adding value to the group's interaction and creating group memory of the group's thinking and learning.<br />
<br />
The second aspect of dialogue mapping that is new and different is the use of a simple conversational grammar called IBIS, Issue Based Information System. IBIS represents the moves in a conversation as Questions, Ideas (possible answers to the Question), and Arguments (pros and cons to the ideas). The power of IBIS is its emphasis on questions. In an IBIS diagram new questions arise to clarify assumptions, challenge arguments, shift the context, and explore the deeper implications of ideas. Dialogue mapping requires that the mapper be so fluent in IBIS that they can translate everyday meeting-speak (e.g. “Why are we talking about this??, “That's not the issue!?, etc) on the fly into IBIS and write or type it into the shared display for the group to see and validate. The pinnacle of fluency in IBIS is being able hear the hidden questions behind participants' comments."<br />
(http://www.cognexus.org/dm_vs_facilitation.htm)<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
More information about Dialogue Mapping can be found here: https://eight2late.wordpress.com/category/dialogue-mapping/<br />
<br />
Compendium software can be downloaded here at http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute/<br />
<br />
Paul Culmsee and Kailash Awati's "The Heretic's Guide to Best Practices" is a highly informative book on Dialogue Mapping, that explores how it compares to other problem-structuring methods, and also includes detailed case studies. At one point, they summarize the difference as being that DM is more "bottom up" approach, in contrast to other PSM's which they depict as being more "top down".<br />
<br />
Recently, Paul Culmsee has developed an open-source KM software based on Compendium called Glyma.<br />
http://www.cleverworkarounds.com/about/<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Resources]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Relational]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Dialogue_Mapping&diff=95747Dialogue Mapping2015-12-25T19:52:15Z<p>RosaZ: /* More Information */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dialogue Mapping is a software-assisted method of non-linear group facilitation''', initially developed by Jeff Conklin. The software it uses, Compendium, is open-source shareware that is freely available through the Cognexus Institute.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
Dialogue Mapping consists of a combination of (i) a shared hypertext display, (ii) a trained facilitator, sometimes called an "info-cartographer", and (iii) a conversational grammar. <br />
<br />
Dialogue Mapping is structural augmentation of group communication. As the conversation unfolds and the map grows, each person can see a summary of the meeting discussion so far. The map serves as a "group memory," virtually eliminating the need for participants to repeat themselves to get their points made."<br />
(http://www.cognexus.org/id41.htm)<br />
<br />
Dialogue Mapping also allows participants to offer their contributions to the conversation in an organic, dialogical flow, while the facilitator maps their contribution onto an organized logic tree that is being seen by all.<br />
<br />
==How DM differs from other facilitation methods==<br />
<br />
"How is Dialogue Mapping different from traditional facilitation?<br />
<br />
We're all familiar with the role of the facilitator. This is the role of the neutral person who plans and guides a group through a meeting, keeping the group on schedule and on topic, and addressing process issues like one person dominating the conversation or group members getting stuck in a debate. The facilitator uses learned skills and intuition to interact with the group in ways that effectively “facilitate? their accomplishment of their meeting objectives.<br />
<br />
Dialogue mapping has the same intention as facilitation: to help the group members hold an effective conversation on a complex topic. By “effective? we mean a conversation that both accomplished the objectives and built higher levels of shared understanding, respect, alignment, and transparency. But dialogue mapping uses two tools that are relatively new to the conference room.<br />
<br />
The first is to capture key elements of the conversation in a shared display. This could be whiteboards or flipcharts, but more often these days it's a computer projector. Shared display means that what is projected in the display is being crafted by the group actively. People's comments are somehow reflected in the display. We're not talking about PowerPoint here!! Sometimes referred to as interactive visual modeling, shared display requires that there be someone driving the computer who has the skills and intention of adding value to the group's interaction and creating group memory of the group's thinking and learning.<br />
<br />
The second aspect of dialogue mapping that is new and different is the use of a simple conversational grammar called IBIS, Issue Based Information System. IBIS represents the moves in a conversation as Questions, Ideas (possible answers to the Question), and Arguments (pros and cons to the ideas). The power of IBIS is its emphasis on questions. In an IBIS diagram new questions arise to clarify assumptions, challenge arguments, shift the context, and explore the deeper implications of ideas. Dialogue mapping requires that the mapper be so fluent in IBIS that they can translate everyday meeting-speak (e.g. “Why are we talking about this??, “That's not the issue!?, etc) on the fly into IBIS and write or type it into the shared display for the group to see and validate. The pinnacle of fluency in IBIS is being able hear the hidden questions behind participants' comments."<br />
(http://www.cognexus.org/dm_vs_facilitation.htm)<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
More information about Dialogue Mapping can be found here: https://eight2late.wordpress.com/category/dialogue-mapping/<br />
<br />
Compendium software can be downloaded here at http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute/<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Resources]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Relational]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Dialogue_Mapping&diff=95746Dialogue Mapping2015-12-25T19:47:59Z<p>RosaZ: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dialogue Mapping is a software-assisted method of non-linear group facilitation''', initially developed by Jeff Conklin. The software it uses, Compendium, is open-source shareware that is freely available through the Cognexus Institute.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
Dialogue Mapping consists of a combination of (i) a shared hypertext display, (ii) a trained facilitator, sometimes called an "info-cartographer", and (iii) a conversational grammar. <br />
<br />
Dialogue Mapping is structural augmentation of group communication. As the conversation unfolds and the map grows, each person can see a summary of the meeting discussion so far. The map serves as a "group memory," virtually eliminating the need for participants to repeat themselves to get their points made."<br />
(http://www.cognexus.org/id41.htm)<br />
<br />
Dialogue Mapping also allows participants to offer their contributions to the conversation in an organic, dialogical flow, while the facilitator maps their contribution onto an organized logic tree that is being seen by all.<br />
<br />
==How DM differs from other facilitation methods==<br />
<br />
"How is Dialogue Mapping different from traditional facilitation?<br />
<br />
We're all familiar with the role of the facilitator. This is the role of the neutral person who plans and guides a group through a meeting, keeping the group on schedule and on topic, and addressing process issues like one person dominating the conversation or group members getting stuck in a debate. The facilitator uses learned skills and intuition to interact with the group in ways that effectively “facilitate? their accomplishment of their meeting objectives.<br />
<br />
Dialogue mapping has the same intention as facilitation: to help the group members hold an effective conversation on a complex topic. By “effective? we mean a conversation that both accomplished the objectives and built higher levels of shared understanding, respect, alignment, and transparency. But dialogue mapping uses two tools that are relatively new to the conference room.<br />
<br />
The first is to capture key elements of the conversation in a shared display. This could be whiteboards or flipcharts, but more often these days it's a computer projector. Shared display means that what is projected in the display is being crafted by the group actively. People's comments are somehow reflected in the display. We're not talking about PowerPoint here!! Sometimes referred to as interactive visual modeling, shared display requires that there be someone driving the computer who has the skills and intention of adding value to the group's interaction and creating group memory of the group's thinking and learning.<br />
<br />
The second aspect of dialogue mapping that is new and different is the use of a simple conversational grammar called IBIS, Issue Based Information System. IBIS represents the moves in a conversation as Questions, Ideas (possible answers to the Question), and Arguments (pros and cons to the ideas). The power of IBIS is its emphasis on questions. In an IBIS diagram new questions arise to clarify assumptions, challenge arguments, shift the context, and explore the deeper implications of ideas. Dialogue mapping requires that the mapper be so fluent in IBIS that they can translate everyday meeting-speak (e.g. “Why are we talking about this??, “That's not the issue!?, etc) on the fly into IBIS and write or type it into the shared display for the group to see and validate. The pinnacle of fluency in IBIS is being able hear the hidden questions behind participants' comments."<br />
(http://www.cognexus.org/dm_vs_facilitation.htm)<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
Contextual information on Dialogue Mapping can be found at http://www.diapraxis.com/materials.html <br />
<br />
Compendium software can be downloaded here at http://www.cognexus.org/ <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Resources]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Relational]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Dialogue_Mapping&diff=95745Dialogue Mapping2015-12-25T18:44:28Z<p>RosaZ: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dialogue Mapping is a software-assisted method of non-linear group facilitation''', initially developed by Jeff Conklin. The software it uses, Compendium, is open-source shareware that is freely available through the Cognexus Institute.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
Dialogue Mapping consists of a combination of (i) a shared hypertext display, (ii) a trained facilitator, sometimes called an "info-cartographer", and (iii) a conversational grammar. <br />
<br />
Dialogue Mapping is structural augmentation of group communication. As the conversation unfolds and the map grows, each person can see a summary of the meeting discussion so far. The map serves as a "group memory," virtually eliminating the need for participants to repeat themselves to get their points made."<br />
(http://www.cognexus.org/id41.htm)<br />
<br />
<br />
==How DM differs from other facilitation methods==<br />
<br />
"How is Dialogue Mapping different from traditional facilitation?<br />
<br />
We're all familiar with the role of the facilitator. This is the role of the neutral person who plans and guides a group through a meeting, keeping the group on schedule and on topic, and addressing process issues like one person dominating the conversation or group members getting stuck in a debate. The facilitator uses learned skills and intuition to interact with the group in ways that effectively “facilitate? their accomplishment of their meeting objectives.<br />
<br />
Dialogue mapping has the same intention as facilitation: to help the group members hold an effective conversation on a complex topic. By “effective? we mean a conversation that both accomplished the objectives and built higher levels of shared understanding, respect, alignment, and transparency. But dialogue mapping uses two tools that are relatively new to the conference room.<br />
<br />
The first is to capture key elements of the conversation in a shared display. This could be whiteboards or flipcharts, but more often these days it's a computer projector. Shared display means that what is projected in the display is being crafted by the group actively. People's comments are somehow reflected in the display. We're not talking about PowerPoint here!! Sometimes referred to as interactive visual modeling, shared display requires that there be someone driving the computer who has the skills and intention of adding value to the group's interaction and creating group memory of the group's thinking and learning.<br />
<br />
The second aspect of dialogue mapping that is new and different is the use of a simple conversational grammar called IBIS, Issue Based Information System. IBIS represents the moves in a conversation as Questions, Ideas (possible answers to the Question), and Arguments (pros and cons to the ideas). The power of IBIS is its emphasis on questions. In an IBIS diagram new questions arise to clarify assumptions, challenge arguments, shift the context, and explore the deeper implications of ideas. Dialogue mapping requires that the mapper be so fluent in IBIS that they can translate everyday meeting-speak (e.g. “Why are we talking about this??, “That's not the issue!?, etc) on the fly into IBIS and write or type it into the shared display for the group to see and validate. The pinnacle of fluency in IBIS is being able hear the hidden questions behind participants' comments."<br />
(http://www.cognexus.org/dm_vs_facilitation.htm)<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
Contextual information on Dialogue Mapping can be found at http://www.diapraxis.com/materials.html <br />
<br />
Compendium software can be downloaded here at http://www.cognexus.org/ <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Resources]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Relational]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Wisdom_Council&diff=95744Wisdom Council2015-12-25T18:28:34Z<p>RosaZ: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= How "We the People" can provide leadership to government.''' <br />
<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/ ; [http://www.wisedemocracy.org/page11/page18/page18.html about]<br />
<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. Caspar Davis:'''<br />
<br />
"A Wisdom Council is a group of about 12 randomly selected people who meet for several hours with the assistance of a Dynamic Facilitator with the intention of deciding on what issues are most important to the group and concocting a unanimous statement about them. The statement is issued to the broader community at a public meeting, and the Wisdom Council disbands. Jim Rough’s original dream was that the Wisdom Council would be added to the U.S. Constitution as a new institution that would have no power other than meeting periodically, each time with a new randomly chosen group, and issuing statements that came from ordinary people who met as individuals with no pretence of speaking for anyone but themselves, who would create statements that came from ordinary people rather than from any power base or interest group. Jim Rough believed, and experience has confirmed, that ordinary people are far ahead of politicians, the media and other leaders in understanding the real problems of our communities and in conceiving solutions for them."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. [[Participation Now]]:'''<br />
<br />
"The Wisdom Council describes itself as "a way the people of a very large system—e.g. citizens of a community, members of an organization, citizens of a nation—can address and solve difficult issues together — achieving thoughtful, near-unanimous results.<br />
<br />
The process builds the spirit of community, solves difficult problems, and builds the capacity for collective wisdom".<br />
<br />
It was initiated by a non-governmental organisation/charity and encourages people to participate through public assembly. The Wisdom Council is local, regional and national in orientation and concerned with democracy, politics & representation and participation.<br />
<br />
It was launched in 2002 and is ongoing."<br />
(http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/participation-now/the-wisdom-council)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Examples of the Evolution of Wisdom Councils in Europe=<br />
<br />
Please see the page "[[ http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council |Creative Insight Councils]]" for more information on the evolution of Wisdom Councils and its related forms, primarily in parts of Austria, Switzerland, and Germany, along with a recent notable example of this participatory public policy format as applied to the refugee situation.<br />
<br />
http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council<br />
<br />
<br />
=Examples in North America=<br />
<br />
Caspar Davis:<br />
<br />
In Canada:<br />
<br />
"Wisdom Councils are that kind of leap into the unknown, an attempt to create a “politics of process that “puts context in front of ideology.<br />
<br />
Three Wisdom Councils have been held in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. They resulted from the convergence of at least two already commingled streams of people: those who had come together as a result of a visit to Victoria by Robert Theobald in 1996(?), and the local branch of the World Federalist Movement – Canada, which has a deep interest in improving democratic processes.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Origins of Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
Robert Theobald was a great evangelist for the power and wisdom of ordinary people, believing that they were far ahead of their so-called leaders. He came to Victoria at the invitation of the World Federalists, and his visit led to the formation of a the Group with No Name, which started with about 50 people who met every other Saturday to share their thoughts and ideas. Spin off groups produced a forum on work as well as No Name University, a group of curious people including a couple of retired professors who explored topics ranging from physics to the power of myth. The Group itself dwindled over the next 5 years until it came down to about 10 people and finally it petered out.<br />
<br />
One of Theobald’s associates was Tom Atlee, founder of the Co-Intelligence Institute and author of the Tao of Democracy. Tom put some of the Group in touch with Jim Rough, the developer of Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation. Jim, who lives in Port Townsend, Washington, came up with the idea for Wisdom Councils through his work as a facilitator. He developed a technique called Dynamic Facilitation which helps groups quickly solve “impossible” problems by generating fresh ideas rather than just choosing between conventional options. Jim wrote a book, Society’s Breakthrough, describing how a constitutionally mandated Wisdom Councils could transform American democracy for the better. Several people from Victoria – including Caspar Davis, a World Federalist and George Sranko, another veteran of the Group with No Name – established a connection with Jim by taking his Dynamic Facilitation seminar.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nuts and Bolts of the Victoria Experience'''<br />
<br />
Early in 2006, Sranko and Davis talked about the possibility of holding a Wisdom Council in Victoria. By a happy coincidence, the local branch of the World Federalists had received a bequest, and had decided to use some of it to explore democratic innovation. They decided to bring Jim Rough and Tom Atlee to Victoria to talk about Wisdom Councils, which they did. The event was held on a Friday evening in November 2006, and the next day about 40 people met with them to pursue their ideas, and Wise Democracy Victoria was born, with the intention of holding a series of three Wisdom Councils in the City.<br />
<br />
About 30 people agreed to work on the project. They called themselves Wisdom Council Conveners, and they and the World Federalists agreed that a series of at least three Wisdom Councils was needed to fairly test the idea. The World Federalists agreed to fund the first two Councils, to cover the cost of mailings to potential Councilors, renting facilities for the Councils, etc. The Conveners kept in touch with themselves and with others who had attended the talk by email.<br />
<br />
The Conveners met every Saturday for several months in a series of somewhat anarchic self-organized meetings that spent a lot of time deciding how to make decisions and sometimes overturning earlier decisions about subjects like what geographic area to draw the Wisdom Council from, how to do random selection when no really comprehensive list of residents was available , or perhaps even existent. They could not get the voters list, and in any case neither it nor the phone book was truly comprehensive, but in the end they settled on the phone book and devised a method of selecting random pages, random columns on the page, and a random number of lines from the top. The meetings were sometimes chaotic, but each week someone volunteered to facilitate and certain principles were faithfully observed, including the right of everyone who came to have a voice and to be heard. The conversations were always constructive, and decisions were by consensus. It was often messy, and usually slow – especially when previous decisions were rejected a week later when some different people showed up, but it was understood that real democracy takes time and understanding.<br />
<br />
The Conveners considered that their own process was just as important as the process of the Wisdom Councils themselves, and a strong bond developed among the conveners. They carefully evaluated each Wisdom Council with an eye to improving the process and its impact on the community.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
The first Wisdom Council, held in March 2007, was a great success for both the conveners and for the participants, who were astonished at how quickly the process of Dynamic Facilitation got them talking openly about important matters on which they had strong feelings with a group of strangers. Most were exhilarated by the experience, and some felt that it was an important event in their lives.<br />
<br />
The first Council also got good media coverage. Two local papers (but not the major daily) and two radio stations ran stories on its planning, and the public meeting following it was attended by about a hundred people, including Victoria’s Member of Parliament and a city councilor. After the event, the Wisdom Council presented its unanimous statement at a meeting of City Council. The only disappointment was that it failed to generate much buzz in the larger community. Members of the Council were invited to join the conveners, and one or two did.<br />
<br />
The conveners did everything they could to make things easy, comfortable, and safe for the Councilors, who were each giving a Friday evening and all day Saturday to the project. For each Council, the conveners provided rides if needed, food, and daycare – although daycare was needed only for the third Council.<br />
<br />
The second Wisdom Council, three months later, was also a success for conveners and participants, but it got less media coverage and again failed to generate a buzz. It was held in June, and the conveners did not reassemble until September. That fall Jim Rough gave his Dynamic Facilitation seminar in Victoria and some of the conveners attended. Jim had facilitated the first Wisdom Council and his associate DeAnna Martin facilitated the second.<br />
<br />
While Jim and DeAnna were in Victoria for the seminar, DeAnna facilitated a meeting of the conveners, and they decided that one reason the first two councils had failed to generate the hoped-for broader conversation was that they got lost in the noise of the city. From the start, the conveners had spent a lot of time and energy on determining the geographical scope of the Wisdom Councils, and the main question being whether to draw on the whole city or on a smaller area, It was decided to try the third Council in a smaller area, and the conveners chose Fernwood, a compact residential area that already had a stronger than average sense of community, and where several conveners and former councilors lived.<br />
<br />
Following that decision, the conveners met with several community leaders and got articles in both community papers. They also held a meeting in the local pub, where attendees learned about the Wisdom Council process and discussed local issues and possible actions and solutions.<br />
<br />
The third Wisdom Council, sponsored by the local Unitarian Church, was held in a Quaker Meeting House on the edge of Fernwood in March 2008, almost exactly a year after the first Council. It was also a tremendous success for the conveners and the participants, but it also failed to generate as much buzz as had been hoped.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Repercussions of the Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
One of the conveners taught a communication class at a local University, and he devised an exercise that grew out of his experience as a convener. He divided the class, who came from many parts of the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, into three groups, and assigned each group to conduct a meeting. One group was given rudimentary training – about half an hour – in Bohmian dialogue. A second was given a similar amount of training in Dynamic Facilitation, and the third was given no instruction. The three groups each performed in front of their classmates on one day, and on a later day they spent a later day on a post-mortem on the exercise. They were all exhilarated by the experience, and they recognized that even rudimentary training in Dynamic Facilitation had yielded the best results. This was a spin-off of the Wisdom Council project that may yield important – if unmeasurable – results as these young people pursue their careers, mainly in the media.<br />
<br />
Another convener is involved in a Civic League, whose purpose is to determine a set of basic community values by going door-to-door and discussing them with as many municipal residents as possible, and then to measure the votes and actions of each municipal councilor against those values. This is a very different process, but there is a substantial degree of congruence between the values emerging out it and the statements of the three Wisdom Councils, which also had a lot of similarity with each other. (see the appendix below)<br />
<br />
There was some discouragement after the third Council, and the conveners and the World Federalists held post-mortems, both separately and together. They recognized that the Councils had had an important impact on the lives of both the conveners and the Councilors, but they also saw that it had taken a great amount of time and energy to randomly select potential councilors, to invite them, and to persuade enough invitees to participate. No one felt that the time or energy had been wasted, but most felt that their next efforts might take a different direction.<br />
<br />
There has been considerable talk about having a Wisdom Council in a local school, and that nay yet happen. There ahs also been considerable interest in convening similar Councils to address specific topics, rather than having an open agenda. Jim Rough calls this kind of council a Creative Insight Council.<br />
<br />
After the post-mortems, the conveners took a break, but 10 of them – and two ex-Councilors – met for a potluck dinner in June before scattering for the summer and discovered that they still had a great deal of cohesion and a strong desire to persevere in some fashion. It is hard to say what will happen next. But the project will not cease. Both the conveners and many councilors have been infused with “the joy of doing, and [the realization that] the doing is filled with meaning.”<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Participation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Democracy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Wisdom_Council&diff=95743Wisdom Council2015-12-25T18:28:07Z<p>RosaZ: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= How "We the People" can provide leadership to government.''' <br />
<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/ ; [http://www.wisedemocracy.org/page11/page18/page18.html about]<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. Caspar Davis:'''<br />
<br />
"A Wisdom Council is a group of about 12 randomly selected people who meet for several hours with the assistance of a Dynamic Facilitator with the intention of deciding on what issues are most important to the group and concocting a unanimous statement about them. The statement is issued to the broader community at a public meeting, and the Wisdom Council disbands. Jim Rough’s original dream was that the Wisdom Council would be added to the U.S. Constitution as a new institution that would have no power other than meeting periodically, each time with a new randomly chosen group, and issuing statements that came from ordinary people who met as individuals with no pretence of speaking for anyone but themselves, who would create statements that came from ordinary people rather than from any power base or interest group. Jim Rough believed, and experience has confirmed, that ordinary people are far ahead of politicians, the media and other leaders in understanding the real problems of our communities and in conceiving solutions for them."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. [[Participation Now]]:'''<br />
<br />
"The Wisdom Council describes itself as "a way the people of a very large system—e.g. citizens of a community, members of an organization, citizens of a nation—can address and solve difficult issues together — achieving thoughtful, near-unanimous results.<br />
<br />
The process builds the spirit of community, solves difficult problems, and builds the capacity for collective wisdom".<br />
<br />
It was initiated by a non-governmental organisation/charity and encourages people to participate through public assembly. The Wisdom Council is local, regional and national in orientation and concerned with democracy, politics & representation and participation.<br />
<br />
It was launched in 2002 and is ongoing."<br />
(http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/participation-now/the-wisdom-council)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Examples of the Evolution of Wisdom Councils in Europe=<br />
<br />
Please see the page "[[ http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council |Creative Insight Councils]]" for more information on the evolution of Wisdom Councils and its related forms, primarily in parts of Austria, Switzerland, and Germany, along with a recent notable example of this participatory public policy format as applied to the refugee situation.<br />
<br />
http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council<br />
<br />
<br />
=Examples in North America=<br />
<br />
Caspar Davis:<br />
<br />
In Canada:<br />
<br />
"Wisdom Councils are that kind of leap into the unknown, an attempt to create a “politics of process that “puts context in front of ideology.<br />
<br />
Three Wisdom Councils have been held in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. They resulted from the convergence of at least two already commingled streams of people: those who had come together as a result of a visit to Victoria by Robert Theobald in 1996(?), and the local branch of the World Federalist Movement – Canada, which has a deep interest in improving democratic processes.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Origins of Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
Robert Theobald was a great evangelist for the power and wisdom of ordinary people, believing that they were far ahead of their so-called leaders. He came to Victoria at the invitation of the World Federalists, and his visit led to the formation of a the Group with No Name, which started with about 50 people who met every other Saturday to share their thoughts and ideas. Spin off groups produced a forum on work as well as No Name University, a group of curious people including a couple of retired professors who explored topics ranging from physics to the power of myth. The Group itself dwindled over the next 5 years until it came down to about 10 people and finally it petered out.<br />
<br />
One of Theobald’s associates was Tom Atlee, founder of the Co-Intelligence Institute and author of the Tao of Democracy. Tom put some of the Group in touch with Jim Rough, the developer of Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation. Jim, who lives in Port Townsend, Washington, came up with the idea for Wisdom Councils through his work as a facilitator. He developed a technique called Dynamic Facilitation which helps groups quickly solve “impossible” problems by generating fresh ideas rather than just choosing between conventional options. Jim wrote a book, Society’s Breakthrough, describing how a constitutionally mandated Wisdom Councils could transform American democracy for the better. Several people from Victoria – including Caspar Davis, a World Federalist and George Sranko, another veteran of the Group with No Name – established a connection with Jim by taking his Dynamic Facilitation seminar.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nuts and Bolts of the Victoria Experience'''<br />
<br />
Early in 2006, Sranko and Davis talked about the possibility of holding a Wisdom Council in Victoria. By a happy coincidence, the local branch of the World Federalists had received a bequest, and had decided to use some of it to explore democratic innovation. They decided to bring Jim Rough and Tom Atlee to Victoria to talk about Wisdom Councils, which they did. The event was held on a Friday evening in November 2006, and the next day about 40 people met with them to pursue their ideas, and Wise Democracy Victoria was born, with the intention of holding a series of three Wisdom Councils in the City.<br />
<br />
About 30 people agreed to work on the project. They called themselves Wisdom Council Conveners, and they and the World Federalists agreed that a series of at least three Wisdom Councils was needed to fairly test the idea. The World Federalists agreed to fund the first two Councils, to cover the cost of mailings to potential Councilors, renting facilities for the Councils, etc. The Conveners kept in touch with themselves and with others who had attended the talk by email.<br />
<br />
The Conveners met every Saturday for several months in a series of somewhat anarchic self-organized meetings that spent a lot of time deciding how to make decisions and sometimes overturning earlier decisions about subjects like what geographic area to draw the Wisdom Council from, how to do random selection when no really comprehensive list of residents was available , or perhaps even existent. They could not get the voters list, and in any case neither it nor the phone book was truly comprehensive, but in the end they settled on the phone book and devised a method of selecting random pages, random columns on the page, and a random number of lines from the top. The meetings were sometimes chaotic, but each week someone volunteered to facilitate and certain principles were faithfully observed, including the right of everyone who came to have a voice and to be heard. The conversations were always constructive, and decisions were by consensus. It was often messy, and usually slow – especially when previous decisions were rejected a week later when some different people showed up, but it was understood that real democracy takes time and understanding.<br />
<br />
The Conveners considered that their own process was just as important as the process of the Wisdom Councils themselves, and a strong bond developed among the conveners. They carefully evaluated each Wisdom Council with an eye to improving the process and its impact on the community.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
The first Wisdom Council, held in March 2007, was a great success for both the conveners and for the participants, who were astonished at how quickly the process of Dynamic Facilitation got them talking openly about important matters on which they had strong feelings with a group of strangers. Most were exhilarated by the experience, and some felt that it was an important event in their lives.<br />
<br />
The first Council also got good media coverage. Two local papers (but not the major daily) and two radio stations ran stories on its planning, and the public meeting following it was attended by about a hundred people, including Victoria’s Member of Parliament and a city councilor. After the event, the Wisdom Council presented its unanimous statement at a meeting of City Council. The only disappointment was that it failed to generate much buzz in the larger community. Members of the Council were invited to join the conveners, and one or two did.<br />
<br />
The conveners did everything they could to make things easy, comfortable, and safe for the Councilors, who were each giving a Friday evening and all day Saturday to the project. For each Council, the conveners provided rides if needed, food, and daycare – although daycare was needed only for the third Council.<br />
<br />
The second Wisdom Council, three months later, was also a success for conveners and participants, but it got less media coverage and again failed to generate a buzz. It was held in June, and the conveners did not reassemble until September. That fall Jim Rough gave his Dynamic Facilitation seminar in Victoria and some of the conveners attended. Jim had facilitated the first Wisdom Council and his associate DeAnna Martin facilitated the second.<br />
<br />
While Jim and DeAnna were in Victoria for the seminar, DeAnna facilitated a meeting of the conveners, and they decided that one reason the first two councils had failed to generate the hoped-for broader conversation was that they got lost in the noise of the city. From the start, the conveners had spent a lot of time and energy on determining the geographical scope of the Wisdom Councils, and the main question being whether to draw on the whole city or on a smaller area, It was decided to try the third Council in a smaller area, and the conveners chose Fernwood, a compact residential area that already had a stronger than average sense of community, and where several conveners and former councilors lived.<br />
<br />
Following that decision, the conveners met with several community leaders and got articles in both community papers. They also held a meeting in the local pub, where attendees learned about the Wisdom Council process and discussed local issues and possible actions and solutions.<br />
<br />
The third Wisdom Council, sponsored by the local Unitarian Church, was held in a Quaker Meeting House on the edge of Fernwood in March 2008, almost exactly a year after the first Council. It was also a tremendous success for the conveners and the participants, but it also failed to generate as much buzz as had been hoped.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Repercussions of the Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
One of the conveners taught a communication class at a local University, and he devised an exercise that grew out of his experience as a convener. He divided the class, who came from many parts of the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, into three groups, and assigned each group to conduct a meeting. One group was given rudimentary training – about half an hour – in Bohmian dialogue. A second was given a similar amount of training in Dynamic Facilitation, and the third was given no instruction. The three groups each performed in front of their classmates on one day, and on a later day they spent a later day on a post-mortem on the exercise. They were all exhilarated by the experience, and they recognized that even rudimentary training in Dynamic Facilitation had yielded the best results. This was a spin-off of the Wisdom Council project that may yield important – if unmeasurable – results as these young people pursue their careers, mainly in the media.<br />
<br />
Another convener is involved in a Civic League, whose purpose is to determine a set of basic community values by going door-to-door and discussing them with as many municipal residents as possible, and then to measure the votes and actions of each municipal councilor against those values. This is a very different process, but there is a substantial degree of congruence between the values emerging out it and the statements of the three Wisdom Councils, which also had a lot of similarity with each other. (see the appendix below)<br />
<br />
There was some discouragement after the third Council, and the conveners and the World Federalists held post-mortems, both separately and together. They recognized that the Councils had had an important impact on the lives of both the conveners and the Councilors, but they also saw that it had taken a great amount of time and energy to randomly select potential councilors, to invite them, and to persuade enough invitees to participate. No one felt that the time or energy had been wasted, but most felt that their next efforts might take a different direction.<br />
<br />
There has been considerable talk about having a Wisdom Council in a local school, and that nay yet happen. There ahs also been considerable interest in convening similar Councils to address specific topics, rather than having an open agenda. Jim Rough calls this kind of council a Creative Insight Council.<br />
<br />
After the post-mortems, the conveners took a break, but 10 of them – and two ex-Councilors – met for a potluck dinner in June before scattering for the summer and discovered that they still had a great deal of cohesion and a strong desire to persevere in some fashion. It is hard to say what will happen next. But the project will not cease. Both the conveners and many councilors have been infused with “the joy of doing, and [the realization that] the doing is filled with meaning.”<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Participation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Democracy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Wisdom_Council&diff=95742Wisdom Council2015-12-25T18:27:36Z<p>RosaZ: /* Examples of the Evolution of Wisdom Councils in Europe */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= How "We the People" can provide leadership to government.''' <br />
<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/ ; [http://www.wisedemocracy.org/page11/page18/page18.html about]<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. Caspar Davis:'''<br />
<br />
"A Wisdom Council is a group of about 12 randomly selected people who meet for several hours with the assistance of a Dynamic Facilitator with the intention of deciding on what issues are most important to the group and concocting a unanimous statement about them. The statement is issued to the broader community at a public meeting, and the Wisdom Council disbands. Jim Rough’s original dream was that the Wisdom Council would be added to the U.S. Constitution as a new institution that would have no power other than meeting periodically, each time with a new randomly chosen group, and issuing statements that came from ordinary people who met as individuals with no pretence of speaking for anyone but themselves, who would create statements that came from ordinary people rather than from any power base or interest group. Jim Rough believed, and experience has confirmed, that ordinary people are far ahead of politicians, the media and other leaders in understanding the real problems of our communities and in conceiving solutions for them."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. [[Participation Now]]:'''<br />
<br />
"The Wisdom Council describes itself as "a way the people of a very large system—e.g. citizens of a community, members of an organization, citizens of a nation—can address and solve difficult issues together — achieving thoughtful, near-unanimous results.<br />
<br />
The process builds the spirit of community, solves difficult problems, and builds the capacity for collective wisdom".<br />
<br />
It was initiated by a non-governmental organisation/charity and encourages people to participate through public assembly. The Wisdom Council is local, regional and national in orientation and concerned with democracy, politics & representation and participation.<br />
<br />
It was launched in 2002 and is ongoing."<br />
(http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/participation-now/the-wisdom-council)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Examples of the Evolution of Wisdom Councils in Europe=<br />
<br />
Please see the page "[[ http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council |Creative Insight Councils]]" for more information on the evolution of Wisdom Councils and its related forms, primarily in parts of Austria, Switzerland, and Germany, along with a recent notable example of this participatory public policy format as applied to the refugee situation.<br />
<br />
http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council<br />
<br />
=Examples in North America=<br />
<br />
Caspar Davis:<br />
<br />
In Canada:<br />
<br />
"Wisdom Councils are that kind of leap into the unknown, an attempt to create a “politics of process that “puts context in front of ideology.<br />
<br />
Three Wisdom Councils have been held in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. They resulted from the convergence of at least two already commingled streams of people: those who had come together as a result of a visit to Victoria by Robert Theobald in 1996(?), and the local branch of the World Federalist Movement – Canada, which has a deep interest in improving democratic processes.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Origins of Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
Robert Theobald was a great evangelist for the power and wisdom of ordinary people, believing that they were far ahead of their so-called leaders. He came to Victoria at the invitation of the World Federalists, and his visit led to the formation of a the Group with No Name, which started with about 50 people who met every other Saturday to share their thoughts and ideas. Spin off groups produced a forum on work as well as No Name University, a group of curious people including a couple of retired professors who explored topics ranging from physics to the power of myth. The Group itself dwindled over the next 5 years until it came down to about 10 people and finally it petered out.<br />
<br />
One of Theobald’s associates was Tom Atlee, founder of the Co-Intelligence Institute and author of the Tao of Democracy. Tom put some of the Group in touch with Jim Rough, the developer of Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation. Jim, who lives in Port Townsend, Washington, came up with the idea for Wisdom Councils through his work as a facilitator. He developed a technique called Dynamic Facilitation which helps groups quickly solve “impossible” problems by generating fresh ideas rather than just choosing between conventional options. Jim wrote a book, Society’s Breakthrough, describing how a constitutionally mandated Wisdom Councils could transform American democracy for the better. Several people from Victoria – including Caspar Davis, a World Federalist and George Sranko, another veteran of the Group with No Name – established a connection with Jim by taking his Dynamic Facilitation seminar.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nuts and Bolts of the Victoria Experience'''<br />
<br />
Early in 2006, Sranko and Davis talked about the possibility of holding a Wisdom Council in Victoria. By a happy coincidence, the local branch of the World Federalists had received a bequest, and had decided to use some of it to explore democratic innovation. They decided to bring Jim Rough and Tom Atlee to Victoria to talk about Wisdom Councils, which they did. The event was held on a Friday evening in November 2006, and the next day about 40 people met with them to pursue their ideas, and Wise Democracy Victoria was born, with the intention of holding a series of three Wisdom Councils in the City.<br />
<br />
About 30 people agreed to work on the project. They called themselves Wisdom Council Conveners, and they and the World Federalists agreed that a series of at least three Wisdom Councils was needed to fairly test the idea. The World Federalists agreed to fund the first two Councils, to cover the cost of mailings to potential Councilors, renting facilities for the Councils, etc. The Conveners kept in touch with themselves and with others who had attended the talk by email.<br />
<br />
The Conveners met every Saturday for several months in a series of somewhat anarchic self-organized meetings that spent a lot of time deciding how to make decisions and sometimes overturning earlier decisions about subjects like what geographic area to draw the Wisdom Council from, how to do random selection when no really comprehensive list of residents was available , or perhaps even existent. They could not get the voters list, and in any case neither it nor the phone book was truly comprehensive, but in the end they settled on the phone book and devised a method of selecting random pages, random columns on the page, and a random number of lines from the top. The meetings were sometimes chaotic, but each week someone volunteered to facilitate and certain principles were faithfully observed, including the right of everyone who came to have a voice and to be heard. The conversations were always constructive, and decisions were by consensus. It was often messy, and usually slow – especially when previous decisions were rejected a week later when some different people showed up, but it was understood that real democracy takes time and understanding.<br />
<br />
The Conveners considered that their own process was just as important as the process of the Wisdom Councils themselves, and a strong bond developed among the conveners. They carefully evaluated each Wisdom Council with an eye to improving the process and its impact on the community.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
The first Wisdom Council, held in March 2007, was a great success for both the conveners and for the participants, who were astonished at how quickly the process of Dynamic Facilitation got them talking openly about important matters on which they had strong feelings with a group of strangers. Most were exhilarated by the experience, and some felt that it was an important event in their lives.<br />
<br />
The first Council also got good media coverage. Two local papers (but not the major daily) and two radio stations ran stories on its planning, and the public meeting following it was attended by about a hundred people, including Victoria’s Member of Parliament and a city councilor. After the event, the Wisdom Council presented its unanimous statement at a meeting of City Council. The only disappointment was that it failed to generate much buzz in the larger community. Members of the Council were invited to join the conveners, and one or two did.<br />
<br />
The conveners did everything they could to make things easy, comfortable, and safe for the Councilors, who were each giving a Friday evening and all day Saturday to the project. For each Council, the conveners provided rides if needed, food, and daycare – although daycare was needed only for the third Council.<br />
<br />
The second Wisdom Council, three months later, was also a success for conveners and participants, but it got less media coverage and again failed to generate a buzz. It was held in June, and the conveners did not reassemble until September. That fall Jim Rough gave his Dynamic Facilitation seminar in Victoria and some of the conveners attended. Jim had facilitated the first Wisdom Council and his associate DeAnna Martin facilitated the second.<br />
<br />
While Jim and DeAnna were in Victoria for the seminar, DeAnna facilitated a meeting of the conveners, and they decided that one reason the first two councils had failed to generate the hoped-for broader conversation was that they got lost in the noise of the city. From the start, the conveners had spent a lot of time and energy on determining the geographical scope of the Wisdom Councils, and the main question being whether to draw on the whole city or on a smaller area, It was decided to try the third Council in a smaller area, and the conveners chose Fernwood, a compact residential area that already had a stronger than average sense of community, and where several conveners and former councilors lived.<br />
<br />
Following that decision, the conveners met with several community leaders and got articles in both community papers. They also held a meeting in the local pub, where attendees learned about the Wisdom Council process and discussed local issues and possible actions and solutions.<br />
<br />
The third Wisdom Council, sponsored by the local Unitarian Church, was held in a Quaker Meeting House on the edge of Fernwood in March 2008, almost exactly a year after the first Council. It was also a tremendous success for the conveners and the participants, but it also failed to generate as much buzz as had been hoped.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Repercussions of the Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
One of the conveners taught a communication class at a local University, and he devised an exercise that grew out of his experience as a convener. He divided the class, who came from many parts of the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, into three groups, and assigned each group to conduct a meeting. One group was given rudimentary training – about half an hour – in Bohmian dialogue. A second was given a similar amount of training in Dynamic Facilitation, and the third was given no instruction. The three groups each performed in front of their classmates on one day, and on a later day they spent a later day on a post-mortem on the exercise. They were all exhilarated by the experience, and they recognized that even rudimentary training in Dynamic Facilitation had yielded the best results. This was a spin-off of the Wisdom Council project that may yield important – if unmeasurable – results as these young people pursue their careers, mainly in the media.<br />
<br />
Another convener is involved in a Civic League, whose purpose is to determine a set of basic community values by going door-to-door and discussing them with as many municipal residents as possible, and then to measure the votes and actions of each municipal councilor against those values. This is a very different process, but there is a substantial degree of congruence between the values emerging out it and the statements of the three Wisdom Councils, which also had a lot of similarity with each other. (see the appendix below)<br />
<br />
There was some discouragement after the third Council, and the conveners and the World Federalists held post-mortems, both separately and together. They recognized that the Councils had had an important impact on the lives of both the conveners and the Councilors, but they also saw that it had taken a great amount of time and energy to randomly select potential councilors, to invite them, and to persuade enough invitees to participate. No one felt that the time or energy had been wasted, but most felt that their next efforts might take a different direction.<br />
<br />
There has been considerable talk about having a Wisdom Council in a local school, and that nay yet happen. There ahs also been considerable interest in convening similar Councils to address specific topics, rather than having an open agenda. Jim Rough calls this kind of council a Creative Insight Council.<br />
<br />
After the post-mortems, the conveners took a break, but 10 of them – and two ex-Councilors – met for a potluck dinner in June before scattering for the summer and discovered that they still had a great deal of cohesion and a strong desire to persevere in some fashion. It is hard to say what will happen next. But the project will not cease. Both the conveners and many councilors have been infused with “the joy of doing, and [the realization that] the doing is filled with meaning.”<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Participation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Democracy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Wisdom_Council&diff=95741Wisdom Council2015-12-25T18:26:53Z<p>RosaZ: /* Examples of the Evolution of Wisdom Councils in Europe */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= How "We the People" can provide leadership to government.''' <br />
<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/ ; [http://www.wisedemocracy.org/page11/page18/page18.html about]<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. Caspar Davis:'''<br />
<br />
"A Wisdom Council is a group of about 12 randomly selected people who meet for several hours with the assistance of a Dynamic Facilitator with the intention of deciding on what issues are most important to the group and concocting a unanimous statement about them. The statement is issued to the broader community at a public meeting, and the Wisdom Council disbands. Jim Rough’s original dream was that the Wisdom Council would be added to the U.S. Constitution as a new institution that would have no power other than meeting periodically, each time with a new randomly chosen group, and issuing statements that came from ordinary people who met as individuals with no pretence of speaking for anyone but themselves, who would create statements that came from ordinary people rather than from any power base or interest group. Jim Rough believed, and experience has confirmed, that ordinary people are far ahead of politicians, the media and other leaders in understanding the real problems of our communities and in conceiving solutions for them."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. [[Participation Now]]:'''<br />
<br />
"The Wisdom Council describes itself as "a way the people of a very large system—e.g. citizens of a community, members of an organization, citizens of a nation—can address and solve difficult issues together — achieving thoughtful, near-unanimous results.<br />
<br />
The process builds the spirit of community, solves difficult problems, and builds the capacity for collective wisdom".<br />
<br />
It was initiated by a non-governmental organisation/charity and encourages people to participate through public assembly. The Wisdom Council is local, regional and national in orientation and concerned with democracy, politics & representation and participation.<br />
<br />
It was launched in 2002 and is ongoing."<br />
(http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/participation-now/the-wisdom-council)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Examples of the Evolution of Wisdom Councils in Europe=<br />
<br />
Please see the page "[[ http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council |Creative Insight Councils]]" for more information on the evolution of Wisdom Councils and its related forms, primarily in parts of Austria, Switzerland, and Germany, along with a recent example of the format as applied to the refugee situation.<br />
<br />
http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council<br />
<br />
=Examples in North America=<br />
<br />
Caspar Davis:<br />
<br />
In Canada:<br />
<br />
"Wisdom Councils are that kind of leap into the unknown, an attempt to create a “politics of process that “puts context in front of ideology.<br />
<br />
Three Wisdom Councils have been held in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. They resulted from the convergence of at least two already commingled streams of people: those who had come together as a result of a visit to Victoria by Robert Theobald in 1996(?), and the local branch of the World Federalist Movement – Canada, which has a deep interest in improving democratic processes.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Origins of Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
Robert Theobald was a great evangelist for the power and wisdom of ordinary people, believing that they were far ahead of their so-called leaders. He came to Victoria at the invitation of the World Federalists, and his visit led to the formation of a the Group with No Name, which started with about 50 people who met every other Saturday to share their thoughts and ideas. Spin off groups produced a forum on work as well as No Name University, a group of curious people including a couple of retired professors who explored topics ranging from physics to the power of myth. The Group itself dwindled over the next 5 years until it came down to about 10 people and finally it petered out.<br />
<br />
One of Theobald’s associates was Tom Atlee, founder of the Co-Intelligence Institute and author of the Tao of Democracy. Tom put some of the Group in touch with Jim Rough, the developer of Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation. Jim, who lives in Port Townsend, Washington, came up with the idea for Wisdom Councils through his work as a facilitator. He developed a technique called Dynamic Facilitation which helps groups quickly solve “impossible” problems by generating fresh ideas rather than just choosing between conventional options. Jim wrote a book, Society’s Breakthrough, describing how a constitutionally mandated Wisdom Councils could transform American democracy for the better. Several people from Victoria – including Caspar Davis, a World Federalist and George Sranko, another veteran of the Group with No Name – established a connection with Jim by taking his Dynamic Facilitation seminar.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nuts and Bolts of the Victoria Experience'''<br />
<br />
Early in 2006, Sranko and Davis talked about the possibility of holding a Wisdom Council in Victoria. By a happy coincidence, the local branch of the World Federalists had received a bequest, and had decided to use some of it to explore democratic innovation. They decided to bring Jim Rough and Tom Atlee to Victoria to talk about Wisdom Councils, which they did. The event was held on a Friday evening in November 2006, and the next day about 40 people met with them to pursue their ideas, and Wise Democracy Victoria was born, with the intention of holding a series of three Wisdom Councils in the City.<br />
<br />
About 30 people agreed to work on the project. They called themselves Wisdom Council Conveners, and they and the World Federalists agreed that a series of at least three Wisdom Councils was needed to fairly test the idea. The World Federalists agreed to fund the first two Councils, to cover the cost of mailings to potential Councilors, renting facilities for the Councils, etc. The Conveners kept in touch with themselves and with others who had attended the talk by email.<br />
<br />
The Conveners met every Saturday for several months in a series of somewhat anarchic self-organized meetings that spent a lot of time deciding how to make decisions and sometimes overturning earlier decisions about subjects like what geographic area to draw the Wisdom Council from, how to do random selection when no really comprehensive list of residents was available , or perhaps even existent. They could not get the voters list, and in any case neither it nor the phone book was truly comprehensive, but in the end they settled on the phone book and devised a method of selecting random pages, random columns on the page, and a random number of lines from the top. The meetings were sometimes chaotic, but each week someone volunteered to facilitate and certain principles were faithfully observed, including the right of everyone who came to have a voice and to be heard. The conversations were always constructive, and decisions were by consensus. It was often messy, and usually slow – especially when previous decisions were rejected a week later when some different people showed up, but it was understood that real democracy takes time and understanding.<br />
<br />
The Conveners considered that their own process was just as important as the process of the Wisdom Councils themselves, and a strong bond developed among the conveners. They carefully evaluated each Wisdom Council with an eye to improving the process and its impact on the community.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
The first Wisdom Council, held in March 2007, was a great success for both the conveners and for the participants, who were astonished at how quickly the process of Dynamic Facilitation got them talking openly about important matters on which they had strong feelings with a group of strangers. Most were exhilarated by the experience, and some felt that it was an important event in their lives.<br />
<br />
The first Council also got good media coverage. Two local papers (but not the major daily) and two radio stations ran stories on its planning, and the public meeting following it was attended by about a hundred people, including Victoria’s Member of Parliament and a city councilor. After the event, the Wisdom Council presented its unanimous statement at a meeting of City Council. The only disappointment was that it failed to generate much buzz in the larger community. Members of the Council were invited to join the conveners, and one or two did.<br />
<br />
The conveners did everything they could to make things easy, comfortable, and safe for the Councilors, who were each giving a Friday evening and all day Saturday to the project. For each Council, the conveners provided rides if needed, food, and daycare – although daycare was needed only for the third Council.<br />
<br />
The second Wisdom Council, three months later, was also a success for conveners and participants, but it got less media coverage and again failed to generate a buzz. It was held in June, and the conveners did not reassemble until September. That fall Jim Rough gave his Dynamic Facilitation seminar in Victoria and some of the conveners attended. Jim had facilitated the first Wisdom Council and his associate DeAnna Martin facilitated the second.<br />
<br />
While Jim and DeAnna were in Victoria for the seminar, DeAnna facilitated a meeting of the conveners, and they decided that one reason the first two councils had failed to generate the hoped-for broader conversation was that they got lost in the noise of the city. From the start, the conveners had spent a lot of time and energy on determining the geographical scope of the Wisdom Councils, and the main question being whether to draw on the whole city or on a smaller area, It was decided to try the third Council in a smaller area, and the conveners chose Fernwood, a compact residential area that already had a stronger than average sense of community, and where several conveners and former councilors lived.<br />
<br />
Following that decision, the conveners met with several community leaders and got articles in both community papers. They also held a meeting in the local pub, where attendees learned about the Wisdom Council process and discussed local issues and possible actions and solutions.<br />
<br />
The third Wisdom Council, sponsored by the local Unitarian Church, was held in a Quaker Meeting House on the edge of Fernwood in March 2008, almost exactly a year after the first Council. It was also a tremendous success for the conveners and the participants, but it also failed to generate as much buzz as had been hoped.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Repercussions of the Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
One of the conveners taught a communication class at a local University, and he devised an exercise that grew out of his experience as a convener. He divided the class, who came from many parts of the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, into three groups, and assigned each group to conduct a meeting. One group was given rudimentary training – about half an hour – in Bohmian dialogue. A second was given a similar amount of training in Dynamic Facilitation, and the third was given no instruction. The three groups each performed in front of their classmates on one day, and on a later day they spent a later day on a post-mortem on the exercise. They were all exhilarated by the experience, and they recognized that even rudimentary training in Dynamic Facilitation had yielded the best results. This was a spin-off of the Wisdom Council project that may yield important – if unmeasurable – results as these young people pursue their careers, mainly in the media.<br />
<br />
Another convener is involved in a Civic League, whose purpose is to determine a set of basic community values by going door-to-door and discussing them with as many municipal residents as possible, and then to measure the votes and actions of each municipal councilor against those values. This is a very different process, but there is a substantial degree of congruence between the values emerging out it and the statements of the three Wisdom Councils, which also had a lot of similarity with each other. (see the appendix below)<br />
<br />
There was some discouragement after the third Council, and the conveners and the World Federalists held post-mortems, both separately and together. They recognized that the Councils had had an important impact on the lives of both the conveners and the Councilors, but they also saw that it had taken a great amount of time and energy to randomly select potential councilors, to invite them, and to persuade enough invitees to participate. No one felt that the time or energy had been wasted, but most felt that their next efforts might take a different direction.<br />
<br />
There has been considerable talk about having a Wisdom Council in a local school, and that nay yet happen. There ahs also been considerable interest in convening similar Councils to address specific topics, rather than having an open agenda. Jim Rough calls this kind of council a Creative Insight Council.<br />
<br />
After the post-mortems, the conveners took a break, but 10 of them – and two ex-Councilors – met for a potluck dinner in June before scattering for the summer and discovered that they still had a great deal of cohesion and a strong desire to persevere in some fashion. It is hard to say what will happen next. But the project will not cease. Both the conveners and many councilors have been infused with “the joy of doing, and [the realization that] the doing is filled with meaning.”<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Participation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Democracy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Wisdom_Council&diff=95740Wisdom Council2015-12-25T18:25:07Z<p>RosaZ: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= How "We the People" can provide leadership to government.''' <br />
<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/ ; [http://www.wisedemocracy.org/page11/page18/page18.html about]<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. Caspar Davis:'''<br />
<br />
"A Wisdom Council is a group of about 12 randomly selected people who meet for several hours with the assistance of a Dynamic Facilitator with the intention of deciding on what issues are most important to the group and concocting a unanimous statement about them. The statement is issued to the broader community at a public meeting, and the Wisdom Council disbands. Jim Rough’s original dream was that the Wisdom Council would be added to the U.S. Constitution as a new institution that would have no power other than meeting periodically, each time with a new randomly chosen group, and issuing statements that came from ordinary people who met as individuals with no pretence of speaking for anyone but themselves, who would create statements that came from ordinary people rather than from any power base or interest group. Jim Rough believed, and experience has confirmed, that ordinary people are far ahead of politicians, the media and other leaders in understanding the real problems of our communities and in conceiving solutions for them."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. [[Participation Now]]:'''<br />
<br />
"The Wisdom Council describes itself as "a way the people of a very large system—e.g. citizens of a community, members of an organization, citizens of a nation—can address and solve difficult issues together — achieving thoughtful, near-unanimous results.<br />
<br />
The process builds the spirit of community, solves difficult problems, and builds the capacity for collective wisdom".<br />
<br />
It was initiated by a non-governmental organisation/charity and encourages people to participate through public assembly. The Wisdom Council is local, regional and national in orientation and concerned with democracy, politics & representation and participation.<br />
<br />
It was launched in 2002 and is ongoing."<br />
(http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/participation-now/the-wisdom-council)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Examples of the Evolution of Wisdom Councils in Europe=<br />
<br />
Please see the page "[[ http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council |Creative Insight Councils]]" for more information on the growth of Wisdom Councils and its related forms. <br />
<br />
http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council <br />
<br />
<br />
=Examples in North America=<br />
<br />
Caspar Davis:<br />
<br />
In Canada:<br />
<br />
"Wisdom Councils are that kind of leap into the unknown, an attempt to create a “politics of process that “puts context in front of ideology.<br />
<br />
Three Wisdom Councils have been held in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. They resulted from the convergence of at least two already commingled streams of people: those who had come together as a result of a visit to Victoria by Robert Theobald in 1996(?), and the local branch of the World Federalist Movement – Canada, which has a deep interest in improving democratic processes.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Origins of Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
Robert Theobald was a great evangelist for the power and wisdom of ordinary people, believing that they were far ahead of their so-called leaders. He came to Victoria at the invitation of the World Federalists, and his visit led to the formation of a the Group with No Name, which started with about 50 people who met every other Saturday to share their thoughts and ideas. Spin off groups produced a forum on work as well as No Name University, a group of curious people including a couple of retired professors who explored topics ranging from physics to the power of myth. The Group itself dwindled over the next 5 years until it came down to about 10 people and finally it petered out.<br />
<br />
One of Theobald’s associates was Tom Atlee, founder of the Co-Intelligence Institute and author of the Tao of Democracy. Tom put some of the Group in touch with Jim Rough, the developer of Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation. Jim, who lives in Port Townsend, Washington, came up with the idea for Wisdom Councils through his work as a facilitator. He developed a technique called Dynamic Facilitation which helps groups quickly solve “impossible” problems by generating fresh ideas rather than just choosing between conventional options. Jim wrote a book, Society’s Breakthrough, describing how a constitutionally mandated Wisdom Councils could transform American democracy for the better. Several people from Victoria – including Caspar Davis, a World Federalist and George Sranko, another veteran of the Group with No Name – established a connection with Jim by taking his Dynamic Facilitation seminar.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nuts and Bolts of the Victoria Experience'''<br />
<br />
Early in 2006, Sranko and Davis talked about the possibility of holding a Wisdom Council in Victoria. By a happy coincidence, the local branch of the World Federalists had received a bequest, and had decided to use some of it to explore democratic innovation. They decided to bring Jim Rough and Tom Atlee to Victoria to talk about Wisdom Councils, which they did. The event was held on a Friday evening in November 2006, and the next day about 40 people met with them to pursue their ideas, and Wise Democracy Victoria was born, with the intention of holding a series of three Wisdom Councils in the City.<br />
<br />
About 30 people agreed to work on the project. They called themselves Wisdom Council Conveners, and they and the World Federalists agreed that a series of at least three Wisdom Councils was needed to fairly test the idea. The World Federalists agreed to fund the first two Councils, to cover the cost of mailings to potential Councilors, renting facilities for the Councils, etc. The Conveners kept in touch with themselves and with others who had attended the talk by email.<br />
<br />
The Conveners met every Saturday for several months in a series of somewhat anarchic self-organized meetings that spent a lot of time deciding how to make decisions and sometimes overturning earlier decisions about subjects like what geographic area to draw the Wisdom Council from, how to do random selection when no really comprehensive list of residents was available , or perhaps even existent. They could not get the voters list, and in any case neither it nor the phone book was truly comprehensive, but in the end they settled on the phone book and devised a method of selecting random pages, random columns on the page, and a random number of lines from the top. The meetings were sometimes chaotic, but each week someone volunteered to facilitate and certain principles were faithfully observed, including the right of everyone who came to have a voice and to be heard. The conversations were always constructive, and decisions were by consensus. It was often messy, and usually slow – especially when previous decisions were rejected a week later when some different people showed up, but it was understood that real democracy takes time and understanding.<br />
<br />
The Conveners considered that their own process was just as important as the process of the Wisdom Councils themselves, and a strong bond developed among the conveners. They carefully evaluated each Wisdom Council with an eye to improving the process and its impact on the community.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
The first Wisdom Council, held in March 2007, was a great success for both the conveners and for the participants, who were astonished at how quickly the process of Dynamic Facilitation got them talking openly about important matters on which they had strong feelings with a group of strangers. Most were exhilarated by the experience, and some felt that it was an important event in their lives.<br />
<br />
The first Council also got good media coverage. Two local papers (but not the major daily) and two radio stations ran stories on its planning, and the public meeting following it was attended by about a hundred people, including Victoria’s Member of Parliament and a city councilor. After the event, the Wisdom Council presented its unanimous statement at a meeting of City Council. The only disappointment was that it failed to generate much buzz in the larger community. Members of the Council were invited to join the conveners, and one or two did.<br />
<br />
The conveners did everything they could to make things easy, comfortable, and safe for the Councilors, who were each giving a Friday evening and all day Saturday to the project. For each Council, the conveners provided rides if needed, food, and daycare – although daycare was needed only for the third Council.<br />
<br />
The second Wisdom Council, three months later, was also a success for conveners and participants, but it got less media coverage and again failed to generate a buzz. It was held in June, and the conveners did not reassemble until September. That fall Jim Rough gave his Dynamic Facilitation seminar in Victoria and some of the conveners attended. Jim had facilitated the first Wisdom Council and his associate DeAnna Martin facilitated the second.<br />
<br />
While Jim and DeAnna were in Victoria for the seminar, DeAnna facilitated a meeting of the conveners, and they decided that one reason the first two councils had failed to generate the hoped-for broader conversation was that they got lost in the noise of the city. From the start, the conveners had spent a lot of time and energy on determining the geographical scope of the Wisdom Councils, and the main question being whether to draw on the whole city or on a smaller area, It was decided to try the third Council in a smaller area, and the conveners chose Fernwood, a compact residential area that already had a stronger than average sense of community, and where several conveners and former councilors lived.<br />
<br />
Following that decision, the conveners met with several community leaders and got articles in both community papers. They also held a meeting in the local pub, where attendees learned about the Wisdom Council process and discussed local issues and possible actions and solutions.<br />
<br />
The third Wisdom Council, sponsored by the local Unitarian Church, was held in a Quaker Meeting House on the edge of Fernwood in March 2008, almost exactly a year after the first Council. It was also a tremendous success for the conveners and the participants, but it also failed to generate as much buzz as had been hoped.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Repercussions of the Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
One of the conveners taught a communication class at a local University, and he devised an exercise that grew out of his experience as a convener. He divided the class, who came from many parts of the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, into three groups, and assigned each group to conduct a meeting. One group was given rudimentary training – about half an hour – in Bohmian dialogue. A second was given a similar amount of training in Dynamic Facilitation, and the third was given no instruction. The three groups each performed in front of their classmates on one day, and on a later day they spent a later day on a post-mortem on the exercise. They were all exhilarated by the experience, and they recognized that even rudimentary training in Dynamic Facilitation had yielded the best results. This was a spin-off of the Wisdom Council project that may yield important – if unmeasurable – results as these young people pursue their careers, mainly in the media.<br />
<br />
Another convener is involved in a Civic League, whose purpose is to determine a set of basic community values by going door-to-door and discussing them with as many municipal residents as possible, and then to measure the votes and actions of each municipal councilor against those values. This is a very different process, but there is a substantial degree of congruence between the values emerging out it and the statements of the three Wisdom Councils, which also had a lot of similarity with each other. (see the appendix below)<br />
<br />
There was some discouragement after the third Council, and the conveners and the World Federalists held post-mortems, both separately and together. They recognized that the Councils had had an important impact on the lives of both the conveners and the Councilors, but they also saw that it had taken a great amount of time and energy to randomly select potential councilors, to invite them, and to persuade enough invitees to participate. No one felt that the time or energy had been wasted, but most felt that their next efforts might take a different direction.<br />
<br />
There has been considerable talk about having a Wisdom Council in a local school, and that nay yet happen. There ahs also been considerable interest in convening similar Councils to address specific topics, rather than having an open agenda. Jim Rough calls this kind of council a Creative Insight Council.<br />
<br />
After the post-mortems, the conveners took a break, but 10 of them – and two ex-Councilors – met for a potluck dinner in June before scattering for the summer and discovered that they still had a great deal of cohesion and a strong desire to persevere in some fashion. It is hard to say what will happen next. But the project will not cease. Both the conveners and many councilors have been infused with “the joy of doing, and [the realization that] the doing is filled with meaning.”<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Participation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Democracy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Wisdom_Council&diff=95739Wisdom Council2015-12-25T18:24:31Z<p>RosaZ: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= How "We the People" can provide leadership to government.''' <br />
<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/ ; [http://www.wisedemocracy.org/page11/page18/page18.html about]<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. Caspar Davis:'''<br />
<br />
"A Wisdom Council is a group of about 12 randomly selected people who meet for several hours with the assistance of a Dynamic Facilitator with the intention of deciding on what issues are most important to the group and concocting a unanimous statement about them. The statement is issued to the broader community at a public meeting, and the Wisdom Council disbands. Jim Rough’s original dream was that the Wisdom Council would be added to the U.S. Constitution as a new institution that would have no power other than meeting periodically, each time with a new randomly chosen group, and issuing statements that came from ordinary people who met as individuals with no pretence of speaking for anyone but themselves, who would create statements that came from ordinary people rather than from any power base or interest group. Jim Rough believed, and experience has confirmed, that ordinary people are far ahead of politicians, the media and other leaders in understanding the real problems of our communities and in conceiving solutions for them."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. [[Participation Now]]:'''<br />
<br />
"The Wisdom Council describes itself as "a way the people of a very large system—e.g. citizens of a community, members of an organization, citizens of a nation—can address and solve difficult issues together — achieving thoughtful, near-unanimous results.<br />
<br />
The process builds the spirit of community, solves difficult problems, and builds the capacity for collective wisdom".<br />
<br />
It was initiated by a non-governmental organisation/charity and encourages people to participate through public assembly. The Wisdom Council is local, regional and national in orientation and concerned with democracy, politics & representation and participation.<br />
<br />
It was launched in 2002 and is ongoing."<br />
(http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/participation-now/the-wisdom-council)<br />
<br />
=Examples of the Evolution of Wisdom Councils in Europe=<br />
<br />
Please see the page "[[ http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council |Creative Insight Councils]]" for more information on the growth of Wisdom Councils and its related forms. <br />
<br />
http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council <br />
<br />
=Examples in North America=<br />
<br />
Caspar Davis:<br />
<br />
In Canada:<br />
<br />
"Wisdom Councils are that kind of leap into the unknown, an attempt to create a “politics of process that “puts context in front of ideology.<br />
<br />
Three Wisdom Councils have been held in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. They resulted from the convergence of at least two already commingled streams of people: those who had come together as a result of a visit to Victoria by Robert Theobald in 1996(?), and the local branch of the World Federalist Movement – Canada, which has a deep interest in improving democratic processes.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Origins of Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
Robert Theobald was a great evangelist for the power and wisdom of ordinary people, believing that they were far ahead of their so-called leaders. He came to Victoria at the invitation of the World Federalists, and his visit led to the formation of a the Group with No Name, which started with about 50 people who met every other Saturday to share their thoughts and ideas. Spin off groups produced a forum on work as well as No Name University, a group of curious people including a couple of retired professors who explored topics ranging from physics to the power of myth. The Group itself dwindled over the next 5 years until it came down to about 10 people and finally it petered out.<br />
<br />
One of Theobald’s associates was Tom Atlee, founder of the Co-Intelligence Institute and author of the Tao of Democracy. Tom put some of the Group in touch with Jim Rough, the developer of Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation. Jim, who lives in Port Townsend, Washington, came up with the idea for Wisdom Councils through his work as a facilitator. He developed a technique called Dynamic Facilitation which helps groups quickly solve “impossible” problems by generating fresh ideas rather than just choosing between conventional options. Jim wrote a book, Society’s Breakthrough, describing how a constitutionally mandated Wisdom Councils could transform American democracy for the better. Several people from Victoria – including Caspar Davis, a World Federalist and George Sranko, another veteran of the Group with No Name – established a connection with Jim by taking his Dynamic Facilitation seminar.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nuts and Bolts of the Victoria Experience'''<br />
<br />
Early in 2006, Sranko and Davis talked about the possibility of holding a Wisdom Council in Victoria. By a happy coincidence, the local branch of the World Federalists had received a bequest, and had decided to use some of it to explore democratic innovation. They decided to bring Jim Rough and Tom Atlee to Victoria to talk about Wisdom Councils, which they did. The event was held on a Friday evening in November 2006, and the next day about 40 people met with them to pursue their ideas, and Wise Democracy Victoria was born, with the intention of holding a series of three Wisdom Councils in the City.<br />
<br />
About 30 people agreed to work on the project. They called themselves Wisdom Council Conveners, and they and the World Federalists agreed that a series of at least three Wisdom Councils was needed to fairly test the idea. The World Federalists agreed to fund the first two Councils, to cover the cost of mailings to potential Councilors, renting facilities for the Councils, etc. The Conveners kept in touch with themselves and with others who had attended the talk by email.<br />
<br />
The Conveners met every Saturday for several months in a series of somewhat anarchic self-organized meetings that spent a lot of time deciding how to make decisions and sometimes overturning earlier decisions about subjects like what geographic area to draw the Wisdom Council from, how to do random selection when no really comprehensive list of residents was available , or perhaps even existent. They could not get the voters list, and in any case neither it nor the phone book was truly comprehensive, but in the end they settled on the phone book and devised a method of selecting random pages, random columns on the page, and a random number of lines from the top. The meetings were sometimes chaotic, but each week someone volunteered to facilitate and certain principles were faithfully observed, including the right of everyone who came to have a voice and to be heard. The conversations were always constructive, and decisions were by consensus. It was often messy, and usually slow – especially when previous decisions were rejected a week later when some different people showed up, but it was understood that real democracy takes time and understanding.<br />
<br />
The Conveners considered that their own process was just as important as the process of the Wisdom Councils themselves, and a strong bond developed among the conveners. They carefully evaluated each Wisdom Council with an eye to improving the process and its impact on the community.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
The first Wisdom Council, held in March 2007, was a great success for both the conveners and for the participants, who were astonished at how quickly the process of Dynamic Facilitation got them talking openly about important matters on which they had strong feelings with a group of strangers. Most were exhilarated by the experience, and some felt that it was an important event in their lives.<br />
<br />
The first Council also got good media coverage. Two local papers (but not the major daily) and two radio stations ran stories on its planning, and the public meeting following it was attended by about a hundred people, including Victoria’s Member of Parliament and a city councilor. After the event, the Wisdom Council presented its unanimous statement at a meeting of City Council. The only disappointment was that it failed to generate much buzz in the larger community. Members of the Council were invited to join the conveners, and one or two did.<br />
<br />
The conveners did everything they could to make things easy, comfortable, and safe for the Councilors, who were each giving a Friday evening and all day Saturday to the project. For each Council, the conveners provided rides if needed, food, and daycare – although daycare was needed only for the third Council.<br />
<br />
The second Wisdom Council, three months later, was also a success for conveners and participants, but it got less media coverage and again failed to generate a buzz. It was held in June, and the conveners did not reassemble until September. That fall Jim Rough gave his Dynamic Facilitation seminar in Victoria and some of the conveners attended. Jim had facilitated the first Wisdom Council and his associate DeAnna Martin facilitated the second.<br />
<br />
While Jim and DeAnna were in Victoria for the seminar, DeAnna facilitated a meeting of the conveners, and they decided that one reason the first two councils had failed to generate the hoped-for broader conversation was that they got lost in the noise of the city. From the start, the conveners had spent a lot of time and energy on determining the geographical scope of the Wisdom Councils, and the main question being whether to draw on the whole city or on a smaller area, It was decided to try the third Council in a smaller area, and the conveners chose Fernwood, a compact residential area that already had a stronger than average sense of community, and where several conveners and former councilors lived.<br />
<br />
Following that decision, the conveners met with several community leaders and got articles in both community papers. They also held a meeting in the local pub, where attendees learned about the Wisdom Council process and discussed local issues and possible actions and solutions.<br />
<br />
The third Wisdom Council, sponsored by the local Unitarian Church, was held in a Quaker Meeting House on the edge of Fernwood in March 2008, almost exactly a year after the first Council. It was also a tremendous success for the conveners and the participants, but it also failed to generate as much buzz as had been hoped.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Repercussions of the Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
One of the conveners taught a communication class at a local University, and he devised an exercise that grew out of his experience as a convener. He divided the class, who came from many parts of the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, into three groups, and assigned each group to conduct a meeting. One group was given rudimentary training – about half an hour – in Bohmian dialogue. A second was given a similar amount of training in Dynamic Facilitation, and the third was given no instruction. The three groups each performed in front of their classmates on one day, and on a later day they spent a later day on a post-mortem on the exercise. They were all exhilarated by the experience, and they recognized that even rudimentary training in Dynamic Facilitation had yielded the best results. This was a spin-off of the Wisdom Council project that may yield important – if unmeasurable – results as these young people pursue their careers, mainly in the media.<br />
<br />
Another convener is involved in a Civic League, whose purpose is to determine a set of basic community values by going door-to-door and discussing them with as many municipal residents as possible, and then to measure the votes and actions of each municipal councilor against those values. This is a very different process, but there is a substantial degree of congruence between the values emerging out it and the statements of the three Wisdom Councils, which also had a lot of similarity with each other. (see the appendix below)<br />
<br />
There was some discouragement after the third Council, and the conveners and the World Federalists held post-mortems, both separately and together. They recognized that the Councils had had an important impact on the lives of both the conveners and the Councilors, but they also saw that it had taken a great amount of time and energy to randomly select potential councilors, to invite them, and to persuade enough invitees to participate. No one felt that the time or energy had been wasted, but most felt that their next efforts might take a different direction.<br />
<br />
There has been considerable talk about having a Wisdom Council in a local school, and that nay yet happen. There ahs also been considerable interest in convening similar Councils to address specific topics, rather than having an open agenda. Jim Rough calls this kind of council a Creative Insight Council.<br />
<br />
After the post-mortems, the conveners took a break, but 10 of them – and two ex-Councilors – met for a potluck dinner in June before scattering for the summer and discovered that they still had a great deal of cohesion and a strong desire to persevere in some fashion. It is hard to say what will happen next. But the project will not cease. Both the conveners and many councilors have been infused with “the joy of doing, and [the realization that] the doing is filled with meaning.”<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Participation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Democracy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Wisdom_Council&diff=95738Wisdom Council2015-12-25T18:23:12Z<p>RosaZ: /* Examples of Wisdom Councils in Europe */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= How "We the People" can provide leadership to government.''' <br />
<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/ ; [http://www.wisedemocracy.org/page11/page18/page18.html about]<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. Caspar Davis:'''<br />
<br />
"A Wisdom Council is a group of about 12 randomly selected people who meet for several hours with the assistance of a Dynamic Facilitator with the intention of deciding on what issues are most important to the group and concocting a unanimous statement about them. The statement is issued to the broader community at a public meeting, and the Wisdom Council disbands. Jim Rough’s original dream was that the Wisdom Council would be added to the U.S. Constitution as a new institution that would have no power other than meeting periodically, each time with a new randomly chosen group, and issuing statements that came from ordinary people who met as individuals with no pretence of speaking for anyone but themselves, who would create statements that came from ordinary people rather than from any power base or interest group. Jim Rough believed, and experience has confirmed, that ordinary people are far ahead of politicians, the media and other leaders in understanding the real problems of our communities and in conceiving solutions for them."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. [[Participation Now]]:'''<br />
<br />
"The Wisdom Council describes itself as "a way the people of a very large system—e.g. citizens of a community, members of an organization, citizens of a nation—can address and solve difficult issues together — achieving thoughtful, near-unanimous results.<br />
<br />
The process builds the spirit of community, solves difficult problems, and builds the capacity for collective wisdom".<br />
<br />
It was initiated by a non-governmental organisation/charity and encourages people to participate through public assembly. The Wisdom Council is local, regional and national in orientation and concerned with democracy, politics & representation and participation.<br />
<br />
It was launched in 2002 and is ongoing."<br />
(http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/participation-now/the-wisdom-council)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Examples=<br />
<br />
Caspar Davis:<br />
<br />
In Canada:<br />
<br />
"Wisdom Councils are that kind of leap into the unknown, an attempt to create a “politics of process that “puts context in front of ideology.<br />
<br />
Three Wisdom Councils have been held in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. They resulted from the convergence of at least two already commingled streams of people: those who had come together as a result of a visit to Victoria by Robert Theobald in 1996(?), and the local branch of the World Federalist Movement – Canada, which has a deep interest in improving democratic processes.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Origins of Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
Robert Theobald was a great evangelist for the power and wisdom of ordinary people, believing that they were far ahead of their so-called leaders. He came to Victoria at the invitation of the World Federalists, and his visit led to the formation of a the Group with No Name, which started with about 50 people who met every other Saturday to share their thoughts and ideas. Spin off groups produced a forum on work as well as No Name University, a group of curious people including a couple of retired professors who explored topics ranging from physics to the power of myth. The Group itself dwindled over the next 5 years until it came down to about 10 people and finally it petered out.<br />
<br />
One of Theobald’s associates was Tom Atlee, founder of the Co-Intelligence Institute and author of the Tao of Democracy. Tom put some of the Group in touch with Jim Rough, the developer of Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation. Jim, who lives in Port Townsend, Washington, came up with the idea for Wisdom Councils through his work as a facilitator. He developed a technique called Dynamic Facilitation which helps groups quickly solve “impossible” problems by generating fresh ideas rather than just choosing between conventional options. Jim wrote a book, Society’s Breakthrough, describing how a constitutionally mandated Wisdom Councils could transform American democracy for the better. Several people from Victoria – including Caspar Davis, a World Federalist and George Sranko, another veteran of the Group with No Name – established a connection with Jim by taking his Dynamic Facilitation seminar.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nuts and Bolts of the Victoria Experience'''<br />
<br />
Early in 2006, Sranko and Davis talked about the possibility of holding a Wisdom Council in Victoria. By a happy coincidence, the local branch of the World Federalists had received a bequest, and had decided to use some of it to explore democratic innovation. They decided to bring Jim Rough and Tom Atlee to Victoria to talk about Wisdom Councils, which they did. The event was held on a Friday evening in November 2006, and the next day about 40 people met with them to pursue their ideas, and Wise Democracy Victoria was born, with the intention of holding a series of three Wisdom Councils in the City.<br />
<br />
About 30 people agreed to work on the project. They called themselves Wisdom Council Conveners, and they and the World Federalists agreed that a series of at least three Wisdom Councils was needed to fairly test the idea. The World Federalists agreed to fund the first two Councils, to cover the cost of mailings to potential Councilors, renting facilities for the Councils, etc. The Conveners kept in touch with themselves and with others who had attended the talk by email.<br />
<br />
The Conveners met every Saturday for several months in a series of somewhat anarchic self-organized meetings that spent a lot of time deciding how to make decisions and sometimes overturning earlier decisions about subjects like what geographic area to draw the Wisdom Council from, how to do random selection when no really comprehensive list of residents was available , or perhaps even existent. They could not get the voters list, and in any case neither it nor the phone book was truly comprehensive, but in the end they settled on the phone book and devised a method of selecting random pages, random columns on the page, and a random number of lines from the top. The meetings were sometimes chaotic, but each week someone volunteered to facilitate and certain principles were faithfully observed, including the right of everyone who came to have a voice and to be heard. The conversations were always constructive, and decisions were by consensus. It was often messy, and usually slow – especially when previous decisions were rejected a week later when some different people showed up, but it was understood that real democracy takes time and understanding.<br />
<br />
The Conveners considered that their own process was just as important as the process of the Wisdom Councils themselves, and a strong bond developed among the conveners. They carefully evaluated each Wisdom Council with an eye to improving the process and its impact on the community.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
The first Wisdom Council, held in March 2007, was a great success for both the conveners and for the participants, who were astonished at how quickly the process of Dynamic Facilitation got them talking openly about important matters on which they had strong feelings with a group of strangers. Most were exhilarated by the experience, and some felt that it was an important event in their lives.<br />
<br />
The first Council also got good media coverage. Two local papers (but not the major daily) and two radio stations ran stories on its planning, and the public meeting following it was attended by about a hundred people, including Victoria’s Member of Parliament and a city councilor. After the event, the Wisdom Council presented its unanimous statement at a meeting of City Council. The only disappointment was that it failed to generate much buzz in the larger community. Members of the Council were invited to join the conveners, and one or two did.<br />
<br />
The conveners did everything they could to make things easy, comfortable, and safe for the Councilors, who were each giving a Friday evening and all day Saturday to the project. For each Council, the conveners provided rides if needed, food, and daycare – although daycare was needed only for the third Council.<br />
<br />
The second Wisdom Council, three months later, was also a success for conveners and participants, but it got less media coverage and again failed to generate a buzz. It was held in June, and the conveners did not reassemble until September. That fall Jim Rough gave his Dynamic Facilitation seminar in Victoria and some of the conveners attended. Jim had facilitated the first Wisdom Council and his associate DeAnna Martin facilitated the second.<br />
<br />
While Jim and DeAnna were in Victoria for the seminar, DeAnna facilitated a meeting of the conveners, and they decided that one reason the first two councils had failed to generate the hoped-for broader conversation was that they got lost in the noise of the city. From the start, the conveners had spent a lot of time and energy on determining the geographical scope of the Wisdom Councils, and the main question being whether to draw on the whole city or on a smaller area, It was decided to try the third Council in a smaller area, and the conveners chose Fernwood, a compact residential area that already had a stronger than average sense of community, and where several conveners and former councilors lived.<br />
<br />
Following that decision, the conveners met with several community leaders and got articles in both community papers. They also held a meeting in the local pub, where attendees learned about the Wisdom Council process and discussed local issues and possible actions and solutions.<br />
<br />
The third Wisdom Council, sponsored by the local Unitarian Church, was held in a Quaker Meeting House on the edge of Fernwood in March 2008, almost exactly a year after the first Council. It was also a tremendous success for the conveners and the participants, but it also failed to generate as much buzz as had been hoped.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Repercussions of the Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
One of the conveners taught a communication class at a local University, and he devised an exercise that grew out of his experience as a convener. He divided the class, who came from many parts of the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, into three groups, and assigned each group to conduct a meeting. One group was given rudimentary training – about half an hour – in Bohmian dialogue. A second was given a similar amount of training in Dynamic Facilitation, and the third was given no instruction. The three groups each performed in front of their classmates on one day, and on a later day they spent a later day on a post-mortem on the exercise. They were all exhilarated by the experience, and they recognized that even rudimentary training in Dynamic Facilitation had yielded the best results. This was a spin-off of the Wisdom Council project that may yield important – if unmeasurable – results as these young people pursue their careers, mainly in the media.<br />
<br />
Another convener is involved in a Civic League, whose purpose is to determine a set of basic community values by going door-to-door and discussing them with as many municipal residents as possible, and then to measure the votes and actions of each municipal councilor against those values. This is a very different process, but there is a substantial degree of congruence between the values emerging out it and the statements of the three Wisdom Councils, which also had a lot of similarity with each other. (see the appendix below)<br />
<br />
There was some discouragement after the third Council, and the conveners and the World Federalists held post-mortems, both separately and together. They recognized that the Councils had had an important impact on the lives of both the conveners and the Councilors, but they also saw that it had taken a great amount of time and energy to randomly select potential councilors, to invite them, and to persuade enough invitees to participate. No one felt that the time or energy had been wasted, but most felt that their next efforts might take a different direction.<br />
<br />
There has been considerable talk about having a Wisdom Council in a local school, and that nay yet happen. There ahs also been considerable interest in convening similar Councils to address specific topics, rather than having an open agenda. Jim Rough calls this kind of council a Creative Insight Council.<br />
<br />
After the post-mortems, the conveners took a break, but 10 of them – and two ex-Councilors – met for a potluck dinner in June before scattering for the summer and discovered that they still had a great deal of cohesion and a strong desire to persevere in some fashion. It is hard to say what will happen next. But the project will not cease. Both the conveners and many councilors have been infused with “the joy of doing, and [the realization that] the doing is filled with meaning.”<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
=Examples of Recent Wisdom Councils in Europe=<br />
<br />
Please see the page "[[ http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council |Creative Insight Councils]]" for more information on the growth of Wisdom Councils and its related forms. <br />
<br />
http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Participation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Democracy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Wisdom_Council&diff=95737Wisdom Council2015-12-25T18:21:59Z<p>RosaZ: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= How "We the People" can provide leadership to government.''' <br />
<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/ ; [http://www.wisedemocracy.org/page11/page18/page18.html about]<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. Caspar Davis:'''<br />
<br />
"A Wisdom Council is a group of about 12 randomly selected people who meet for several hours with the assistance of a Dynamic Facilitator with the intention of deciding on what issues are most important to the group and concocting a unanimous statement about them. The statement is issued to the broader community at a public meeting, and the Wisdom Council disbands. Jim Rough’s original dream was that the Wisdom Council would be added to the U.S. Constitution as a new institution that would have no power other than meeting periodically, each time with a new randomly chosen group, and issuing statements that came from ordinary people who met as individuals with no pretence of speaking for anyone but themselves, who would create statements that came from ordinary people rather than from any power base or interest group. Jim Rough believed, and experience has confirmed, that ordinary people are far ahead of politicians, the media and other leaders in understanding the real problems of our communities and in conceiving solutions for them."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. [[Participation Now]]:'''<br />
<br />
"The Wisdom Council describes itself as "a way the people of a very large system—e.g. citizens of a community, members of an organization, citizens of a nation—can address and solve difficult issues together — achieving thoughtful, near-unanimous results.<br />
<br />
The process builds the spirit of community, solves difficult problems, and builds the capacity for collective wisdom".<br />
<br />
It was initiated by a non-governmental organisation/charity and encourages people to participate through public assembly. The Wisdom Council is local, regional and national in orientation and concerned with democracy, politics & representation and participation.<br />
<br />
It was launched in 2002 and is ongoing."<br />
(http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/participation-now/the-wisdom-council)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Examples=<br />
<br />
Caspar Davis:<br />
<br />
In Canada:<br />
<br />
"Wisdom Councils are that kind of leap into the unknown, an attempt to create a “politics of process that “puts context in front of ideology.<br />
<br />
Three Wisdom Councils have been held in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. They resulted from the convergence of at least two already commingled streams of people: those who had come together as a result of a visit to Victoria by Robert Theobald in 1996(?), and the local branch of the World Federalist Movement – Canada, which has a deep interest in improving democratic processes.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Origins of Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
Robert Theobald was a great evangelist for the power and wisdom of ordinary people, believing that they were far ahead of their so-called leaders. He came to Victoria at the invitation of the World Federalists, and his visit led to the formation of a the Group with No Name, which started with about 50 people who met every other Saturday to share their thoughts and ideas. Spin off groups produced a forum on work as well as No Name University, a group of curious people including a couple of retired professors who explored topics ranging from physics to the power of myth. The Group itself dwindled over the next 5 years until it came down to about 10 people and finally it petered out.<br />
<br />
One of Theobald’s associates was Tom Atlee, founder of the Co-Intelligence Institute and author of the Tao of Democracy. Tom put some of the Group in touch with Jim Rough, the developer of Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation. Jim, who lives in Port Townsend, Washington, came up with the idea for Wisdom Councils through his work as a facilitator. He developed a technique called Dynamic Facilitation which helps groups quickly solve “impossible” problems by generating fresh ideas rather than just choosing between conventional options. Jim wrote a book, Society’s Breakthrough, describing how a constitutionally mandated Wisdom Councils could transform American democracy for the better. Several people from Victoria – including Caspar Davis, a World Federalist and George Sranko, another veteran of the Group with No Name – established a connection with Jim by taking his Dynamic Facilitation seminar.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nuts and Bolts of the Victoria Experience'''<br />
<br />
Early in 2006, Sranko and Davis talked about the possibility of holding a Wisdom Council in Victoria. By a happy coincidence, the local branch of the World Federalists had received a bequest, and had decided to use some of it to explore democratic innovation. They decided to bring Jim Rough and Tom Atlee to Victoria to talk about Wisdom Councils, which they did. The event was held on a Friday evening in November 2006, and the next day about 40 people met with them to pursue their ideas, and Wise Democracy Victoria was born, with the intention of holding a series of three Wisdom Councils in the City.<br />
<br />
About 30 people agreed to work on the project. They called themselves Wisdom Council Conveners, and they and the World Federalists agreed that a series of at least three Wisdom Councils was needed to fairly test the idea. The World Federalists agreed to fund the first two Councils, to cover the cost of mailings to potential Councilors, renting facilities for the Councils, etc. The Conveners kept in touch with themselves and with others who had attended the talk by email.<br />
<br />
The Conveners met every Saturday for several months in a series of somewhat anarchic self-organized meetings that spent a lot of time deciding how to make decisions and sometimes overturning earlier decisions about subjects like what geographic area to draw the Wisdom Council from, how to do random selection when no really comprehensive list of residents was available , or perhaps even existent. They could not get the voters list, and in any case neither it nor the phone book was truly comprehensive, but in the end they settled on the phone book and devised a method of selecting random pages, random columns on the page, and a random number of lines from the top. The meetings were sometimes chaotic, but each week someone volunteered to facilitate and certain principles were faithfully observed, including the right of everyone who came to have a voice and to be heard. The conversations were always constructive, and decisions were by consensus. It was often messy, and usually slow – especially when previous decisions were rejected a week later when some different people showed up, but it was understood that real democracy takes time and understanding.<br />
<br />
The Conveners considered that their own process was just as important as the process of the Wisdom Councils themselves, and a strong bond developed among the conveners. They carefully evaluated each Wisdom Council with an eye to improving the process and its impact on the community.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
The first Wisdom Council, held in March 2007, was a great success for both the conveners and for the participants, who were astonished at how quickly the process of Dynamic Facilitation got them talking openly about important matters on which they had strong feelings with a group of strangers. Most were exhilarated by the experience, and some felt that it was an important event in their lives.<br />
<br />
The first Council also got good media coverage. Two local papers (but not the major daily) and two radio stations ran stories on its planning, and the public meeting following it was attended by about a hundred people, including Victoria’s Member of Parliament and a city councilor. After the event, the Wisdom Council presented its unanimous statement at a meeting of City Council. The only disappointment was that it failed to generate much buzz in the larger community. Members of the Council were invited to join the conveners, and one or two did.<br />
<br />
The conveners did everything they could to make things easy, comfortable, and safe for the Councilors, who were each giving a Friday evening and all day Saturday to the project. For each Council, the conveners provided rides if needed, food, and daycare – although daycare was needed only for the third Council.<br />
<br />
The second Wisdom Council, three months later, was also a success for conveners and participants, but it got less media coverage and again failed to generate a buzz. It was held in June, and the conveners did not reassemble until September. That fall Jim Rough gave his Dynamic Facilitation seminar in Victoria and some of the conveners attended. Jim had facilitated the first Wisdom Council and his associate DeAnna Martin facilitated the second.<br />
<br />
While Jim and DeAnna were in Victoria for the seminar, DeAnna facilitated a meeting of the conveners, and they decided that one reason the first two councils had failed to generate the hoped-for broader conversation was that they got lost in the noise of the city. From the start, the conveners had spent a lot of time and energy on determining the geographical scope of the Wisdom Councils, and the main question being whether to draw on the whole city or on a smaller area, It was decided to try the third Council in a smaller area, and the conveners chose Fernwood, a compact residential area that already had a stronger than average sense of community, and where several conveners and former councilors lived.<br />
<br />
Following that decision, the conveners met with several community leaders and got articles in both community papers. They also held a meeting in the local pub, where attendees learned about the Wisdom Council process and discussed local issues and possible actions and solutions.<br />
<br />
The third Wisdom Council, sponsored by the local Unitarian Church, was held in a Quaker Meeting House on the edge of Fernwood in March 2008, almost exactly a year after the first Council. It was also a tremendous success for the conveners and the participants, but it also failed to generate as much buzz as had been hoped.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Repercussions of the Victoria Wisdom Councils'''<br />
<br />
One of the conveners taught a communication class at a local University, and he devised an exercise that grew out of his experience as a convener. He divided the class, who came from many parts of the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, into three groups, and assigned each group to conduct a meeting. One group was given rudimentary training – about half an hour – in Bohmian dialogue. A second was given a similar amount of training in Dynamic Facilitation, and the third was given no instruction. The three groups each performed in front of their classmates on one day, and on a later day they spent a later day on a post-mortem on the exercise. They were all exhilarated by the experience, and they recognized that even rudimentary training in Dynamic Facilitation had yielded the best results. This was a spin-off of the Wisdom Council project that may yield important – if unmeasurable – results as these young people pursue their careers, mainly in the media.<br />
<br />
Another convener is involved in a Civic League, whose purpose is to determine a set of basic community values by going door-to-door and discussing them with as many municipal residents as possible, and then to measure the votes and actions of each municipal councilor against those values. This is a very different process, but there is a substantial degree of congruence between the values emerging out it and the statements of the three Wisdom Councils, which also had a lot of similarity with each other. (see the appendix below)<br />
<br />
There was some discouragement after the third Council, and the conveners and the World Federalists held post-mortems, both separately and together. They recognized that the Councils had had an important impact on the lives of both the conveners and the Councilors, but they also saw that it had taken a great amount of time and energy to randomly select potential councilors, to invite them, and to persuade enough invitees to participate. No one felt that the time or energy had been wasted, but most felt that their next efforts might take a different direction.<br />
<br />
There has been considerable talk about having a Wisdom Council in a local school, and that nay yet happen. There ahs also been considerable interest in convening similar Councils to address specific topics, rather than having an open agenda. Jim Rough calls this kind of council a Creative Insight Council.<br />
<br />
After the post-mortems, the conveners took a break, but 10 of them – and two ex-Councilors – met for a potluck dinner in June before scattering for the summer and discovered that they still had a great deal of cohesion and a strong desire to persevere in some fashion. It is hard to say what will happen next. But the project will not cease. Both the conveners and many councilors have been infused with “the joy of doing, and [the realization that] the doing is filled with meaning.”<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=60)<br />
<br />
=Examples of Wisdom Councils in Europe=<br />
<br />
Please see the page "[[ http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council |Creative Insight Councils]]" for more information on the growth of Wisdom Councils and its related forms. <br />
<br />
http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Insight_Council <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Participation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Democracy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Creative_Insight_Council&diff=95736Creative Insight Council2015-12-25T17:54:25Z<p>RosaZ: /* The relevance of this example to P2P work */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
The Creative Insight Council is a term for an evolution of the Wisdom Council format, initially created by Jim Rough. A Wisdom Council is group chosen at random, as a microcosm of the larger whole; the Wisdom Council is free to choose its own topics of what it thinks is most significant for the well-being of the larger whole. It is facilitated using Dynamic Facilitation, a specific non-linear, empathy-based process that allows maximum divergence and creativity among participants, paradoxically resulting in strong areas of convergence and common ground. The outcomes of the Wisdom Council are then presented to the larger whole, in a way that encourages further conversation and exploration; the process is meant to be iterative, and its outcomes to embody a sort of "State of the Union" address, yet one that is generated by the people themselves, not by a governmental authority. The power of the Wisdom Council is seen as one of shifting the terms of the conversation -- one of influencing and advising, not of creating legal mandates.<br />
<br />
In Vorarlberg, Austria, where there have been a large number of experiments with Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation, practitioners saw a need to apply this approach for situations in which there ''was'' a predetermined topic that needed to be addressed by a microcosm of the population at large, in order to arrive at collective wisdom with regard to that topic. That's what catalyzed the creation a new term, to distinguish a Creative Insight Council from its predecessor. While the main distinction between a Wisdom Council and a Creative Insight Council is that the Creative Insight Council is convened to address a pre-selected topic, this pre-selected topic is only loosely defined, and also, there are no predetermined categories of response to constrain the Council's exploration. <br />
<br />
In Austria, where both of these processes are currently being most used, they tend to not distinguish a "Wisdom Council" from a "Creative Insight Council"; the call both of them, "BurgerRäte" "BurgerInnerRäte". Sometimes they refer to them indistinctively with the English term "Wisdom Councils", although they are now beginning to use "Civic Councils", a new term meant to include both.<br />
<br />
=Recent Example=<br />
<br />
One of the most recent and notable examples of a Creative Insight Council was to address the topic of refugees. <br />
Here is the link to a five minute video of the process, https://vimeo.com/135618811<br />
Also, here is a link to the English-language version of the report which contains 22 pages of documentation:<br />
https://dk-media.s3.amazonaws.com/AA/AL/diapraxis/downloads/297775/Doku_BR_Asyl1-Engl-EndVers.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
=The relevance of Creative Insight Councils to P2P work=<br />
<br />
The work being carried out in Austria is leading-edge effort by the people in a small governmental office (The Office of Future-Related Issues, of the State of Vorarlberg) to draw on the wisdom of the commons to inform public policy. Thus far, they have conducted 30+ successful experiments along these lines. Much of their work has not yet been translated into English. I (RosaZ) have compiled the translations that we do have, on this page:<br />
<br />
http://diapraxis.com/home/translations-of-germanlanguage-resources-on-df-and-cccs<br />
<br />
Both Creative Insight Councils and Wisdom Councils utilize the same facilitation methodology. These formats are distinctive (and unlike conventional forms of public participation) in that they use a meta-rational process (one that does not exclude rationality, but is also open to emotional expression and creative expression). <br />
<br />
This non-linear process helps groups reach a "common ground" unanimous statement, by means of fully welcoming divergences; along the way, it builds a spirit of community and often generates breakthrough solutions. Membership in the Council is selected by sortition (at random, like a poll), sometimes using stratified sampling in order to ensure a result that is demographically representative. This means that the outcomes that the Council arrives at, can be seen as carrying a legitimate voice of "the people".<br />
<br />
=Diffusion=<br />
This process has not yet begun to spread in the U.S.<br />
Jim Rough, the U.S. inventor who inspired the work in Austria,<br />
has a website here:<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/<br />
<br />
Earlier, he wrote on this page, about the need for Creative Insight Councils: <br />
<br />
Recently, I witnessed a group of frustrated property owners threatening my County Commissioners with costly lawsuits. The Commissioners are trying to implement a new policy that restricts building within 150 feet of shore. It’s an attempt to protect the environment and assure that we as a society don’t unwittingly destroy our natural resources. But when government tries to impose restrictions on citizens like this, the ordinary form of public involvement often spark a pushback against both the regulations and the politicians. Releasing the anger of these citizens can hold up action on the issue for years, wasting valuable public funds, undermining the protection to the environment, and even unseating the officials.<br />
<br />
This is not the best way for communities to be talking about these kinds of issues, in yes/no terms about regulations that are clearly suboptimal. Better would be if all citizens could come together, hold a creative conversation that included each person’s unique viewpoint and determine a shared perspective. The CIC seeks to facilitate this kind of talking in the community, by framing issues in a way that inspires people to think creatively."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=88)<br />
<br />
=Earlier examples=<br />
<br />
Jim's same blog article discusses the experiment in Bregenz, Austria, at<br />
http://blog.tobe.net/?p=88<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Policy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Creative_Insight_Council&diff=95735Creative Insight Council2015-12-25T17:51:18Z<p>RosaZ: /* The relevance of this example to P2P work */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
The Creative Insight Council is a term for an evolution of the Wisdom Council format, initially created by Jim Rough. A Wisdom Council is group chosen at random, as a microcosm of the larger whole; the Wisdom Council is free to choose its own topics of what it thinks is most significant for the well-being of the larger whole. It is facilitated using Dynamic Facilitation, a specific non-linear, empathy-based process that allows maximum divergence and creativity among participants, paradoxically resulting in strong areas of convergence and common ground. The outcomes of the Wisdom Council are then presented to the larger whole, in a way that encourages further conversation and exploration; the process is meant to be iterative, and its outcomes to embody a sort of "State of the Union" address, yet one that is generated by the people themselves, not by a governmental authority. The power of the Wisdom Council is seen as one of shifting the terms of the conversation -- one of influencing and advising, not of creating legal mandates.<br />
<br />
In Vorarlberg, Austria, where there have been a large number of experiments with Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation, practitioners saw a need to apply this approach for situations in which there ''was'' a predetermined topic that needed to be addressed by a microcosm of the population at large, in order to arrive at collective wisdom with regard to that topic. That's what catalyzed the creation a new term, to distinguish a Creative Insight Council from its predecessor. While the main distinction between a Wisdom Council and a Creative Insight Council is that the Creative Insight Council is convened to address a pre-selected topic, this pre-selected topic is only loosely defined, and also, there are no predetermined categories of response to constrain the Council's exploration. <br />
<br />
In Austria, where both of these processes are currently being most used, they tend to not distinguish a "Wisdom Council" from a "Creative Insight Council"; the call both of them, "BurgerRäte" "BurgerInnerRäte". Sometimes they refer to them indistinctively with the English term "Wisdom Councils", although they are now beginning to use "Civic Councils", a new term meant to include both.<br />
<br />
=Recent Example=<br />
<br />
One of the most recent and notable examples of a Creative Insight Council was to address the topic of refugees. <br />
Here is the link to a five minute video of the process, https://vimeo.com/135618811<br />
Also, here is a link to the English-language version of the report which contains 22 pages of documentation:<br />
https://dk-media.s3.amazonaws.com/AA/AL/diapraxis/downloads/297775/Doku_BR_Asyl1-Engl-EndVers.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
=The relevance of this example to P2P work=<br />
<br />
This is a leading-edge effort by the people in a small governmental office (The Office of Future-Related Issues, of the State of Vorarlberg) to draw on the wisdom of the commons to inform public policy. Thus far, they have conducted 30+ successful experiments along these lines. Much of their work has not yet been translated into English. I (RosaZ) have compiled the translations that we do have, on this page:<br />
<br />
http://diapraxis.com/home/translations-of-germanlanguage-resources-on-df-and-cccs<br />
<br />
Both Creative Insight Councils and Wisdom Councils utilize the same facilitation methodology. Both of these formats are distinctive (unlike conventional forms of public participation) in that they use a meta-rational process (one that does not exclude rationality, but is also open to emotional expression and creative expression). <br />
<br />
This non-linear process helps groups reach a "common ground" unanimous statement, by means of fully welcoming divergences; along the way, it builds a spirit of community and often generates breakthrough solutions better than what anyone had thought before. Also in both cases, the Council is selected randomly, sometimes using stratified sampling in order to ensure a result that is demographically representative. This means that the outcomes that the Council arrives at, can be seen as carrying a legitimate voice of "the people".<br />
<br />
=Diffusion=<br />
This process has not yet begun to spread in the U.S.<br />
Jim Rough, the U.S. inventor who inspired the work in Austria,<br />
has a website here:<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/<br />
<br />
Earlier, he wrote on this page, about the need for Creative Insight Councils: <br />
<br />
Recently, I witnessed a group of frustrated property owners threatening my County Commissioners with costly lawsuits. The Commissioners are trying to implement a new policy that restricts building within 150 feet of shore. It’s an attempt to protect the environment and assure that we as a society don’t unwittingly destroy our natural resources. But when government tries to impose restrictions on citizens like this, the ordinary form of public involvement often spark a pushback against both the regulations and the politicians. Releasing the anger of these citizens can hold up action on the issue for years, wasting valuable public funds, undermining the protection to the environment, and even unseating the officials.<br />
<br />
This is not the best way for communities to be talking about these kinds of issues, in yes/no terms about regulations that are clearly suboptimal. Better would be if all citizens could come together, hold a creative conversation that included each person’s unique viewpoint and determine a shared perspective. The CIC seeks to facilitate this kind of talking in the community, by framing issues in a way that inspires people to think creatively."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=88)<br />
<br />
=Earlier examples=<br />
<br />
Jim's same blog article discusses the experiment in Bregenz, Austria, at<br />
http://blog.tobe.net/?p=88<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Policy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Creative_Insight_Council&diff=95734Creative Insight Council2015-12-25T17:50:11Z<p>RosaZ: /* Description */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
The Creative Insight Council is a term for an evolution of the Wisdom Council format, initially created by Jim Rough. A Wisdom Council is group chosen at random, as a microcosm of the larger whole; the Wisdom Council is free to choose its own topics of what it thinks is most significant for the well-being of the larger whole. It is facilitated using Dynamic Facilitation, a specific non-linear, empathy-based process that allows maximum divergence and creativity among participants, paradoxically resulting in strong areas of convergence and common ground. The outcomes of the Wisdom Council are then presented to the larger whole, in a way that encourages further conversation and exploration; the process is meant to be iterative, and its outcomes to embody a sort of "State of the Union" address, yet one that is generated by the people themselves, not by a governmental authority. The power of the Wisdom Council is seen as one of shifting the terms of the conversation -- one of influencing and advising, not of creating legal mandates.<br />
<br />
In Vorarlberg, Austria, where there have been a large number of experiments with Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation, practitioners saw a need to apply this approach for situations in which there ''was'' a predetermined topic that needed to be addressed by a microcosm of the population at large, in order to arrive at collective wisdom with regard to that topic. That's what catalyzed the creation a new term, to distinguish a Creative Insight Council from its predecessor. While the main distinction between a Wisdom Council and a Creative Insight Council is that the Creative Insight Council is convened to address a pre-selected topic, this pre-selected topic is only loosely defined, and also, there are no predetermined categories of response to constrain the Council's exploration. <br />
<br />
In Austria, where both of these processes are currently being most used, they tend to not distinguish a "Wisdom Council" from a "Creative Insight Council"; the call both of them, "BurgerRäte" "BurgerInnerRäte". Sometimes they refer to them indistinctively with the English term "Wisdom Councils", although they are now beginning to use "Civic Councils", a new term meant to include both.<br />
<br />
=Recent Example=<br />
<br />
One of the most recent and notable examples of a Creative Insight Council was to address the topic of refugees. <br />
Here is the link to a five minute video of the process, https://vimeo.com/135618811<br />
Also, here is a link to the English-language version of the report which contains 22 pages of documentation:<br />
https://dk-media.s3.amazonaws.com/AA/AL/diapraxis/downloads/297775/Doku_BR_Asyl1-Engl-EndVers.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
=The relevance of this example to P2P work=<br />
<br />
This is a leading-edge effort by the people in a small governmental office (The Office of Future-Related Issues, of the State of Vorarlberg) to draw on the wisdom of the commons to inform public policy. Thus far, they have conducted 30+ successful experiments along these lines. Much of their work has not yet been translated into English. I (RosaZ) have compiled the translations that we do have, on this page:<br />
<br />
http://diapraxis.com/home/translations-of-germanlanguage-resources-on-df-and-cccs<br />
<br />
=Diffusion=<br />
This process has not yet begun to spread in the U.S.<br />
Jim Rough, the U.S. inventor who inspired the work in Austria,<br />
has a website here:<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/<br />
<br />
Earlier, he wrote on this page, about the need for Creative Insight Councils: <br />
<br />
Recently, I witnessed a group of frustrated property owners threatening my County Commissioners with costly lawsuits. The Commissioners are trying to implement a new policy that restricts building within 150 feet of shore. It’s an attempt to protect the environment and assure that we as a society don’t unwittingly destroy our natural resources. But when government tries to impose restrictions on citizens like this, the ordinary form of public involvement often spark a pushback against both the regulations and the politicians. Releasing the anger of these citizens can hold up action on the issue for years, wasting valuable public funds, undermining the protection to the environment, and even unseating the officials.<br />
<br />
This is not the best way for communities to be talking about these kinds of issues, in yes/no terms about regulations that are clearly suboptimal. Better would be if all citizens could come together, hold a creative conversation that included each person’s unique viewpoint and determine a shared perspective. The CIC seeks to facilitate this kind of talking in the community, by framing issues in a way that inspires people to think creatively."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=88)<br />
<br />
=Earlier examples=<br />
<br />
Jim's same blog article discusses the experiment in Bregenz, Austria, at<br />
http://blog.tobe.net/?p=88<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Policy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Creative_Insight_Council&diff=95733Creative Insight Council2015-12-25T17:47:49Z<p>RosaZ: /* Description */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
The Creative Insight Council is a term for an evolution of the Wisdom Council format, initially created by Jim Rough. A Wisdom Council is group chosen at random, as a microcosm of the larger whole; the Wisdom Council is free to choose its own topics of what it thinks is most significant for the well-being of the larger whole. It is facilitated using Dynamic Facilitation, a specific non-linear, empathy-based process that allows maximum divergence and creativity among participants, paradoxically resulting in strong areas of convergence and common ground. The outcomes of the Wisdom Council are then presented to the larger whole, in a way that encourages further conversation and exploration; the process is meant to be iterative, and its outcomes to embody a sort of "State of the Union" address, yet one that is generated by the people themselves, not by a governmental authority. The power of the Wisdom Council is seen as one of shifting the terms of the conversation -- one of influencing and advising, not of creating legal mandates.<br />
<br />
In Vorarlberg, Austria, where there have been a large number of experiments with Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation, practitioners saw a need to apply this approach for situations in which there ''was'' a predetermined topic that needed to be addressed by a microcosm of the population at large, in order to arrive at collective wisdom with regard to that topic. That's what catalyzed the creation a new term, to distinguish a Creative Insight Council from its predecessor. While the main distinction between a Wisdom Council and a Creative Insight Council is that the Creative Insight Council is convened to address a pre-selected topic, this pre-selected topic is only loosely defined, and also, there are no predetermined categories of response to constrain the Council's exploration. <br />
<br />
In Austria, where both of these processes are currently being most used, they tend to not distinguish a "Wisdom Council" from a "Creative Insight Council"; the call both of them, "BurgerRäte" "BurgerInnerRäte", or use the English term "Wisdom Councils".<br />
<br />
<br />
Part of the reason that they have not been distinguishing between these two forms, is that both of them utilize the same facilitation methodology. Both of these formats are distinctive (unlike conventional forms of public participation) in that they use a meta-rational process (one that does not exclude rationality, but is also open to emotional expression and creative expression). <br />
This non-linear process helps groups reach a "common ground" unanimous statement, by means of fully welcoming divergences; along the way, it builds a spirit of community and often generates breakthrough solutions better than what anyone had thought before. Also in both cases, the Council is selected randomly, sometimes using stratified sampling in order to ensure a result that is demographically representative. This means that the outcomes that the Council arrives at, can be seen as carrying a legitimate voice of "the people".<br />
<br />
=Recent Example=<br />
<br />
One of the most recent and notable examples of a Creative Insight Council was to address the topic of refugees. <br />
Here is the link to a five minute video of the process, https://vimeo.com/135618811<br />
Also, here is a link to the English-language version of the report which contains 22 pages of documentation:<br />
https://dk-media.s3.amazonaws.com/AA/AL/diapraxis/downloads/297775/Doku_BR_Asyl1-Engl-EndVers.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
=The relevance of this example to P2P work=<br />
<br />
This is a leading-edge effort by the people in a small governmental office (The Office of Future-Related Issues, of the State of Vorarlberg) to draw on the wisdom of the commons to inform public policy. Thus far, they have conducted 30+ successful experiments along these lines. Much of their work has not yet been translated into English. I (RosaZ) have compiled the translations that we do have, on this page:<br />
<br />
http://diapraxis.com/home/translations-of-germanlanguage-resources-on-df-and-cccs<br />
<br />
=Diffusion=<br />
This process has not yet begun to spread in the U.S.<br />
Jim Rough, the U.S. inventor who inspired the work in Austria,<br />
has a website here:<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/<br />
<br />
Earlier, he wrote on this page, about the need for Creative Insight Councils: <br />
<br />
Recently, I witnessed a group of frustrated property owners threatening my County Commissioners with costly lawsuits. The Commissioners are trying to implement a new policy that restricts building within 150 feet of shore. It’s an attempt to protect the environment and assure that we as a society don’t unwittingly destroy our natural resources. But when government tries to impose restrictions on citizens like this, the ordinary form of public involvement often spark a pushback against both the regulations and the politicians. Releasing the anger of these citizens can hold up action on the issue for years, wasting valuable public funds, undermining the protection to the environment, and even unseating the officials.<br />
<br />
This is not the best way for communities to be talking about these kinds of issues, in yes/no terms about regulations that are clearly suboptimal. Better would be if all citizens could come together, hold a creative conversation that included each person’s unique viewpoint and determine a shared perspective. The CIC seeks to facilitate this kind of talking in the community, by framing issues in a way that inspires people to think creatively."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=88)<br />
<br />
=Earlier examples=<br />
<br />
Jim's same blog article discusses the experiment in Bregenz, Austria, at<br />
http://blog.tobe.net/?p=88<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Policy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Creative_Insight_Council&diff=95732Creative Insight Council2015-12-25T17:39:55Z<p>RosaZ: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
The Creative Insight Council is a term for an evolution of the Wisdom Council model, initially created by Jim Rough. The Wisdom Council is group chosen at random, a microcosm of the larger whole, that is free to choose its own topics of what it thinks is most significant for the well-being of the larger whole. It is facilitated using Dynamic Facilitation, a specific non-linear, empathy-based process that allows maximum divergence and creativity among participants, paradoxically resulting in strong areas of convergence and common ground. <br />
<br />
<br />
In Vorarlberg, Austria, where there have been a large number of experiments with Wisdom Councils and Dynamic Facilitation, people saw a need to apply this approach for situations in which there was a predetermined topic that needed to be addressed by a microcosm of the population at large, in order to arrive at collective wisdom with regard to that topic. That's where the need for this "recent social invention" came about.<br />
<br />
<br />
The main distinction between a Wisdom Council and a Creative Insight Council is that the Creative Insight Council is convened to address a pre-selected topic. However, the topic is only loosely defined, and there are no predetermined categories of response to constrain the exploration. (Please note: in Austria, where this process is currently most being used, they do not clearly distinguish a "Wisdom Council" from a "Creative Insight Council"; the call both of them, "BurgerRäte" "BurgerInnerRäte", or use the English term "Wisdom Councils".<br />
<br />
<br />
Part of the reason that they have not been distinguishing between these two forms, is that both of them utilize the same facilitation methodology. Both of these formats are distinctive (unlike conventional forms of public participation) in that they use a meta-rational process (one that does not exclude rationality, but is also open to emotional expression and creative expression). <br />
This non-linear process helps groups reach a "common ground" unanimous statement, by means of fully welcoming divergences; along the way, it builds a spirit of community and often generates breakthrough solutions better than what anyone had thought before. Also in both cases, the Council is selected randomly, sometimes using stratified sampling in order to ensure a result that is demographically representative. This means that the outcomes that the Council arrives at, can be seen as carrying a legitimate voice of "the people".<br />
<br />
=Recent Example=<br />
<br />
One of the most recent and notable examples of a Creative Insight Council was to address the topic of refugees. <br />
Here is the link to a five minute video of the process, https://vimeo.com/135618811<br />
Also, here is a link to the English-language version of the report which contains 22 pages of documentation:<br />
https://dk-media.s3.amazonaws.com/AA/AL/diapraxis/downloads/297775/Doku_BR_Asyl1-Engl-EndVers.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
=The relevance of this example to P2P work=<br />
<br />
This is a leading-edge effort by the people in a small governmental office (The Office of Future-Related Issues, of the State of Vorarlberg) to draw on the wisdom of the commons to inform public policy. Thus far, they have conducted 30+ successful experiments along these lines. Much of their work has not yet been translated into English. I (RosaZ) have compiled the translations that we do have, on this page:<br />
<br />
http://diapraxis.com/home/translations-of-germanlanguage-resources-on-df-and-cccs<br />
<br />
=Diffusion=<br />
This process has not yet begun to spread in the U.S.<br />
Jim Rough, the U.S. inventor who inspired the work in Austria,<br />
has a website here:<br />
URL = http://www.wisedemocracy.org/<br />
<br />
Earlier, he wrote on this page, about the need for Creative Insight Councils: <br />
<br />
Recently, I witnessed a group of frustrated property owners threatening my County Commissioners with costly lawsuits. The Commissioners are trying to implement a new policy that restricts building within 150 feet of shore. It’s an attempt to protect the environment and assure that we as a society don’t unwittingly destroy our natural resources. But when government tries to impose restrictions on citizens like this, the ordinary form of public involvement often spark a pushback against both the regulations and the politicians. Releasing the anger of these citizens can hold up action on the issue for years, wasting valuable public funds, undermining the protection to the environment, and even unseating the officials.<br />
<br />
This is not the best way for communities to be talking about these kinds of issues, in yes/no terms about regulations that are clearly suboptimal. Better would be if all citizens could come together, hold a creative conversation that included each person’s unique viewpoint and determine a shared perspective. The CIC seeks to facilitate this kind of talking in the community, by framing issues in a way that inspires people to think creatively."<br />
(http://blog.tobe.net/?p=88)<br />
<br />
=Earlier examples=<br />
<br />
Jim's same blog article discusses the experiment in Bregenz, Austria, at<br />
http://blog.tobe.net/?p=88<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Policy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Revisioning_Facilitation&diff=95731Revisioning Facilitation2015-12-25T16:56:32Z<p>RosaZ: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Re-visioning Facilitation from an Evolutionary Perspective=<br />
<br />
By Rosa Zubizarreta, at rosa at diapraxis dot com<br />
<br />
"Sometimes one hears professional group facilitators bemoaning the fact that the word "facilitation" has grown to have such a widespread usage. As you may already know, the word "facilitation" comes from the Latin "facilitare", to make easier… and in popular usage, we find people using the word to describe a wide variety of things that they can "make easier for you", from closing a business deal to finding a romantic partner.<br />
<br />
From my own perspective, I have no problem with how anyone wants to use the word: however, it does highlight the importance of being clear and explicit about WHAT it is, that we are seeking to facilitate or "make easier". These days, even the more explicit term "group facilitation" has a big shadow side, since what people have often sought "to make easier" has been employees' acquiescence or "buy-in" to management's plans, often by means of creating a façade of "participation". It takes very few of these kinds of experiences for people to become very cynical about the subject of "group facilitation", and rightly so. <br />
<br />
Yet the fact remains, we are at heart relational creatures. Yes, relationships -- even ones that are "supposed" to help us -- CAN in fact be harmful and damaging: anywhere from simply intrusive and unwelcome to extremely exploitative and enslaving. However, we also know that relationships CAN be facilitative -- they can support and "make easier" our growth, healing, and creativity. In fact, it is only through some degree of healthy loving relationship that we are able to grow and develop into mature human beings in the first place, human beings who are able to maintain their own integrity while freely collaborating with others.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Facilitating Human Growth and Development==<br />
<br />
The kind of facilitation I am interested in, then, has to do with a relationship that "makes it easier" for life grow and unfold, in a free and optimal manner, according to its own "inner strivings". What kinds of "helping relationships" truly "make it easier" for life to flourish, whether we are at home, at school, at work, or at play? By exploring this question in a number of different arenas, we can discover some common threads that are applicable in different contexts, such as the life of a child, the life of an adult human being, the life of a work group, or the life of an organization. <br />
<br />
One of the first things that it can be helpful to note is that there is some confusion with regard to the term "self-organization". Some people will even tell you that the phrase "supporting self-organization" is a contradiction in terms, since according to them, "self-organization does not need any support!" However, anyone who has raised children, is likely to know first-hand that the only choices are NOT "authoritarian control" versus "permissive neglect". In fact, the process of respectfully supporting a child's self-development is a THIRD WAY, and one that requires a great deal of a different kind of work: the work of attending, the work of listening, the work of empathizing, the work of entering in dialogue, as well as that of setting limits.<br />
<br />
(Note: Two people who come to mind who have explored in depth the intricacy that can be involved in this kind of work, are Milton Meyeroff (On Caring) and Nel Noddings, philosopher at Stanford. See also the recent work on attachment theory, and the relational context that furthers the development of self-regulation in an infant. Note also that "self-regulation" is often used as a short-hand for the ability of an organism to self-regulate WHLE establishing relationships with others AND engaging in a growing exploration of the environment, so "self-regulation" or "self-organization" occurs WITHIN a relational and interactive context.)<br />
<br />
Just as an acorn needs water and sunlight in order to grow into an oak tree, we might say that human seedlings require loving attention from other human beings in order to grow into healthy, self-organizing humans, able to cooperate freely with others while effectively resisting any efforts at manipulation, control, and enslavement. Similarly, we find that there are certain kinds of support and attention that enable a nascent group to mature into a highly effective and well-functioning team -- a higher-level organism which thrives on the individual contributions and divergent perspectives of each of its members. But first, we shall look more at the power of human attention within peer-to-peer interactions.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Facilitating Personal Healing and Individual Creativity==<br />
<br />
Even when an organism has NOT had the optimal conditions for its growth and development, part of the nature of Life is its ever-present ability to heal and regenerate itself. In the realm of emotional and psychological healing, we are currently growing beyond the conventional medical model that seeks to diagnose conditions and treat symptoms. Instead, we are witnessing an evolutionary movement toward working with the self-healing energies of the organism by creating the conditions where those energies can emerge and become activated. There are more and more modalities where the "facilitative presence" of another human being can serve to catalyzes the person's own self-healing potential. This is what I am calling a "facilitative stance", if we understand "facilitation" as short-hand for "making it easier for the life-force in an organism to flow more freely / grow / heal in a self-directed, life-enhancing way". <br />
<br />
Historically, one major breakthrough in the arena of emotional and psychological healing was the creation of person-centered therapy by Carl Rogers in the 50's and 60's. Rogers' work was not limited to therapy; he also wrote a great deal about "facilitating learning" and student-centered (as distinct from teacher-centered) education. Eugene Gendlin, a student and colleague of Rogers, went on to develop Focusing, a way of listening inside to the unfolding edge of one's experience. The combination of Rogerian Listening and Focusing eventually led to the growth of the lay Focusing Partnership movement, a world-wide peer-to-peer network of people who have learned how to take turns "holding space" effectively for one another's self-healing and creative growth. <br />
<br />
The Co-counseling movement is another peer-to-peer lay network of people skilled in exchanging listening attention with one another for the purpose of personal growth and creative expression. Having developed quite independently of the Focusing movement, it has its own interesting history, along with significant differences and similarities to Focusing. Both of these movements (along with a third, the 12-step movement) are specific and particular instances of peer-to-peer movements in the arena of personal growth and healing, based on the "facilitative stance" of respectful relationship and supportive attention. (The Non-Violent Communication movement is yet another peer-to-peer lay network, with its own particular purpose and set of distinctive features.) The existence of these networks, along with the experiences of their members, attest to the value that can be derived from this kind of organization. <br />
<br />
One key lesson that can be learned from these peer-to-peer experiences, is that the process of facilitating the flow of life can be equally valuable whether one is (temporarily) in the position of receiving the attention and supportive presence of another person, OR, whether one is (temporarily) in the position of "holding space" and offering attention to another. The experience of supporting and witnessing another person's authentic process, is often a numinous one, that carries much joy and beauty. It is often experienced as healing, not only by the person who is receiving the attentive presence but also by the person who is "facilitating" the experience. This is not to say that both experiences are the same, only that they are both powerful in their own way.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peer Facilitation and Facilitative Mentoring==<br />
<br />
A second significant lesson that can be gained from the existence of these peer-to-peer movements has to do with the value of BOTH "peer-to-peer�? AND what I will be calling “coaching�? or mentoring relationships . On the one hand, it is clear that facilitating (or creating a supportive context for) another person's growth and creative expression is a powerful lay practice that each of us can learn to do, and can practice with one another in a peer-to-peer context. This kind of lay, peer-based practice has many benefits on a personal level, including accessibility, as well as the value of being able to offer and contribute, rather than just receiving help. At the same time, there is another kind of benefit to lay peer-based practice. Each of these peer-to-peer communities is engaged in an on-going, collaborative process of learning and development with regard to their models, theoretical understandings, and refinements of their practice. This process is greatly stimulated by the experience of repeatedly being on "both ends" of the process, the offering and receiving of human attention within a given format.<br />
<br />
AT THE SAME TIME, it is clear that the great value of these peer-to-peer communities does NOT replace nor do away with the need for a different kind of relationships, which, for want of a better word, I will call a facilitative "mentoring" or "coaching" relationship. I am using the word "mentoring" or "coaching" here to refer to something that is NOT presently a 'relationship between peers', but rather, is designed to support a future peer-to-peer relationship. Think, for example, of a facilitative parent, or a facilitative teacher, or a facilitative therapist. Their goal is for the child, or student, or client, to grow into maturity and peerness with the parent or teacher or therapist. Yet for some kinds of growth to happen, a certain continuity, depth of relationship, and dedication are necessary, that are not easily available if we limit ourselves solely to "peer-to-peer" kinds of interactions.<br />
<br />
In this regard, 12-step movements are clear that they seek to complement, rather than replace, individual therapy. Similarly, Focusing Partnership is a valuable experience in its own right, and might easily serve as an adjunct to therapy, but it is not envisioned as a "replacement" for therapy. I don't know what the current position of the Co-counseling communities is in this respect, but I do know there are therapists who offer co-counseling to their clients. This means that a co-counselor who wanted to experience the practice within the framework of a "mentoring" or "coaching" relationship would be able to do so. <br />
<br />
The relationship between "peer facilitation" and "facilitative mentoring" is not just complementary, however, but also synergistic. For example, members of peer-to-peer communities in the emotional healing/personal growth field are much more self-confident, knowledgeable and empowered when seeking any kind of "mentoring" or "coaching" assistance from a therapist. We become naturally resistant to any kind of prescriptive, manipulative, or controlling therapy, and more discerning about finding a therapist who has a truly facilitative stance. <br />
<br />
In turn, I believe that the existence of peer-to-peer models in field of emotional healing and personal growth has contributed (even if indirectly) to the creation of new therapeutic models that are deeply facilitative at their core. One example in this regard are the Internal Family Systems model created by Dick Schwartz, where the therapist works as a partner with the client, assisting the client in learning to listen deeply and offer supportive presence to the various aspects of their own inner experience. Another example is the "accelerated experiential-dynamic psychotherapy" model of Diana Fosha, where the therapist's intention is to create a space where the client can naturally connect with their own deeply felt experience, while the therapist primarily follows the client's lead, accompanying them closely and authentically throughout the process.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Human Attention and the Creation of Meaning==<br />
<br />
Many years ago, theologian Nelle Morton wrote of the great power of women’s circles for "listening one another into Being." While the power of listening has been begun to be explored within the realm of emotional healing, as a culture we still tend to be largely ignorant of the power of attentive listening to support the creation of meaning. The conventional view regards listening as a passive act, assuming that people already know what it is they want to say and listeners are just “receiving�? a packet of pre-existing meaning, instead of considering that a supportive listening context might actually help us to access and discover our own deeper truths.<br />
<br />
The third key learning we can derive from the experience of peer-to-peer networks designed for facilitating personal growth, has to do with the ability of human attention to support and enhance the thinking process. While both Focusing and Co-counseling originally grew as practices for helping people work through difficult feelings, neither practice is limited to the realm of feelings. Instead, both practices have discovered inherent connections and interactions between the world of emotion and the world of meaning. Furthermore, each of these communities has developed their own ways of offering human attention to facilitate the process of creative expression and meaning-making. <br />
<br />
In the Co-counseling world, there is a tradition of "think and listen" circles where the power of shared attention is used to create a supportive context for creative thinking. Within the Focusing community, Gene Gendlin, Mary Hendricks, and others have developed a process called Thinking at the Edge, where people work in listening partnerships to facilitate the creation of meaning. The partnerships offer each person the opportunity for accessing their own embodied and implicit knowledge, and finding creative expression for it, within the supportive context of another person's attentive presence.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Facilitating Practical Creativity in a Group Setting==<br />
<br />
Now we are ready to turn to the question of facilitating the “unfolding of life" within a work group. The first thing I would like to say in this regard, is that despite all of the advances I have described above the arena of facilitating personal growth and the individual creative thinking-and-meaning-making process (an arena in which peer-to-peer networks have made a substantial contribution,) as a culture we are still in the early stages of learning how to facilitate the "unfolding of life" in a group, especially when it comes to a work group. (We do have some well-known processes that help self-organization happen in larger groups, but I will say more about that later.) <br />
<br />
This may I'd like to use an analogy from another field to illustrate my point. For many years, people who taught "foreign languages" believed that the only way to do so, was to require students to memorize the rules of grammar, study vocabulary lists, and practice conjugating verbs. Of course, this is not how children learn to speak their native tongue, but for a long time few people paid much attention to that. Similarly, we have currently have many ways of working with groups that attempt to “teach" people how to solve problems effectively, or how to communicate effectively, or any number of other skills. We also have other approaches where the facilitator works hard to diagnose, and prescribe, and help people create rules, and help people “stay on task", and to “intervenes" in any number of ways when the rules are broken, and so on and so forth. Yet it may be clear by now, that this is not likely to be the same thing at all, as supporting a natural life process.<br />
<br />
When developing a facilitative approach to helping people learn, it helps to recognize the difference between how people actually learn, and how we think we need to teach (which is often very similar to how we ourselves were taught.) We need to do something similar when developing a more facilitative approach to working with groups. We need to recognize the difference between the actual creative learning process that takes place in a group, and the forced "step-by-step process" which is often imposed by our conventional "group facilitation" models (and which often appears to us as the inevitable "way things are supposed to be".)<br />
<br />
This is in fact one of the key insights of Dialogue Mapping, one of the few current approaches to working with task groups that is designed to support the naturally non-linear flow of the creative process. At the same time, supporting a non-linear process of <br />
growth does NOT equate to permissiveness or neglect, as we saw earlier in the discussion of how self-organization does in fact require supportive conditions. (In the case of acorns, the "conditions" include sun and water; in the case of individual human seedlings, the conditions include the supportive, attentive, and responsive presence of other humans.)<br />
<br />
One key problem with much conventional "group facilitation" (especially the kind that is designed for "task groups" or "working groups") is that it is designed to "facilitate agreement". In the process, people are not deeply heard, and instead the disagreement gets papered over or driven underground as the facilitator "manages" the process of "convergence". <br />
<br />
However, this is NOT how the life process works. The only kind of "agreement" that feels truly alive, is the creative synthesis that arises naturally through the process of self-organization at a higher level of complexity, a process which can only take place through the full participation and honoring of each conflicting "part". Too often, we feel we "do not have the time" to invest in that kind of shared understanding. As a result, we "manage convergence" or "negotiate agreement", and then end up paying the price in all the additional time and effort required to ensure "implementation" of whatever the group has apparently "agreed to".<br />
<br />
In our earlier discussion on "facilitating personal growth and healing", we saw that a great deal of growth and creativity can take place through the simple gift of human attention. This also holds true at the level of a group. Having the facilitator serve as a “designated listener", listening deeply to each individual in an interactive way designed to welcome divergence and to draw out each person's creative contribution, is a key aspect of Dynamic Facilitation, another non-linear approach to fostering self-organization in a task group. <br />
<br />
While there are, then, some effective approaches for facilitating practical creativity in work groups, the prevailing cultural assumption still tends to be that some degree of individuality needs to be sacrificed in order for a group to function (what Herb Shepard referred to as “primary mentality". On the whole, we are not very familiar with the kind of experience where the richness of individual diversity adds to our sense of the whole, and in turn, the whole supports and encourages the fullness of individual contributions. Without the experience of the potential synergy between group and individual, the concept of “secondary mentality" remains too often an abstraction or a fantasy, rather than a real and concrete possibility.<br />
<br />
Or, if we have had such an experience of the synergy possible between individual and group within a particular context, we might compartmentalize it, not conceiving the possibility that the same principles might apply in another area of our lives. Unless we have experienced it, we might not imagine that it is possible for a work team could function in manner analogous to a highly-skilled jazz ensemble. On the other hand, if we HAVE had that kind of experience in a group, it is likely to make us more interested in discovering how we might create the conditions that allow that kind of flow to happen.<br />
<br />
<br />
==The potential of lay, peer-to-peer group facilitation==<br />
<br />
Just as I did not describe earlier the particulars of Focusing or Co-counseling, I will not be describing in any detail the group facilitation approaches I have mentioned above (further information along those lines is easily available elsewhere.) Without offering that level of detail, I will not be able to substantiate the next point I am about to make. Still, I would like to point out, albeit sketchily, a particular parallel. There is certainly skill, complexity, and nuance involved in the practice of Dialogue Mapping and Dynamic Facilitation, just as there is in Focusing and Co-counseling. At the same time, there is also an inherent simplicity in the role of the facilitator in these group facilitation approaches, similar in many ways to the inherent simplicity of the role of the facilitative listener in these personal growth methods. To me, this means that these group facilitation approaches also have the potential to develop as valuable lay networks, in a manner similar to the methods for facilitating personal growth. <br />
<br />
There is another parallel that may be even more significant. I mentioned earlier that there is an inherent joy and wonder in the listening work of Focusing or Co-counseling, as we witness the natural movement of life that takes place as we "hold space" for another person. Of course, this process of "holding space" also includes offering presence to painful and distressing aspects of life. Still, we are not charged with "fixing", but only with offering presence, and when we do so, we are blessed by witnessing all of the "small miracles" and natural transformations that are part of the inherent movement of life. <br />
<br />
This is very analogous to what happens when we are "holding a non-directive listening space" for each person in a group. What we may be "holding" will at times include the difficult feelings of frustration or overwhelm that people can experience in a group, just as it will also include the joy and magic of shared discovery. Yet there are certain kinds of "man-made" frustration that we do NOT experience: we are NOT attempting to "herd cats", we are NOT struggling to get people to stick to a predetermined agenda, we are NOT burdened with the need to "label" or "diagnose" or "prescribe" or "fix" anyone. We are doing a very different kind of work that can have its own intricacy and complexity at times, yet that offers the deep satisfaction and grounding of aligning ourselves with a naturally-unfolding life process. <br />
<br />
For both of these reasons, I feel strongly that these new forms of facilitating the flow of co-intelligence in a group lend themselves particularly well to the growth of a lay network of peer-to-peer facilitators. We have found that lay people can learn to "hold space" for people in a group in much the same way that lay Co-counselors or Focusers can learn to effectively hold space for a single person. Of course, people who are already able to "hold space" for another person will find much that they can apply from that experience, to their work with groups. At the same time, there is still much "unlearning" that needs to take place in most of us. Just as we all have 'learned' what a classroom is supposed to look like, from all of our own painful experiences with traditional education, so too we have all 'learned' what an 'effective meeting' is supposed to look like, with equally limiting results. <br />
<br />
With regard to group facilitation, these nascent peer-to-peer networks are still in a very early stage of development. Still, based on what has taken place in the personal growth and healing field, I do NOT expect that the growth of these lay networks will lead to a reduced demand for people who have the training, temperament, and inclination to work in an in-depth "coaching" or "mentoring" relationship with a group or an organization. Instead, the two forms (lay peer-to-peer, and professional "coaching" or "mentoring") are likely to be synergistic, just as they have been in the personal growth arena.<br />
<br />
I see the development of these (or similar) lay peer-to-peer movements, whose purpose is to create wide-spread capacity for facilitating the emergence of self-organization and practical co-creativity at a group level, as a vital and necessary "next step" for our human evolution. In addition to a host of other benefits, they also have the potential to help raise the standards for the kind of facilitative coaching and mentoring that groups and organizations will seek out, whenever they choose to engage in a more intensive and in-depth growth process.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Conclusions and Next Steps==<br />
<br />
I hope to have made it abundantly clear by now that the kind of "group facilitation" I see as inherently suited for spreading through lay peer-to-peer networks is quite different from "conventional group facilitation." This is parallel to how Focusing and Co-counseling, two methods of facilitating personal growth around which significant lay peer-to-peer communities have already developed, are significantly different from conventional approaches to therapy.<br />
<br />
At the same time I've also emphasized that what we might consider "conventional therapy" is itself changing and growing, possibly due in part to the cultural influence of these peer-to-peer personal growth movements. One instance of this is the growing number of Focusing-Oriented Therapists who, in addition to using focusing in a peer-to-peer way with their colleagues, ALSO use focusing as part of their "coaching" or "mentoring" relationship with their clients. I have also mentioned that several of the newest and most effective approaches in therapy, while not directly related to focusing or co-counseling, are nonetheless extremely compatible with these peer-to-peer approaches.<br />
<br />
In a somewhat similar manner, while Dynamic Facilitation and Dialogue Mapping are significantly different from the forms of group facilitation that are conventionally used with task groups, they do have shared affinities with other leading-edge approaches for supporting self-organization in groups. Several of these approaches, such as Open Space Technology, World Café, and Future Search, are designed for working with larger groups. Others, such as the small-group applications of Transformative Mediation, come from another field altogether. While each of these ways of "facilitating the unfolding of life" in a group context can be seen as part of a larger "movement", they each offer their own valuable contribution toward our human evolution as a sustainable species on Earth. <br />
<br />
At the same time, I feel strongly that we need more than the growth of leading-edge approaches within the professional facilitation community. In addition, we need strong lay communities of practice, peer-to-peer networks of people who are able to effectively hold space for the natural unfolding of life within a group, who can “make it easier" for a larger pattern to emerge naturally from the fullness of diverse perspectives. It is my hope that we can build on the experience gained from the lay peer-to-peer communities designed to support personal growth and creative expression, in order to create these new lay networks that can support group growth, co-intelligence, and co-creativity.<br />
<br />
In closing, I want to express my gratitude to Michel Bauwens for his work on the evolutionary significance of the peer-to-peer movement that is taking place most notably within the realm of technology. I also want to thank him for the invitation to write this paper, as it has been a most welcome opportunity to organize and refocus my thinking along these lines. <br />
<br />
My deepest gratitude to my own mentors and coaches, especially Lyn Fine, Tom Atlee, Saul Eisen, Jim Rough, and Eugene Gendlin. Also to my husband and fellow explorer Bruce Nayowith, who is the originator of the phrase "Loving Intelligence in the Service of Life", and whose many insights are by now deeply interwoven with my own work. I also want to thank all of my teachers, learning partners, and peers in my two "home" communities of Focusing and Dynamic Facilitation, as well as friends, teachers, and peers from the Co-counseling, Non-Violent Communication, and Dialogue Mapping communities. I have learned a great deal from each and every one of you. <br />
<br />
And, there is still so much to learn, and so much to do! I look forward to continuing to meet and collaborate with fellow explorers, colleagues and co-creators who feel called to various aspects of this shared journey."<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Facilitation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Relational]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Governance]]</div>RosaZhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Category:Facilitation&diff=95730Category:Facilitation2015-12-25T16:55:09Z<p>RosaZ: /* Introductory Articles */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{RightTOC}}<br />
=Introduction=<br />
<br />
''This is where we explore the facilitation of learning and inquiry, and of organizational life, to enhance whole person development, participation and collaboration.''<br />
<br />
<br />
The motto of this section is:<br />
<br />
'''Getting Better at Working Together!''' ''We now have all the tools necessary to make communities work''.<br />
<br />
or, in slightly more complex terminology: '''From a recognition of [[Equipotentiality]], to a practice of [[Coliberation]]''', the advance of any of us to the ability to engage in peer to peer relationships is dependent on the ability of all.<br />
<br />
Peer to peer, as a distributed mode of organization and way of thinking, expresses itself not only in a technological infrastructure, but also in modes of organization, and in ways to stimulate social processes that are congruent with it. There is a emergence of a wide variety of dialogical techniques to ellicit collaboration and collective intelligence. While this section mostly focuses on the human-relational aspect of facilitation, it will also monitor technological enablers to this process.<br />
<br />
'''Inspired by the work of [[Dana Klisanin]], the P2P Foundation favors the development of [[Evolutionary Guidance Media]] which posits the pairing of compassionate-seeing/action with that of [[Cyberception]], or humankind’s rapidly advancing technological abilities, resulting in [[Transception]]''', [http://danaklisanin.com/research/evolutionary-guidance-media/]<br />
<br />
<br />
Not all relevant entries from the P2P Encyclopedia have been ported here yet: only material from A to C.<br />
<br />
The P2P facilitation and research method 'par excellence' is: [[Co-operative Inquiry]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Introductory Articles==<br />
<br />
* [[Why We Need Facilitation]]!<br />
<br />
* '''Alanna Krause: [[How to Grow Distributed Leadership]]?'''<br />
<br />
* Michael Maranda & Tim Rayner's call for [[Open Stewardship]]<br />
<br />
#David Loy: [[On the Relationship between Individual and Collective Awakening]]<br />
#For context and background, read '''[[John Heron's Introduction to Facilitation]]''' and his introduction to [http://p2pfoundation.net/John_Heron_on_facilitation_and_the_revolution_in_learning the revolution in learning]<br />
#Rosa Zubizarreta's '''[http://p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Revisioning_Facilitation Introduction]''' specifically tackles the peer to peer vs. leadership aspects of Facilitation; also her (from Heb Shepard) distinctions between [[Primary vs Secondary Individual-Group Mentality]] are crucial as well.<br />
#Jean-Francois Noubel: [[Creating Invisible Architectures for Collective Wisdom]][http://www.thetransitioner.org/Kosmos_Journal_Spring_2008_JF_Noubel.pdf]<br />
#Nova Spivack: [[Towards Healthy Virtual Selves for Collective Groups]]<br />
#Characteristics of [[Participatory Leadership]]: graphic overview by Chris Corrigan<br />
#[[Tom Haskins on the Full Spectrum of Connection Work]]: maintaining connections is hard work<br />
#Christopher Allen: The numbers that matter for governing communities: [[Personal Circle]]; [[Group Tresholds]] and [[Power Law]]s<br />
#Tom Atlee: [[Systems Thinking for Integrated Social Transformation]], lists the main approaches available<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
More articles:<br />
<br />
#[http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/12/05.html#a1717 Which tools to use for collaboration in business?] - recommended overview table.<br />
#The specific p2p formats for conferencing are [[Open Space Technology]] and its offshoots in the technology world: [[Unconferences]] and [[BarCamps]]; we are very interested in developments around [[Open Sphere]]<br />
#In [[Transcending the Individual Human Mind through Collaborative Design]], Ernesto Arias et al. explain why peer to peer learning design is essential in complex societies.<br />
#David Eaves warns that [http://eaves.ca/2007/02/05/wikis-and-open-source-collaborative-or-cooperative/ the cooperation of online communities] is not the same as [[Collaboration]] which requires the resolving of differences, and that [[For Benefit]] organizations are community management organizations and not software firms.<br />
#Collaboration in the workplace can be given helpful structure via the set of principles and patterns known as [http://www.human-interaction-management.info Human Interaction Management].<br />
#[http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/intro/classicsDetail.cfm?coid=647 Positive Image, Positive Action]: The Affirmative Basis of Organizing. David L Cooperrider: discusses the power of positive imagery, the placebo effect in medicine,the pygmalion effect in education and human development, the relationship between positive-negative discourse in health, the balance of internal dialogue to emotional health, the effects of positive images on culture and the implications for management creating a theory of the affirmative organization.<br />
<br />
<br />
Report:<br />
<br />
* '''Report: [[Rapid Decision Making for Complex Issues]]. HOW TECHNOLOGIES OF COOPERATION CAN HELP. Andrea Saveri and Howard Rheingold. INSTITUTE FOR THE FUTURE, 2005.'''<br />
<br />
==Areas of Personal and Social Change: Typology==<br />
<br />
<br />
Permaculturalist and self-fashioned alchemist/mythologist Willi Paul offers the following technology of change techniques:<br />
<br />
<br />
"I am now touting the following types of alchemy to support the global leap in consciousness now under way:<br />
<br />
'''Imaginative:''' This alchemy excites and creates our ideas, conflicts and even prayers in our brains.<br />
<br />
'''Eco:''' Seeds, soil, plants and animals living, birthing and dying in a inter-related system pulsed by eco alchemy.<br />
<br />
'''Shamanic:''' This is alchemy transmutates healing through ceremonies and rituals lead by a trained spiritual leader.<br />
<br />
'''Sound or Sonic:''' The ancient alchemic power of song from cave rants to classical music and rock’n’roll.<br />
<br />
'''Digital:''' Electronic learning and feeling working with computers including chat text, email and documents.<br />
<br />
'''Community:''' People working with people: transforming attitudes, sharing ideas and making plans.<br />
<br />
'''Earth:''' Planetary consciousness building and human evolution on a universal scale."<br />
<br />
(http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/an-interview-with-the-permaculturalist-willi-paul/)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Related Wiki Sections=<br />
<br />
* Material on "Participation", http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Participation<br />
* Creating Collective Intelligence, http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Intelligence<br />
* Examining the new relationality and cooperative individualism, http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Relational<br />
* The emerging sharing economy, http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Sharing<br />
* Cooperation and cooperatives, http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Cooperation ; http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Cooperatives<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
#[http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/onlinefacilitation/ Online Facilitation]: The onlinefacilitation listserv is for discussion about the skills, techniques and issues around online facilitation in a variety of Internet online environments and virtual communities. [http://www.fullcirc.com/wp/2009/08/14/10th-anniversary-of-the-onlinefacilitation-group/]<br />
<br />
=Citations=<br />
<br />
* "The big lesson of the twentieth century for commoners was to discover that collective decision-making is a “lesser evil,” a response to scarcity that must be limited to situations in which this is inevitable. It’s not necessary for everyone to vote on a uniform if each one can wear what they want. It’s not necessary to agree on a menu if several different things can be cooked that will completely satisfy everyone. That is, '''where one person’s decision does not drastically reduces others’ possible choices, the sphere of the decision should be personal, not collective'''. Collective choices, democratic methods and voting are ways of managing situations where, more or less explicitly, there is a conflict in the use of resources. They are a “last option” imposed by scarcity. The point is to avoid, as much as possible, the homogenization that they involve. That is why '''in a community committed to abundance, the wealth produced is measured by the extent of the personal decision-space'''. It’s no good to create more goods and income if that doesn’t have an impact on everyone’s option-space. It’s no good to defend individuality if resources are not created to make it possible without conflict. To gain ground against scarcity, build abundance and therefore continuously enlarge the material base of personal decision-space is the objective of economic activity of an egalitarian community that works."<br />
<br />
- David de Ugarte [http://english.lasindias.com/community-and-abundance]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Chris Corrigan on the fifth mode of organization:==<br />
<br />
"Within the Art of Hosting community of practice, we have been looking at a fifth organizational paradigm, which is something like a combination of hierarchy, circle, network and bureaucracy. '''Some of us have been looking at what these four paradigms have to offer, for examples, hierarchy offers order and clarity, circle offers an equal reflective space, network offers an immediate ability to connect with whatever is needed, and bureaucracy helps channel resources where they are needed''', "irrigating" initiatives or parts of an organization.<br />
<br />
Certainly, each of these has a dark side, but if the benefits are illuminated and then transcended, you get a fifth organizational paradigm in which all four can be somehow present and somehow something new is born."<br />
<br />
<br />
==Alex Steffen on why we need peer sharing tools==<br />
<br />
"as we move more rapidly towards a bright green future, we are going to find ourselves more and more in terra incognita, doing things and creating things and combining things that have never before been done, created or combined. In order to do this well, we have to help each other by sharing what we've learned."<br />
(http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007769.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Russ Volkmann on the relational stance for leadership==<br />
<br />
"Participants need to have “confidence that better outcomes emerge from joint work when the quality of interaction truly matters, rather than when tasks are the sole and primary focus.” This requires a “relational stance.” That is, members are open to the perspectives of others and the possibility that “any contribution by any group member can be a source of intelligence for the group…In sum, the view here is that contentious problems require leadership grounded in processes of joint and individual learning rather than influence (or authority) and that these learning processes must be conducted in a highly relational manner.”<br />
(http://www.integralleadershipreview.com/archives/2009-01/2009-01-review-dunoon-ross-volckmann.php)<br />
<br />
<br />
==On Staying Non-Hierarchical==<br />
<br />
"To egalitarian groups that want to stay so, we could thus propose the following ethics: to not reduce any force of internal differentiation, for fear that it becomes vertical, but instead to increase it in all directions, to enrich the range of identities available: this is probably the best way not to flatten the (many) relationships within the group and turn them into one two-term relationship - dominating, dominated. In this way, the construction of our collective histories can stand a chance of no longer being at the mercy of the passions that affect it, subjugate it, and often sadden it: it would play with these passions, which would become joyful - including, yes, the passion for distinguishing oneself." (http://self-org.blogspot.com/p/anti-hierarchical-artifices-for-groups.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Directory=<br />
<br />
==[[Digital Commoning Techniques]]==<br />
<br />
Via [[Co-Creative Recipes]]:<br />
<br />
* [[Counter-Mapping Party]]<br />
* [[Edit-A-Thon]]<br />
* [[Hackathon]]<br />
* [[LaboLex]]<br />
* [[Mapping Parties]]<br />
* [[PARK(ing) Day]]<br />
* [[Public Domain Remix]]<br />
* [[Urban Accessibility Mapping Party]]<br />
<br />
==[[Neotraditional Cooperative Forms]]==<br />
<br />
Via [[Co-Creative Recipes]]:<br />
<br />
#[[Ayni]]: a term with a meaning that’s closely related to minga. It describes a system of work and family reciprocity among membersa Filipino term taken from the word bayan, referring to a nation, country, town or community. The whole term bayanihan refers to a spirit of communal unity or effort to achieve a particular objective. of the ayllu (a community working on collective land). <br />
#[[Bayanihan]]: <br />
#[[Córima]]: The Rarámuri people of Mexico’s Chihuahua mountains use the word “córima” to describe an act of solidarity with someone who’s having trouble.<br />
#[[Gadugi]]: a term used in the Cherokee language which means “working together” or “cooperative labor” within a community<br />
#[[Gotong-Royong]]: in parts of Indonesia and Malaysia, Gotong-royong is a cooperation among many people to attain a shared goal with ideas of reciprocity or mutual aid.<br />
#[[Guelaguetza]]: a cross between a potlatch and a tequio. The term describes “a reciprocal exchange of goods and services”.<br />
#[[Harambee]]: a Kenyan tradition of community self-help events, e.g. playdraising or development activities. Harambee literally means “all pull together” in Swahili<br />
#[[Imece]]: a name given for a traditional Turkish village-scale collaboration.<br />
#[[Maloka]]: (or maloka in Portuguese) is an indigenous communal house found in the indigenous Amazon region of Colombia and Brazil.<br />
#[[Meitheal]]: the Irish word for a work team, gang, or party and denotes the co-operative labour system in Ireland where groups of neighbours help each other in turn with farming work<br />
#[[Mutirão]]: This is originally a Tupi term used in Brazil to describe collective mobilizations based on non-remunerated mutual help.<br />
#[[Naffīr]]: an Arabic word used in parts of Sudan (including Kordofan, Darfur, parts of the Nuba mountains and Kassala) to describe particular types of communal work undertakings.<br />
#[[Tequio]]: a very popular type of work for collective benefit in the Zapotec culture. Community members contribute materials or labor to carry out construction work for the community.<br />
<br />
=Key Resources=<br />
<br />
* See Robin Good's overview mindmap on the [http://www.mindmeister.com/12213323?title=best-online-collaboration-tools-2010-robin-good-s-collaborative-map Best Online Collaboration Tools]<br />
<br />
* The [[Group Pattern Language]]: A Pattern Language for Bringing Life To Meetings and Other Gatherings, also produced in the form of a card deck [http://groupworksdeck.org/patterns_by_category]. Produced by [[Group Works]] <br />
* [[Liberating structures]]: new ways of structuring interactions between people to foster better results<br />
<br />
We recommend the material gathered by the Participedia:<br />
<br />
#[http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Special:BrowseData/Methods Methods of Participation]<br />
#[http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Special:BrowseData/Organizations Directory of Organizations Active in Participation]<br />
#[http://www.participedia.net/wiki/Special:BrowseData/Cases Case Studies in Participation]<br />
<br />
<br />
==General==<br />
<br />
'''* Report: Gather: the [[Art and Science of Effective Convening]].''' Rockefeller Foundation, Monitor Institute and Monitor Deloitte, 2013 [http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/934f8c4a-866a-44bc-b890-7602cc99aefa-rockefeller.pdf]<br />
<br />
<br />
See also:<br />
<br />
#Seb Paquet's list of [http://seb.wikispaces.com/Online+communities+of+cooperation+and+collaboration+thinkers Online communities of cooperation and collaboration thinkers]<br />
#The [http://blog.participatedb.com/ ParticipateDB directory] is very ambitious in creating "the world's most comprehensive directory of tools for participation"<br />
#General Facilitation Literature is compiled by [http://distributedresearch.net/wiki/index.php/Facilitation_literature DAR]<br />
#'''An overview, with links, of facilitation methodologies''' by [http://chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot/?page_id=958 Chris Corrigan]<br />
#[http://files.uniteddiversity.com/Decision_Making_and_Democracy/ Tools and Literature on Decision-Making for Democracy], compiled by Josef Davies-Coates<br />
#[http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/ConferenceConnectionsRewi/46312 Augmenting Conferences through technology]: great overview of tools and examples by George Siemens and Terry Anderson et al. Reviews [[Augmented Conferences]], [[Blended Conferences]], [[Online Conferences]] etc...<br />
#Recommended course on [http://www.facilitatingwithconfidence.com/ Facilitating with Confidence]<br />
#[http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2009/03/18.html#a2348 The Optimal Size of Groups]: Christopher Allen of the Life With Alacrity blog has expanded his articles on group size, with an article on community sizes and another on personal circle sizes. The latter are our own self-centred circles (those we're in the middle of), while the former are circles of which we have chosen to be a member. The dynamics of the two, Christopher says, are different.<br />
#Recommended community: [[Global Sensemaking]]<br />
#[http://self-org.blogspot.com/p/resources.html Bibliography on non-hierarchical self-organisation]<br />
<br />
==On Online Facilitation==<br />
<br />
#Overview of online facilitation and [[Moderation Models]]. By Dolors Reig.<br />
#Overview graphic by Robin Good begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting: [[Collaborative Map of Online Collaboration Tools]]<br />
#[http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/05/15/online-meeting-tools 17 Online Facilitation Tools]<br />
#Intro to [http://www.chatmoderators.com/targetedmoderation/moderation-software/index.html moderation software]<br />
<br />
See also: <br />
<br />
#The report [[Online Tools for a Sustainable Collaborative Economy]]. <br />
#There is a budding wiki on [http://onlinefacilitation.wikispaces.com/ Online Facilitation]. <br />
#The DAR group maintains a collection of [http://distributedresearch.net/wiki/index.php/Online_Facilitation_Links Online Facilitation Links] and a review of related [http://distributedresearch.net/wiki/index.php/Online_facilitation_literature Literature]<br />
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_groupware Free groupware]: links to collaborative software which can be freely used, copied, studied, modified, and redistributed<br />
#[http://technologyandsocialaction.org/node/190 Josef Davies-Coates] maintains a directory of offline and [[Online Decision-Making Tools]], which he keeps updated through this [http://del.icio.us/qopi/decision_making bookmark]<br />
#The ideal [http://www.wearemedia.org/tools+template Social Media Toolbox] selection for nonprofits<br />
#[http://collaboration.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_collaborative_software List of collaboration software]and of [http://collaboration.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_wiki_software Wiki software], compiled by Mark Elliot<br />
#[[Tools for Online Idea Generation]]: a side-by-side overview comparison of ten popular tools for online idea generation. [http://www.collaborationproject.org/tools-for-online-idea-generation/]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Key Articles==<br />
<br />
* [[Facilitating Smarter Crowds for Stronger Networked Commons]]<br />
* [[Social Theory as a Transformative Force]]. By David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva<br />
* Understanding the [[Two Levels of Change]]. By Larry Victor.<br />
<br />
==Key Books==<br />
<br />
#The [http://www.bkconnection.com/ProdDetails.asp?ID=9781576753798 Change Handbook]The Definitive Resource on Today's Best Methods for Engaging Whole Systems<br />
Arrow. by Peggy Holman , Tom Devane , Steven Cady <br />
#The [[Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making]]<br />
#[[Liberating Voices]]: guide to a liberatory pattern language for human communication<br />
#[[Books on Building Online Community]]. List compiled by Nancy White [http://onlinefacilitation.wikispaces.com/Books+on+Building+Online+Community]<br />
#Otto Laske. [[Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms]].<br />
#'''[[Online Deliberation]]: Design, Research, and Practice.''' Todd Davies and Seeta Pena Gangadharan editors. Stanford: CSLI Publications, November 2009; '''free pdf download''' at http://odbook.stanford.edu<br />
#[[Doing Good Things Better]]. Brian Martin. Irene Publishing, 2011 [http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/11gt/]<br />
#Richard Sennett. Together: The [[Rituals, Pleasures, and Politics of Cooperation]]. Yale University Press, 2012.<br />
<br />
==Key Blogs==<br />
<br />
#[http://p2tools.blogspot.com/ P2 Software and Technology]: A blog that highlights the use of technology for public participation/public involvement and decisionmaking purposes.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Key Conferences==<br />
<br />
#[http://www.od2010.dico.unimi.it/ Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation]<br />
<br />
==Key Organizations==<br />
<br />
* [[International Association of Facilitators]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Key Skills==<br />
<br />
What kind of skills do we need for the p2p age (an age of collaboration),<br />
<br />
as proposed by Donnie Maclurcan [http://postgrowth.org/upskilling-for-post-growth-futures-together/]:<br />
<br />
<br />
===Means of Learning and the Self===<br />
<br />
Individual asset mapping<br />
Systems thinking<br />
Finding your purpose through strategic questioning<br />
The latest science on learning processes and knowledge retention<br />
Speed reading<br />
Touch typing<br />
Mysticism and the Divine Masculine and Divine Feminine within<br />
Developing intuition<br />
Yoga and breath work<br />
Meditation<br />
De-cluttering<br />
Time management techniques<br />
<br />
<br />
===Community, Family and Leadership===<br />
<br />
Key lessons from human history<br />
Asset-based community development<br />
Running an ‘offers and needs market’<br />
Relationship skills<br />
Non-violent communication and conflict resolution<br />
Diversity sensitivities (including GLBTQI, cultural, religious, disability, age, indigenous/First Nation)<br />
Parenting and family dynamics<br />
Dynamic teaching and group facilitation<br />
Circle work and other decision-making techniques<br />
Confident public speaking<br />
Singing in harmony and dancing together<br />
How to read and play music<br />
Holding and participating in sacred rituals<br />
Improvisation theatre<br />
Storytelling<br />
Restorative justice<br />
Fun cooperative games for children and communities (including outdoor and card games)<br />
Sharing law<br />
Effective campaigning and lobbying<br />
Child honouring and protection (including an introduction to ADHD, child trauma and special needs)<br />
Graphic facilitation<br />
Conversational French/Spanish/Mandarin/Arabic<br />
Archiving (sound, video, images, stories, items, documents)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Health===<br />
<br />
Basic anatomy (and terminology), understanding the body’s systems and exercise physiology<br />
Injury rehabilitation<br />
Holistic approaches to healthcare (including natural, homemade medicinal remedies and birth control)<br />
Administering first aid<br />
Administering mental health first aid<br />
Medicinal herbs<br />
Massage (including acupressure)<br />
Sleeping well<br />
Natural birthing<br />
Natural cleaning<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Food and Nature===<br />
<br />
Composting and improving soil quality<br />
Setting up a worm farm<br />
Growing food<br />
Permaculture principles and sector design<br />
No-dig gardening<br />
Threshing<br />
Aquaponics<br />
Seed saving and plant propagation<br />
Pruning<br />
Grafting<br />
Ploughing (with animals and vehicles)<br />
Identifying invasive species<br />
Connecting and working with animals (including husbandry, birthing and basic healthcare)<br />
Horsemanship<br />
Raising fowl<br />
Understanding the weather (and reading a weather map)<br />
Disaster preparedness (including earthquakes, sandbagging for floods, and hazard reduction and back-burning along with fire safety)<br />
Cooking essentials<br />
Vegetarian cooking<br />
Bread making<br />
Preserving food (canning, drying)<br />
Sprouting<br />
Fermenting (including brewing, distilling, mead making, winemaking)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bushcraft===<br />
<br />
Orienteering<br />
Hiking and camping (including the ‘leave no trace’ principles)<br />
Tracking<br />
Fishing<br />
Sourcing water from nature<br />
Shelter building<br />
Open fire cooking<br />
Sourcing food (forest foraging and gleaning)<br />
Fire making (including natural fire creation)<br />
Rope making and essential knots<br />
Hunting and using weapons<br />
Animal food preparation<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Building, Equipment and Vehicles===<br />
<br />
Fundamental principles of structural engineering<br />
Building structures (including insulation)<br />
Coppicing<br />
Woodwork<br />
Stonework<br />
Natural brickmaking<br />
Creating natural toilets<br />
Smithing<br />
Bike maintenance<br />
Vehicle maintenance (including mechanics)<br />
Boat maintenance (including mechanics)<br />
How to operate heavy machinery<br />
How to use power tools<br />
Using non-power tools<br />
Sourcing and installing renewable energy<br />
Water/sewage systems design and building (including filtration, drip irrigation, Keyline and swales)<br />
Passive solar design<br />
Sailing<br />
Paddling (kayak and canoe)<br />
Swimming and water safety<br />
Electronic basics and how to fix electrical faults<br />
Amateur radio and setting up a mesh network<br />
Using vehicles in extreme conditions (including towing and defensive driving)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Urban-oriented Skills===<br />
<br />
Urban farming<br />
Setting up a rain water collection system<br />
Setting up a photovoltaic power generator<br />
Dumpster diving<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Crafts and Making===<br />
<br />
Life hacking<br />
Up-cycling and making things from scratch (including dyes, soaps and shampoos)<br />
Mending, knitting, sewing, crocheting and weaving<br />
Tanning (to produce leather)<br />
Homemade cosmetics<br />
Drawing<br />
Painting<br />
Pottery<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Business===<br />
<br />
Sustainable business models (including not-for-profit associations and companies, solidarity franchises, producer-, consumer-, worker- and multi-stakeholder cooperatives, community land trusts, benefit corporations, community interest companies)<br />
Running an organization<br />
Participatory organizing for business (including Sociocracy)<br />
Project management<br />
Budgeting, bookkeeping, money management and invoicing<br />
Information management<br />
Sourcing items ethically<br />
Blogging<br />
Coding<br />
Server setup, website design and development (including CMS setup)<br />
Using other online tools<br />
Setting up and managing a wiki "<br />
<br />
(http://postgrowth.org/upskilling-for-post-growth-futures-together/)<br />
<br />
==Key Tools==<br />
<br />
* [http://cpsquare.org/wiki/Technology_for_Communities_project Technology for Communities project]: "tools that are used by communities of practice, explain how each functions from a community perspective, and suggest why you might select the tool, given your community's orientation and the activities your community wants."<br />
* [http://processarts.wagn.org/wagn/Participatory_Processes Index of Participatory Practices], maintained by Tom Atlee.<br />
* [http://emergentbydesign.com/2012/10/25/21-card-decks-creative-problem-solving-effective-communication-strategic-foresight/ 21 CARD DECKS FOR CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING, EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION & STRATEGIC FORESIGHT]<br />
<br />
Also:<br />
<br />
#[[Actions Options Tool]]: open source peer to peer organizing tool for activist organizations. Here is a [http://snap.actionsoptions.org/uploads/demo/introduction.mov screencast] which provides a preview of AOT's features<br />
#[[Open Sphere]], group facilitation method<br />
#Bernie DeKoven explains [[Coliberation]] strategies in his book The [[Well-Played Game]]<br />
#[http://kforge.appropriatesoftware.net/ Appropriate Software Foundation]: facilities and tools to develop Free Software supports for civil society processes.<br />
#[[Amazee]], is a recommended [[Social Collaboration Platform]]<br />
#[http://blueoxen.net/wiki/Pattern_Repository Blue Oxen High-Performance Collaboration Pattern Repository]: Inspired by Christopher Alexander, this is a repository for collecting, discussing, and refactoring patterns for High-Performance Collaboration.<br />
#The [http://metagovernment.org/ Metagovernment Project] keeps track of [[Collaborative Governance Projects]] and [[Collaborative Governance Software]] [http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Related_projects]<br />
<br />
=Directory=<br />
<br />
List of participatory processes that should be part of our directory [http://processarts.wagn.org/wagn/Participatory_Processes]:<br />
<br />
<br />
Active Listening * Appreciative Inquiry * Area Neighborhood Forum * Arbitration * Arts Based Civic Dialogue * Asset Based Community Development * Backcasting * Bohm Dialogue * Brainstorming * Briefing * Candidate Evaluation Panel * Chime And Stone * Choice Creating * Choice Work * Citizen Advisory Committee * Citizen Committee * Citizen Consensus Council * Citizen Deliberative Council * Citizen Election Forum * Citizen Initiative Review * Citizen Jury * Citizen Panel * Citizen Reflective Council * Citizen Survey Panel * Collaborative Inquiry * <br />
Commons Cafe * Community Asset Inventory * Community Consultation Committee * Community Fair * Community Indicator * Community Issues Group * Community Planning * Community Viz * Compassionate Listening * Conflict Transformation * Conflict Work * Consensus Building * Consensus Building Exercise * Consensus Conference * Consensus Organizing * Consensus Participation * Consensus Process * Conversation Cafe * Council Process (see Talking Circle) * Deliberation * Deliberative Dialogue * Deliberative Focus Group * Deliberative Inclusionary Process * Deliberative Opinion Poll (aka Deliberative Polling) * Delphi Study * Design Charrette * Despair And Empowerment Work * Dialogue * Dialogue Mapping * Dynamic Facilitation * Enlightened Communication * Fast Cycle Full Participation * Fish Bowl * Flower Diagram Workshop * Focus Group * Future Search * Gemba Kaizen * Gestures Of Conversational Presence * Group Awareness Exercise * Group Silence * Integrative Conversation * Interactive Strategic Planning * Intergroup Dialogue * Intragroup Dialogue * Large Group Intervention * Listening Circle (see Talking Circle) * Listening Project * Multi Objective Decision Support System (MODSS) * Multiple Viewpoint Drama * Neighborhood Policy Jury * Open Question Circle * Open Sentences Practice * Open Space Technology * Participative Design Workshop * Participatory Budgeting * Participatory Idealized Design * Participatory Research * Participatory Rural Appraisal (aka Participatory Research And Action) (PRA) * Process Worldwork * Regulatory Negotiation * Residents Feedback Panel * Restorative Justice * Story Circle * Sustained Dialogue * Symbolic Dialogue * Talking Circle *<br />
Transformative Mediation * Widening Circles Exercise * Wisdom Council * World Cafe *<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Infrastructure]]</div>RosaZ