In Europe over the last 2 weeks we've witnessed flaming breakdowns of
probably our 2 largest open virtual communities - both with many of
thousands of members- one has been kept private (as far as that goes)
between dozens of moderators and one has happened in full dialogue which
all its 10000 plus members can see
These are very complex dynamics and I hesitate to make any calls in such
chaotic environments BUT
I know one lesson (hopeful of value to some who may not want to fall
victim to such a situation in the future) and I have one question
The lesson is a metacommunity (one where many communities are housed in
one space but have a lot of opposite needs or reasons for debating
practice etc) needs open governance anchored on anticipating emerging
conflicts and resolving them early before they compound so much illwill
that it will be very costly if possible to resolve the whole identity.
Although the reasons why no such open governance was operating are very
different in both of these metacommunities, one false assumption by those
that controlled them was monetary decisions mattered more than time
decisions. However much money those who thought they were governing these
structures though needed to be represented in managerial decisions, the
truth of lively multi-thousand communities is that people are putting
hundreds of thousands of their hours into such spaces and have the right
not to find the rules change on them overnight to materially alter the
perceived purpose of one and all or to change the permissions that are
free and those that can only be monetarily bought
The question is: when a metacommunity gets in such a mess, is it better to
let it die (always realising the majorities can reassemble somewhere else
if they feel the need or does one try and work through the minimum trust
principles that need to be restored however much flaming will need to go
on to establish in the open what has been mismanaged opaquely (with
knowingly or just because human systems always start falling apart into
conflicts unless you govern by emerging conflict resolution)? When I say
always, I was introduced to research of this sort more than 12 years ago
by risk professionals who have looked at how most disasters (however
technical in appearance) have human system breakdowns; and how even the
most perfect structural design starts degrading from day 1 unless the
human potentials for conflict are carefully monitored and restored to
trust. It has always seem to me a great pity that those who seek to lead
large organisations or large communities have not be required to pass a
minimum practice test on human relationship systems; we require people who
drive cars to pass road-tests but not people who seek to command and
control the livelihoods and learnings of many thousands
Chris Macrae wcbn007@easynet.co.uk
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/community/zones/sig/kmei.html
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?maxhits=7
<http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?maxhits=7&s=3007&dateformat=%25d-%25m-%25Y&d=1&sec=10>&s=3007&dateformat=%25d-%25m-%25Y&d=1&sec=10
--"chris macrae" <wcbn007@easynet.co.uk>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.