community building thru council and consensus

[lulu]

I posted this elsewhere, but it feels relevant. So, excuse me if you've seen it before..

Even though the forum is shutting down, if anyone is still poking around wondering wtf they're gonna do next... i have no answers here, just some thoughts about community organizing

---------------- begin shameless repost ------------------

I was thinking about how communities function, if leadership and power need to go together, if that impacts collaboration or changes the "vibe" of a group, facilitates growth or contributes to stagnation, negative impacts it could have on leadership and members, et cetera. Instead of rehashing things that don't work, I thought.. well, what has worked? Although not a perfect example, Rainbow Gatherings have existed for over half a century, and in my experience they are spaces where joy and creativity can thrive and flourish!

"Some say we're the largest non-organization of non-members in the world. We have no leaders, and no organization."

Although this is an extremely OFFline example, I do think there are some principals which could be applied to online communities. I'm not recommending a wholesale adoption of each and every practice, and I'm definitely not saying that leadership/authority is bad. All groups have different needs. This isn't meant to be a glowing endorsement of Rainbow, either. There are valid criticisms about cultural appropriation, maybe ya don't like hippies, etc. I'm mostly interested in exploring alternatives to traditional leadership/power/governance/moderation & how communities can exist.

I won't be going over EVERYTHING, and I'll be pulling text from the Welcome Home website. It's not an official website, there is no official website (or official ANYTHING), just a a GREAT resource for documents, history, and guides. so if this piques your interest check it out! It's also a static site with frames, no CSS and tiled backgrounds that make the text hard to read!! (This post was brought to you by "open in new tab" + reader mode)



What the heck is the rainbow family?

On the surface, a Rainbow Gathering might like any generic hippy festival campout. You pop in, see naked people with dreadlocks, eat some hippie gumbo. That KotH clip is here because it's funny and fits the stereotype but it's also.. not a great representation

It's hard to define what a rainbow gathering REALLY is. There's an old saying in those circles, if you ask ten people what a gathering is, you'll get ten answers. Here's mine: a rainbow gathering is just anywhere people who want to be part of the "rainbow family" gather. There are regional gatherings, global gatherings, national gatherings. A picnic could be a rainbow gathering! You don't apply for membership, you don't ask for permission to hold a gathering.

I think the most well-known is a large summer gathering in the United States. These take place in national forests - places where anybody is free to camp without permits. Of course you'd need a permit to host an event.. but there's nobody to apply for a permit, and it isn't really an event. These gatherings are more like temporary towns. People build kitchens, dig bathrooms, set up elaborate water purification systems, hold concerts, have discussions.. some people come to the gathering to take, some come to give, others come to build together. If you want something done, find people who are doing it, or do it yourself.

How the heck could this exist without leadership??

Rainbow introduced me to the concept of focalizers, council and consensus !

- "The location of the second gathering is decided by the people who show up to the first". But what, somebody has to lead the first gathering, right?

-"We don't have leaders in the Rainbow Family, but we do have folks that help us to focus on what we as individuals need to do."

- "One of the important things to realize is that focalizers aren't in charge. They aren't in control of anything or anyone but themself. People listen to focalizers out of respect, not because they have to. The best focalizers are invisible at a gathering. Just cause somebody may have a mailing list, or do a newsletter does not mean they are part of the "Rainbow Bureaucracy", and you can turn over your responsibilities as a human being to them."


Why the heck is this relevant??

If you ask ten people what "Web Revival" means, you'll get ten different answers.

You don't sign up to be in the web revival. It's not an organization and there is no leadership. People come from all walks of life, with different intentions ~ create digital worlds, online diaries, nostalgia pieces, homepages, alternatives to social media, etc. Some people create web rings, some create forums, some people come to visit with no desire to create their own websites. If you want something to exist, you don't need anybody's permission to build it.

[Arevakhach]

Thank you for sharing this here.

It does indeed sound a bit "hippie" (especially the name ) but what a shallow reason that would be to disregard the approach. Especially since I personally believe there are some truths to be extracted from this.

"When love is a duty, it cannot fulfill anyone because love as a duty is dead."

From my understanding of the situation here, a crucial aspect was 'Mod Burnout'. These people, the moderators, volunteers, who arguably cared more intensely for this community than its participants, were overwhelmed by its burden. An in-flood of an ever-increasing number of people; and what did those people bring to the table? Likely nothing but expectations. Of others, of the community, of the leaders, of their "services". Gradually, this labor of love turns into the bondage of duty. And its beauty is lost.

Completely imaginary narrative on my part, but I believe this kinda feeling played at least a minor role here. It could even be interpreted as occurring in the opposite direction, based on some of the feelings being expressed by some members.

Regardless, what I'm getting at is this "Rainbow Family" sounds very freeing. Like it would be more successful in preserving the freshness, the poetry (God, I sound like a hippie) of 'Web Revival'. This would be rather laid-back, yeah? Which would be quite the contrast to the amount of seriousness taking place currently. Some fun would do this place a bit of good right now, imo, the balance feels a bit off.

There's another issue at play, however. If my understanding is correct, there is a fear of losing control. A preference to "burn it down" rather than surrender it. Like expressing: Yesterweb belongs to someone(s). How dare anyone try to take it from them. I believe that attitude is in direct opposition to what you're proposing. A shame; "in fear one shrinks".

I apologize because I am pretty sure you're looking beyond Yesterweb, heck maybe you're already over it. This was just my attempt to connect the 2. I believe there is plenty to discuss here, while completely disregarding Yesterweb.

Based 'King of the Hill' btw.

[madness]

There's another issue at play, however. If my understanding is correct, there is a fear of losing control. A preference to "burn it down" rather than surrender it. Like expressing: Yesterweb belongs to someone(s). How dare anyone try to take it from them. I believe that attitude is in direct opposition to what you're proposing. A shame; "in fear one shrinks".

Well, you are close, but I think I have some knowledge that may bring clarity: the people we asked to inherit the yesterweb refused to inherit it. It turns out that those who we trusted the power to did not want any of the power for themselves. We have to admit that there is power in this position, particularly influence. Asking anyone to take over would be extremely irresponsible. There are definitely those that seek such power and influence within these spaces, and we have struggled against it in the past. If you will entertain my perspective: there is no fear of losing control, we are already giving up control and, instead of there being a situation analogous to a power vacuum in which the person who wants it the most gets the power, we are destroying that opportunity entirely.

But I don't want to make this topic about us and so I'm coming here to share The Tyranny of Structurelessness. It describes perfectly what I have witnessed organizing in several physical spaces as well as in online communities. It might not necessarily apply to the Rainbow Gathering, but I think if you try to organize anything with any greater complexity you will see the problems emerge that are described in this essay. I don't say it to be a downer but rather in hopes that it will help you perceive phenomena that you may otherwise not perceive while building your future spaces.

I am happy to see someone taking initiative.

[lulu]

I'm going to take some time to respond, but I don't feel like sitting at my computer all day. So for now:

Madness, the article you linked is excellent and touches on some stuff I didn't mention in my OP, because I was hoping the conversation would organically lead in that general direction. I don't think you're being a downer.

Arevakhach, you're correct that I am looking beyond Yesterweb, but.. well, there's a reason I posted to this forum! So I don't think discussions about YW are off-topic.

Hopefully there are others on the forum who are still interested in ~the movement~ and want to use the next two and a half weeks to have discussions about the future. Nothing wrong with grieving, and I think good discussions are being had on the forum shutdown topic. I just can't sit with the idea that Yesterweb was the entire movement. It's not, never was. I think the staff have made that pretty clear thru their posts (sidenote: Madness, I appreciate you being active here and sharing your thoughts even though you're exhausted and burned out)

Anyway I'm off to touch some grass, bbl

[madness]

Madness, I appreciate you being active here and sharing your thoughts even though you're exhausted and burned out)

Thanks and it's no problem. I always have time to help people organize themselves - that's all I wanted to do from the start - it's my primary social responsibility, and I enjoy it tremendously.

The problem is, you first have to inspire people before they are interested in organizing. Inspiring others is the more difficult job, but it is also very rewarding when it happens. The OTHER problem is that inspiring and organizing are completely different work from moderating. I am burnt out and exhausted from moderating, when I should be inspiring and organizing instead.

So some of the staff has been talking about how, if we were to continue on with this project, we would have to reduce the burden of moderation to nearly nothing, instead of it eating up 99% of our available time and energy and leaving us with only 1% for the really important work. So essentially giving up on moderating public spaces entirely, and developing a way to connect with new people that you are reasonably sure you will never have to moderate (such as finding them in spaces that are already moderated).

That being said, correct organizing will be discovered through studying and through trial-and-error. I can't comment on the rainbow methods described because I have never tried them. They most likely work in some contexts and not in others, so even if they work well for rainbow gatherings, they might have to be seriously adjusted or even discarded in others.

I did have this comment though:

If you ask ten people what "Web Revival" means, you'll get ten different answers.

You don't sign up to be in the web revival. It's not an organization and there is no leadership. People come from all walks of life, with different intentions ~ create digital worlds, online diaries, nostalgia pieces, homepages, alternatives to social media, etc. Some people create web rings, some create forums, some people come to visit with no desire to create their own websites. If you want something to exist, you don't need anybody's permission to build it.

I think this describes pretty well what it means to be a spontaneous movement. It's unorganized and anyone can do what they want. Eventually organizations from (like the emergence of biological organs from individual cells) and will be effective at influencing the movement, even of unorganized individuals. Organizations themselves are a form of collective power, and highly-organized individuals will have more power over individuals less organized.

This is inevitable. Eventually something will overtake the Yesterweb in this web revival space and have the ability to define the direction of influence for the entire community-at-large. And if you don't like what they are doing, your choices are to accept it, or out-organize it, or leave.

Organizations have the ability to influence who enters and who leaves the space, a very difficult thing to reverse over time. If someone with a lot of money gets involved, such as social media CEOs like Elon Musk, they can just pay to take over the space and have people organize it for them. I do think that this is a possibility, especially if there is an opportunity to make money off of the web revival, and I'm sure someone will discover a creative way to monetize it eventually. Just because it was abandoned by corporations in the past doesn't mean they won't come back to it if it revives to the point of being a viable market again.

Just my thoughts, thank u!