Community Boards > Guild Hall - general Guild discussion
Topic 5: Real Member-Management
pj:
5) How could we (if we even want to) move from our current form of management to something closer to the ideal of being a member-managed as well as member-owned community?
Topics 2 and 3 concisely delineate what is absolutely required to keep Mortal Mist on the web. Topic 4 is a look at how the concept of leadership is, (or, more accurately, isn't,) approached. An understanding of all that is necessary in order to convey what is really on my mind.
There is an opportunity here for any and all who wish to take advantage of it. We have, together, established an online community that has survived several trials. Having an online entity involving the public survive at all is quite rare. Add to that the precept of member-ownership and our focus on Lucid Dreaming and you have something utterly unique. Being this unique and having so much potential, it seems a shame to just be idling along.
Yes, we have a wonderful and diverse core community here. (You know who you are, because you are the ones reading this!) And yes, the needs and desires of the core community are being met - otherwise you wouldn't be hanging around. But if we are here just to serve our own needs and meet our own expectations, we should say so outright and quit pretending to be trying to serve some higher purpose.
What is the real potential here? What could a "higher purpose" include?
- We have the potential to become a hotbed of experimentation and exploration of most aspects of lucid dreaming and surrounding phenomena - all able to be conducted with full knowledge that the results will not be co-opted or exploited by us. We are, after all, not for profit and utterly devoid of commercial interests. We also have some of the most prolific and experienced lucid dreamers in the world among us.
- We have the potential to be a truly significant and unique online resource for LDS. Some of the greatest minds with the deepest knowledge of the subject are either active here or at least drop in from time to time. What we already have to offer is wide and deep, lacking only organization and presentation.
- We have the potential to be a truly excellent place to learn lucid dreaming. Among our core here are proven teachers and communicators. We lack organization and the ability to hold on to those new to lucid dreaming long enough to teach them anything. (Yes, there are a few exceptions.)
- We have the potential to present "master classes" - short presentations and classes by those with vast experience and unique approaches to lucid dreaming. Again, we have some of the most prolific and experienced lucid dreamers in the world here.
There are surely more; these are the ones most apparent to me. Not doing any of these things is fine too, if that is what the member-owners really want. If it IS what you want, let's get it said once and for all and be done with this. I'll put it out of my mind and won't bother anybody with it again.
The Management "Problem"
It has been established and explained that while we are member-owned, the management really is a benevolent dictatorship. This is, for me, an uncomfortable paradox when considering the founding ideal of being a fully member-owned community. My discomfort does not result from a desire to stop doing what I do here, but from recognizing that the management style is inconsistent with what we set out to be. It is also my position that this management style is in no small part responsible for the mediocre ability to serve our stated purpose, which is to explore and promote lucid dreaming. The management works when it comes to the essentials of staying online and functional, but does not fulfill the role of leadership. The proven results of this arrangement are there for all to see; when measured against our stated purpose and mission, we are a failure.
I would like to put an end to the benevolent dictatorship. While I am willing to continue in my role here so long as I am able, I would much rather be doing so at the expressed desire of a community which knows full well that I can be dismissed at will should the need ever arise. This is what I see as required to achieve complete member-ownership. There is, after all, nothing other than my word and present state of mind preventing me from selling all this off, shutting it down, starting to run ads - or worse. That reality may not be the subject of discussion or expectation, but it undermines every potential we have. (This is where an understanding of all that was laid out in the previous topics is essential. It needs to be understood that we can and would survive if I were removed from management. Without that understanding, there is no real choice for the community other than to live or die when it comes to firing me, which isn't much of a choice.)
So. . what would it take to be genuinely Member-managed?
I can envision something simple and functional. . . which it would have to be for a community with our low level of activity and attention. Our existing "government" is the Guild system, which may be elegant and philosophically pleasing, but it is clearly not accomplishing anything for us and completely lacks any sort of decision making functionality. The missing element here is the ability to ascertain the will of the member-owners. While democracy does have its limitations, it is a functional method of determining not only the will of the majority, but of showing how dominating the popular desire is. We have to start somewhere - if we are going to start at all.
Using a voting arrangement, we can discuss and then decide exactly what our management and leadership structure should look like, the division of power and responsibilities, and any other matter that requires an executive decision - including, perhaps, the appointment of an executive. We may not want a leader or group of leaders - but let's expressly say so if that is the case. We may want to keep the existing management structure, but again we need to expressly say so. In that way, it will truly be the will of the member-owners and it will in the same manner be revokable.
This isn't the only option, but it is the quickest and easiest one I can come up with that would address the issues at hand. The flow would be something like this:
A proposal is presented and discussed. If it reaches a point where some pre-determined number of member-owners second it, then it is put to a vote. The results of the vote carry the full authority of the member-owners. This methodology doesn't need to devolve into a system of rules, which I would argue against. . . but if it was the will of the member-owners to go to a system of rules, that wouldn't be the decision of any one individual who stands opposed to them. We would vote on it.
Conclusion
Here are our options, as I see them:
1. Do nothing. Carry on as we are.
If this is the outcome of these discussions, I will still rest easy knowing that all pretenses are set aside and all cards are on the table. I'm not going anywhere and I'm not threatening anything. This is not a crisis - it is an opportunity. Doing nothing at this point doesn't prevent us from doing something in the future either - it just won't be me who brings it up again.
2. Implement a democratic methodology for determining the will of the member-owners, and begin operating as a truly member-owned AND member-managed community.
3. Do something else that may be presented in the course of these discussions.
pj:
Aside from all above, I want to thank those of you who invested the time and attention to get through all the topics. Even if nothing whatsoever comes of this effort, just having laid all this out assuages my discomfort with the inconsistency I perceive and am really at the core of. That is important to me, and your role in dealing with it even if only by reading has made it possible.
So again - thank you.
pj. . .
StarSeeker:
We do have some shortages on organisation. I wouldn't call it a lack of leadership, but a lack of organisation.
Our existing Government, which is, as you say it, the Guild system (maybe even the dead Strategists' guild), does nothing. Could we have a voting method, and election to management, so to say?
One questions arises for me: do we have enough active people? The way I see, if we were to elect one person per Guild (imagining we use the Guild system as base), how many people would be left unelected?
pj:
I wouldn't suggest electing people to guild positions, but it is certainly an idea to consider. There are too many guilds, too few truly active members, and even fewer willing and able to make a commitment.
Personally, I think the Guilds would be a great arrangement for a larger and more active community - perhaps something for us to revisit in the future. For now, however, they really seem to dilute and spread out what little activity there is, making it seem even thinner.
But no matter which direction we go, I am suggesting some kind of voting system to give the member-owners a real voice in what goes on here. An analogy that occurred to me after writing this topic is this:
Our current state of member-ownership is akin to making a deposit in a bank. What I am trying to encourage is for the depositors to also have a seat on the Board Of Directors.
StarSeeker:
--- Quote from: pj on September 22, 2011, 05:43:33 PM ---I wouldn't suggest electing people to guild positions, but it is certainly an idea to consider. There are too many guilds, too few truly active members, and even fewer willing and able to make a commitment.
--- End quote ---
When you talked about voting an government, I assumed you meant some system of government, like electing the guild leaders and they would work as government, each one in its own area, or electing a single person.
--- Quote ---Personally, I think the Guilds would be a great arrangement for a larger and more active community - perhaps something for us to revisit in the future. For now, however, they really seem to dilute and spread out what little activity there is, making it seem even thinner.
--- End quote ---
We can cut their number or scrap them all entirely. If we want to just cut the numbers, it is very simple, Research and Teacher's Guild fused together, Ambassador and Strategy guild merged as well (which is the evolution of one suggestion I proposed earlier). Maybe even Creator's and Technical guild.
--- Quote ---But no matter which direction we go, I am suggesting some kind of voting system to give the member-owners a real voice in what goes on here. An analogy that occurred to me after writing this topic is this:
--- End quote ---
Like people proposing and people approving? We need some accurate stats of active members.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version