The content on this page originates from this riseup pad started on 2016-02-17. The conversation there brought up valuable things that contributors agreed and disagreed on. Since a riseup pad is deleted after 30 days of inactivity I decided to migrate the content here to ensure it isn't lost. Please continue the conversation here. Best, Doug (2016-03-02)

Current situation

Contributors write wiki articles without any formal guidance.

Advantages

Articles written quickly

Disadvantages

Differences in tone, style, etc lead to inconsistency between articles

Some people fall into unwanted 'nit-picking' roles (Douglas Webb) please nitpic on my documents. I really apreciate that and will make it clear when its helpful and when its enough. I am very thankful for your input and very constructive criticism (Joachim Thome)

Disagreements

Proposal

Identify any opinions on writing that are currently shared by all Structure teamers. Add your name to contributors, list any opinion below and put your initials to the right hand side - we should then see if any opinions are common.

US English: This is the English decided on by the translators for their work and helps us internationalize the project - Douglas Webb, Janina Abels, Tilmann

Leave out emojis: Friendly tone can be conveyed without them, and they are generally distracting from technical content - Douglas Webb, Janina Abels, Tilmann Tilmann

Only single punctuation marks: Joachim Thome Double and triple exclamation/question marks reduce impact and seem childish - Douglas Webb, Janina Abels, Tilmann

Never use block capitals: Joachim Thome Only useful when filling in forms by hand. Conveys desperation and anger online - Douglas Webb, Janina Abels, Tilmann Joachim Thome

Only one style at a time: Use bold or italic or underline, not combinations - there are better ways to emphasize - Douglas Webb, Janina Abels, Tilmann

Use formatted headings: Instead of using bold, underline or increasing font size, try the available heading first - Douglas Webb, Janina Abels, Tilmann, Joachim Thome

Concise is good: Writing things with just as many words as needed reduces mental overload, boredom and allows complex topics to be grasped - Douglas Webb, Janina Abels, Tilmann, Joachim Thome

Clear is good: Using commonly used words where possible, removing contradictions and generally being specific remove confusion - Douglas Webb, Janina Abels, Tilmann

No unnecessary whitespace: Joachim Thome Formatting marks proceed letter without space. In the wiki, use the "Paragraph" formatting to separate blocks of text. This avoids newlines. Formatting done with headings, not 'carriage returns' (newlines) - Douglas Webb, Tilmann,

Write once: Duplicating content leads to maintenance issues Joachim Thome and reader boredom. If you need to reuse a section, consider 'excerpt' and 'insert excerpt' macros (ask Doug) - Douglas Webb, Tilmann

Direct then friendly tone: The primary purpose should be to convey information, though this is best achieved with a friendly tone - Douglas Webb, Janina Abels, TilmannTilmann Joachim Thome

Disagreement resolved with majority: We will have disagreements! Always aim to resolve with consent. If not, and with the interest of speed, disagreements resolved with ~~majority opinion~~ some agreed method (edited 2016-02-18). - Douglas Webb
- Joachim Thome majority is often enough simple domination...if i have to refer to these patterns i dont need to use a majority vote...if its about speed i would even prefer a simple consentcheck process: doing something, asking for resistance, if there is resistance check reasoning, if no resistance or reasoning not sufficient continue...fast pushed decisions normally lead to domination (which can be okay sometimes...this is mentioned from a structural point of view) , i have a high resistance against propagating domination patterns as a formal way > this reasoning would allow to always use domination just by announcing something as urgent. This behavior happens allready because of inherited patterns, we dont need to support it but instead do our work to transform these patterns.
- Douglas Webb: Can you (Joachim Thome) clarify your proposal for quick solving of disagreements?

- - Joachim Thome: Its not yet a clarified proposal...i prefer making decisions with systemic consensus. It can even be done adhoc...at least with children that are not indoctrinated with dominating behavior. The problem are the confused adults : people that cant seperate creative process from decision, and cant seperate deciding together from deciding for a group. So we could use systemic consensus for fast collaborative decisions> have clear that there is always the option to choose further options , have clear there is always the zero solution , make clear proposals , check out the resistance in the group towards all proposals...that is not hard for people who really understand the sc and always have the value of collaboration, community, equality and freedom of choice clear in their minds and are not overclouded by authorityconflicts and fear to not belong. There is no system that will save us from abandoning it as soon as these fears and conflicts crawl on us (which always happens when we leave our comfort zone). The only thing that helps then are clear values and the resolve to live for these values (rather then to support the old value of accumulating primarily individual power, also over others)
    Again...with children that works much easier.
    And as you see decision making is a core element of our behavior. Its not something that we can work around. The triggers in that area are deep.
    The problem is also not that we use dominating behavior, but that we use it and deny ourselves the awarenes that we do it.
    Our informal ways of making decisions derive also from the formal ways that we got teached with.
    Majority vote = democracy
    That is the equation we learned for years.
    But that equation was never right.
    Correct would be majority vote is more democratic than autocracy
    and systemic consensus is more democratic than majority vote
    So you want a quick way of solving disagreements (that are not the old way) ? Train systemic consensus and understand it so that its not a strange system anymore but your way of doing things intrinsicly in your daily life. When it is a routine for a group quickness is not an issue anymore. In a group situation that doesnt mean that everyone needs to be perfect directly. Its the people that care for decision making most that need to have it present all the time.
    As the structure group we are these people. As long as we do not have the clarity or the routine to do sc adhoc we will fall back into old patterns as soon as things seem to be pressing.
    So my sugguestion would be : get rid of the notion that something can be so pressing that it needs dominatve behavior. We still can use it. But that should be a conscious choice while knowing that it means falling back to old behavior out of convenience.
    We are on a good way. We could try to formalize everything in order to feel secure about what we are doing or we can accept that we dont have security yet in some things and that it will take some more working together to come to a common understanding. - Joachim Thome
    Good decisions can cannot be forced or rushed. When they get time then they can come fast.

- - - Douglas Webb: All valid points. Very happy to develop a bespoke systemic consensus based system for the wiki instead of a majority based system. I will think about a version we could use, of course all and any welcome to think and propose also!

- - - Tilmann: I see both of your points. However, I would rather focus on the creative community process (how we arrive at the proposals) rather than weighting between majority vote and resistance vote. A voting mechanism does not deliver new solutions, instead it resolves arguments.

Contributors

Douglas Webb, Janina Abels, Tilmann, Joachim Thome