Post edited 8:47 am – March 10, 2011 by wspademan

Transparency versus Credibility

This argument comes up often, in our work. On the one hand, people say we lose credibility when we look like we don't know what we're doing — so we had better keep our strategic and tactical discussions private. On the other hand, we claim to be democratic, but some people feel left out of the discussions — so we had better make sure all discussions are open to everyone.

Which view is correct? Both.

Private is good for small

Some things should remain private and the public should not be bothered with every passing whim.

For example, issues that center on an individual should generally be handled by a small group, so as not to humiliate the person. This is standard practice in all organizations except (unfortunately) Hollywood and Government.

Routine decisions and finer details should also be handled quietly by individuals and small groups.

Public is good for big

Larger issues should be presented to the membership or public for discussion, carefully phrased for clarity and focus. The distinction between small and large issues will always be a matter of judgment. The public will grouse if we give them too much to discuss, so let's err in that direction.

Who decides

It will be important for us to have clear missions within the various departments of our organization, so that we know who is responsible to frame the debate and to decide, once the discussions have run their course. With enough transparency, we can all (supportively) keep an eye on each other.

Credibility — We never know

I feel strongly that trying to maintain credibility by always knowing what we are doing is a trap. We should never claim that we know what we are doing — no matter how certain we are. A closed mind is a dead mind. That applies equally well to an organization as to an individual. If people think flexibility, open-mindedness, and willingness to re-evaluate make us flaky, the weight of that misperception will be soundly overbalanced by consistently brilliant decisions. The choice comes down to this: Do we want to be flexibly smart or consistently stupid?

For example, suppose we told our members to expect quarterly dividends. Should we discuss a new schedule in private, so as not to worry them unnecessarily? NO! Include everyone in the discussion and let the chips fall where they may.

The distinction I want to make here is that some of our ideas and discussions may be crazy, but our plans and actions are always sound. Better that way than the other way around.

The means assures the ends

Transparency and inclusiveness are central to our organization. Our mission is to create a society in which all of us (ALL of us) think and plan together for the common good and for the well being of every individual. We can have that society exactly to the extent that we do it. Just as we can't live in peace by making war, we cannot work together by working secretively. Let's be open and inclusive as much as we possibly can.

Post edited 2:18 pm – March 9, 2011 by Richard Todd Chinnock

Yes, there will be some for whom the details appear chaotic and confusing, but this in my mind does not exclude them from being potential Founding Members.  Granted, those who see it as not having our shit together are most likely not going to participate as a Founding Member.  However, they are correct in a very specific way.  In other words, we do not have our charter as of now.

It is VERY important in my mind to capture as much negative feedback as possible.  A good many will be complete inanity, but every once in a blue moon we will receive a key piece of information that we will need!  What better way to incorporate the nay-sayers into the common good than by maturely accepting their criticisms and applying what we learn?

I think what we honestly need to do is look at the root of where this desire for protection comes from.  My theory is that this desire arises out of a fear of rejection.  Could our egos equate rejection to death and therefore that is why it is so scary?

As to the unprofessional nature of debate, discussion and organization?  What!  Since when?  Who taught us that?  What is the deal with the hyper sensitivity to making sure only the folks who have the same kind of Signed, Sealed and Notarized pieces of paper taking part in full disclosure?

Finally,  how are we to expect anyone to grasp the nature of direct democracy if they go in to the town meeting expecting everything to run itself?  Too much faith in the technicians!  Who taught us THAT?!  Only experts may tread here son. . .Run along now, never fear of what is behind the curtain. . .My best people are back there making sure you get what you need.  What an old game it is.  Isn't that the game we are tired of playing?

Post edited 12:50 pm – March 9, 2011 by wspademan

Several organizers and advisors have suggested (verbally) that we keep at least the "Organizing CGBs" forums — and possibly ALL forums — hidden from public view, so that we can have more candid discussions without worrying about what people will think (that is, without showing our dirty laundry, which people see as unprofessional).

In response to those suggestions, I have hidden most of the "Organizing CGBs" forums (including this one) except from people who sign up as future depositors and log in. We'll see how it goes.

[update: Forums were hidden only for a few weeks and are currently all public]