Interactive Charter for Co-creation Inquiry -- please respond!
Great Transition Survey 2
Continuing from GTI Survey 1
Please respond as best you are able. Interpret the questions in your own terms. Enter any additional thoughts in available text boxes.
SAVE responses to each section before moving to another.
You are signed out. Survey is not activated. Please register or sign in to activate
How can the Great Transition Initiative partner with other organizations in a way that maintains equality between all organizations?
Select one or more
Follow co-creative principles
Support individual freedom of choice wherever possible -- for both individual organization members and for the organizations themselves
Listen to the agendas and policy positions and objectives of partner organizations
We are all interested in "well-being for all", and we understand this is a hugely inclusive issue. Everybody can pick sectors where they are expert, and work together in a "division of labor"
Should we allow participating members of organizations to speak for themselves as individuals, or should we require that organizations speak with a monolithic voice -- just as, for example, we expect an entire nation (e.g., the USA, England, France) to speak with one voice at the United Nations?
Yes, we should expect organizations to speak to the network as a monolithic voice. What does Organization X think about issue Y?
It's not reasonable to expect organizations to speak as units, when the organizations themselves may not have a solid or monolithic position on the question.
Requiring organizations to speak with one voice can become a time-consuming logistical or bureaucratic log-jam ("nightmare") that blocks action and prevents forward movement.
In our joint GTI/WE-all email discussions, Stewart Wallis at first emphasized the development of an alliance concentrating on economic issues. But Paul Raskin suggested all "all sector" approach capable of taking on all issues at the same time, hinting that this approach is essential. In a surprising but immediate response, Stewart Wallis promptly agreed. Can or should we limit alliance development to economic issues, or should we take an "all sectors" approach -- recognizing that most organizations are dedicated to specific objectives, but supposing that a sophisticated network design can gracefully handle this issue?
We should start with one issue that already has an established momentum, and gradually expand from there.
We should build this project from the beginning based on sophisticated integral methods, and not be dominated by "issues" -- which are inherently divisive. We are trying to build unity in a context of high controversy.
We should combine these approaches, and enable narrower sector-specific outreach to organizations in a specific sector, such as economy, while still maintaining an all-sector core for the project as a whole.
Can we use tools like this survey/inquiry to pursue negotiated solutions to issues that come up not only in the world but also in the design of this project?
Yes, we should be following a practice of "convergent facilitation" in all our joint decision-making. This entire project is a process of "facilitated negotiation" as we gradually work towards inclusive agreement.
No, this is too complex. People will glaze over, they can't be expected to think so clearly or in such high detail. Save these details for later, or some other venue. One thing at a time!