Awesome.

Thank you. Thank you for having me. Yeah. So I'm one of the cofounders of sociocracy for all. That was in 02/1516, something like that. I my path to sociocracy was that I am I my first my first career was in academia in linguistics, and that brought me to The US from Germany in 2010. And I moved into an intentional community that was and is still using sociocracy, and that got me all kinds of excited. And that then that world sucked me in completely, the world of organizing and and how to organize how to set up organizations in a way so that they're effective and fun. I have my slides here. I'm putting those in the chat. That should work. It's still on Canva. I've decided to keep it simple since this is just gonna be a brief fifteen minute thing, at least my part of it. So as Liz was saying, this is, in a way, responding to a misconception that is floating around. And I wanna say that from where I sit, those misconceptions, there's kind of a there's something good and something bad about it. It's kind of a good news, bad news thing. And the good news is that sociocracy, alongside with consent, like consent as a decision making method, group decision making method, is now so known that people have misconceptions about it. That's that's different from ten years ago. Right? Ten years ago, people had no real knowledge about this. Like, I know that because I went to went to events, and people had no idea what people had no idea what sociocracy was. And now I come to events, and people are like, oh, yeah. Sociocracy. I know about that. Oh, god. This is why is my phone ringing right now? Okay. Not ignored. Actually, sorry. Since I have sick kids, I I'm afraid I have to look at this. K. I passed it on. So as for the the yeah. And the the good the the bad news is, of course, that misconceptions then water down what what people think. Right? They go with what they think is happening and not what is really happening, and we encounter that quite a bit more and more. So here's what I have. Let me screen share, and let me present. And let me no. Know. Doesn't matter. I think it doesn't matter, but it always does this automatic advancing. Okay. So these are some of the things I wanna talk about. Here are some of the differences, but they will all correspond to a slide so we can jump right in. So what's consent? Let's do a definition of consent here. This is how we typically explain it. It's not my favorite way of explaining it, but it's a beginner friendly way of explaining it. So whenever somebody brings a proposal, let's say a proposal came from somewhere, we ask for consent, and then some people might say, yes. This is the proposal we should follow. Like, this is my number one choice. Right? Like, I agree with this proposal. This is the best proposal kind of a thing. And then, of course, if everybody says that, that proposal would pass. But there is also the other group of people that might say, well, this is not my number one choice, but I don't object. There is no reason not to do this. And that is, as you can see here, counted into consenting, which means consent is defined as you don't object. So it's more than agreeing, right, or larger group than agreeing. And that's where I think people's misconception comes from as, well, you know, if consensus is everybody needs to agree, we kind of water it down to include the people who don't object. K? That's that that's the that's the tension that I'm playing here with. But I would say that that is, dismissing a lot of information, and that's what I wanna speak to. A little bit more about consent is, that sometimes it's summarized with a slogan of good enough for now. Some people really connect with that slogan. It can also be longer, like, good enough for now and safe enough to try. For some people, they really feel that liberating energy of, oh, you mean it doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough? I can do that. I'm not a humongous fan of the slogan, but it's it's a good enough slogan, I guess. Not my number one choice, but I don't object to it. It's all good. There is if people summarize it as good enough for now, they are leaving out a part which is the safe enough to try. And sometimes people just use good enough, and then they leave out the for now, which all plays onto this misconception, I think. So let's look at that. The first thing that is particular about consent is that an objection is not just it's different from a block. It has a more narrow definition of just than just saying no. An objection needs to show how the proposal is at odds with the aim of the circle of the organization, so of the team, or the standing agreement. Like, let's say, you want to make a new policy about something, but it's at total conflict with with an agreement that you made last week, somebody should probably point that out. That's what an objection is. So, you basically look at all your standing agreements and your aim that you have defined as this is what this group is doing, and then you look at the new proposal and you see if they if they match. Of course, a new proposal will expand the the standing agreements that you have, but it shouldn't be at odds with it. And if there is a mismatch, somebody should say it. And the reason somebody should say it is because it's really hard to carry out things that are mismatching. In particular, when we look at the aim, if we have an agreement on what our group is about, that's our aim, and then we propose something that is at odds with that, somebody should say it. Would be good to notice. So that's what an objection is. An objection is not just, you know, I don't like this, but there has to be kind of another way of saying it. There has to be harm to our aim and the standing agreements. What's interesting about that, and that is subtle, but I think it's really important, is that the backdrop, as I say here, for evaluating a proposal is designed is defined as the need of the organization of the circle, not the individual. So consent, as far as I know, is the only decision making method where you're not asked what do you think about this proposal, but you ask what do you think with the circle in mind or the organization in mind. It's in a in a way you are, like, speaking on behalf of the organization, not for yourself because you're not evaluating the proposal compared to your personal opinions about how the world should be, but you're evaluating the the proposal according to the agreements of the organization. So you are basically each individual is kind of like is a little sensor in in the in the in the mix. So as a as a group or as a circle, as a team, every individual is asked to tune in for, like, wait. Does this proposal right in front of me match our like, match everything else we're doing? And then if everybody if nobody finds any objection, that means it probably matches. Good enough. So but that is something that is pretty, yeah, that is pretty unique about consent that we're not asked. Like, for example, if you look at majority vote and majority vote, it might be that people vote according to what they think is best for the nation or for the organization, but it might not be. It might just be what they want. So it's agnostic towards what the backdrop is that we're evaluating against. But consent forces you to think for the organization because nothing else counts. With that, by the way, that's a little side comment here. Another misconception about consent is that if you object, you have to make a better proposal. Absolutely not. Because the mismatch is outside of you. It's the mismatch is kind of in the organization. Why would it be your personal problem? Has nothing to do with your personal responsibility. Objections are therefore owned by the circle because the circle holds the proposal and wants to make a decision about the circle who holds everything else like aim and standing agreements. If there's a mismatch, it's a collective issue. Another thing and that's of course, that depends on how people practice consensus. I just wanted to kind of bring that consent is attached to an actual process, right, like of clarifying questions, quick reactions, consent. We need a 100% consent from everybody who's a decision maker. That's typically done in rounds and all of that. That comes with a process also of what are the things that we can do if there is an objection. This is the way I teach it. Might be done differently. So this is more kind of a in the realm of practices, the way sociocracy for all practices and teachers consent. Not claiming that that is, like, the difference between consent and consensus because it depends on how it's practiced. What's interesting about this is that we actively to kind of have that bias for action that consent comes with. We actively, teach these other methods of what we can do if there's an objection. Like, one of them is, for example, to shorten the term of how long this proposal would be in effect. If somebody proposes to try out this this new membership policy for a year, and somebody says, oh, I'm really worried about this and this and this and that, we could say, okay. Can we try it out for two months? The interesting thing about that is is that we don't change the in that case, we wouldn't change the proposal per se. We're just changing how long we try it out. Same with this one, which is slightly more advanced. Another difference or another particularity about, consent is that only members of a circle that holds a certain domain can object. So if this circle is making a decision by consent about a topic in the domain that they hold, nobody else from the outside can object. That is speaking to the misconception that in sociocracy, everybody can object or has a say if they are affected. That is incorrect. So sometimes people say, like, oh, in sociocracy, everybody is affected by a decision, has a say in the decision. That's not true because you only have a say in a decision if you're a member of the circle that holds the domain. Those domains and those circles tend to be set up in a way so that the people who are most affected by the decisions are in that circle, but that's not a given. Let me give an example. Let's say you have a circle that is making decisions about website. Ideally, you have the people who are working on the website in that circle. Therefore, if you make changes to the workflow around website, the people who would be affected by that would be the members of the circle. That would be that is good. Right? But that's not always something that can be done. Let's say we have a circle that, for whatever reason, holds the domain of the pay rate calculator or something like that, like pays, salaries, tiers, remuneration in general. Then it could be that, let's say, finance circle holds that, makes a decision, and has decision making power in the domain, but everybody in all other circles, their pay rate changes too. So that's an example where it's actually wildly different whether those affected make a decision or those who own the domain. And that misconception leads to quite a lot of tension if people don't get that. That's why I'm the people who perpetuate the misconceptions about sociocracy make my life actively harder because then I have to get that out of people again, that expectation. Right. This is a little bit more, so I'm close to the end. No idea what time it is, but I think we're good. Is that one thing that is particular about consent that can or cannot happen in consensus, so so consensus is agnostic towards that one, is that it consent is intentionally built on for rapid prototyping. So let me say more about that. So I said this piece about shortening the term, so trying something out for a while. Right? So if there's an objection, these are the options that we have. We can amend the proposal. We can shorten the term. We can measure the concern. Shorten the term I've already spoken to. Amending is obvious. Measure the concern is a really interesting one. And that is where we move ahead with a proposal, but we agree on an early warning system. So let's say I have a proposal that might change how many donations or how many people show up at at a regular event. And now I object and say, I don't think it's good if we do this proposal because it will lead to fewer people coming into this and that or fewer people donating, whatever it may be. And now there is an option to integrate an a an objection by saying, how about we do it the way it was proposed, but we're going to track every week the number of people or donations or whatever we're worried about. And we could even define the threshold that if we fall under that, immediately, the policy comes up for Vidya. So that and the the real important point for me here is that it is built in a way so that the application of the policy in the real world has the last word and not our conceptions about it. So everything is set up. The whole kind of lower threshold for objecting, Everything is built not to water it down, but actually to keep the last word on the practice and the implications that we see once we implement it instead of front loading it and hypothesizing about what might happen and please and making sure everybody is 100% comfortable and has that as their first choice. You see what I mean? So either we do all the all the talking kind of in the meeting, and we respond to everything that people might have and that might come up, in which case we would talk a lot. Consent is actively built to get a show on the road and have that be the proof of the pudding. So if people say it's less include inclusive, for example, because you need a really good reason to to object and you can't just object because you don't like it, I would say, yeah. It is inclusive of the real life application and not people's ideas. That's that's intentional. So that's that can be quite a difference in group. And then here, a side comment, a slide that I snuck in at the last minute just to say that consent was never really intended to be taken out of context. It is a part of sociocracy, and sociocracy is more than consent. So consent is designed for that particular use case where we have a small group distributed in clear domains, where we do rounds, where we consent to the agenda, where and that's important because we consent to the agenda, and that way we already have a say on which proposal makes it onto the agenda. We have defined circle membership, so there's not this is not a drop in situation. This is the people who have some rapport with each other and hold the domain responsibly, have a decision making power situation where we have full information flow between circles, where we have a clear distinction between what needs to be decided together by consent and what are operational decisions that anybody can make, Where the people who facilitate have been selected by consent, where we have term ends and where we have feedback processes baked in, all of that is what makes sociocracy. And then all of all of those are conducive to consent working really well. Just taking consent and putting it into a completely different situation will have all kinds of other effects, but that's not that's not how it was intended. And then if you look at the things, you can see some more comments and, like, things you can read. Actually, let me say something. This is really clear kind of sociocracy core stuff, this book, and then collective powers when looking at patterns of self management in general and going beyond that more recently, I'm writing on LinkedIn on what I've been up to in the last few months. And I am complete for now, and I'm looking at the chat now. Is this something where I, pick the questions myself, or does one of you want to facilitate that? I'm totally fine either way. Just tell me now what's what the typical thing is that you do.

Yeah. What are some examples of organizations that operate using sufficiency? Well okay. So nonprofits, yes. Intentioned communities, yes. Co ops. For profits as well. But in for profits, it depends on how well they've been able to wed the ownership model with the decision making model. What happens, and that creates a really ugly rub, is if you have one or two people owning the thing and pretending that now on eye level. And and sociocracy basically surfaces that tension. And what we have had actually quite a bit, I wanna say, is that for profits that the founders and CEOs and owners implemented sociocracy, and then a year later, they're like, oh, we now turned it into a co op because it was really awkward to be, like, the the boss of something and have sociocracy at the same time. So I guess there is, yeah, there's something to say about sociocracy and and ownership in our current systems. So in nonprofits, you don't have that as as badly. Right? So that works really well and then other other forms of incorporation. And in terms of size, it's fairly common and I think works the best in groups between 5,200, and that's also the size that we see. What are some example situations where consensus is clearly a better choice in my opinion? I'm very grateful for the question because I think there is a there is a place, and it's a really interesting one that will actually shed more light on my point on the point that I'm making. I think it is in situations. So, no, let me start another place. I said that in consent, we we base our decision on what is good for the organization. So in a way, if I'm, for example, making a decision in my role as whatever I am, let's say, you know, like, some role that I hold in my organization that places me in a circle, I am now serving in my role in serving the organization that has some aim. Right? So I am basically just an individual serving in a role. Like, I hold a function, right, in the organization. In that case, I think it's really valid to say, well, it's not about what Ted thinks, about what Ted thinks in his role as so and so serving the organization with the following aim. That makes a lot of sense. Now but how how about organizations where it's not about me and as my function, as my role, but me as me? Like, for example, in families. In a family, like, unless you say being a parent is a function, and it has it has some taste of that sometimes. Right? Sometimes you just have power because of your role as a as a parent, for example. I hold a certain perspective, but it would be impossible to replace me and and hire a new parent. So it's the same with the kids. Right? You're not replaceable. You don't you're not you're there because you're you, not because you hold a certain function. And in those cases, I think consensus makes a lot of sense. You could also run by consent, but that's just harder because you don't have an aim that you're serving. You just you're you because you're you as a family. So it's a totally different situation and using the well-being of the organization as a backdrop might create a funny situation where now individuals are basically have to kind of submit under the under the family, and that's that that would be funky. You're not free to leave too, so that's a different situation.

Thank you.

And if I could ask a quick follow-up.

to to the family, Are there, I guess, are there other situations that or organizations that you can think of, that have some similar dynamics? I guess, you know, voting or, you know, there are other things. But, yeah, I mean, the like, governing bodies of different kinds. But, yeah, I'm interested if you're if any other examples come up for you.

I don't have any other good examples except for if you absolutely have a situation where you really can't do without large group decision making. Let's say, for example, you have a professional organization with a thousand members run by a team of 12. Now if you want to have those, whatever I said, a thousand, be decision makers, if you use consent, you would have to also make sure that all thousand people have the same level of information so that if somebody objects, they don't do it just because they were misinformed. It's much harder to be on the same trajectory with a thousand people. And consent, as I said, was designed for a situation where you have small groups that hold a particular domain, have expertise in that domain. With a thousand people, you I would say the larger the group, the more likely it is for people to have all kinds of odd objections be that are not that are not coming from the daily or weekly work of seeing what's obvious in a given context. They don't have the context knowledge and the situational knowledge about that situation. So unless the domain the decision making domain makes a lot of sense for those a thousand those thousand people and they have a lot of insight there, I would not go to consent because it's just gonna be performative. It's just gonna be the situation where you ask, like, on a on a Slack channel, a thousand people or whatever, you know, in Discord, a thousand people, is there any objection? And everybody just goes like, I don't know a thing about this. I'm not gonna object. And but is that consent? You know? Like so sometimes it's used in that way. I'm like, okay, now we've just basically created a situation where those in some inner circle have more insight and set what proposals make it out and what kind of information or similar in sortation based things, for example, I worry about about that effect. So anyway, that's those are situations where I'd say, no. That's simply not made for that. Okay. Let me look at this. The I mean, introduce the concept of priority of constituency that specifies the order of preference, what is best for who. In that case, pertain the interest of the end user or the spec writers. Okay. How's the best interest of those impacted downstream representative objections have to be found? Yes. Okay. Nice. The two different places where I can go with that. One is the importance of feedback. Let me just write my second thing out before I forget it. So the importance of feedback to make a decision that works for everybody impacted, although they might not be decision makers. So one way is to make everybody decision maker who's impacted. Right? And the other way is to get feedback from those and keep the decision in a group small enough to digest all the information. If this now one can trust that they take that feedback feedback seriously and that they that they solicit that feedback, I would say in an organizational context, I would typically trust that because you're in the same boat. And outrage is not a useful way of like, it's not not a constructive way of running an organization. Like, for example, going back to the pay pay rate, if you decreased everybody's pay by 30% without getting them on board and hearing the feedback, there's just gonna be outrage and chaos that's not helpful. But if you want

May I clarify my question a little bit?

Yeah. Okay. Yes. And

I'm sorry. I I love where you're going, and I and I hope you can come right back around to it. I'm talking about downstream users of technologies who maybe are not consenting and are not part of an organization, but whose interests need to be represented somehow vis a vis the organization.

And the same thing happens also with nonmembers. You can ask them for for you can survey them. Like, getting feedback even from nonmembers is the same. So same answer. But the second part of my answer is if you wanted to make it enforceable that they get that feedback and take a certain stance into consideration, you could have an overarching policy that then everybody is bound by that would somehow bake that prioritization into decision making of everything downstream. So if you, let's say, had some, you know, because we have the nested circles, right, if you go to whatever higher level where you could make that decision and hold the domain, you could make a decision here that now binds everybody below or everybody in the whole organization, really. So you could hardwire it that way. I'm not a huge fan of that. I would only do it if you absolutely have to because the more constraint you build for everybody, the harder it is to operate, but it is possible.

So that would just have to be translated into a different context for a values based organization, rather than a simply a trust based organization. So that would have to be baked into procedures, and then it would be a procedure that you could invoke.

Yes. So for but yeah. Let's do an example where that comes up quite a bit in organization is in DI policies, for example. Like, if you had something meaningful that you want to bake in that binds everybody, that is possible. It's just so much harder to then make situationally good good, decisions. Right? Like, and it can create funny domain mismatches. Like, if you had a PI circle that makes some higher level decision about, I don't know, something that every circle let's say, for example, that every circle needs to have whatever, a person of a certain demographic in this in the as a member, now you've created a constraint everywhere that might not be so healthy for the internal functioning of that. So it's that's tricky, possible, but has its own downsides. Okay. Let's see. Philosophically, I agree with what you described here regarding groups. I thought of it mainly as delegated domain authority. Can you speak to how fit for purpose our tools are interoperability into inter domain maybe navigate a bit on future states of the art of consent by humans and exponentially faster viewing governance environments. And tell me again, let's see Mel, can you actually say it in your own words? Because now I lost the train of thought that this was on, just so that I'm fully back with you.

Yeah. And I do you know, I'm heavily torn on that, and I'm afraid I've radicalized myself a little bit on that one. So I'm always like, I'm I know that I have a little bit of an unpopular opinion, especially here. I think that having the possibility to communicate fast and wide and all of that creates the illusion that we have a shared context when we really don't. And the easier it is to set up systems where we can tell ourselves that the more we will show that mismatch. Like, I see it in organ you know, I'm like, I see it in organizations all the time that they kind of scale things when when yeah. And coherence. They lose coherence. And and just because technology makes it so easy, that just actually like, I just see that again and again. It's, you know, it's really the the the scale of trust that just doesn't happen so easily and people think they can replace it with a fancy tool and I just don't see that happening. So actually I'm going kind of the extreme opposite right now and saying like, okay, what do we, if we start from that place of coherence, how do we, how do we scale coherence in a way that's real? And what are the factors in that? So that's kind of when I was referring early in my slide to my last slide of kind of my latest thinking is that's kind of where I'm going of it's almost like a smallest beautiful situation. It's like, maybe we just really can't. So, anyway, that's that's where I'm that's where I'm going. So that's the WISER org stuff for me. You know, for example, just as one example, if we have a tool that lets us get like a survey to 5,000 people, that's great for some contexts. And I see that organizations struggle just with very, very basic things, like have like, the mental like, having aligned mental models, for example. Like, I can't tell you how many times I'm in organizations that have a basic misunderstanding of what is a strategy, you know, like what does the word strategy even mean? So they can't even talk about their strategy because they realize a few months in that they had a different understanding of what that even means. So that's what I mean by just coherence of, like, are we on the same page? That's so hard to reach. So

Yeah. And what I one thing that I say, for example, is to to clients and and students is I say, well, no proposal, for example, should ever come as a surprise. Like like, if if it comes as a surprise, then you're already that now now you're already too late. You know, like, this like, ideally, everything kind of gets massaged and, you know, then eventually, like, there is there is more of an organic growth situation where you use the governance to then kind of get it clear and get it tied up. But, ideally, there's a lot more underground that that builds that that coherence. But yeah. I'm popular, I think, because people are more than the like, oh, we can make this faster and with more people and at scale and this. And I'm like, I don't know. I think we can if we sacrifice a lot. Okay. Let me look at this. I'm wondering about the bias for action and inclusion point. So you are basically saying one option is chosen to go forward with, and then it is being evaluated onwards and adjustments. I mean, yes. But with path dependency of some decisions that force the circle to stay on a certain path from them and excluding other options. Yes. That is a trade off that is that is that is made. Yes. It is interesting. You know? It is possible to take a diff like, to kind of backtrack and take a different path. You can do that. And the good thing is because of the localized decision making, it's actually somewhat easy because typically that path, whatever that might be, affects only a part of the organization. You know? And you don't have like, you can kind of only work it out in that pocket and actually jump jump to different paths. Like, I I've seen that happen, like, with reorg stuff or, like, pivoting to to other things. It is it's not, yeah, it's not something that is impossible, but it is more built for incremental incremental stuff. That's true. Path, but then the decentralized decision making and clear autonomous domain and to all of that keep you also keep the door open for for for switching. That's why the combination, I think, is good. Alright. Do you ever encounter relatively new participants in Stephanie one to challenge, critique, replace the system? I see this a lot among those with activist backgrounds. Oh my god. So much. I sometimes joke, you know, this is more like backroom background conversation sometimes that I have with my colleagues of just like, how many people, before they wanna use a phone, have the urge to invent a phone? I don't. Other people, I don't see that happen. Talk about governance. Everybody wants to reinvent it. Like, what? Like, it's just insane. And I understand, and I really have a lot of compassion and and affection for wanting to own your own system. But I can't tell you how many times I've literally held a client's hand to watch them reinvent it. It's like, fuck. Like you know? And then they're like, oh, maybe we should have smaller groups. Like, yes. You should. You know? Oh, and maybe we should, you know, have a connection between groups. Yes. Brilliant. Do it. I could have told you that a long time ago. It's like it's wearing me out, and I think it's the single one thing that is wearing me out in my work of just watching it again and again and again. I don't know what that is. If somebody has an answer to me that would that would put me into a calmer place about it, I would really appreciate it because it's exacerbating.

Yeah. Go ahead. Yes, Daniel.

Yeah. You know, one I mean, and that's also where I'm really interested in in Medagov and all of the similar efforts of just also increasing I mean, there's tooling, but there's also upskilling and the conceptual clarity. Right? Because one thing that I encounter quite a bit is that people want to reinvent governance who do not fully understand what the purpose is of governance. You know? Like, the people that tell me, oh, we don't need sociocracy. We're gonna use open space to run our co op. I'm like, that's not the same thing. You know? Like, what do you mean? But there's just so there's been, I think, so much energy and so much attention to these group technologies, which is wonderful. I'm totally in the boat on that one. And I think not quite enough, yeah, just basic conceptual clarity on what tools do we need to run something reliably and whether where's the choice. Yeah. And that, I think, leads to the reinventing. Like, it's not that you can just randomly like, for example, the module modularity, that's actually a rift that goes through the sociocracy work at the world as well. There's the framework. It's called sociocracy three point o that basically had the idea of modularizing sociocracy. Like, take all the chunks and have it kind of a pick your own adventure situation. And that, yeah, that basically means that people I mean, the good thing about that is, you know, talking about the onboarding comparison, the good thing is that an organization can kind of choose what they're ready to choose. Right? They kind of pick from the menu. The problem is that what we see quite a bit is that they typically don't tend to choose the things that we would say they need. You know? They take the they take the easy things that go along with where they are, but it doesn't push them to go any further. Like, for example, first thing that people throw out is performance reviews and proper meeting evaluations because they're uncomfortable. But that's literally probably the the one thing they need, you know, like, to close that feedback loop. Because if it's uncomfortable, it's probably because there's things that are not being said. So, yeah, I don't have as much confidence in people's capacity to reinvent invent or pick and choose a system that would be good for them.

Tell me tell me more about what what kind of thing that could be.

I wanna see where you're going with this. Yeah. Go ahead.

Yeah. No. I like that. I'm thinking that's giving me a little new piece to to to to integrate. My initial idea when I'll when you spoke was yeah. First of all, I completely agree with Liz, by the way, on the traumas of the hierarchy of just, like, people have this adverse reaction. Right? At first, it was, let's have no system, and now it's like, let's have systems that are maximally inclusive that are then often not inclusive of the purpose of the organization and the kind of just productivity of it. But what would be quite cool, and that's what I'm baking in my in my head is there's kind of the distinction between governance as and I describe it in my in my most recent things. I basically describe it as very parallel to a a claiming selfhood and taking ownership of almost like taking ownership of your body. Like, you need to have control over your body as a human being. That's why there's all kinds of social or cognitive things to to do that for us in a same way. An organization needs to have collective agency on that level. As soon as that is taken care of and supplement supplemental, is that a word, to it, I think we need to have ways to build that coherence that we were talking about. And I think one could pour more energy and passion into coherence instead of questioning governance. Let's use governance as is. Things are taken care of. Like, we know how to do things and who's holding what, and it's happening. Yes. If you want to do more, let's have listening sessions. Let's have all kind there's so much good stuff. Let's have communities of practice. Let's have book clubs. Let's have upskilling, skill swapping. I don't care. Any of these things are supplemental and create more coherence and and help us have better skills and more collective kind of trajectory and mental models. That would be fantastic. But then we don't have to pull the plug on those things that we do have. Right? We don't need to undo structures that we have if they're good.

Sublimated. I'm learning the words here. What does that mean in this context?

Well, you wanted to channel the energy somewhere else. I'm really yeah. I don't know. Well, I don't know. Is there more that people want to bring up, challenge, or end? I'm also still reading on the interaction versus learning piece.

So I'm actually gonna riff you real quick on Liz, your comment. The interaction is scaling faster than those people's ability to learn. There is something that comes up for me quite a bit, and it clearly has my personal bias and where I am in life right now. But there is something about metabolizing things that's just slow. You know? Metabolizing things are slow. And metabolizing something as a group is slow. So there's just something to kind of yeah. And I think on that intellectual level, we underestimate that. We're like, oh, you know, like, I can just think my way through this. But to kind of really bring your whole self along, you have to metabolize it. And that will just be a slow process because matter doesn't go as fast as kind of the more ethereal intellectual stuff. And I think that that is neglected in organizations to really bring people along kind of more fully.

Oh, lovely. Oh, there is something. There's two things. In regard to the ability to learn and focus requires learning metabolizing, this process is slow as a group. It's even smaller. Oh, I see. Yes. I was like, I agree with this, but you're quoting me. That makes sense. Yeah. I'm really curious about I'm not curious about. I'm I'm my bet is on bioregional organizing because it makes so much sense. And that also, I guess, creates a different level of coherence. It creates a scale that people understand like a human scale situation. Let's see what happens with that. K?

Thank you.