On 03/03/2016 05:25 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Charles Wyble <char...@turnsys.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Implementing it here at Snowdrift.coop has been on the to-do list for
>> a while,
>>
>>  
>>
>> It has? Where is this TODO list that this item is on?
>>
> 
> AFAIK, the todo list in Aaron's head. On the slim chance my memory from
> when I was first reading about snowdrift several years ago serves me
> correctly, it's also on some really old discussion on one of the wiki pages.
>  

The TODO is not just in my head, it's listed in stuff about the co-op
issues. The entire point is that really this is about having *some*
better way to organize the TODOs and tasks and responsibilities.

Holacracy as a strict thing isn't the point in terms of being strict,
it's about getting shit done in this distributed team.


>>
>> Holocracy is a major shift in how things get accomplished. I’m not
>> entirely sure if it’s appropriate at such an early stage , especially
>> when things are just getting started and coalesced. It seems like the
>> structure is already pretty well aligned with holocarcy. I’m not sure
>> that a formal implementation would be helpful, my gut reaction is that
>> it would be harmful.
>>
> 
> I agree that our current structure is not *too* far off. There are also
> definitely pieces we could implement informally.
> 

To be clear, essentially the idea has been that we have wanted to make
things clear all along that people need to stop waiting for ME to
clarify every task. I can't manage to deal with being an authority for
every detail. We need people to accept responsibility for areas of work
and then make them happen within some understanding that they are
following a path that serves the organization's values and mission.

So, Holacracy is just a formalized way to organize these things and make
it all clear. It's also a way for me to express my tensions I have with
the status quo and the process without micromanaging what everyone else
is doing.

I wanted all along to basically just have a good, reliable, organized
way for use to get things done as a team, and Holacracy is a synthesis
of many of the good ideas out there, most of which we already agreed
with. My initial view was "we should see what they did well, and use
good ideas from Holacracy" but I now agree that just using the structure
makes sense.

That said, I actually see no need to overly formalize at this stage with
anything like formal signing of Holacracy-based agreements or anything
like that which just adds bureaucracy. All we want is to have good
meetings with people on topical areas in which we as effectively as
possible all know how to be proactive and get this thing launched.

So, I'll consider the formal start thing that Stephen brought up, but I
*may* say we should just skip it. The point is to just all be on the
same page for meetings and responsibilities.

> I think one common tension recently is the feeling of "I'm not really
> sure what I should be doing." I can't speak for the group on this, but I
> think defining our roles would be a very helpful process. I also think
> that the feeling of uncertainty has a lot to do with how busy Aaron's
> been, and since his life is going to get a whole lot busier soon, I
> think we need a system with more distributed authority (or appoint
> another supreme leader with his dedication and prior availability). I
> also think that our meetings are often less efficient than they could
> be, and the holacracy process could help there, as well.
> 

All well put.

> I agree that certain parts of holacracy may not be appropriate for an
> organization of our size -- some of the process may be overblown -- but
> I do think it's an overall positive. We can also adapt Holacracy to fit
> our needs -- if there's a certain part we find unduly cumbersome, we can
> drop it. Also, the closer we are to Holacracy already, the less dramatic
> of a change.
> 

Yup

> It's also true that whatever solutions we find don't need to be
> Holacracy. I moved ahead with this because Aaron wanted it, I perceived
> a need, and wanted to make something happen to push us forward. I'll
> freely admit I'm not the most experienced in this area, and am happy to
> discuss further.
> 

Indeed, thanks. And yes, we're not going to be dogmatic with anything,
we're going to use ideas that actually help us succeed and skip any that
don't.

So, all this said, I would like to downplay the emphasis on the
Holacracy brand and just talk about having meetings and use Holacracy
ideas to help us.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Reply via email to