I think allowing each member to control their interface/content would probably be the most Holacrastic model. We as members have governance over whatever content we see/don't see.
It seems like the best solution to me.
Yep, I agree.
The initial example [of Holacracy] in the TED talk was a story about a novice pilot who noticed a "low-voltage" warning light.
This warning light was small, and all other indicators were nominal (indicating no problems).
The perceived "danger" was small, since there didn't seem to be a "consensus" of warning lights so the pilot ignored the "low-voltage" indicator.
This turned out to be a critical error in judgement, and the plane nearly crash landed.
This served as a primary impetus to develop the Holacracy framework.
Can a system be designed that gives every warning light a fair hearing?
In practice this would mean a logical and fair appeals processes would be accessible to every member of "the whole".
I learned this when I became an accountant. If you are out even 1 cent, it can be an indicator of being out thousands of dollars (because of there being two sides). It's important to pay attention. And besides, everyone has something to contribute even if it is just a challenging opinion(challenging opinions often bring out problems..that's a good thing).
I think if people adopted that attitude, that everyone has a voice and can contribute in some way, things could be better.
Yes, and right now as it stands the appeal process is not available to every member. That is so incredibly wrong.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well stated.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit