This week I had the privilege of joining the Fearless Cities conference, hosted by Barcelona en Comú, a citizen platform founded by 15M and PAH activists in 2014.

The conference announced a global municipalist network, featuring delegates from more than 100 cities around the world.

Municipalism is a movement of cities taking power from states, and using that power to transform politics from the bottom up. For a good intro, check out this recent article from Kate Shea Baird: A new international municipalist movement is on the rise — from small victories to global alternatives.

The conference named two goals for the municipalists:

• to feminize politics — developing new ways of organising based on horizontal collaboration, collective intelligence and the politics of everyday life, and,
• to stop the far right — combating the politics of hate and fear with local policies that reduce inequality and promote the common good.

The speakers were hugely inspiring. To give you a taste, I’ve extracted quotes from the four sessions I attend.

Democracy from the Bottom Up: Municipalism and other Stories

I found myself nodding along with everything shared by Debbie Bookchin, daughter of the original municipalists, Beatrice and Murray Bookchin:

All ecological problems are social problems. We can’t address ecological problems without resolving our addiction to domination and hierarchy. We need to fundamentally alter our social relations. How do we bring an egalitarian society into being? The municipality is a logical arena to start. […]

Social change won’t occur by voting for the candidate who promises a minimum wage, free education etc., only an activated citizen movement can transform society. […]

Local assemblies transform citizens. We are made new humans by participating. We grow beyond capitalist modernity.

Ritchie Torres from the NYC Council, opened with two questions about the US context:

• How do we achieve progressive municipal governance in a world of federal divestment?
• How do you bring participatory politics while so deeply entrenched in two-party politics?

They said their greatest achievement in NYC “is that we’ve brought into mainstream a new idea of municipal government. It’s common sense now that local government is not just for filling potholes, it can be a force for equity. […] We’re not just a legislature, we’re a vehicle for community organising. Being merely a legislature, you will be undermined by legislative and financial activism from the right. But if you’re organising communities, you can make headway.”

Sinam Mohamad was greeted by a standing ovation from the crowd, inspired by stories from Rojava, the autonomous region in the north of Syria:

We in Rojava have built decentralised, democratic self-rule in an extremely difficult situation. Economic embargo, besieged, terrorist attacks, chauvinist mentalities… In spite of all this, we built our municipalism. […]

Kobanî faced an attack from ISIS; a city full of fear, everyone frightened by the attack. Fear means you are dying while you are alive. Turkish bombs in our cities, villages. Children sleeping with fear. Mothers afraid for their families. We struggled for peace, which we have achieved now. We built a democratic administration together. Not just Kurds but a mosaic of religions and nations: Turkmen, Arabs, Syrians, Assyrians, Muslim, Yezidi, Christian, and so on. All agree to coexist in this area. This is our aim, to live together without fear. All the people come together and agree to the social contract.

If you don’t have an organisation that is very well organised for equal gender, you won’t have a free society. Free women = free society. Constitutionally we have equal genders, 50–50 participation. Co-president system means we have Mr and Mrs Presidents.

See my full notes from that session here.

Sanctuary and Refuge Cities

On Sunday morning, we joined a panel on Sanctuary and Refuge Cities. Speakers included city officials from Barcelona, NYC, Berlin, Kilkis (Greece), and Paris. Some highlights:

Daniel Gutierrez from Interventionistische Linke in Berlin explained how they created an anonymous health card so migrants can access services without fear of deportation. The same is happening in Barcelona and parts of France. Ignasi Calvó explained that the Barcelona ID is a municipal (not national) register of citizens, so they can bypass the racist laws of the Spanish state, but it still carries state validity, conferring automatic rights to anyone carrying it in the EU. He warned though, “If you’re going to use civil disobedience, you have to ensure the consequence will be on the city, not on the migrant.”

Each of the speakers reiterated the same simple point: that everyone should have access to the same rights. They argued against categorical distinctions between migrants, refugees, and other residents, as these categories create exclusion.

Amélie Canonne from Emmaus International explained how the state fuels radicalisation: “Repression creates radicalisation, both within migrant communities and in the activists working in solidarity with them. In EU, food distribution is banned, activists are arrested, trialled, radicalised.”

Comments from the audience revealed the huge intelligence in the room. For instance, one commenter shared their concerns about the elephant in the room: the question of race. “This has been a colourblind discourse, forgetting the racial aspect, treating migrants as foreigners rather than people of colour. In the US, white nationalism is one of the main drivers working against migrants.” For more on this, see my recent article on white nationalist militias resisting migration from Latin America.

A city councillor from Philadelphia agreed, explaining how systemic bias is compounded against people with intersecting identities, not just “people of colour”, but “low income, migrant, people of colour.”

A Lebanese participant shared some broader context: “We have been receiving refugees for 60 years, maybe 2 million of them. We have a lot to say about the experience! Are these European cities connecting with the history of refugees in Lebanon? We have made so many failures, and success stories too. Many European cities are coming at this for the first time, learn from us!”

It was inspiring to hear so many cities taking radical steps to resist the racist policies imposed at the national level. See my full notes from that session here.

For the closing plenary, Kali Akuno shared razor-sharp analysis from their experience in Jackson, Mississippi.

“In Jackson we talk about the “Syriza trap” — thinking that our leftist forces can manage the contradictions of capitalism. Thinking we can transform capitalism without transforming society. Where has that ever happened? We need to transform society from the bottom up in a participatory way.”

They reiterated “proximity”, a theme woven throughout the conference:

“Direct contact with your neighbour. Find out their interests, hopes, desires, fears, then organise for what you want, and to not be subject to those fears. You will have to confront racism, sexism, xenophobia: you can overcome that at the local level and create a practice to open your neighbourhood to new people.”

The map of participants shows the global extent of this emerging movement

We then heard updates from delegates from around the world. The UK delegate received enthusiastic applause throughout their short speech:

“Use political office as a resource to support the transformation from below. We’ve learned the lessons from feminism, we change the order when we refuse to participate.”

A panel discussion with no white men. How has this never happened before?

Finally, at the end of the day we enjoyed a one last panel — a furious, joyful, incendiary lineup of speakers. I took fairly comprehensive notes, which you can read here.

Yayo Herrero was one of the most incredible speakers I’ve ever seen. Their transformation recipe is worth quoting in full (that is, my transcription of the English translation of the recipe):

“Acknowledge the very clear reality: that material reduction is not catastrophe. It is a catastrophe to not address this with equity and justice.

“We are obliged to think about freedom and a framework of rights that is not just individual but has a relational sphere.

“We need to imagine an ecologist feminist alternative that is anchored in the land, and in our bodies. Put life and sustainability as a political and economic priority. Expel markets as the centre of the political logic. Challenge the perverse logic that if we don’t keep on feeding this exploitive system we won’t grow wellbeing.

“We need a different way of science and technology. We need to expel the part of science that is based on fantasy, promoting things that are not possible, or only possible for a few. Put science in the service of life.

“We need social organisation where men and women and institutions are co-responsible for care. Life must be cared for, it’s not just a job for women.

“We need alliances that allow us to organise a sabotage to this historic plan. Feminists, entrepreneurs, ecologists, trade unions… build a complicated diverse alliance of majorities.”

Activist philosopher Vandana Shiva spoke last, concluding beautifully:

“Nature is intelligence, diversity, and self-organisation. Municipalism is self-organisation at the level of cities.”

And with that, we were ejected out into the warm Barcelona evening. Reviewing these notes, I’m stunned by the quality of all these speakers. The conference felt very much like a sequel to last year’s Democratic Cities conference in Madrid, where I was first introduced to the idea that cities can offer hope in an age of hopeless states.

The conference organisers got a couple of simple things right which made a profound difference to the mood and the content: they made the event accessible with €20 tickets, and they ensured the majority of speakers were women.

However, with respect, I do want to offer a criticism: every session I attended shared the same linear format, with one person speaking, and a room full of intelligent, engaged, creative people simply listening. We can do so much better than this! As Vandana said, municipalism is self-organisation at the scale of the city — I’m hungry for self-organisation at the scale of the conference. We can use horizontal collaboration structures like “Open Space Technology” to unlock the collective intelligence of all the participants. We can intentionally design for relationship-building, rather than hoping for it to emerge passively in the hallways and lunch breaks. This Thursday my partner Nati and I are hosting a workshop on self-organising at the scale of 10s to 100s of people; perhaps we can convince some of the conference organisers to join us and the next Fearless Cities event will have a format to match the content.

Want to read more like this? Click here to support my writing

The post How a Global Network of #FearlessCities is Making Racist Colonial Nation States Obsolete appeared first on P2P Foundation.

In ten years, old political systems will be gone. All around Europe we are seeing a wave of change of communities and citizens coming together to take power back from politicians. Citizens are mobilising all around the world proving that the people can and should play a much bigger role in our democratic societies.

The city of Brussels is facing great democratic, ecological and socio-economic challenges. We, residents of Brussels, believe a citizens’ movement is the most effective way to restore hope, reinforce equality and empower citizens, in all their diversity, to decide what is best to improve their city and their lives. The citizen Spring is finding its way into Brussels, accelerating the transition to a new paradigm where active citizenship becomes real power.

Many citizens already work to shape the city and find solutions to everyday problems. But many — too many — organizations feel a glass ceiling when it comes to scaling up their initiative to do more and do better. This glass ceiling, in our perspective, has two main root causes: the first is the lack of political will to support experimental initiatives which transfer power to citizens; the second is the socio-economic system that makes collaboration as well as circular local economies the exception instead of the norm.

In order to change this, we are calling for a free-citizens’ gathering so that, together, we may organise the city and bring together groups of people representing the diversity that makes Brussels unique. Collectively, citizens of all origins and backgrounds are the only force capable of adapting the city and establishing the priorities which meet the needs and aspirations of its inhabitants.

We believe in people, in you, in us — together.

What we propose is to create a new way of exercising politics. We want to use collective intelligence to design creative alternatives and bring about effective solutions. We will start from a blank sheet where you and all those around the table will have the opportunity to express concerns, propose approaches and develop solutions. We believe the time has come to push for alternative ways to do policy-making, including:

• TRANSPARENCY, RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY : Citizens want real transparency on all decisions, the guarantee that their needs are being addressed and that their ideas can influence decisions.
• MORE THAN VOTING : Citizens can do more than voting. They can jointly identify priorities, co-create policy and allocate budgets.
• COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE : Collective intelligence techniques should be at the root of decision-making. Internal processes of participation need to go beyond the opinions of individuals. Deliberation sessions between citizens of different walks of life lead to creative solutions that are far better adjusted both to reality and to the needs of stakeholders.
• ACTION : the movement needs agility and experimentation, embracing bold approaches piloting possible solutions and improving them continuously.

Few things are as powerful as an idea whose time has come. If you feel energized by these ideas, we would love to create it with you.

This is the first ‘mood check’ to scout the energy to ignite this Movement and take back Brussels in the 2018 communal elections … otherwise, we will have to wait for another 6 years.

The citizen spring is here and the time is now!

We, citizens from Brussels

See also, for ideas and a sense of possible:

• Barcelona en Común and taking back control
• When a movement becomes a party — the example of Barcelona
• Win the City Guide
• Ministry of Ideas — A new way in Iceland

“This is not a traditional (movement) that thinks it can run things better on behalf of the people. This is a movement that believes the people can run things better on their own behalf, combining citizen wisdom with expert knowledge to solve the everyday problems that people face.”

Stacco Troncoso, P2P Foundation

Image: Brussels — Luc Schuiten

The post Citizen from Brussels, how to give your voice real power? appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Jordan Greenhall: There have been a lot of conversations about Bitcoin over the years. Is it a currency or an equity or a commodity? Is it a store of value? Is it a “settlement mechanism”? Is it not money at all, but merely an example of a decentralized application on the Blockchain? The short answer is: none of the above.

Bitcoin is a self-organizing collective intelligence. As such, what it becomes is entirely a function of what it can do — that is, it is a function of the capacity of its collective intelligence to overcome the challenges that it encounters in its environment.

In some sense, we’ve seen this sort of thing many times. Every “movement” or “scenius” (to use Brian Eno’s ingenious term for “collective genius”) is a form of self-organizing collective intelligence. The Punk Rock movement, skateboarding, Ruby on Rails. What makes Bitcoin important is that it represents a new mutation in self-organizing collective intelligence.

In order to explain what I mean by this, I’m first going to have to spend a few minutes laying out what I mean by self-organizing collective intelligence.

The Development of Self Organizing Collective Intelligences (SOCI)

The basic dynamics of a SOCI is as follows. It begins as some sort of attractor — some aesthetic sensibility or yearning — that is able to grab the attention and energy of some group of people. Generally one that is very vague and abstract. Some idea or notion that only makes sense to a relatively small group.

But, and this is the key move, when those people apply their attention and energy to the SOCI, this makes it more real, easier for more people to grasp and to find interesting and valuable. Therefore, more attractive to more people and their attention and energy.

Thus begins the generative loop: as the SOCI becomes more real and attracts more people it begins to encounter challenges. Maybe Impressionism is being rejected by the status quo and it needs to find some way to display itself. Maybe hand-coded HTML is too burdensome and clumsy and this SOCI needs to get easier to use.

If the SOCI has enough capacity within its collective intelligence to resolve the challenge, it “levels up” and expands its ability to attract more attention and energy. If not, then it becomes somewhat bounded (at least for the present) and begins to find the limit of “what it is”.

Different SOCI will resolve challenges through different mechanisms. Some will form relatively centralized nodes (ICANN, Rolling Stone Magazine) that will accelerate problem solving in certain areas — but at the cost of losing some of the generativity and flexibility of decentralization. Others will mutate and proliferate exploring their niche like a slime mold (Protestantism and electronic music might be a good examples here).

As the SOCI develops, the choices that it makes — the solutions that it crafts — become part of its core architecture. “Frozen accidents” in its development, these begin to shape and define its future paths, slowly accreting structure and topography as the SOCI moves from its vague, open and highly creative infancy through adolescence and finally into its mature, effective, but much less creative adulthood.

In the end, the development of a SOCI is defined by the challenges it faces, its capacity to surmount those challenges, and the consequences of its solutions on its own further development.

Bitcoin as a Self Organizing Collective Intelligences (SOCI)

Bitcoin is a SOCI. And its future will be determined precisely by the dynamic tension between the problems it faces and its capacity to solve those problems.

Over the years, Bitcoin has worked its way through a complicated childhood. It was able to attract the attention and energy of a core of developers who built software that made it possible for less technical folks to participate and apply their energy. It has been able to create online exchanges and marketplaces and then survive the collapse and redesign and collapse and redesign of these pieces of its architecture.

As it did this, it expanded its “reality” and attracted the attention and energy of more “professional” entrepreneurs and venture capitalists — whose work significantly expanded Bitcoin’s capacity (and birthed an offshoot in the form of the “blockchain” SOCI).

Over the past year and a half it has struggled mightily with its most recent challenge: governance. For most of its developmental history, Bitcoin has been defined by two different governance mechanisms. The vast majority of the work has been highly decentralized — activities like wallet construction and exchange building that is entirely done “at the edge” and with little to no governance outside of simple architectural boundaries. The remainder of the work has been handled through an ad hoc oligarchy of the “Core Developers” who have been broadly able to maintain a highly technocratic coherence.

This loose governance mechanism broke down as the collective intelligence couldn’t achieve coherence on purely technical grounds: two paths emerged that each presented valid, compelling and incompatible attraction to different sensemaking elements of the collective intelligence. The result was the exploration of what might be a fundamental feature of this kind of SOCI’s governance — a “hard fork” where doctrinal and values differences are physically formalized into two separate code bases.

So now we wait. Will the “hard fork” be the next level up for the Bitcoin SOCI and lead to an expansion of its ability to attract more intelligence? Or is this the hill that Bitcoin can’t climb and the beginning of its senescence?

Bitcoin as a new form of self-organizing collective intelligence

Lets step back and consider what the Bitcoin SOCI has already done.

Beginning with essentially no backing and no resources Bitcoin has been able to organically attract attention and energy to grow into something that includes dozens of exchanges in something like 40 different countries and a computational infrastructure that processes an astounding 14 Million PetaFLOPS.

And it has done this while innovating directly against one of the most fundamental components of our current social fabric: money. The beaches are littered with the bodies of well funded efforts to step into this space and, indeed, even a major victory like PayPal required the improbably combined genius of Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Luke Nosek, Reid Hoffman and the rest of the much gloried PayPal Mafia simply to carve out a “nice” niche in online payments.

And the Bitcoin SOCI has done this in merely seven short years.

This is no ordinary SOCI. The deep importance of Bitcoin is that it represents the first example of an entirely new SOCI organism in our landscape. One that clearly represents a new kind of power and capability. In fact, one that might relate to our legacy forms of collective intelligence in the same way that Homo Sapiens related to Homo Neanderthalensis.

What is the essence of this new form of collective intelligence that represents so much potential? My guess is that this can really only be answered with the benefit of hindsight. But I’ll venture a guess:

1) It is intrinsically global. More to the point, it is geographically unconstrained, and, therefore able to take advantage of any attention and energy anywhere in the world.

2) It is intrinsically virtual. In other words, it is able to connect with resources anywhere with minimal lag and at minimal cost.

These two features combine to mean that in principle this new form of SOCI can attract and utilize the total collective intelligence of the human species almost instantly. While in practice this level of concentrated collective intelligence isn’t likely to happen the potential of tapping into and connecting precisely the girl in Phuket and the team in Slovenia when where and how they are needed is flat out revolutionary.

And, most importantly,

3) It solves motivation, reward and collective action problems through an architecture that is responsive to nuanced and changing value landscapes without being bottlenecked by concentrated (and, therefore, intelligence reducing) decision-makers.

This is a dense and important point that needs to be unpacked.

Consider digital SOCI like, say, WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram. While these collective intelligences are both global and virtual, their ability to connect with, motivate and apply the attention and energy of their communities is either very narrow (you can contribute to the Instagram SOCI by uploading photos, liking and commenting them, but little more) or bottlenecked by a relatively small team of people who have exclusive power to adapt the architecture (like when the Facebook team added the ability to upload videos).

Bitcoin-like SOCI use the technical capabilities of the blockchain, crypto-tokens and smart-contracts to provide a motivational architecture that can be highly adaptive to the real needs of the SOCI without bottlenecking through some concentrated control structure. As these techniques mature, they provide this new class of SOCI with an “executive function” that has little to no agency risk and can scale without creating a bottleneck on the SOCI.

To get a better sense of what I mean here, consider Bitcoin as an extremely early prototype of how this kind of motivational architecture can work. By linking “run hashing software” with “be the source of coin creation”, Bitcoin created an invitation to value contribution at an architectural level. Anyone who could understand and act on the invitation could participate without any human agents getting in the way to bottleneck the process.

And by carefully wiring up difficulty and scarcity, Bitcoins became at least potentially appreciating assets — motivating anyone who could appreciate and act on this invitation to figure out how they could best give their value to the Bitcoin SOCI in exchange for increasingly valuable coins.

While rough and coarse-grained, this approach worked. It was flat out brilliant in incentivizing the construction and rollout of mining infrastructure, and as mentioned has delivered on a tremendous amount of creative activity.

Of course, the Bitcoin approach has known issues. High volatility, a dependence on risk seeking speculation, too much concentration in the hands of early adopters, coarse-grained focus on mining, etc. Arguably, these design elements limit the effectiveness of the SOCI to attract and deploy collective intelligence and, therefore, its overall potential.

With regard to the Bitcoin SOCI in particular, the future is uncertain. Will it overcome its governance challenges and emerge on the other side with still more collective intelligence? I honestly have no idea, I suspect it will, but these moments are always deeply uncertain.

If it does, however, it will come out the other end much stronger than it has been so far. Governance is a major challenge. If Bitcoin survives this current crisis, my bet is that the collective intelligence will focus its efforts on governance much like it has on past crises like the Mt. Gox collapse — and the result will be a much, much more capable SOCI.

The Future of Self Organizing Collective Intelligences

Regardless of the specific result of the Bitcoin experiment, we are clearly in the middle of a new era. As I discussed in The Future of Organization, a lot of smart people are currently hard at work understanding, generalizing and optimizing the deep code of these new forms of collective intelligence.

The limitations of Bitcoin’s approach to motivation and collective action are well understood and new technical layers like Ethereum’s smart contracts and Backfeed’s distributed governance system magnify the potential intelligence of this kind of SOCI at least as much as the neocortex magnified the intelligence of the mammalian brain.

I really wish the reality and importance of this new frontier were more broadly understood. My sense is that over just the next five years this new form of SOCI will go through its gestation, birthing and childhood development stages. The result will be a form of collective intelligence that is so much more capable than anything in the current environment that it will sweep away even the most powerful contemporary collective intelligences (in particular both corporations and nation states) in establishing itself as the new dominant form of collective intelligence on the Earth.

And whoever gets there first will “win” in a fashion that is rarely seen in history.

The post Lets get this straight, Bitcoin is an experiment in self-organizing collective intelligence appeared first on P2P Foundation.

(1) Examine an organizational type and state clearly the goals of that organization. In Koestler’s formulation this would be the Gestalt-Form. In the Exponential Organizational model this is called the “Massive Transformative Purpose,” or MTP. For example, if it is a corporation that provides a software platform for connecting people, it might be “to connect the world.

(2) Figure out what fundamentals are related to the health of that organization. For example, if the goal of the organization is connecting people, there are probably ways to see how well this is working. How many people does the network have? How often do they communicate with each other?

(3) Find quantifiable mechanisms to see how well this is working. Once you’ve managed to prioritize goals related to the health of the organization, track them and optimized For example, dashboarding solutions as documented here

(4) Create motivational and accountability mechanisms. For example, it is shown that, for humans, small achievable goals create positive momentum that leads to more being accomplished than gigantic goals that may or may not be achievable.

This structure is remarkably flexible, and can apply to all types of organizations. In fact, it might even be sufficient to determine whether or not there is coherence at all in an organization. For example, in certain forms of cellular life, this coherence happens at the quantum level. Alignment at this level is probably what is most necessary.

Along these lines, this applies equally well to organizations such as a “church” as to corporations. For example, such an organization might have the purpose of “inspiring people and encouraging them to live in love.” When you have that, you might realize that certain ways of approaching problems are not conducive to that overall goal and that you need to embrace a new type of ‘love’ based metrics (perhaps including the latest in neuroeconomics research, among other things).

Equally important in Holonic philosophy is the continual fractal and nested nature of these structures. All of these goals and optimization happens equally importantly (and perhaps even more importantly) at the level of individuals. If the individual is not well, it is unlikely that the “corporate” manifestation will produce good fruit. Additionally, the process of social organization should be one of synchronization and not coercion. Once an individual has identified their purpose for living and is able to articulate it, he/she will be better able to aggregate with others who share it.

“Health” here is a very useful word, insofar as there are clear things which indication of sickness, as well as types of performance that are aligned with the goals of an organization which can continually be optimized. Additionally,the more tightly honed one is to the purpose, the more motivation one has for optimization.

Additionally, various other elements, like money, suddenly look a lot like fuel for facilitating the purpose, rather than ends in and of themselves. That said, creativity in attaining these goals may also be used, and, just as human biology has many different types of nutrients, it is unlikely that money will be an exclusive value transfer mechanism. In fact, in a highly honed purpose driven organization it may not even be the primary mechanism for
expressing value.

In short, holonic philosophy is not merely a theoretical construct. It is a highly practical tool to facilitate optimal system design and applies to all types of social organizations and
individuals.

Photo by agroffman

The post Applied Holonic Philosophy appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Social philosopher Bonnitta Roy thinks we need a new kind of organization to meet these challenges. She calls it the Open Participatory Organization. And her Manifesto is the point of departure for this conversation—an example of the kind of work Bonnitta does in real time with people and organizations around the world.”

Source: InfiniteConversations.fm

From the Shownotes to the Podcast:

Guests

Bonnitta Roy

Bonnitta Roy lives on a small farm in rural Connecticut. She has been designing new structures for organizations that are ready to adapt to the changes inherent in our time. Drawing on a life of study and practice in solitude and community, Bonnitta carries a vision and presence that cultivates the best qualities in relating to each other. She’s an award-winning author, teacher, philosopher and insight guide, and a life coach who specializes in the challenges faced by individuals entering post-formal levels of consciousness.

Bonnitta is founder of Alderlore SOLE, a summer program for young adults based on principles of clarity, complexity thinking, awareness, and generative life practice. She is also curator of The Magellan Courses—a free online learning community centered around books that demonstrate post-dialectic reasoning and post-formal themes. Most recently, she has founded APP Associates International to develop practical applications, such as organizational templates, facilitation and assessment tools, analytic techniques and process methods, all based on participatory principles, to support the transition to new ways of organizational life.

Learn more about Bonnitta’s work at appassociates.net.

Mentioned in this Episode

Organizations

APP Associates International
Alderlore Insight Center
Center for Transformational Leadership
Triaxiom9
Facebook

Books

The Fifth Discipline, by Peter Senge

Concepts

Open participation, Agile methodology, new economy, organizational development, organizational design, p2p (peer to peer), collective intelligence, distributed intelligence, distributed agency, abundance, Holacracy, CRiSP (Continually Recalibrating Its Starting Position), social technology, naming not claiming

Credits

Audio Production
Oli Rabinovitch

Intro Music: “What Does Anybody Know About Anything” – by Chris Zabriskie
Exit Music: “It’s Always Too Late to Start Over” – by Chris Zabriskie
License: Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0)
More info: chriszabriskie.com

The post Podcast: Bonnitta Roy on Open Participatory Organizations appeared first on P2P Foundation.