feat: expand seed library from 6 to 100 protocols

Added 94 new protocol YAML seed files covering diverse global cultures
and practices:

Indigenous & traditional: Maori powhiri, Aboriginal yarning, Somali xeer,
Moroccan jmaa, Tswana kgotla, Zulu imbizo, Peruvian ronda campesina,
Ohlone land-back, Inuit IQ consensus, Haudenosaunee condolence,
Navajo peacemaking, Ojibwe pipe ceremony, Polynesian talanoa,
Rwandan gacaca, West African palaver tree, Mexican tequio,
Javanese musyawarah-mufakat, Tibetan story council, Korean yangban,
Filipino utari, Ainu practices

Religious communities: Quaker meeting for business, clearness committee,
Amish shunning (Meidung), Mennonite discernment, Jewish hevruta,
Rastafari nyabinghi reasoning

Facilitation: World Cafe, Open Space, Future Search, Six Thinking Hats,
Dynamic Facilitation, Socratic Seminar, Delphi method, Copenhagen
Consensus, Lean Coffee, Hackathon sprint, Agile retrospective,
Stand-up meeting, Pair programming, Roadmap planning

Governance: Sociocratic consent selection, Dynamic self-governance,
Cooperative consensus, Hackerspace consensus, Mastodon governance,
Climate assemblies (x2), Basque asamblearismo

Conflict & repair: Restorative conference, circle sentencing,
Nonviolent Communication (3 protocols), Active listening mirror,
Appreciative apology repair

Community & care: Community kitchen, Gratefulness circle, Passing circle,
Paired walking, Deep listening dyad, Mutual aid, Permaculture charrette

Education: Barefoot College night school, Socratic seminar

Everyday: Various greeting, transition, and gratitude protocols

All protocols credit original sources. Cultural context noted in
descriptions. All YAML files validated.

seeds/aboriginal-yarning.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+id: aboriginal-yarning
+title: Aboriginal Yarning Circle
+description: >-
+  An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander practice of unstructured but
+  purposeful storytelling and conversation in a circle, used to build
+  relationship, share knowledge, and address matters respectfully. Yarning
+  is a recognised research and clinical method in Indigenous Australian
+  contexts.
+source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander practice / Lowitja Institute
+source_url: https://www.lowitja.org.au/
+tags: [aboriginal, australian, yarning, indigenous, dialogue]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Sit in a circle
+    description: >-
+      Participants sit in a circle, often outdoors. There is no fixed
+      agenda; the yarn follows what needs to be spoken, in its own time.
+  - headline: Share story
+    description: >-
+      Participants share stories — personal, family, country, history —
+      that bear on the matter. Story carries knowledge differently from
+      argument.
+  - headline: Listen without interruption
+    description: >-
+      Each person is heard without cross-talk. Listeners receive the story
+      as a gift, not as material to rebut.
+  - headline: Let the yarn find its way
+    description: >-
+      The yarn moves where it needs to, often circling back. The
+      unstructured quality is the point — meaning emerges through
+      patient sharing.
+  - headline: Close when complete
+    description: >-
+      The yarn closes when those present feel it is complete, not when a
+      clock says. A shared cup of tea or meal often marks the close.
+outcome: >-
+  Knowledge and relationship are built through respectful storytelling,
+  in a form that honours Indigenous ways of knowing.
+practice: >-
+  Do not impose an agenda. The yarn's time is its own. If you are not
+  Aboriginal, follow the lead of those who are — yarning is a cultural
+  practice, not a meeting technique.

seeds/active-listening-mirror.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: active-listening-mirror
+title: Active Listening Mirror
+description: >-
+  A paired listening practice where the listener reflects back what they
+  heard before responding. Drawn from client-centred therapy traditions
+  developed by Carl Rogers and widely used in mediation and counselling.
+source: Carl Rogers, "Client-Centered Therapy"
+source_url: https://www.simplypsychology.org/client-centered-therapy.html
+tags: [listening, communication, conflict, mirroring]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Speaker shares
+    description: >-
+      The speaker shares what is on their mind for a set time, while the
+      listener gives full attention without interruption.
+  - headline: Mirror back
+    description: >-
+      The listener reflects back what they heard in their own words: "What
+      I'm hearing is..." without adding interpretation or rebuttal.
+  - headline: Confirm or correct
+    description: >-
+      The speaker confirms whether the mirror is accurate or adds
+      clarification; the listener mirrors again if needed.
+  - headline: Switch
+    description: >-
+      Roles swap and the process repeats, so each person is both heard and
+      heard-from.
+outcome: >-
+  Each person feels accurately heard before any response or problem-solving
+  begins, reducing miscommunication and escalation.
+practice: >-
+  Resist the urge to respond before mirroring. The mirror is not agreement
+  — it is accuracy. If the speaker cannot confirm the mirror, try again
+  rather than moving on.

seeds/agile-retrospective-five-steps.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+id: agile-retrospective-five-steps
+title: Agile Retrospective
+description: >-
+  A five-step team reflection meeting held at the end of an iteration to
+  improve process. Formalised in the Agile software development tradition,
+  drawing on Norm Kerth's retrospective prime directive.
+source: Esther Derby and Diana Larsen, "Agile Retrospectives"
+source_url: https://www.agileretrospectives.com/
+tags: [agile, retrospective, teams, improvement]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Set the stage
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator states the retrospective prime directive and checks in
+      each person briefly, setting psychological safety.
+  - headline: Gather data
+    description: >-
+      The team collects what happened during the iteration — events,
+      metrics, feelings — without interpretation.
+  - headline: Generate insights
+    description: >-
+      The team analyses the data for patterns and root causes, asking why
+      things happened as they did.
+  - headline: Decide what to do
+    description: >-
+      The team selects one or two actionable improvements for the next
+      iteration, with owners and due dates.
+  - headline: Close
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator closes with appreciation and a check on how the
+      retrospective itself went.
+outcome: >-
+  The team commits to one or two concrete improvements owned by named
+  people, with shared understanding of why.
+practice: >-
+  The prime directive matters: "Regardless of what we discover, we
+  understand and truly believe that everyone did the best job they could."
+  It prevents blame.

seeds/amish-shunning-meidung.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+id: amish-shunning-meidung
+title: Amish Meidung Discipline
+description: >-
+  An Amish practice of communal discipline in which a member who has
+  violated the Ordnung (community rules) and refused to repent is shunned
+  — members limit social contact to encourage repentance and restoration.
+  Rooted in Anabaptist tradition and based on Matthew 18:15-17.
+source: Amish tradition / Anabaptist practice
+source_url: https://groups.amishcountry.org/
+tags: [amish, anabaptist, discipline, restoration, community]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Private admonition
+    description: >-
+      A member who has violated the Ordnung is first admonished privately by
+      one or two members, seeking repentance and restoration.
+  - headline: Bring to the church
+    description: >-
+      If private admonition fails, the matter is brought to the church
+      (congregation). The member is again urged to repent.
+  - headline: Vote on meidung
+    description: >-
+      If the member still refuses, the congregation votes to enter meidung
+      — shunning. The vote is a communal act, not a leader's decree.
+  - headline: Shun to restore
+    description: >-
+      Members limit social contact with the shunned person — no communal
+      meals, no business — while continuing family obligations. The purpose
+      is to make restoration desirable, not to exile permanently.
+  - headline: Receive the repentant
+    description: >-
+      If the member repents, the congregation receives them back with joy
+      and a vote to end the meidung. Restoration, not punishment, is the
+      end.
+outcome: >-
+  A member is disciplined by the community with the explicit goal of
+  restoration; shunning ends the moment repentance is genuine.
+practice: >-
+  Meidung is painful and used rarely. The purpose is always restoration,
+  not exile. Family obligations continue even in shunning — it is social,
+  not familial, severance.

seeds/appreciative-apology-repair.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+id: appreciative-apology-repair
+title: Appreciative Apology and Repair
+description: >-
+  A paired practice for delivering and receiving an apology so that repair
+  actually occurs, drawing on restorative and Nonviolent Communication
+  traditions. Distinct from a defensive or hollow apology.
+source: Restorative communication tradition
+source_url: https://www.iirp.edu/
+tags: [apology, repair, restorative, communication]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Name the act specifically
+    description: >-
+      The person apologising names what they did in specific terms —
+      "I raised my voice and called your idea foolish in the meeting" — not
+      "I'm sorry if you were hurt."
+  - headline: Acknowledge the impact
+    description: >-
+      They describe the impact they understand their action had, without
+      minimising or explaining it away.
+  - headline: Express genuine regret
+    description: >-
+      They express regret for the harm, not for being caught — naming what
+      they wish they had done.
+  - headline: Offer repair
+    description: >-
+      They offer a concrete act of repair — a correction to those present,
+      a changed behaviour, a restitution — and ask if it would help.
+  - headline: Receive and respond
+    description: >-
+      The person harmed receives the apology, names what they need (which
+      may include time), and either accepts the repair or proposes an
+      alternative.
+outcome: >-
+  An apology is delivered and received as repair, with both parties clear
+  on what happened, its impact, and the path forward.
+practice: >-
+  "I'm sorry you felt" is not an apology. "I'm sorry I did" is. The repair
+  must be offered, not imposed — ask what would help, then negotiate.

seeds/appreciative-inquiry-summit.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+id: appreciative-inquiry-summit
+title: Appreciative Inquiry Summit
+description: >-
+  A large-group method that discovers and amplifies what is already working
+  in an organisation or community. Developed by David Cooperrider at Case
+  Western Reserve University.
+source: David Cooperrider, "Appreciative Inquiry"
+source_url: https://positivechange.org/how-does-ai-work/
+tags: [appreciative-inquiry, summit, strengths, large-group]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Define the affirmative topic
+    description: >-
+      A steering group chooses positive, strength-based topics to inquire into
+      — for example "moments of exceptional collaboration" rather than
+      "fixing dysfunction."
+  - headline: Discovery interviews
+    description: >-
+      Participants pair up and interview each other about peak experiences
+      related to the topic, listening for what made those moments possible.
+  - headline: Dream
+    description: >-
+      Small groups share stories and craft a shared image of what the
+      organisation could look like if those strengths were amplified.
+  - headline: Design
+    description: >-
+      Groups propose specific arrangements — structures, practices,
+      relationships — that would support the dream.
+  - headline: Destiny
+    description: >-
+      Individuals and groups commit to concrete next actions they will take,
+      building on the design proposals.
+outcome: >-
+  The group identifies strengths and commits to bold, shared aspirations
+  grounded in real lived experience.
+practice: >-
+  The affirmative topic is everything. If framed as a problem, the summit
+  collapses into complaint. Spend real time crafting the topic wording.

seeds/arab-majlis.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+id: arab-majlis
+title: Arab Majlis Consultation
+description: >-
+  A traditional Gulf Arab gathering in which community members sit together
+  to discuss matters, petition leaders, and seek counsel. The majlis is a
+  recognised cultural space for accessible consultation in Arab societies,
+  inscribed on the UNESCO Representative List of Intangible Cultural
+  Heritage.
+source: UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage
+source_url: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/majlis-00744
+tags: [majlis, arab, consultation, governance]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Open the majlis
+    description: >-
+      The host opens the majlis at an agreed time; all are welcome without
+      appointment, in keeping with the practice's accessibility.
+  - headline: Receive attendees
+    description: >-
+      The host greets each attendee and offers hospitality — typically
+      coffee and dates — establishing a relationship of welcome.
+  - headline: Hear the matters
+    description: >-
+      Attendees raise matters of concern, whether personal disputes,
+      community issues, or requests of the host. The host listens to each in
+      turn.
+  - headline: Respond and consult
+    description: >-
+      The host responds, offers counsel, or refers the matter to those with
+      the relevant authority, consulting those present as appropriate.
+  - headline: Close with thanks
+    description: >-
+      The majlis closes when all matters are heard; attendees depart with
+      thanks, leaving the relationship intact for the next gathering.
+outcome: >-
+  Community members access decision-makers directly; matters are heard and
+  addressed within a relationship of mutual respect.
+practice: >-
+  Accessibility is the heart of the majlis. If the host becomes hard to
+  reach, the form is lost. Hospitality is not decoration — it signals the
+  equality of guest and host.

seeds/art-of-hosting-harvest.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+id: art-of-hosting-harvest
+title: Art of Hosting Harvest
+description: >-
+  A practice from the Art of Hosting community for collectively capturing
+  the "harvest" — insights, decisions, patterns — of a gathering in a form
+  that can travel to those not present. Developed by practitioners of
+  participatory facilitation including Toke Paludan-Müller and Monica
+  Nissén.
+source: Art of Hosting Conversations That Matter
+source_url: https://artofhosting.org/
+tags: [art-of-hosting, harvest, documentation, facilitation]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Name a harvest team
+    description: >-
+      Before the gathering, a small team is named to steward the harvest,
+      with responsibility for capturing and shaping what emerges.
+  - headline: Capture in multiple forms
+    description: >-
+      The team captures the gathering in words, images, graphic recordings,
+      and photos, attending to patterns as well as conclusions.
+  - headline: Share at intervals
+    description: >-
+      The harvest is shared back to the group at intervals, so participants
+      see what is being captured and can correct or add to it.
+  - headline: Shape for those absent
+    description: >-
+      The team shapes the harvest for those who were not present — a
+      report, a story, a visual — so the gathering's learning can travel.
+  - headline: Publish and offer
+    description: >-
+      The harvest is published or offered to the wider community, with
+      attribution to the contributors and an invitation to build on it.
+outcome: >-
+  The gathering's insights and patterns are captured in a form that can
+  travel to those not present, extending the work beyond the room.
+practice: >-
+  Harvest is not minutes. It is the meaning made visible. Choose forms
+  that fit the audience — a graphic recording may carry more than a
+  report for some communities.

seeds/barefoot-college-night-school.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+id: barefoot-college-night-school
+title: Barefoot College Night School Assembly
+description: >-
+  A practice from Barefoot College (Tilonia, Rajasthan, India) where night
+  schools for rural children are governed by a children's parliament that
+  oversees the schools. Originating in the work of Bunker Roy, the night
+  schools serve children who work during the day.
+source: Barefoot College / Social Work and Research Centre (SWRC), Tilonia
+source_url: https://www.barefootcollege.org/
+tags: [india, barefoot-college, education, children, governance]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Elect the children's parliament
+    description: >-
+      Children from the night schools elect a parliament, including a
+      prime minister and ministers, through a formal process. The
+      parliament governs the night schools.
+  - headline: Parliament meets regularly
+    description: >-
+      The children's parliament meets, hearing reports from each night
+      school — attendance, teacher performance, facilities, problems.
+  - headline: Address issues raised
+    description: >-
+      The parliament addresses issues — a teacher missing, a solar lamp
+      broken — and assigns ministers to follow up, with real authority to
+      act.
+  - headline: Report to the community
+    description: >-
+      The parliament reports to the broader community and to Barefoot
+      College staff, who support but do not override the children's
+      decisions.
+outcome: >-
+  Rural night schools are governed by the children who attend them,
+  building agency and accountability from the youngest participants.
+practice: >-
+  The children's authority is real. If adults override the parliament, the
+  form collapses. Support, do not decide for them.

seeds/basque-asamblearismo.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+id: basque-asamblearismo
+title: Basque Asamblearismo Assembly
+description: >-
+  A Basque practice of horizontal assembly decision-making used in
+  cooperatives, social movements, and community organisations in the
+  Basque Country. Rooted in Basque traditions of communal self-governance
+  and in the Mondragon cooperative experience.
+source: Mondragon Cooperative Corporation / Basque assembly tradition
+source_url: https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/
+tags: [basque, assembly, cooperative, horizontal, governance]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene the assembly
+    description: >-
+      All members of the cooperative or organisation are convened. The
+      assembly is the sovereign body; no smaller group can override it.
+  - headline: Present with full information
+    description: >-
+      Proposals are presented with full financial, social, and strategic
+      information, shared in advance so members arrive prepared.
+  - headline: Deliberate horizontally
+    description: >-
+      Discussion proceeds without hierarchy of rank. A facilitator manages
+      turn-taking; all members may speak, including the newest.
+  - headline: Decide by majority or consensus
+    description: >-
+      The assembly decides by the agreed threshold — often majority, sometimes
+      consensus — with dissent recorded and the reasons stated.
+  - headline: Mandate the governing council
+    description: >-
+      The assembly mandates the governing council to implement the
+      decision, with the council accountable back to the next assembly.
+outcome: >-
+  A decision is made by the full membership, with the governing council
+  mandated and accountable, in a form that keeps sovereignty with the
+  assembly.
+practice: >-
+  Full information in advance is the discipline. An assembly that decides
+  without prior information is a rubber stamp. The council implements but
+  does not overrule.

seeds/basque-ikastola-assembly.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+id: basque-ikastola-assembly
+title: Basque Ikastola Parents' Assembly
+description: >-
+  A Basque practice in which the parents of an ikastola — a Basque-medium
+  cooperative school — govern the school through a general assembly, with
+  each family holding a voice. Ikastolas emerged during the Franco era as
+  grassroots Basque language schools and remain parent-cooperative in
+  governance.
+source: Ikastola movement / Federation of Ikastolas of the Basque Country
+source_url: https://www.ikastola.eus/
+tags: [basque, ikastola, education, cooperative, assembly]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene all families
+    description: >-
+      The ikastola convenes a general assembly of all families whose
+      children attend. Each family, not each parent, holds a voice in the
+      governance of the school.
+  - headline: Present with full accounts
+    description: >-
+      The governing board presents the school's accounts, educational
+      plan, and staff situation, shared in advance so families arrive
+      informed.
+  - headline: Deliberate on direction
+    description: >-
+      The assembly deliberates on the school's direction — pedagogical
+      choices, Basque-language policy, finances, staffing — with all
+      families able to speak.
+  - headline: Vote by family
+    description: >-
+      The assembly votes on decisions, each family casting one vote. The
+      board is elected or confirmed from among the families.
+  - headline: Mandate the board
+    description: >-
+      The assembly mandates the board to implement the decisions, with the
+      board accountable to the next assembly.
+outcome: >-
+  A Basque-medium school is governed by the families whose children
+  attend, with direction set by assembly and implemented by an
+  accountable board.
+practice: >-
+  The family-as-member structure is what makes an ikastola cooperative,
+  not state. If families disengage and the board self-perpetuates, the
+  form drifts toward ordinary school governance.

seeds/chatham-house-rule.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+id: chatham-house-rule
+title: Chatham House Rule
+description: >-
+  A confidentiality protocol for meetings, under which participants are
+  free to use information received but may not reveal the identity or
+  affiliation of the speaker. Originating at the Royal Institute of
+  International Affairs (Chatham House) in London in 1927.
+source: Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House)
+source_url: https://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/chatham-house-rule
+tags: [confidentiality, meetings, dialogue, trust]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Declare the rule
+    description: >-
+      The convenor states at the opening that the meeting is held under the
+      Chatham House Rule, and reads or summarises the rule for those
+      unfamiliar.
+  - headline: Participants speak freely
+    description: >-
+      Participants speak knowing that what they say may be reported, but not
+      who said it. This frees those in official roles to speak personally.
+  - headline: Use information, not identity
+    description: >-
+      After the meeting, anyone may use the information they heard, but must
+      not disclose the identity or affiliation of any speaker, nor describe
+      them in ways that would identify them.
+  - headline: Hold each other accountable
+    description: >-
+      Participants are expected to uphold the rule themselves. Breaches are
+      taken seriously as they undermine the trust on which the form depends.
+outcome: >-
+  Participants share information and views more openly than they would on
+  the record, while protecting speakers from attribution.
+practice: >-
+  The rule is a discipline, not a default. State it explicitly when it
+  applies. Some meetings use a stronger variant — no reporting at all —
+  which is not the Chatham House Rule.

seeds/climate-assembly-oxford.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+id: climate-assembly-oxford
+title: Oxford Citizens' Climate Assembly
+description: >-
+  A specific citizens' assembly model piloted by the newDemocracy
+  Foundation and Oxford City Council, in which a stratified random sample
+  of residents deliberates on climate policy and reports recommendations
+  to council. Part of the wider citizens' assembly movement for
+  deliberative democracy on climate.
+source: newDemocracy Foundation / Oxford City Council
+source_url: https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/
+tags: [citizens-assembly, climate, sortition, local-government]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Recruit by sortition
+    description: >-
+      A stratified random sample of around 40 Oxford residents is recruited
+      to reflect the city's demographics on age, gender, ethnicity, and
+      deprivation.
+  - headline: Learn over multiple weekends
+    description: >-
+      The assembly meets over two or more weekends, hearing from climate
+      experts, stakeholders, and each other, with time to question and
+      deliberate.
+  - headline: Deliberate in facilitated small groups
+    description: >-
+      Members deliberate in small facilitated groups, working through
+      trade-offs and drafting recommendations, with all voices
+      supported.
+  - headline: Vote on recommendations
+    description: >-
+      The assembly votes on each recommendation. Recommendations that pass
+      are reported with the level of support and dissent noted.
+  - headline: Report and council response
+    description: >-
+      The assembly reports to the council, which commits to respond to
+      each recommendation — accept, reject, or adapt — within a set time.
+outcome: >-
+  A representative body of residents produces considered climate
+  recommendations, and the council is bound to respond publicly to each.
+practice: >-
+  The council's commitment to respond is what gives the assembly weight.
+  Without it, the assembly becomes consultation theatre. Sortition, not
+  self-selection, is the legitimacy.

seeds/climate-assembly-sortition.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+id: climate-assembly-sortition
+title: Citizens' Climate Assembly
+description: >-
+  A deliberative democracy method where a representative sample of a
+  population, chosen by sortition (random selection), is convened to learn
+  about and recommend policy on a complex issue. Used increasingly for
+  climate policy, following models from Ireland, France, and the UK.
+source: newDemocracy Foundation / OECD Innovative Citizen Participation
+source_url: https://www.oecd.org/governance/innovative-citizen-participation/
+tags: [sortition, citizens-assembly, climate, deliberative-democracy]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Select by sortition
+    description: >-
+      A representative sample of the population — typically 60 to 150 people
+      — is selected by random stratified sortition to reflect the
+      demographics of the whole.
+  - headline: Learn from evidence
+    description: >-
+      The assembly hears from experts, stakeholders, and community members
+      across the spectrum of views, with time to question and deliberate.
+  - headline: Deliberate in small groups
+    description: >-
+      Members deliberate in facilitated small groups, working through the
+      trade-offs and values at stake, with facilitators ensuring all speak.
+  - headline: Draft recommendations
+    description: >-
+      The assembly drafts recommendations, voting on each. Recommendations
+      reflect the considered view of the body, including dissent.
+  - headline: Report to the polity
+    description: >-
+      The assembly's recommendations are presented to the sponsoring
+      government or public, with a commitment to respond.
+outcome: >-
+  A representative body of ordinary citizens produces considered
+  recommendations on a complex issue, informed by evidence and deliberation.
+practice: >-
+  The sortition is the legitimacy — it is not a self-selected panel.
+  Quality of facilitation determines whether all voices actually shape the
+  outcome. Government must commit to respond, or the assembly erodes trust.

seeds/community-kitchen.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+id: community-kitchen
+title: Community Kitchen Rotation
+description: >-
+  A mutual aid practice in which members take turns cooking for the whole
+  group, sharing labour and food, and creating regular time together.
+  Found in many cultural traditions, including Sikh langar, Jewish
+  community kitchens, and contemporary mutual aid networks.
+source: Sikh langar tradition / mutual aid networks
+source_url: https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Langar
+tags: [mutual-aid, food, community, rotation]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Establish the rotation
+    description: >-
+      The group agrees on a regular meal — weekly or monthly — and a
+      rotation of who cooks for each one. The burden and the gift rotate.
+  - headline: Cook for all
+    description: >-
+      The cook for that meal prepares food for the whole group, accounting
+      for dietary needs. The meal is free to those who come.
+  - headline: Eat together
+    description: >-
+      The group gathers, shares the meal, and eats together. The cook is
+      released from other tasks for that gathering.
+  - headline: Clean together
+    description: >-
+      After the meal, those who ate clean up alongside or instead of the
+      cook, so the labour does not all fall on one.
+  - headline: Acknowledge and rotate
+    description: >-
+      The cook is thanked; the next cook is named. The rotation continues,
+      keeping the gift circulating.
+outcome: >-
+  The group shares food and time regularly, with the labour of cooking
+  distributed rather than concentrated on a few.
+practice: >-
+  The rotation is the heart. If the same people always cook, it becomes
+  service, not mutual aid. Shared cleanup is as important as shared food.

seeds/confucian-ancestor-ritual.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+id: confucian-ancestor-ritual
+title: Confucian Ancestor Reverence Ritual
+description: >-
+  A Chinese ritual practice of offering food, incense, and reverence to
+  ancestors at a home or clan altar, reaffirming lineage and obligation.
+  Rooted in Confucian and broader Chinese tradition, the practice is
+  performed at regular intervals and at festivals such as Qingming.
+source: Confucian tradition / Chinese cultural practice
+source_url: https://www.britannica.com/topic/ancestor-veneration
+tags: [confucian, chinese, ancestor, ritual, family]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Set the altar
+    description: >-
+      The family sets the altar with the ancestors' tablets or photographs,
+      incense, and offerings of food and drink that the ancestors enjoyed
+      in life.
+  - headline: Offer with reverence
+    description: >-
+      The senior family member offers incense and food, bowing before the
+      altar. The offering is made as if the ancestors were present to
+      receive it.
+  - headline: Name the ancestors
+    description: >-
+      The ancestors are named — recently departed first, then the lineage.
+      Naming keeps the relationship specific, not abstract.
+  - headline: Report family matters
+    description: >-
+      The senior member reports significant family matters — births,
+      deaths, milestones — to the ancestors, keeping them present in the
+      family's ongoing life.
+  - headline: Share the food
+    description: >-
+      The family shares the offered food together, the meal now blessed by
+      the offering. The ritual closes in shared eating.
+outcome: >-
+  The lineage is reaffirmed; the living and the dead remain in
+  relationship, with family identity strengthened across generations.
+practice: >-
+  The ritual is not superstition — it is the maintenance of relationship
+  with those who made the living. Perform it regularly, not only at
+  crisis. The food shared afterwards is part of the ritual.

seeds/consensus-with-facilitator.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+id: consensus-with-facilitator
+title: Consensus Decision with Facilitator
+description: >-
+  A facilitated consensus process in which a group works toward agreement
+  that everyone can support or at least not block. Common in cooperative and
+  activist organising, drawing on Quaker and collective practice.
+source: Seeds for Change, "Consensus Decision Making"
+source_url: https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus
+tags: [consensus, decision-making, facilitation]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Present the proposal
+    description: >-
+      A proposer summarises the proposal and the need it addresses, then
+      yields to questions of clarification only — not opinions.
+  - headline: Gather concerns
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator invites concerns and reservations, listed visibly
+      without debate. Each concern is a chance to improve the proposal.
+  - headline: Amend and discuss
+    description: >-
+      The group discusses amendments that address concerns, with the
+      facilitator tracking proposals and checking for agreement on each
+      change.
+  - headline: Test for consensus
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator asks whether anyone cannot live with the revised
+      proposal. A block must come with a reasoned explanation and an offer to
+      help find a solution.
+  - headline: Confirm and record
+    description: >-
+      The decision is restated, written down with any reservations noted, and
+      the action steps and responsible parties are confirmed.
+outcome: >-
+  A decision that all participants can support, with dissent engaged rather
+  than overridden.
+practice: >-
+  Distinguish a block from a stand-aside. A block is rare and serious — when
+  blocks recur, revisit the proposal's assumptions or the group's shared aims.

seeds/cooperative-consent-round.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+id: cooperative-consent-round
+title: Cooperative Consent Round
+description: >-
+  A decision method where each member in turn states consent, stand-aside,
+  or objection to a proposal, so the decision is recorded with all
+  positions visible. Used in worker cooperatives and sociocratic
+  organisations.
+source: Sociocracy for All / worker cooperative tradition
+source_url: https://www.sociocracyforall.org/
+tags: [consent, cooperative, decision-making, governance]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Present the proposal
+    description: >-
+      The proposer presents the proposal and answers clarifying questions
+      only. No opinions are offered yet.
+  - headline: Open for reaction
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator opens a brief round of reactions to surface concerns,
+      without yet seeking resolution. Concerns are listed visibly.
+  - headline: Amend to address concerns
+    description: >-
+      The proposer amends the proposal to address concerns that have been
+      raised, stating each change explicitly.
+  - headline: Consent round
+    description: >-
+      Each member in turn states one of: consent (no reasoned objection),
+      stand-aside (I won't help but won't block), or objection (a specific
+      reason this would cause harm).
+  - headline: Address objections or withdraw
+    description: >-
+      Objections are addressed by further amendment. If an objection cannot
+      be resolved, the proposal is withdrawn or held.
+outcome: >-
+  A decision is adopted with every member's position recorded, including
+  stand-asides; no one is silently carried along.
+practice: >-
+  The consent round is the key step — it surfaces the silent dissenter.
+  Stand-aside is not a block; it is a recorded non-participation. Objections
+  must be reasoned and specific.

seeds/cooperative-sociocracy-circle.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+id: cooperative-sociocracy-circle
+title: Sociocratic Circle Meeting
+description: >-
+  A sociocratic circle meeting where a working group governs its own domain
+  by consent, with a chosen leader and roles, within the larger
+  organisation's circles. Developed in the Netherlands by Gerard Endenburg
+  as Sociocratic Circle-Organisation Method (SCM).
+source: Sociocracy for All / Endenburg Electrical Engineering
+source_url: https://www.sociocracyforall.org/
+tags: [sociocracy, circle, consent, cooperative, governance]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Open with round
+    description: >-
+      The circle opens with a brief round in which each member shares how
+      they are arriving, setting connection before business.
+  - headline: Consent to agenda
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator proposes an agenda. The circle consents to it —
+      anyone may add an item by raising a reasoned objection.
+  - headline: Work each item by consent
+    description: >-
+      Each agenda item is worked by consent: presentation, clarifying
+      questions, consent round. Decisions are adopted when no reasoned
+      objection remains.
+  - headline: Review roles and measurements
+    description: >-
+      The circle periodically reviews its roles (leader, facilitator,
+      secretary) and its measurements, consenting to any changes.
+  - headline: Close with round
+    description: >-
+      The circle closes with a brief round — one word or sentence from
+      each — and the next meeting is confirmed.
+outcome: >-
+  The circle governs its domain by consent, with all roles and decisions
+  held by the members rather than imposed from above.
+practice: >-
+  Consent is not consensus — it asks "is this good enough for now, and
+  safe enough to try?" not "do we all agree?" This difference lets the
+  circle move.

seeds/copenhagen-consensus.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+id: copenhagen-consensus
+title: Copenhagen Consensus Expert Prioritisation
+description: >-
+  A method where a panel of economists prioritises global challenges by
+  cost-benefit analysis, used by the Copenhagen Consensus Center founded
+  by Bjorn Lomborg. Combines expert panels with economic evaluation to
+  direct attention to the most effective interventions.
+source: Copenhagen Consensus Center
+source_url: https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
+tags: [prioritisation, experts, cost-benefit, global, policy]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Commission challenge papers
+    description: >-
+      For each challenge, an expert is commissioned to write a paper
+      assessing interventions and their cost-benefit ratios, with
+      transparent methodology.
+  - headline: Expert panel deliberates
+    description: >-
+      A panel of distinguished economists reads the papers, questions the
+      authors, and deliberates on the relative value of interventions
+      across challenges.
+  - headline: Rank by return
+    description: >-
+      The panel ranks interventions by their benefit-cost ratio, producing
+      a list that directs attention and resources to the highest-return
+      options.
+  - headline: Publish with dissent
+    description: >-
+      The rankings are published with the panel's reasoning and any
+      dissenting notes, so the basis is transparent and open to challenge.
+  - headline: Invite response
+    description: >-
+      The wider community of experts and the public are invited to respond,
+      with the possibility of revisiting rankings in light of new
+      evidence.
+outcome: >-
+  A transparent prioritisation of interventions, based on cost-benefit
+  analysis and expert deliberation, published with reasoning for
+  scrutiny.
+practice: >-
+  The cost-benefit frame has limits — it can miss values not easily
+  monetised. Use it as one input, not as the answer. Transparency of
+  method is what makes it challengeable.

seeds/council-process.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: council-process
+title: Council Practice
+description: >-
+  A circle-based dialogue practice with four intentions — speak from the
+  heart, listen from the heart, be spontaneous, and be lean. Rooted in
+  Native American and global council traditions, formalised by the Ojai
+  Foundation.
+source: The Ojai Foundation / Jack Zimmerman
+source_url: https://www.ojaifoundation.org/council
+tags: [council, indigenous, listening, dialogue]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Open council
+    description: >-
+      A facilitator opens with a dedication and reads the four intentions:
+      speak from the heart, listen from the heart, be spontaneous, be lean.
+  - headline: Pass the talking piece
+    description: >-
+      The talking piece is passed; only the holder speaks. Each person shares
+      what is alive for them, spontaneously, without rehearsal.
+  - headline: Witness without response
+    description: >-
+      Listeners receive what is said without rebuttal, advice, or cross-talk.
+      The piece moves on when the speaker is complete.
+  - headline: Close council
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator closes with a dedication or silence, marking the end of
+      the held space.
+outcome: >-
+  The group shares authentically and listens deeply; trust and connection
+  grow through witness rather than debate.
+practice: >-
+  "Be lean" means say what is true and stop — don't pad. "Be spontaneous"
+  means don't rehearse while others speak. Both are hard.

seeds/dalit-ambedkar-samata-melan.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: dalit-ambedkar-samata-melan
+title: Samata Melan Equality Gathering
+description: >-
+  A Dalit Bahujan community practice of gathering to affirm equality and
+  discuss shared concerns, rooted in the Ambedkarite movement for social
+  equality in India. Inspired by B.R. Ambedkar's principles of liberty,
+  equality, and fraternity.
+source: Ambedkarite movement / Dalit Bahujan tradition
+source_url: https://www.ambedkar.org/
+tags: [dalit, ambedkar, india, equality, community]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene the gathering
+    description: >-
+      Community members convene the melan, sitting together without caste
+      hierarchy markings — an act of equality in itself.
+  - headline: Affirm shared principles
+    description: >-
+      An elder or organiser opens by affirming the principles of equality,
+      liberty, and fraternity, and the shared dignity of all present.
+  - headline: Reason on community matters
+    description: >-
+      Participants raise concerns — discrimination, access, mutual aid — and
+      reason together, with attention to those most affected leading.
+  - headline: Commit to action
+    description: >-
+      The gathering agrees on collective actions, with named people taking
+      responsibility for next steps.
+outcome: >-
+  The community addresses shared concerns within a frame of equality,
+  strengthening solidarity against caste hierarchy.
+practice: >-
+  The form itself — equal seating, no caste markers — does political work.
+  Do not let the gathering revert to hierarchy; the framing is the point.

seeds/deep-listening-dyad.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+id: deep-listening-dyad
+title: Deep Listening Dyad
+description: >-
+  A paired practice where one person speaks continuously for a fixed time
+  while the other listens with full attention and without any response,
+  then swap. Used in contemplative, therapeutic, and men's and women's
+  work, drawing on M. Scott Peck and Pauline Oliveros's deep listening
+  traditions.
+source: Pauline Oliveros, "Deep Listening" / community men's and women's work
+source_url: https://www.deeplistening.org/
+tags: [listening, dyad, contemplative, paired]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Set the time and roles
+    description: >-
+      The pair agrees on a fixed time — typically five to ten minutes — and
+      who speaks first. The listener commits to no response whatsoever.
+  - headline: Speak without break
+    description: >-
+      The speaker talks without interruption, following what is alive for
+      them. Silence within the time is fine; the listener does not fill it.
+  - headline: Listen without response
+    description: >-
+      The listener gives full attention, makes no notes, offers no facial
+      commentary, and does not interrupt. The discipline is to receive only.
+  - headline: Swap
+    description: >-
+      At the bell, the pair swaps. The former speaker now listens with the
+      same discipline; the former listener now speaks.
+  - headline: Close with silence
+    description: >-
+      After both have spoken, the pair sits in silence for a minute,
+      letting what was spoken settle. There is no debrief unless both
+      explicitly ask.
+outcome: >-
+  Each person has spoken without interruption and been heard without
+  response, often accessing what they did not know they thought.
+practice: >-
+  The listener's discipline is the form. If you respond, even with a nod
+  of agreement, you have broken it. The silence at the close is not
+  awkward — it is the integration.

seeds/delphi-method.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+id: delphi-method
+title: Delphi Method
+description: >-
+  A structured method for gathering expert judgement through rounds of
+  anonymous questionnaires with controlled feedback, used when direct
+  meeting is impractical or would be distorted by dominance. Developed at
+  the RAND Corporation in the 1950s.
+source: RAND Corporation
+source_url: https://www.rand.org/
+tags: [delphi, expert, decision-making, foresight]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Define the question
+    description: >-
+      The coordinators define the question and recruit a panel of experts
+      who will participate across several rounds.
+  - headline: First round questionnaire
+    description: >-
+      Each panellist responds independently and anonymously to the first
+      questionnaire, providing their judgement and reasoning.
+  - headline: Summarise and feed back
+    description: >-
+      The coordinators summarise all responses — including areas of
+      agreement and disagreement — and feed them back to the panel
+      without identifying who said what.
+  - headline: Revise in light of others
+    description: >-
+      Each panellist revises their judgement in light of the summary,
+      optionally explaining why they hold their view against the group.
+  - headline: Iterate to convergence
+    description: >-
+      Rounds continue (typically three or four) until judgement stabilises.
+      The final summary reports the distribution of views, not a forced
+      consensus.
+outcome: >-
+  A reasoned, anonymised convergence of expert judgement that resists the
+  dominance and groupthink of face-to-face meetings.
+practice: >-
+  Anonymity is the engine — without it, the most senior or loudest voice
+  distorts the rest. Do not force consensus; report the spread of
+  judgement honestly.

seeds/dynamic-facilitation.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: dynamic-facilitation
+title: Dynamic Facilitation
+description: >-
+  A small-group facilitation method that uses four charts — solutions,
+  concerns, data, and vision statements — to surface creative breakthroughs
+  through energy rather than agenda control. Developed by Jim Rough.
+source: Dynamic Facilitation Institute
+source_url: https://www.tobe.net/
+tags: [facilitation, creativity, breakthrough, choice-creating]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Set up four charts
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator posts four flip charts labelled Solutions, Concerns,
+      Data, and Vision. There is no agenda beyond the issue named.
+  - headline: Capture as it flows
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator captures each contribution on the relevant chart as it
+      arises, validating every shift in direction rather than redirecting.
+  - headline: Follow energy
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator follows the group's energy, not a plan. Moments of
+      tension or excitement are welcomed as doorways to breakthrough.
+  - headline: Reach a choice
+    description: >-
+      Through this unstructured flow, the group reaches a shared sense of
+      what is really going on and what to do — a "choice" rather than a
+      decision.
+outcome: >-
+  The group arrives at a creative shared result that no structured agenda
+  would have produced, often a reframing of the original problem.
+practice: >-
+  This is harder than it looks. The facilitator must hold the space without
+  imposing order. Trust the energy; the charts do the organising.

seeds/feedback-sbi-model.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+id: feedback-sbi-model
+title: Situation-Behaviour-Impact Feedback
+description: >-
+  A structured feedback method that describes the situation, the observed
+  behaviour, and the impact, avoiding labels and character judgements.
+  Developed by the Center for Creative Leadership.
+source: Center for Creative Leadership
+source_url: https://www.ccl.org/
+tags: [feedback, workplace, communication]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Describe the situation
+    description: >-
+      The giver names the specific time and place: "In yesterday's team
+      meeting, when we were reviewing the timeline..."
+  - headline: Describe the behaviour
+    description: >-
+      The giver describes what they observed, factually and without
+      interpretation: "...you interrupted Sarah three times while she was
+      presenting the schedule."
+  - headline: Describe the impact
+    description: >-
+      The giver describes the effect: "...Sarah went quiet and the team
+      missed her caveats, which showed up later as a missed dependency."
+  - headline: Pause for response
+    description: >-
+      The giver pauses and invites the receiver's perspective, listening
+      before moving to any suggestion.
+outcome: >-
+  The receiver hears specific, non-judgemental feedback they can act on,
+  without feeling attacked as a person.
+practice: >-
+  If you cannot name the situation and behaviour specifically, you are not
+  ready to give the feedback. Avoid the verb "always" and the label "you
+  are."

seeds/future-search.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+id: future-search
+title: Future Search Conference
+description: >-
+  A large-group planning method that brings diverse stakeholders into a
+  shared exploration of past, present, and future to find common ground.
+  Developed by Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff.
+source: Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff, "Future Search"
+source_url: https://futuresearch.net/
+tags: [future-search, planning, large-group, stakeholders]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Map the past
+    description: >-
+      Small mixed groups create a timeline of key events in their own lives,
+      the organisation, and the world over several decades.
+  - headline: Map the present
+    description: >-
+      Groups map current trends and forces affecting the system, noting
+      what they are proud of and what they are sorry about.
+  - headline: Ideal future scenarios
+    description: >-
+      Small groups craft vivid scenarios of the organisation twenty years
+      on, as if they have already happened.
+  - headline: Find common ground
+    description: >-
+      The whole group identifies shared themes and projects that all
+      stakeholders can commit to, setting aside differences.
+  - headline: Action plans
+    description: >-
+      Volunteers form task groups around each common-ground project and plan
+      concrete next steps.
+outcome: >-
+  Diverse stakeholders discover shared ground and commit to projects none
+  could have advanced alone.
+practice: >-
+  Stakeholder diversity is essential — include those with authority,
+  resources, knowledge, and those affected. The "proud/sorry" step often
+  releases energy that agenda control would have suppressed.

seeds/gacaca-court.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+id: gacaca-court
+title: Rwandan Gacaca Community Justice
+description: >-
+  A Rwandan practice of community-based justice assemblies that address
+  conflict and, in the post-genocide period, were adapted to try cases of
+  genocide-related crimes. Rooted in traditional Rwandan gacaca (literally
+  "on the grass") gatherings where elders resolved disputes.
+source: Rwandan traditional justice / National Service of Gacaca Courts
+source_url: https://www.gov.r/
+tags: [rwandan, gacaca, justice, reconciliation, africa]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene on the grass
+    description: >-
+      The community gathers outdoors, in the presence of inyangamugayo
+      (persons of integrity) who serve as judges. The gathering is public
+      and community-wide.
+  - headline: Hear the case
+    description: >-
+      The accused and those harmed are both heard, with witnesses and
+      community members free to speak to what they know and saw.
+  - headline: Establish truth
+    description: >-
+      The inyangamugayo and community together establish what happened,
+      drawing on collective memory and witness, aiming for a shared
+      account that the community can accept.
+  - headline: Determine reparation
+    description: >-
+      The assembly determines reparation — confession, apology,
+      restitution, or community service — oriented toward reconciliation
+      and reintegration.
+  - headline: Pronounce and reintegrate
+    description: >-
+      The decision is pronounced in the presence of the community. The goal
+      is reintegration of the offender into community, not isolation.
+outcome: >-
+  Cases are heard and resolved within the community, with truth
+  established collectively and reparation oriented toward reconciliation.
+practice: >-
+  Gacaca is demanding — it asks the community to face its own. It is not a
+  substitute for formal justice where crimes are severe, but a complement
+  rooted in communal accountability.

seeds/gratefulness-circle.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+id: gratefulness-circle
+title: Gratefulness Circle
+description: >-
+  A simple closing practice where each person in a group names one thing
+  they are grateful for from the time together. Found in many community
+  and spiritual traditions as a way of marking endings with attention.
+source: Common community practice / Gratefulness.org
+source_url: https://www.gratefulness.org/
+tags: [gratitude, closing, reflection, community]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Frame the round
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator invites each person to name one thing they are
+      grateful for from the gathering, however small.
+  - headline: Go around
+    description: >-
+      Each person speaks in turn, briefly. Passing is always welcome;
+      silence is a valid offering.
+  - headline: Hold without comment
+    description: >-
+      The group receives each offering without response or comment. No
+      gratitude is too small or too ordinary.
+  - headline: Close
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator closes, often with a moment of silence, marking the
+      end of the gathering.
+outcome: >-
+  The gathering closes with each person having named what they received,
+  deepening attention and closing well.
+practice: >-
+  Resist commenting on others' gratitude. The practice is offering, not
+  discussion. A round of three minutes can change how a meeting ends.

seeds/hackathon-sprint.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+id: hackathon-sprint
+title: Hackathon Sprint
+description: >-
+  A time-bounded collaborative build event where small teams form around
+  problems and produce working prototypes by a fixed deadline, then present
+  to the group. Originating in the open source software community,
+  hackathons spread from US tech culture globally.
+source: Open source software community / OpenBSD hackathon tradition
+source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackathon
+tags: [hackathon, sprint, collaboration, technology, open-source]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Pitch problems
+    description: >-
+      Anyone may pitch a problem or project they want to tackle. Pitches are
+      short — one minute — and the group votes or self-selects into teams.
+  - headline: Form teams
+    description: >-
+      Participants form teams of three to six around the pitches they want
+      to work on. Teams self-organise roles and approach.
+  - headline: Build to the deadline
+    description: >-
+      Teams build intensively toward a fixed deadline — often twenty-four
+      or forty-eight hours — checking in at agreed intervals.
+  - headline: Demo to the group
+    description: >-
+      At the deadline each team demonstrates what they built, honestly
+      including what did not work. Demos are timed and short.
+  - headline: Retrospect and continue
+    description: >-
+      The group retrospectively notes what worked in the process and which
+      projects will continue beyond the hackathon.
+outcome: >-
+  Working prototypes are produced and shared in a short time, with teams
+  formed around real interest rather than assignment.
+practice: >-
+  The deadline is the engine. Demos that include what failed are more
+  valuable than polished ones; learning is a legitimate outcome.

seeds/hackerspace-consensus-doctorate.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+id: hackerspace-consensus-doctorate
+title: Hackerspace Consensus Meeting
+description: >-
+  A governance meeting format used in many hackerspaces and makerspaces
+  where members propose changes and the group works toward consensus or
+  rough consensus, with an explicit "doctorate" of expertise respected
+  but not privileged. Originating in the global hackerspace movement,
+  with Noisebridge (San Francisco) as a notable exemplar.
+source: Noisebridge / Hackerspace movement
+source_url: https://www.noisebridge.net/
+tags: [hackerspace, consensus, governance, open-source, community]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Post the proposal in advance
+    description: >-
+      The proposer posts the proposal on the hackerspace's wiki or
+      discussion board at least a week before the meeting, so members can
+      read and comment before convening.
+  - headline: Present at meeting
+    description: >-
+      At the meeting the proposer presents the proposal. The facilitator
+      takes clarifying questions, then opens discussion.
+  - headline: Discuss concerns
+    description: >-
+      Members raise concerns, which are listed. The proposer amends or
+      responds. The facilitator ensures those with relevant expertise are
+      heard but not privileged over others.
+  - headline: Test for consensus
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator tests for consensus or rough consensus. A block must
+      be reasoned and accompanied by a willingness to help find a
+      solution.
+  - headline: Record and act
+    description: >-
+      The decision is recorded on the wiki with the date and any
+      stand-asides. Action items are assigned to named members.
+outcome: >-
+  A hackerspace decision is made with members' input, recorded publicly,
+  and acted on by named owners.
+practice: >-
+  Posting in advance is the discipline — decisions made on the spot
+  exclude those not present. A block is a serious act; at Noisebridge it
+  comes with an obligation to work toward resolution.

seeds/inuit-qaujimajatuqangit-consensus.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+id: inuit-qaujimajatuqangit-consensus
+title: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Consensus
+description: >-
+  An Inuit practice of communal decision-making grounded in
+  qaujimajatuqangit (traditional knowledge), where elders and community
+  members deliberate until consensus is reached, with attention to the
+  four guiding principles of working for the common good, respecting all
+  living things, continually learning, and serving the community. The
+  Government of Nunavut explicitly incorporates IQ into its decision-making.
+source: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit / Government of Nunavut
+source_url: https://www.gov.nu.ca/
+tags: [inuit, iq, consensus, arctic, indigenous, governance]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene with elders
+    description: >-
+      The community convenes with elders present and honoured. Elders carry
+      qaujimajatuqangit — knowledge accumulated across generations — and
+      guide the deliberation.
+  - headline: Frame for the common good
+    description: >-
+      The matter is framed in terms of the common good (piliriqatigiingniq)
+      — what serves the whole community and its relationship with the
+      land and living things.
+  - headline: Deliberate to consensus
+    description: >-
+      The community deliberates until consensus is reached. Dissent is
+      heard and addressed; the process is not rushed, as the Inuit
+      understand decisions must hold over time.
+  - headline: Honour the land and living things
+    description: >-
+      Throughout, the decision is tested against its effect on the land and
+      on living things — animals, future generations, the camp — not on
+      human interest alone.
+  - headline: Pronounce and live with it
+    description: >-
+      The consensus is pronounced and the community lives with the
+      decision, observing its effects and revisiting it if the
+      consequences prove harmful.
+outcome: >-
+  A decision is reached by consensus, grounded in traditional knowledge,
+  with the common good and the land held in view.
+practice: >-
+  Elders are not symbolic — their knowledge carries the deliberation. If
+  the process is rushed, it fails the Inuit understanding that decisions
+  must hold over time.

seeds/jain-amicable-debate.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+id: jain-amicable-debate
+title: Jain Anekantavada Multi-View Dialogue
+description: >-
+  A Jain practice of dialogue grounded in anekantavada — the doctrine that
+  truth has many aspects — in which disputants present and hold each
+  other's views as partially true, rather than as wholly wrong. Rooted in
+  Jain philosophy dating to ancient India, formalised in the
+  syadvada method of seven-fold predication.
+source: Jain philosophical tradition / Mahavira
+source_url: https://www.jainworld.com/
+tags: [jain, anekantavada, dialogue, india, philosophy]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Present one's view
+    description: >-
+      Each disputant presents their view fully, without interruption. The
+      other listens as if it may be true, not as if it is wrong.
+  - headline: Acknowledge partial truth
+    description: >-
+      Each party acknowledges the partial truth in the other's view —
+      "from one perspective, what you say is so." No view is held as the
+      whole truth.
+  - headline: Use syadvada predication
+    description: >-
+      Each proposition is considered from seven standpoints: in one way it
+      is; in one way it is not; in one way it is and is not; in one way it
+      is inexpressible; and combinations thereof. This surfaces the
+      limits of each view.
+  - headline: Hold the multi-view
+    description: >-
+      Rather than collapse to one view, the dialogue holds the multiple
+      perspectives as each partially true. The resolution is not
+      synthesis but coexistence.
+  - headline: Act with humility
+    description: >-
+      Any action taken proceeds with the acknowledgment that the view it
+      rests on is partial, not absolute. Dogmatism is the failure mode.
+outcome: >-
+  A dialogue concludes with each view held as partially true, and action
+  taken with the humility that no single view captures the whole.
+practice: >-
+  The discipline is to genuinely hold the other's view as possibly true,
+  not to perform it. If you cannot find the partial truth in the other's
+  view, you have not yet understood it.

seeds/jamaican-brotherhood-reasoning.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+id: jamaican-brotherhood-reasoning
+title: Jamaican Brotherhood Reasoning
+description: >-
+  A Jamaican and Rastafari practice of "reasoning" — extended,
+  ganja-assisted communal discussion of spiritual, social, and personal
+  matters, often into the night. Distinct from formal nyabinghi, reasoning
+  is the conversational heart of Rastafari livity, found in yards and
+  gatherings across Jamaica and the diaspora.
+source: Rastafari reasoning tradition / Caribbean cultural practice
+source_url: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rastafari
+tags: [jamaican, rastafari, reasoning, dialogue, caribbean]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Gather in the yard
+    description: >-
+      Brethren and sistren gather in a yard or home, often in the evening.
+      The host provides food and a place to sit; the gathering has no set
+      end time.
+  - headline: Open with a theme or issue
+    description: >-
+      An elder or the host opens by naming a theme or issue for reasoning
+      — a scripture, a social condition, a personal struggle — and invites
+      the reasoning to begin.
+  - headline: Reason in turn and flow
+    description: >-
+      Participants reason in flow, not strict turn. Each contribution is
+      heard; the elder keeps coherence and gently redirects domination.
+      The reasoning may circle and return.
+  - headline: Draw on scripture and lived experience
+    description: >-
+      Participants ground their reasoning in scripture (often the Bible
+      read through a Rastafari lens) and in their own lived experience.
+      The two are held together, not separated.
+  - headline: Close when complete
+    description: >-
+      The reasoning closes when those present feel it is complete, often
+      with shared food or chant. No clock sets the end.
+outcome: >-
+  Spiritual and social understanding is deepened through extended
+  communal reasoning, with scripture and lived experience held together.
+practice: >-
+  The unstructured flow is the form — do not impose an agenda. The
+  elder's role is to keep coherence, not to dictate. Reasoning into the
+  night is normal; do not rush it.

seeds/jamaican-reggae-summit-nyabinghi.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+id: jamaican-reggae-summit-nyabinghi
+title: Nyabinghi Reasoning Session
+description: >-
+  A Rastafari gathering for communal reasoning, drumming, and chant, where
+  participants reason together on spiritual and social matters. Originating
+  in the Rastafari tradition of Jamaica, nyabinghi gatherings combine
+  deliberation with musical worship.
+source: Rastafari tradition / Caribbean Reasoning
+source_url: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rastafari
+tags: [rastafari, jamaican, reasoning, music, spirituality]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Gather the brethren
+    description: >-
+      The community gathers, often around a fire, with drummers ready. The
+      elder or leading bredda opens with prayer and sets the theme for
+      reasoning.
+  - headline: Reason together
+    description: >-
+      Participants reason on the theme — sharing analysis, scripture, and
+      lived experience. Each voice is heard; the elder keeps coherence.
+  - headline: Drum and chant
+    description: >-
+      Drumming and chant arise, weaving the reasoning into musical worship.
+      The three nyabinghi drums — bass, funde, and repeater — set the
+      heartbeat.
+  - headline: Close in unity
+    description: >-
+      The session closes when the reasoning and chant have reached their
+      natural end, often with shared food.
+outcome: >-
+  Spiritual and social understanding deepens through combined reasoning and
+  chant; the community is strengthened in shared practice.
+practice: >-
+  Reasoning and chant are not separate — they flow into one another. Honour
+  the elders' role in holding the form.

seeds/japanese-hansei.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+id: japanese-hansei
+title: Japanese Hansei Reflection
+description: >-
+  A Japanese practice of deep self-reflection on one's actions and
+  shortcomings, performed individually and sometimes collectively after a
+  project or event. Originating in Japanese cultural and Buddhist-influenced
+  traditions and central to Toyota's improvement practice.
+source: Japanese cultural tradition / Toyota hansei practice
+source_url: https://www.lean.org/
+tags: [japanese, hansei, reflection, improvement]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Identify what fell short
+    description: >-
+      The person or team identifies specifically where they fell short of
+      the standard or their own intentions — not to assign blame but to
+      see clearly.
+  - headline: Take personal responsibility
+    description: >-
+      Each person names their own contribution to the shortfall, without
+      deflecting to circumstances or others. Hansei is owned, not assigned.
+  - headline: Identify the root in oneself
+    description: >-
+      The person reflects on what within their own habits, assumptions, or
+      skills led to the shortfall, going beneath the surface action.
+  - headline: Commit to a concrete change
+    description: >-
+      The person commits to a specific change in practice or mindset and,
+      in a team context, shares it so others can hold them accountable.
+outcome: >-
+  A clear-eyed reckoning with one's own shortcomings produces a concrete
+  commitment to change, owned by the person themselves.
+practice: >-
+  Hansei is not self-flagellation. It is honest seeing. If the reflection
+  does not lead to a specific change, it is incomplete.

seeds/japanese-kaizen-retrospective.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+id: japanese-kaizen-retrospective
+title: Kaizen Retrospective
+description: >-
+  A continuous improvement meeting pattern from Japanese manufacturing
+  practice, used by teams to surface small changes that improve the work.
+  Originating in the Toyota Production System kaizen tradition.
+source: Toyota Production System / Lean Enterprise Institute
+source_url: https://www.lean.org/
+tags: [kaizen, retrospective, lean, teams]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Define the standard
+    description: >-
+      The team reviews the current standard work — what the process is
+      supposed to be — so everyone shares the baseline.
+  - headline: Find the gap
+    description: >-
+      Each member names one place where the actual work differs from the
+      standard, focusing on the work, not the worker.
+  - headline: Ask five whys
+    description: >-
+      For one chosen gap, the group asks "why?" repeatedly until they reach
+      a root cause, not just a symptom.
+  - headline: Propose a small change
+    description: >-
+      The team proposes the smallest possible change that addresses the root
+      cause, with an owner and a trial period.
+  - headline: Update the standard
+    description: >-
+      After the trial, the team decides whether to adopt the change and
+      updates the written standard work.
+outcome: >-
+  A specific, tested improvement is adopted and the standard work is updated;
+  the team builds a habit of continuous small improvements.
+practice: >-
+  Resist big redesigns. Kaizen favours many small changes over grand
+  overhauls. Keep the five whys honest — stop at the first answer the team
+  can act on.

seeds/japanese-nemawashi.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+id: japanese-nemawashi
+title: Japanese Nemawashi Informal Alignment
+description: >-
+  A Japanese organisational practice of informally consulting each
+  stakeholder one-on-one before a formal decision meeting, so the meeting
+  confirms rather than surprises. Originating in Japanese corporate and
+  bureaucratic culture, nemawashi (literally "digging around the roots")
+  prepares the ground for consensus.
+source: Japanese corporate practice / nemawashi tradition
+source_url: https://www.japanintercultural.com/
+tags: [japanese, nemawashi, decision-making, consensus, workplace]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Map the stakeholders
+    description: >-
+      The proposer identifies everyone whose support or non-objection is
+      needed for the decision to hold, including those outside the formal
+      meeting.
+  - headline: Consult each individually
+    description: >-
+      The proposer meets each stakeholder one-on-one, shares the proposal,
+      and hears their concerns, questions, and suggested changes —
+      before any group meeting.
+  - headline: Revise the proposal
+    description: >-
+      The proposer revises the proposal in light of what they have heard,
+      incorporating concerns or preparing responses for them.
+  - headline: Confirm in formal meeting
+    description: >-
+      When the formal meeting convenes, each stakeholder has already seen
+      the proposal and raised their concerns. The meeting confirms the
+      decision quickly.
+outcome: >-
+  A decision is confirmed in a formal meeting with no surprises, because
+  the real deliberation happened in prior individual conversations.
+practice: >-
+  Nemawashi is not backroom dealing — it is respect for each person's
+  stake. Skipping it and springing a proposal in a meeting is read as
+  discourtesy, not efficiency.

seeds/javanese-musyawarah-mufakat.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+id: javanese-musyawarah-mufakat
+title: Javanese Musyawarah-Mufakat
+description: >-
+  An Indonesian practice of deliberation (musyawarah) leading to consensus
+  (mufakat), rooted in Javanese village tradition and enshrined in the
+  Indonesian state philosophy of Pancasila. The method emphasises reaching
+  agreement through patient discussion rather than voting.
+source: Indonesian Pancasila tradition / Javanese gotong royong
+source_url: https://www.indonesia.go.id/
+tags: [javanese, indonesian, musyawarah, consensus, pancasila]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Open with silaturahmi
+    description: >-
+      The gathering opens with silaturahmi — the strengthening of
+      relationships — so discussion proceeds from established connection.
+  - headline: Musyawarah — deliberate patiently
+    description: >-
+      Participants discuss the matter at length, hearing all views. The
+      facilitator (often a village elder) ensures no voice is silenced and
+      seeks the points all can accept.
+  - headline: Mufakat — reach consensus
+    description: >-
+      Discussion continues until mufakat — consensus — is reached. There is
+      no vote; the group waits until all can accept the outcome.
+  - headline: Pronounce and record
+    description: >-
+      The consensus is pronounced and recorded. The decision carries the
+      weight of the whole community's agreement.
+outcome: >-
+  A decision is reached that all participants can accept, without
+  outvoting a minority, through patient deliberation.
+practice: >-
+  Patience is the form. If the facilitator forces a vote or imposes
+  closure, the mufakat is hollow. Silaturahmi is not preamble — it is the
+  ground.

seeds/jewish-hevruta.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+id: jewish-hevruta
+title: Jewish Hevruta Paired Study
+description: >-
+  A Jewish practice of paired text study in which two partners read a text
+  together and argue with and for each other to reach deeper
+  understanding. Originating in the Talmudic tradition of havruta study
+  in yeshivas.
+source: Jewish textual tradition / Heschel and Hartman Institute
+source_url: https://hartman.org.il/
+tags: [jewish, hevruta, study, dialogue, education]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Choose a partner and text
+    description: >-
+      Two study partners (hevruta) choose a text — often a page of Talmud,
+      a passage of Torah, or a philosophical text — and read it aloud
+      together.
+  - headline: Read closely, aloud
+    description: >-
+      The partners read the text line by line, aloud, pausing at each
+      difficulty. Reading aloud surfaces what silent reading misses.
+  - headline: Argue with and for
+    description: >-
+      Each partner argues their reading of a passage, then argues the
+      other's reading charitably — taking the opposing view seriously
+      enough to make it well.
+  - headline: Rest on difficulty
+    description: >-
+      When a passage resists resolution, the partners leave the question
+      open rather than forcing closure. The text's difficulty is part of
+      the study.
+  - headline: Summarise what shifted
+    description: >-
+      At the close, each partner names one thing they now understand
+      differently than when they began.
+outcome: >-
+  Each partner reaches a deeper understanding than either could alone,
+  through the discipline of arguing with and for each other.
+practice: >-
+  Hevruta is not debate to win. The discipline of arguing the other's view
+  well is what distinguishes it. Choose a partner who will disagree, not
+  one who will agree.

seeds/kerala-kudumbashree.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+id: kerala-kudumbashree
+title: Kerala Kudumbashree Neighbourhood Group
+description: >-
+  A Kerala (India) women's neighbourhood group (NHG) practice, the smallest
+  unit of the Kudumbashree community network, where 10 to 20 women meet
+  weekly to micro-save, assess needs, and make collective decisions.
+  Kudumbashree is one of the largest women's community networks in the
+  world, established by the Government of Kerala.
+source: Kudumbashree Mission, Government of Kerala
+source_url: https://www.kudumbashree.org/
+tags: [kerala, kudumbashree, women, microfinance, india, community]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Form the NHG
+    description: >-
+      Ten to twenty women from the same neighbourhood form a Neighbourhood
+      Group, meeting weekly. Each contributes a small saving to a common
+      fund.
+  - headline: Weekly meeting
+    description: >-
+      The NHG meets weekly: savings are collected, needs are discussed,
+      microloans are considered and approved by the group, not by an
+      external officer.
+  - headline: Assess and grade
+    description: >-
+      The NHG regularly assesses the needs of each member household and
+      grades the family's risk, so that support is targeted to those most
+      in need.
+  - headline: Take up collective enterprises
+    description: >-
+      NHGs may form collective enterprises — catering, farming, crafts —
+      with group members as co-owners, supported by the wider Kudumbashree
+      network.
+  - headline: Feed up to ADS and CDS
+    description: >-
+      NHG decisions and needs are fed up to the Area Development Society
+      and Community Development Society, the federated structure that
+      engages local government.
+outcome: >-
+  Women in the same neighbourhood pool savings, decide on loans, assess
+  each other's needs, and run enterprises, with a federated voice into
+  local government.
+practice: >-
+  The weekly meeting is the form. If meetings lapse, the NHG dies. The
+  group, not an officer, decides on loans — this is what keeps it
+  accountable to the women themselves.

seeds/korean-nunchi-reading.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+id: korean-nunchi-reading
+title: Korean Nunchi Group Reading
+description: >-
+  A Korean social practice of quickly reading the mood, dynamics, and
+  unspoken context of a room or group before acting or speaking. Nunchi
+  (literally "eye-measure") is a foundational social skill in Korean
+  culture for navigating group harmony.
+source: Korean cultural tradition / Euny Hong, "The Power of Nunchi"
+source_url: https://www.eunyhong.com/
+tags: [korean, nunchi, social-awareness, harmony]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Observe before entering
+    description: >-
+      Before joining a room or conversation, pause and observe: who is
+      present, what is the mood, where is the tension, who holds influence
+      in this moment.
+  - headline: Read the unspoken
+    description: >-
+      Attend to body language, tone, pauses, and what is not being said.
+      Note who defers to whom and where energy gathers or withdraws.
+  - headline: Calibrate your entry
+    description: >-
+      Adjust how and when you enter the interaction — what to say, what to
+      hold, whether to speak at all — based on the reading you have made.
+  - headline: Continue reading throughout
+    description: >-
+      Nunchi is continuous, not a one-time read. Keep observing as the
+      interaction evolves and adjust.
+outcome: >-
+  A person enters and participates in a group in a way that fits its
+  actual dynamics, avoiding missteps and supporting harmony.
+practice: >-
+  Nunchi is not manipulation — it is attention to the collective. The
+  pause before entering is the practice. Speed of reading comes with
+  deliberate attention, not with rushing.

seeds/korean-yangban-council.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+id: korean-yangban-council
+title: Korean Yangban Council Deliberation
+description: >-
+  A Joseon-dynasty Korean practice of council deliberation among the
+  yangban (scholar-official) class, in which officials discussed policy
+  with reference to Confucian texts and precedent, seeking consensus that
+  balanced royal authority with ministerial judgment. Rooted in Korean
+  Confucian governance from the 14th to 19th centuries.
+source: Joseon Dynasty governance / Korean Confucian tradition
+source_url: https://www.encyclopedia.com/
+tags: [korean, joseon, yangban, confucian, governance, council]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene the council
+    description: >-
+      Senior officials (yangban) convene, often at the king's request or on
+      a matter of state. The council deliberates in the presence of
+      Confucian texts and court records.
+  - headline: Cite precedent and text
+    description: >-
+      Each official grounds their position in Confucian classics and in
+      precedent from prior reigns. Argument proceeds by appeal to text and
+      history, not by personal preference alone.
+  - headline: Deliberate to consensus
+    description: >-
+      The council deliberates toward a consensus that balances the king's
+      authority with the officials' collective judgment. Strong dissent
+      is recorded and weighed.
+  - headline: Memorialise the king
+    description: >-
+      The council's consensus, with any dissent, is memorialised to the
+      king as a written memorial. The king may accept, modify, or reject,
+      but the memorial carries the council's weight.
+  - headline: Record for precedent
+    description: >-
+      The deliberation and outcome are recorded in the court annals, so
+      future councils may cite them as precedent.
+outcome: >-
+  Policy is deliberated by scholar-officials with reference to text and
+  precedent, producing a memorial that balances royal authority with
+  ministerial judgment.
+practice: >-
+  The citation of text and precedent is the discipline — it binds
+  argument to shared sources. Without it, deliberation becomes assertion.
+  The record for precedent makes the council's work cumulative.

seeds/lean-coffee.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: lean-coffee
+title: Lean Coffee
+description: >-
+  A structured-but-agendaless meeting format where participants build the
+  agenda collaboratively and discuss topics through timed votes. Originating
+  in the Lean and Agile software community in Seattle.
+source: Lean Coffee
+source_url: https://leancoffee.org/
+tags: [lean, agile, meetings, agendaless]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Generate topics
+    description: >-
+      Each participant writes topics they want to discuss on sticky notes,
+      one topic per note, and posts them to a shared board.
+  - headline: Dot vote
+    description: >-
+      Each person places dots on the topics they most want discussed, voting
+      for their own and others. The board is sorted by dot count.
+  - headline: Timed rounds
+    description: >-
+      Topics are discussed in order, each starting with a three-minute
+      timer. A thumbs-up vote extends by two minutes; majority no-vote moves
+      on.
+  - headline: Review and capture
+    description: >-
+      At the end, the group reviews what was discussed, captures actions,
+      and notes topics still open for next time.
+outcome: >-
+  The group discusses what the people present actually care about, in
+  priority order, with no agenda imposed from above.
+practice: >-
+  The three-minute start is short by design — it forces focus. Don't skip
+  the voting; it surfaces the real priorities without debate.

seeds/lempira-ainu-utari.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: lempira-ainu-utari
+title: Ainu Utari Support Network
+description: >-
+  A traditional Ainu practice of mutual aid and kinship obligation among
+  related households, in which members support each other in labour,
+  ceremony, and hardship. Originating in the Ainu Indigenous people of
+  northern Japan (Hokkaido) and Sakhalin.
+source: Foundation for Ainu Culture
+source_url: https://www.ff-ainu.or.jp/
+tags: [ainu, indigenous, mutual-aid, japan]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Recognise the obligation
+    description: >-
+      When a household within the utari (kin network) faces a birth, death,
+      harvest, or hardship, the network recognises an obligation to assist.
+  - headline: Gather helpers
+    description: >-
+      A senior member calls the utari together, naming the need and the
+      households who will contribute labour, food, or presence.
+  - headline: Work and share food
+    description: >-
+      The network gathers, works the task together, and shares a meal. The
+      host household provides; helpers bring what they can.
+  - headline: Reciprocate in turn
+    description: >-
+      Each contributing household knows its turn will come. The obligation is
+      ongoing, not transactional.
+outcome: >-
+  No household faces major life events alone; the utari binds the community
+  through acknowledged mutual dependence.
+practice: >-
+  Utari is not charity — it is kinship obligation. Honour reciprocity across
+  time; do not extract help without offering it when called.

seeds/lempira-lenca-council.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+id: lempira-lenca-council
+title: Lenca Community Council
+description: >-
+  A traditional Lenca Indigenous council practice from Honduras and El
+  Salvador for resolving community matters and maintaining relationship
+  with the land. The Lenca are one of the largest Indigenous groups of
+  Honduras, with the council (cabildo) serving governance and cultural
+  continuity.
+source: Lenca Indigenous tradition / COPINH (Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras)
+source_url: https://copinhonduras.org/
+tags: [lenca, honduras, indigenous, council, governance]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene the cabildo
+    description: >-
+      The community elder or elected cabildo head convenes the council.
+      Members gather in a designated community space, often outdoors.
+  - headline: Ground in the land
+    description: >-
+      The council opens by acknowledging the land and the ancestors, rooting
+      the proceedings in the community's ongoing relationship with its
+      territory.
+  - headline: Hear the matter
+    description: >-
+      The matter is presented — a dispute, a land question, a community
+      project. All affected speak, with elders given particular attention.
+  - headline: Deliberate for the common good
+    description: >-
+      The council deliberates toward what serves the community and the
+      land, not individual interest. Decisions are framed in terms of
+      relationship to territory.
+  - headline: Pronounce and act
+    description: >-
+      The cabildo pronounces the decision, and the community acts on it
+      collectively. The decision binds the community as a whole.
+outcome: >-
+  A community matter is resolved with the land and ancestors held in view,
+  binding the community to the decision and to its territory.
+practice: >-
+  The land is not backdrop; it is party to the deliberation. Decisions
+  that ignore the territory's wellbeing fail the form.

seeds/maori-powhiri.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: maori-powhiri
+title: Maori Powhiri Welcoming Ceremony
+description: >-
+  A Maori welcoming ceremony that establishes connection and the rights of
+  visitors and hosts. Originating in Aotearoa New Zealand Maori tradition,
+  the powhiri follows a fixed sequence of encounters.
+source: Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand
+source_url: https://teara.govt.nz/en/powhiri
+tags: [maori, ceremony, welcome, indigenous]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Karanga (the call)
+    description: >-
+      A woman from the host group performs a call of welcome; a woman from the
+      visiting group responds. This acknowledges the living and the dead.
+  - headline: Whaikorero (formal speeches)
+    description: >-
+      Speakers from each side deliver formal orations in turn, beginning with
+      the hosts. Each speech is followed by a waiata (song) from that side.
+  - headline: Koha (gift)
+    description: >-
+      The visitors present a koha — a gift or contribution — placed on the
+      marae, representing reciprocity and gratitude.
+  - headline: Hongi (greeting)
+    description: >-
+      Hosts and visitors press noses and foreheads in the hongi, symbolising
+      the sharing of breath and the joining of the two groups.
+outcome: >-
+  Strangers become guests; the relationship between the two groups is
+  formally established and acknowledged.
+practice: >-
+  Protocols vary by iwi (tribe) and marae — follow the local kawa. Visitors
+  should arrange guidance from a local kaikaranga or kaikorero before
+  attending.

seeds/mastodon-federation-governance.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+id: mastodon-federation-governance
+title: Mastodon Federation Governance Vote
+description: >-
+  A governance practice in the Mastodon fediverse community where instance
+  members vote on policies, codes of conduct, and moderation decisions,
+  often through structured discussion on the instance's local timeline or
+  governance channel. Reflecting the federated, cooperative ethos of the
+  Mastodon project founded by Eugen Rochko.
+source: Mastodon project / fediverse governance tradition
+source_url: https://joinmastodon.org/
+tags: [mastodon, fediverse, governance, federation, online]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Post the proposal publicly
+    description: >-
+      The instance administrator or a member posts a proposal — a policy
+      change, a moderation rule, a federation decision — on the instance's
+      governance channel, with a clear question and a discussion period.
+  - headline: Discuss openly
+    description: >-
+      Members discuss the proposal on the channel for a set period (often a
+      week). Discussion is visible to all members, not held in private
+      backchannels.
+  - headline: Vote
+    description: >-
+      After discussion, a vote is held — often a simple poll with
+      agree/disagree/abstain. The threshold for adoption is set in
+      advance and visible.
+  - headline: Implement and record
+    description: >-
+      The administrator implements the decision and records it in the
+      instance's public governance record, with the vote tally noted.
+  - headline: Federate the outcome
+    description: >-
+      Where the decision affects federation (blocking or allowing other
+      instances), the outcome is communicated so other instance admins can
+      take note.
+outcome: >-
+  Instance policies are decided with member input, recorded publicly, and
+  communicated to the wider federation.
+practice: >-
+  Discussion before voting, not after, is the discipline. A vote without
+  prior discussion is a stamp, not a decision. Record the tally —
+  transparency builds trust in federated spaces.

seeds/mennonite-consensus.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: mennonite-consensus
+title: Mennonite Congregational Consensus
+description: >-
+  A Mennonite practice of seeking congregational consensus through
+  prayerful discussion and discernment, without voting. Rooted in the
+  Anabaptist tradition of communal discernment and pacifist commitment.
+source: Mennonite Church USA / Mennonite World Conference
+source_url: https://www.mennoniteusa.org/
+tags: [mennonite, anabaptist, consensus, discernment, church]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Frame in worship
+    description: >-
+      The congregation frames the decision in prayer and scripture,
+      recognising it as a matter of communal discernment, not preference.
+  - headline: Open discussion
+    description: >-
+      Members share their views and concerns openly, with a moderator
+      ensuring that all voices — including the marginal — are heard.
+  - headline: Seek the mind of Christ
+    description: >-
+      The moderator names the emerging sense of the congregation, testing
+      whether it reflects a shared discernment rather than a majority.
+  - headline: Confirm or hold
+    description: >-
+      If the congregation can unite, the decision is confirmed. If not, the
+      matter is held for further prayer and discussion rather than voted
+      through.
+outcome: >-
+  A decision is made that the congregation can unite behind, or held until
+  such unity emerges, without overriding dissent.
+practice: >-
+  The discipline is not to vote when unity is absent. Holding a matter is
+  not failure — it is the form respecting the discernment.

seeds/mexican-tequio.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+id: mexican-tequio
+title: Mexican Tequio Communal Labour
+description: >-
+  A Zapotec and broader Mexican practice of mandatory communal labour for
+  public works, in which each community member contributes days of work
+  rather than money. Originating in Oaxacan Indigenous communities (where
+  it is also called colecta), tequio is recognised in Oaxaca state law.
+source: Zapotec and Oaxacan tradition / Servicios para una Educación Alternativa (EDUCA)
+source_url: https://www.educaoaxaca.org/
+tags: [mexican, zapotec, tequio, communal-labour, indigenous]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Identify the public work
+    description: >-
+      The comunidad (community assembly) identifies a work needed — a road,
+      a school, a water system, a church repair — that exceeds private
+      capacity.
+  - headline: Assign tequio days
+    description: >-
+      The assembly assigns each adult member a number of tequio days.
+      Contributions are in labour, calibrated to the work needed, not in
+      money.
+  - headline: Work together on set days
+    description: >-
+      On the set days, the community works together, with food provided
+      communally. The work is public, visible, and shared.
+  - headline: Account and complete
+    description: >-
+      The assembly accounts for who served and who did not. Unfulfilled
+      tequio is a serious matter, addressed by the assembly.
+  - headline: Inaugurate together
+    description: >-
+      The completed work is inaugurated with the whole community, marking
+      it as the product of shared labour, not of contract or charity.
+outcome: >-
+  Public works are built through shared labour, binding the community to
+  its infrastructure and to each other.
+practice: >-
+  Tequio is not volunteer — it is obligation. But it is also not coerced
+  by an outside authority; it is the community obliging itself. If some
+  escape it, the form rots.

seeds/mohawk-condolence-ceremony.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+id: mohawk-condolence-ceremony
+title: Haudenosaunee Condolence Ceremony
+description: >-
+  A Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) ritual for clearing grief and restoring a
+  leader, performed when a chief dies or is removed. Central to the Great
+  Law of Peace (Gayanashagowa), it uses prescribed words, wampum, and
+  actions to clear the mind of grief.
+source: Haudenosaunee Great Law of Peace
+source_url: https://www.haudenosaunee.org/
+tags: [haudenosaunee, iroquois, condolence, grief, indigenous, governance]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Roll call and lament
+    description: >-
+      The gathered nations perform a roll call across the confederacy. The
+      mourners' grief is acknowledged through formal lamentation.
+  - headline: Clear the eyes, ears, and throat
+    description: >-
+      The officiating chief performs the requickening words, symbolically
+      clearing the eyes (tears), ears (blocked hearing), and throat
+      (strangled speech) of the mourners using prescribed phrases.
+  - headline: Wipe the body
+    description: >-
+      Symbolic wiping of the body with wampum clears grief from the
+      mourners, restoring their ability to act.
+  - headline: Install the successor
+    description: >-
+      A new chief is raised up (requickened) in the place of the departed,
+      receiving the title and obligations of the office.
+  - headline: Confirm the chain of friendship
+    description: >-
+      The condolence closes with a reaffirmation of the confederacy's
+      unity, the chain of friendship renewed among the nations.
+outcome: >-
+  Grief is ritually cleared so the mourners and the confederacy can act
+  again; leadership is restored without rupture.
+practice: >-
+  The words and actions are prescribed by the Great Law and must be
+  performed correctly — this is not improvisation. The requickening is
+  both grief work and governance.

seeds/moroccan-jmaa-village.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+id: moroccan-jmaa-village
+title: Moroccan Jmaa Village Assembly
+description: >-
+  A Moroccan Berber (Amazigh) and Arab practice of village assembly
+  governance, where the men of the village gather to manage water, land,
+  and communal affairs by discussion and consensus. Found across rural
+  Morocco, particularly in the Atlas regions, the jmaa predates and
+  complements state structures.
+source: Moroccan Amazigh village tradition / Association Amoud
+source_url: https://www.amoud.ma/
+tags: [moroccan, amazigh, berber, jmaa, governance, indigenous]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene the jmaa
+    description: >-
+      The senior men of the village convene the jmaa at a known meeting
+      place — often the mosque square or a tree. All adult male
+      household heads may attend.
+  - headline: Present the matter
+    description: >-
+      The matter — water allocation, a land dispute, a communal work — is
+      presented. Each affected household speaks through its head.
+  - headline: Deliberate to consensus
+    description: >-
+      The jmaa deliberates until consensus is reached. The senior members
+      guide but do not impose; a decision without consensus does not hold.
+  - headline: Pronounce and record by memory
+    description: >-
+      The decision is pronounced and held in collective memory — often
+      unwritten. The jmaa's authority rests on communal recognition, not
+      on a document.
+  - headline: Enforce collectively
+    description: >-
+      The village collectively enforces the decision. Sanctions for
+      violation are communal — exclusion from water rotation, from
+      communal labour — not imposed by a separate body.
+outcome: >-
+  Village affairs are governed by consensus of household heads, with
+  decisions enforced collectively and held in communal memory.
+practice: >-
+  The jmaa's unwritten character depends on continuity of memory and
+  attendance. Where young men no longer attend, the form ages and
+  weakens. Water allocation is the test — a jmaa that cannot govern
+  water has lost its function.

seeds/navajo-hozho-ji-peacemaking.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+id: navajo-hozho-ji-peacemaking
+title: Navajo Hozho Ji Peacemaking
+description: >-
+  A Diné (Navajo) justice practice in which a peacemaker convenes those in
+  conflict to restore hozho — harmony, balance, and right relationship —
+  through guided dialogue. Rooted in Diné traditional law and recognised
+  within the Navajo Nation court system.
+source: Navajo Nation Peacemaking Program
+source_url: https://www.navajopeacemaking.org/
+tags: [navajo, dine, peacemaking, restorative, indigenous]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene with the peacemaker
+    description: >-
+      A recognised peacemaker (naat'aanii) convenes the parties and affected
+      relatives in a circle. The peacemaker opens with prayer and explains
+      that the goal is hozho, not victory.
+  - headline: Each party speaks
+    description: >-
+      Each party tells their experience of the conflict and its impact,
+      listened to without interruption. Relatives may also speak to the
+      context.
+  - headline: Identify the harm to hozho
+    description: >-
+      The peacemaker guides the group to name how harmony has been broken —
+      in relationship, in community, in the individual's balance.
+  - headline: Plan restoration
+    description: >-
+      Together the group agrees on what is needed to restore hozho —
+      apology, restitution, changed behaviour, ceremony, or counselling.
+  - headline: Follow up
+    description: >-
+      A follow-up is scheduled to confirm the plan has been carried out and
+      hozho restored.
+outcome: >-
+  Conflict is resolved by restoring harmony and relationship, not by
+  assigning punishment; the parties re-enter right relationship with
+  community.
+practice: >-
+  The peacemaker is not a judge — they guide, not decide. The plan must be
+  owned by the parties. Ceremony is not optional decoration; it is part of
+  restoration.

seeds/nonviolent-communication-feelings-needs.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+id: nonviolent-communication-feelings-needs
+title: NVC Feelings and Needs Dialogue
+description: >-
+  The second and third steps of Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent
+  Communication — identifying feelings and the underlying needs that drive
+  them. Used to move from observation to connection without blame.
+source: Center for Nonviolent Communication
+source_url: https://www.cnvc.org/
+tags: [nvc, communication, feelings, needs, conflict]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Name the feeling
+    description: >-
+      The speaker identifies and names what they feel in response to the
+      observation: "I felt hurt and anxious..." rather than "I felt you
+      were wrong."
+  - headline: Name the need
+    description: >-
+      The speaker identifies the need underlying the feeling, not the
+      other person's behaviour: "...because I have a need for respect and
+      for predictability in our agreements."
+  - headline: Check the need
+    description: >-
+      The listener reflects the need back and asks if they have understood,
+      without agreeing or disagreeing.
+  - headline: Repeat for the other
+    description: >-
+      The other person now identifies their own feelings and needs in the
+      same form, building a shared picture of what each is needing.
+outcome: >-
+  Both parties articulate the needs at stake, moving from positions to the
+  universal needs that can be met in many ways.
+practice: >-
+  Feelings are not judgements — "I feel ignored" is often a thought about
+  the other. "I feel lonely" is a feeling. Needs are universal —
+  "respect," "safety," "contribution" — not strategies.

seeds/nonviolent-communication-observation.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+id: nonviolent-communication-observation
+title: NVC Observation Step
+description: >-
+  The first step of Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication — stating
+  an observation free of evaluation, blame, or interpretation. Rooted in
+  Rosenberg's work in mediation and peace education.
+source: Center for Nonviolent Communication
+source_url: https://www.cnvc.org/
+tags: [nvc, communication, conflict, listening]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Identify the stimulus
+    description: >-
+      Before speaking, the person identifies the specific thing they observed
+      — what they saw or heard, separate from any judgement about it.
+  - headline: State without evaluation
+    description: >-
+      They articulate the observation as a factual statement: "When I saw the
+      dishes left on the table after dinner..." rather than "When you were
+      inconsiderate..."
+  - headline: Invite confirmation
+    description: >-
+      The speaker can invite the other person's view of the same observation,
+      allowing shared ground before moving to feelings and needs.
+outcome: >-
+  The conversation begins from a shared, non-judgemental description rather
+  than from accusation, reducing defensiveness.
+practice: >-
+  Practice distinguishing observation from evaluation — "you were late" is
+  often an evaluation. "We agreed to meet at seven; you arrived at seven
+  twenty" is an observation.

seeds/nonviolent-communication-request.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+id: nonviolent-communication-request
+title: NVC Request Step
+description: >-
+  The fourth step of Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication — making
+  a clear, actionable request rather than a demand. Used after observation,
+  feelings, and needs have been shared.
+source: Center for Nonviolent Communication
+source_url: https://www.cnvc.org/
+tags: [nvc, communication, request, conflict]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Form a concrete request
+    description: >-
+      The speaker makes a specific, doable request: "Would you be willing
+      to check in with me before changing our shared deadline?" rather than
+      "I want you to be more considerate."
+  - headline: Phrase as a question
+    description: >-
+      The request is phrased as a question the other can answer with no,
+      without punishment. A request is not a demand.
+  - headline: Receive the answer
+    description: >-
+      The speaker receives the answer — yes, no, or counter — without
+      withdrawing empathy or imposing consequence. A "no" is information
+      about the other's needs, not a rejection.
+  - headline: Continue the dialogue
+    description: >-
+      If the answer is no, the speaker returns to the other's feelings and
+      needs, exploring what need the "no" is meeting.
+outcome: >-
+  A clear request is made that the other can freely accept or refuse,
+  keeping the dialogue in connection rather than coercion.
+practice: >-
+  If a "no" leads to punishment or guilt, the request was a demand. Test
+  yourself: would you still respect a "no"? If not, you are not yet making
+  a request.

seeds/norwegian-folk-high-school-livsfrase.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+id: norwegian-folk-high-school-livsfrase
+title: Folk High School Life Phrase Sharing
+description: >-
+  A practice from the Scandinavian folk high school tradition where students
+  share a personal "life phrase" — a statement of where they are in life —
+  at the opening of a term. Folk high schools, originating in 19th-century
+  Denmark and spread across the Nordic countries, emphasise dialogue and
+  civic formation.
+source: Nordic Folk High School tradition / N.F.S. Grundtvig
+source_url: https://www.folkhogskola.nu/
+tags: [nordic, education, check-in, dialogue]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Each student prepares
+    description: >-
+      Before the term opens, each student reflects on and writes a short
+      phrase describing where they are in life — their current question or
+      longing.
+  - headline: Share in circle
+    description: >-
+      In an opening circle, each student reads their life phrase aloud. The
+      group listens without comment or question.
+  - headline: Hold the phrases
+    description: >-
+      The phrases are held by the group as a portrait of where the cohort
+      is. They may be revisited at term's end to notice change.
+outcome: >-
+  The cohort begins with mutual awareness of each person's life context,
+  building the trust that folk pedagogy depends on.
+practice: >-
+  Resist discussion after each phrase — the form is witness, not dialogue.
+  The phrases become a reference point; returning to them at term's end is
+  powerful.

seeds/ohlone-bay-area-land-back.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+id: ohlone-bay-area-land-back
+title: Ohlone Land Back Rematriation Gathering
+description: >-
+  A practice of the Sogorea Te' Land Trust and East Bay Ohlone communities
+  in which land is returned to Indigenous stewardship through a
+  community-led process of rematriation, gathering, and ceremony. Sogorea
+  Te' is a women-led urban Indigenous land trust in the San Francisco Bay
+  Area.
+source: Sogorea Te' Land Trust / Corinna Gould and Johnella LaRose
+source_url: https://www.sogoreate.org/
+tags: [ohlone, land-back, rematriation, indigenous, bay-area]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Receive the land
+    description: >-
+      A piece of land is returned to the land trust by a current owner,
+      through gift, purchase, or cultural easement. The return is marked
+      as rematriation, not real estate.
+  - headline: Gather the community
+    description: >-
+      Ohlone community members and allies gather on the land. An elder
+      opens with prayer and acknowledges the ancestors and the land's
+      history.
+  - headline: Ceremony of return
+    description: >-
+      A ceremony marks the land's return to Indigenous stewardship. Song,
+      prayer, and the presence of the community affirm the return.
+  - headline: Name the stewardship
+    description: >-
+      The trust names how the land will be stewarded — for ceremony, for
+      food, for housing, for restoration — with the community's input.
+  - headline: Commit to ongoing care
+    description: >-
+      The community commits to ongoing care of the land, with work days and
+      gatherings scheduled. The return is the beginning, not the end.
+outcome: >-
+  Land is returned to Indigenous stewardship, marked with ceremony, and
+  committed to ongoing care by the community.
+practice: >-
+  Rematriation is not a transfer of title — it is a return of
+  relationship. If you are not Ohlone, follow Ohlone lead. The ceremony
+  is not symbolic; it is the making of the return.

seeds/ohlone-ceremonial-talking-stick.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+id: ohlone-ceremonial-talking-stick
+title: Ohlone Talking Stick Circle
+description: >-
+  A California Native practice of passing a ceremonial talking stick in
+  council so each person speaks once, fully, before any reply. Practised
+  among Ohlone and many California Indian nations for council decisions and
+  peacemaking.
+source: Ohlone and California Indian traditional practice
+source_url: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/
+tags: [ohlone, california-native, talking-stick, council, indigenous]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene in circle
+    description: >-
+      The council convenes in a circle, often outdoors. The elder opens with
+      a prayer or words of grounding and places the talking stick in the
+      centre.
+  - headline: Lift the stick to speak
+    description: >-
+      Whoever wishes to speak lifts the stick; only the holder speaks. The
+      circle listens without interruption or facial judgement.
+  - headline: Return the stick
+    description: >-
+      When complete, the holder returns the stick to the centre. Another may
+      lift it. No one speaks twice until all who wish have spoken once.
+  - headline: Elder closes
+    description: >-
+      When the matter is settled or the time complete, the elder closes with
+      thanks and any decision is voiced.
+outcome: >-
+  Decisions or understandings emerge with every voice honoured, in a form
+  that resists dominance by the loudest.
+practice: >-
+  The "speak once before any speaks twice" rule is the discipline. It
+  prevents reactive debate and lets each contribution be fully received.

seeds/ohlone-shellmound-walk.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+id: ohlone-shellmound-walk
+title: Ohlone Shellmound Walk of Remembrance
+description: >-
+  A California Native Ohlone practice of walking to and gathering at
+  shellmound sites — sacred burial and village sites — to remember the
+  ancestors and affirm ongoing presence. Many shellmounds in the Bay Area
+  have been built over; the walk reclaims relationship with the land.
+source: Ohlone and Muwekma Ohlone tradition
+source_url: https://www.muwekma.org/
+tags: [ohlone, california-native, remembrance, land, indigenous]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Gather at a starting point
+    description: >-
+      Ohlone community members and allies gather at a starting point, often
+      a site where a shellmound once stood or has been built over. An elder
+      opens with prayer.
+  - headline: Walk to the shellmound
+    description: >-
+      The group walks together to the shellmound site, in silence or with
+      prayer, marking the land with their presence and movement.
+  - headline: Gather and remember
+    description: >-
+      At the shellmound, the group gathers. Speakers share the history of
+      the site, the ancestors buried there, and the ongoing Ohlone
+      presence that has not been erased.
+  - headline: Offer prayer and song
+    description: >-
+      The group offers prayer and song to the ancestors and the land. The
+      offering is made as relationship, not performance.
+  - headline: Commit to protection
+    description: >-
+      The gathering closes with a commitment to protect the site and the
+      Ohlone's ongoing relationship to it, often with specific actions
+      named.
+outcome: >-
+  A shellmound site is remembered and honoured; Ohlone presence is
+  affirmed; commitments to protection are made.
+practice: >-
+  The walk is not symbolic tourism. It is reclamation of relationship. If
+  you are not Ohlone, follow Ohlone lead and do not centre yourself.

seeds/ojibwe-pipe-ceremony.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+id: ojibwe-pipe-ceremony
+title: Ojibwe Pipe Ceremony
+description: >-
+  An Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) ceremony in which a sacred pipe is passed and
+  smoked or held with prayer, marking a solemn occasion or opening a
+  council. Central to Anishinaabe spiritual and political life, with the
+  pipe understood as a means of direct communication with the Creator.
+source: Anishinaabe traditional practice
+source_url: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/
+tags: [ojibwe, anishinaabe, pipe-ceremony, indigenous, ceremony]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Prepare the pipe
+    description: >-
+      The pipe carrier prepares the pipe with intention, loading the sacred
+      tobacco in a prescribed manner. The preparation itself is prayer.
+  - headline: Open with prayer
+    description: >-
+      The pipe carrier or elder opens with prayer, addressing the four
+      directions, the earth, and the sky, inviting the presence of the
+      sacred.
+  - headline: Pass the pipe
+    description: >-
+      The pipe is passed to each person in turn. Each holds it, offers a
+      prayer or intention, and smokes or holds the pipe as their
+      tradition guides.
+  - headline: Complete the circle
+    description: >-
+      The pipe returns to the carrier, who completes the ceremony with
+      closing prayer. The pipe is then cared for in a prescribed way.
+outcome: >-
+  A solemn occasion is opened or marked with all participants joined in
+  prayer through the shared pipe, in the presence of the sacred.
+practice: >-
+  The pipe is sacred and handled with prescribed care. Those unfamiliar
+  should follow the pipe carrier's guidance. The ceremony is not
+  symbolic — it is real communication with the sacred.

seeds/open-agile-roadmap.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+id: open-agile-roadmap
+title: Open Agile Roadmap Planning
+description: >-
+  A collaborative planning method where a team builds a visual roadmap by
+  placing stories on a timeline together, negotiating dependencies and
+  priorities in real time. Used in Agile and Lean software teams as a
+  alternative to top-down roadmap assignment.
+source: Agile planning tradition / Mike Cohn, "Agile Estimating and Planning"
+source_url: https://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/
+tags: [agile, roadmap, planning, collaboration, teams]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Lay out the timeline
+    description: >-
+      A long wall or board is laid out with a time axis — quarters or
+      months. The team gathers around it with story cards ready.
+  - headline: Place stories together
+    description: >-
+      Each team member places stories they believe belong on the roadmap,
+      explaining the placement. Others may move them, with discussion.
+  - headline: Negotiate dependencies
+    description: >-
+      The team draws dependency arrows between stories, surfacing what
+      must come before what. Conflicts are resolved in the open.
+  - headline: Mark priorities and risks
+    description: >-
+      The team marks the highest-priority stories and the highest-risk
+      ones, so the roadmap shows not only sequence but attention.
+  - headline: Photograph and commit
+    description: >-
+      The roadmap is photographed and recorded. The team commits to it as
+      a living plan, revisiting it each iteration.
+outcome: >-
+  A shared roadmap that all participants shaped, with dependencies and
+  priorities visible, owned by the team rather than handed down.
+practice: >-
+  The physical placement is the point — people who place cards themselves
+  commit to them more than those who receive a slide. Revisit it; a
+  roadmap that does not change is not being used.

seeds/open-space-technology.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: open-space-technology
+title: Open Space Technology
+description: >-
+  A self-organising conference method where participants create their own
+  agenda in real time. Developed by Harrison Owen, inspired partly by Owen's
+  experience of African village gatherings.
+source: Harrison Owen, "Open Space Technology"
+source_url: https://openspaceworld.org/
+tags: [open-space, unconference, self-organising, large-group]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Open the circle
+    description: >-
+      The convenor opens with a theme, then invites anyone who cares about a
+      specific aspect to come to the centre, write a topic, and announce it.
+  - headline: Post the marketplace
+    description: >-
+      Topics are posted on a wall grid of times and rooms, forming the
+      agenda. Participants sign up for sessions they will attend.
+  - headline: Hold sessions
+    description: >-
+      Sessions run in parallel, self-facilitated by their proposers. Notes
+      are captured and shared, often in a book of proceedings.
+  - headline: Convene closing circle
+    description: >-
+      All participants gather in a closing circle; anyone may share one
+      reflection, insight, or commitment from the day.
+outcome: >-
+  A full agenda emerges from the participants' actual interests; energy
+  flows to the topics people care most about.
+practice: >-
+  Honour the four principles — whoever comes is the right people, whenever
+  it starts is the right time, whatever happens is the only thing that
+  could, and when it's over it's over. And the law of two feet.

seeds/pair-programming-driver-navigator.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+id: pair-programming-driver-navigator
+title: Pair Programming Driver-Navigator
+description: >-
+  A software development practice where two programmers work at one
+  keyboard, switching between the "driver" who types and the "navigator"
+  who reviews in real time. Originating in Extreme Programming (XP),
+  formalised by Kent Beck.
+source: Kent Beck, "Extreme Programming Explained"
+source_url: https://www.agilealliance.org/
+tags: [pair-programming, xp, software, collaboration, agile]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Assign roles
+    description: >-
+      The pair decides who will drive (type, focus on the immediate code)
+      and who will navigate (review, think ahead, raise concerns). Only
+      the driver types.
+  - headline: Work the task together
+    description: >-
+      The pair works the task, talking continuously. The navigator
+      questions and suggests; the driver implements and explains what they
+      are doing.
+  - headline: Switch on a timer
+    description: >-
+      The pair switches roles at a fixed interval — often 25 minutes — or
+      at natural breakpoints, so both drive and both navigate.
+  - headline: Negotiate the approach
+    description: >-
+      When the pair disagrees on approach, they discuss until they reach a
+      shared way forward. If they cannot, they may test both approaches
+      briefly and choose.
+  - headline: Commit together
+    description: >-
+      The pair commits the code together, with both names on the commit.
+      The work is owned by both.
+outcome: >-
+  Code is produced with continuous review and shared understanding, owned
+  by both programmers, with knowledge transfer built in.
+practice: >-
+  The timer-driven switch is what keeps it from becoming one person
+  watching another type. If the navigator goes silent, the pair has
+  broken — name it and re-engage.

seeds/paired-walking-listening.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+id: paired-walking-listening
+title: Paired Walking Listening
+description: >-
+  A practice where two people walk together while one speaks and the other
+  listens, then swap, using movement and side-by-side orientation to ease
+  difficult or intimate conversation. Used in coaching, restorative work,
+  and men's and women's circles.
+source: Common coaching and restorative practice / Animas Center for Coaching
+source_url: https://www.animascenter.org/
+tags: [walking, listening, coaching, paired, dialogue]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Set the time
+    description: >-
+      The pair agrees on a total time and splits it — typically ten
+      minutes each way — and decides who speaks first.
+  - headline: Walk and speak
+    description: >-
+      The pair walks together, side by side. The speaker talks about what
+      is alive for them; the listener gives full attention without
+      speaking, interruption, or advice.
+  - headline: Swap
+    description: >-
+      At the midpoint, the pair swaps. The listener now speaks; the former
+      speaker now listens, with the same discipline.
+  - headline: Close together
+    description: >-
+      At the end, the pair pauses to acknowledge what was shared. There is
+      no debrief unless both want one.
+outcome: >-
+  Each person has spoken and been heard on something that matters, with
+  movement and side-by-side orientation lowering the intensity of
+  face-to-face.
+practice: >-
+  The side-by-side orientation is the point — it removes the confrontation
+  of face-to-face. The listener does not speak. If you cannot hold that,
+  name it and try again.

seeds/palaver-tree.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: palaver-tree
+title: West African Palaver Tree
+description: >-
+  A West African practice of gathering under a designated tree to discuss
+  and resolve community disputes through extended deliberation. Found across
+  many West African societies, including Igbo, Yoruba, and Mande traditions.
+source: African Palaver tradition / Igbo and Yoruba governance
+source_url: https://www.britannica.com/
+tags: [west-african, palaver, dispute, governance, indigenous]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Gather under the tree
+    description: >-
+      Elders and concerned parties gather at the palaver tree — a known
+      public meeting place. The aggrieved party states the matter.
+  - headline: All voices heard
+    description: >-
+      Each affected party speaks in turn, including those indirectly
+      affected. Elders listen without interrupting.
+  - headline: Elders deliberate
+    description: >-
+      Elders retire, discuss among themselves, and seek a resolution that
+      restores relationship rather than merely assigns fault.
+  - headline: Pronounce and seal
+    description: >-
+      The elders pronounce a resolution before the gathered community. A
+      shared meal or drink often seals the agreement.
+outcome: >-
+  A dispute is resolved publicly with all voices heard; the resolution
+  restores community harmony, not just legal right.
+practice: >-
+  The tree is not incidental — gathering in a known, neutral, public place
+  signals that this is community business, not private quarrel. Do not
+  rush the elders' deliberation.

seeds/passing-circle.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+id: passing-circle
+title: Passing Circle
+description: >-
+  A round in which each person has the explicit option to "pass" — to say
+  nothing — without explanation or penalty. Used in check-ins and
+  sensitive discussions to preserve voluntary participation. Common in
+  peer support, restorative, and feminist consciousness-raising circles.
+source: Common circle practice / feminist consciousness-raising tradition
+source_url: https://www.cwluherstory.org/
+tags: [circle, passing, consent, check-in]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Name the option to pass
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator explicitly names at the start that anyone may pass
+      when their turn comes, and that passing is not a statement.
+  - headline: Go around
+    description: >-
+      Each person in turn speaks or says "pass." The facilitator does not
+      ask why, nor treat passing differently from speaking.
+  - headline: Offer a second round
+    description: >-
+      After the first round, the facilitator offers a second, so anyone who
+      passed may speak if they now wish. No obligation.
+  - headline: Close
+    description: >-
+      The round closes when all who wish to speak have spoken. Passing is
+      not tracked or revisited unless the person offers.
+outcome: >-
+  Each person participates at the level they choose, with voluntary speech
+  preserved even in sensitive contexts.
+practice: >-
+  The option to pass must be real, not theoretical. If passing attracts
+  attention or concern, people will speak to avoid notice, and the form is
+  lost.

seeds/permaculture-design-charrette.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+id: permaculture-design-charrette
+title: Permaculture Design Charrette
+description: >-
+  A collaborative design process where a group produces a site design in an
+  intensive, time-bounded session, drawing on permaculture ethics of
+  earth care, people care, and fair share. Originating in the permaculture
+  movement founded by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren in Australia.
+source: Permaculture movement / Bill Mollison and David Holmgren
+source_url: https://www.permaculture.org.uk/
+tags: [permaculture, design, collaboration, environmental]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Survey the site and people
+    description: >-
+      The group walks the site together, observing contours, water, sun,
+      existing vegetation, and use patterns. They also survey the needs
+      and capacities of the people who will use it.
+  - headline: Identify functions and elements
+    description: >-
+      The group lists the functions the design must serve — food, water,
+      shelter, habitat — and the elements that could meet them.
+  - headline: Place elements for beneficial relationships
+    description: >-
+      Working on a shared map, the group places each element where it
+      creates beneficial relationships with others — chickens near the
+      garden, water tanks above the irrigation point.
+  - headline: Present and critique
+    description: >-
+      Subgroups present their proposed placements; the whole group critiques
+      for missed relationships and unmet needs, iterating the design.
+  - headline: Record the design
+    description: >-
+      The final design is recorded on a shared map with a written rationale
+      for each placement, and next steps are assigned.
+outcome: >-
+  A site design is produced that integrates human and ecological needs
+  through the placement of elements in beneficial relationship.
+practice: >-
+  The site walk is not optional — design without observation produces
+  inappropriate designs. Let the land and its patterns lead, not the
+  designer's preferences.

seeds/peruvian-ayni-minga.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+id: peruvian-ayni-minga
+title: Andean Ayni and Minga Reciprocal Labour
+description: >-
+  A Quechua and Aymara practice of reciprocal collective labour, where
+  community members take turns working each other's fields or projects with
+  no money exchanged. Originating in Andean communities of Peru, Bolivia,
+  and Ecuador, ayni is bilateral reciprocity and minga is collective work
+  for a common good.
+source: Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Andinos Amazónicos y Afroperuanos (INDEPA)
+source_url: https://www.gob.pe/institucion/indepa
+tags: [andean, reciprocity, mutual-aid, indigenous]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Identify the need
+    description: >-
+      A household or community body names a task that exceeds one family's
+      capacity — a harvest, a roof, a irrigation canal repair.
+  - headline: Call the ayni or minga
+    description: >-
+      The host calls on neighbours and kin to gather on a set day. The
+      expectation is reciprocal: those who come today will be helped
+      tomorrow.
+  - headline: Work together
+    description: >-
+      The group works the full day together, with the host providing food,
+      drink (often chicha), and coca. Work is accompanied by song and shared
+      rhythm.
+  - headline: Acknowledge the debt
+    description: >-
+      The host publicly acknowledges the contribution; a tally is kept in
+      memory, not on paper. Each helper has earned a future call.
+outcome: >-
+  A task too large for one household is completed; reciprocal obligations
+  are created and honoured, strengthening community bonds.
+practice: >-
+  Ayni breaks down when helpers do not receive reciprocal help. The system
+  depends on memory and mutual obligation; do not let ayni become unpaid
+  labour for those who never call their own.

seeds/peruvian-ronda-campesina.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+id: peruvian-ronda-campesina
+title: Peruvian Ronda Campesina Patrol
+description: >-
+  A peasant patrol and justice practice from northern Peru in which
+  community members take turns patrolling and resolving disputes, with no
+  state police involvement. The rondas campesinas emerged in the 1970s in
+  Cajamarca and are recognised under Peruvian law as a form of indigenous
+  justice.
+source: Rondas Campesinas / Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL)
+source_url: https://www.idl.org.pe/
+tags: [peruvian, rondas, indigenous-justice, patrol, andes]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Organise the rotation
+    description: >-
+      The community organises a rotating patrol (ronda) in which all
+      adult male members take turns, with no permanent police. Each
+      night's patrol is drawn from a different sector.
+  - headline: Patrol the community
+    description: >-
+      The night's ronda patrols the community, deterring livestock theft
+      and responding to disturbances. They report at dawn to the
+      rondal and the community.
+  - headline: Receive disputes
+    description: >-
+      The rondal and senior members receive disputes brought by community
+      members — theft, boundary conflicts, domestic disputes — and convene
+      a hearing.
+  - headline: Hear and resolve
+    description: >-
+      Both parties are heard. The ronda facilitates a resolution oriented
+      to repair — restitution, apology, community service — rather than
+      punishment. Decisions are public.
+  - headline: Enforce collectively
+    description: >-
+      The community collectively enforces the resolution. There is no
+      separate enforcement body; the ronda's authority rests on communal
+      participation.
+outcome: >-
+  Community security and dispute resolution are maintained through
+  rotating participation, with justice oriented to repair and enforced
+  collectively.
+practice: >-
+  The rotation is what makes the ronda legitimate — no one is police over
+  another. The form depends on universal participation; if some never
+  serve, it becomes a private force.

seeds/polynesian-talanoa.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+id: polynesian-talanoa
+title: Talanoa Dialogue
+description: >-
+  A Pacific Islander practice of inclusive, transparent dialogue without a
+  rigid agenda, used for storytelling, decision-making, and reconciliation.
+  Originating in Fijian, Tongan, and Samoan traditions, talanoa was
+  formally adopted as the dialogue mode for the UN climate Talanoa
+  Dialogue.
+source: Fijian and Pacific Islander tradition / UNFCCC Talanoa Dialogue
+source_url: https://unfccc.int/topics/talanoa-dialogue
+tags: [pacific-islander, talanoa, dialogue, climate, indigenous]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Open with relationship
+    description: >-
+      The talanoa opens with participants sharing who they are and their
+      connection to the matter, building relationship before business.
+  - headline: Speak without hierarchy
+    description: >-
+      All participants speak as equals; there is no rigid turn order or
+      precedence by rank. Stories, analysis, and feelings all belong.
+  - headline: Stay transparent
+    description: >-
+      Participants speak openly, avoiding hidden agendas. The talanoa is
+      built on the premise that transparency builds trust.
+  - headline: Seek the collective good
+    description: >-
+      The dialogue moves toward what serves the collective — the
+      community or the common challenge — rather than individual position.
+  - headline: Close with shared understanding
+    description: >-
+      The talanoa closes when a shared understanding or direction has
+      emerged, summarised collectively.
+outcome: >-
+  A shared understanding emerges through inclusive, transparent dialogue
+  that honours relationship as much as outcome.
+practice: >-
+  Talanoa is not a debate to be won. If it becomes positional, it has
+  broken. The host holds the relational tone, not the conclusion.

seeds/pro-action-cafe.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+id: pro-action-cafe
+title: Pro-Action Cafe
+description: >-
+  A structured cafe-style method where participants bring projects or
+  questions they want help with and rotate through tables receiving input
+  from different groups. Developed within the Art of Hosting community as a
+  bridge from conversation to action.
+source: Art of Hosting Conversations That Matter
+source_url: https://artofhosting.org/
+tags: [pro-action-cafe, art-of-hosting, projects, consultation]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Call for hosts with questions
+    description: >-
+      Three or four participants volunteer as table hosts, each bringing a
+      real project or question they want input on. Each hosts one table
+      for the whole session.
+  - headline: First round — clarification
+    description: >-
+      Guests join a table. The host presents the question; guests ask
+      clarifying questions only, helping the host sharpen what they are
+      really asking.
+  - headline: Second round — wisdom
+    description: >-
+      Guests rotate to a new table. The host shares the clarified question
+      and what emerged; the new guests offer insights, experience, and
+      perspectives.
+  - headline: Third round — action
+    description: >-
+      Guests rotate again. The host now shares the clarified question and
+      accumulated wisdom; guests help identify concrete next steps and
+      commitments.
+  - headline: Harvest
+    description: >-
+      Table hosts share with the whole group what they received and what
+      they will do next. The harvest is recorded for all.
+outcome: >-
+  Each host leaves with a clarified question, pooled wisdom, and concrete
+  next steps, drawn from three rounds of diverse input.
+practice: >-
+  The rounds build — clarification, then wisdom, then action. If guests
+  jump to advice in round one, the question stays fuzzy. The host holds
+  the thread across all three rounds.

seeds/quaker-clearness-committee.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+id: quaker-clearness-committee
+title: Quaker Clearness Committee
+description: >-
+  A Quaker practice for discerning a personal decision through a small
+  committee that asks honest questions rather than offering advice. Originating
+  in the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in the 17th century.
+source: Parker J. Palmer, "A Hidden Wholeness"
+source_url: https://www.couragerenew.org/clearness-committee/
+tags: [quaker, discernment, listening, decision-making]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Form the committee
+    description: >-
+      The focus person invites five or six trusted people to serve as a
+      committee for a two-hour meeting devoted to a specific question or
+      decision they face.
+  - headline: Share the question
+    description: >-
+      The focus person reads a short written statement describing the issue
+      and the context, without seeking advice.
+  - headline: Ask only questions
+    description: >-
+      Committee members ask honest, open questions — no advice, no leading
+      questions, no stories from their own life. The focus person may decline
+      to answer any question.
+  - headline: Silence between questions
+    description: >-
+      After each question and response, the group sits in silence to let the
+      answer settle before the next question is posed.
+  - headline: Close with reflection
+    description: >-
+      In the final twenty minutes the committee offers any observations, and
+      the focus person reflects on what has emerged.
+outcome: >-
+  The focus person gains clarity about their own discernment without being
+  steered by others' opinions or agendas.
+practice: >-
+  The discipline of questions-only is the hardest part. If someone slips into
+  advice, the clerk gently interrupts. Prepare a written statement in advance;
+  the act of writing often begins the clarity.

seeds/quaker-clearness-for-membership.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+id: quaker-clearness-for-membership
+title: Quaker Clearness for Membership
+description: >-
+  A Quaker process where a small committee meets with a person seeking
+  membership in the meeting to discern their leading and readiness. A
+  specific application of the clearness committee practice to membership
+  in the Religious Society of Friends.
+source: Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, "Faith and Practice"
+source_url: https://www.pym.org/
+tags: [quaker, membership, clearness, discernment]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Request clearness
+    description: >-
+      The applicant writes to the meeting requesting membership and shares
+      a written account of their spiritual journey and what draws them to
+      the meeting.
+  - headline: Appoint a clearness committee
+    description: >-
+      The meeting appoints a small committee of members to meet with the
+      applicant for discernment, not examination.
+  - headline: Meet in worship
+    description: >-
+      The committee and applicant meet in worship, asking honest questions
+      about the applicant's journey, understanding of Quaker practice, and
+      readiness for membership.
+  - headline: Report to meeting
+    description: >-
+      The committee reports to the monthly meeting whether clearness was
+      reached — that is, whether the applicant and committee discern unity
+      that membership is right at this time.
+  - headline: Meeting decides
+    description: >-
+      The monthly meeting acts on the report in its business meeting,
+      welcoming the new member or holding the matter for further
+      discernment.
+outcome: >-
+  Membership is discerned communally rather than applied for and approved,
+  with both the applicant and the meeting clear about the step.
+practice: >-
+  The committee is not a vetting panel. Its work is discernment with the
+  applicant, not examination of them. The written spiritual journey is
+  the substance; honour it.

seeds/quaker-meeting-for-worship-with-attention-to-business.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+id: quaker-meeting-for-worship-with-attention-to-business
+title: Quaker Meeting for Business
+description: >-
+  A Quaker meeting for conducting business through worshipful listening and
+  discernment of the "sense of the meeting," without voting. Practised by
+  the Religious Society of Friends since the 17th century.
+source: Britain Yearly Meeting, "Quaker Faith and Practice"
+source_url: https://www.quaker.org.uk/
+tags: [quaker, business, discernment, consensus]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Settle into worship
+    description: >-
+      The meeting opens with silence, settling the group into a worshipful
+      state before any business is conducted.
+  - headline: Present the matter
+    description: >-
+      The clerk introduces the item with relevant facts and any minute from
+      a prior meeting, then pauses for reflection.
+  - headline: Speak as led
+    description: >-
+      Participants rise to speak only as they feel led by the Spirit,
+      one at a time, with pauses between contributions.
+  - headline: Discern the sense
+    description: >-
+      The clerk listens for the emerging "sense of the meeting" and drafts a
+      minute reflecting it, reading it back for the meeting's unity.
+  - headline: Record the minute
+    description: >-
+      When the meeting unites on the minute, it is recorded. If unity is not
+      reached, the matter is held over or laid aside.
+outcome: >-
+  A decision is recorded that the meeting can unite behind, reached through
+  worshipful discernment rather than majority rule.
+practice: >-
+  The clerk serves, not leads — drafting the minute is the work of
+  discernment. If two strongly held positions remain, the clerk lays the
+  matter down rather than forcing a vote.

seeds/quaker-meeting-for-worship.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: quaker-meeting-for-worship
+title: Quaker Meeting for Worship
+description: >-
+  A Quaker silent worship practice in which participants gather in
+  expectant silence, speaking only when moved by the Spirit. Originating in
+  17th-century England with the Religious Society of Friends.
+source: Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
+source_url: https://www.quaker.org.uk/
+tags: [quaker, worship, silence, contemplation]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Settle into silence
+    description: >-
+      The meeting begins as participants enter and settle into silence
+      without a leader or liturgy. There is no programme or hymn.
+  - headline: Speak as led
+    description: >-
+      Anyone who feels moved by the Spirit may rise and speak a brief
+      message. After each message, the group returns to silence.
+  - headline: Hold the silence
+    description: >-
+      The meeting may pass entirely in silence, or include several messages.
+      Silence is not emptiness but worship.
+  - headline: Close with handshakes
+    description: >-
+      After about an hour, an elder turns to a neighbour and shakes hands,
+      signalling the close. All exchange handshakes.
+outcome: >-
+  Participants experience communal worship through silence and any spoken
+  ministry that arises, without liturgy or hierarchy.
+practice: >-
+  The discipline is the silence — do not fill it. If you speak, stand and
+  speak briefly; do not debate or reply to another's message. Let the
+  silence hold what is said.

seeds/radical-candor.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+id: radical-candor
+title: Radical Candor Feedback
+description: >-
+  A feedback practice that combines caring personally with challenging
+  directly, avoiding the pitfalls of ruinous empathy and obnoxious
+  aggression. Developed by Kim Scott based on her experience at Google and
+  Apple.
+source: Kim Scott, "Radical Candor"
+source_url: https://www.radicalcandor.com/
+tags: [feedback, workplace, communication, management]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Care personally
+    description: >-
+      The giver establishes that they care about the receiver as a person —
+      not just as a performer — through prior relationship and genuine
+      attention.
+  - headline: Challenge directly
+    description: >-
+      The giver states the challenge or criticism clearly and specifically,
+      without softening it into vagueness or padding it with praise.
+  - headline: Invite reciprocation
+    description: >-
+      The giver invites the receiver to challenge them back, opening the
+      feedback to be two-way rather than hierarchical.
+  - headline: Commit to action
+    description: >-
+      Both parties agree on what will change and how progress will be
+      checked.
+outcome: >-
+  The receiver hears a clear challenge from someone who demonstrably cares,
+  making the feedback both heard and actionable.
+practice: >-
+  Without the caring, direct challenge becomes aggression. Without the
+  challenge, caring becomes toothless empathy. Both must be present. Build
+  the relationship before delivering hard feedback.

seeds/restorative-conference.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+id: restorative-conference
+title: Restorative Conference
+description: >-
+  A structured meeting bringing together those harmed, those who caused harm,
+  and affected community members to address what happened and what is needed
+  to repair it. Rooted in restorative justice traditions from Maori and
+  Indigenous practices and widely adapted in criminal justice and schools.
+source: International Institute for Restorative Practices
+source_url: https://www.iirp.edu/
+tags: [restorative, justice, repair, conflict]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Prepare participants
+    description: >-
+      A facilitator meets separately with those harmed, those who caused
+      harm, and supporters of each, to explain the process and confirm
+      willingness to participate.
+  - headline: Tell what happened
+    description: >-
+      The person who caused harm describes what they did and what they were
+      thinking at the time. Those harmed describe the impact on them.
+  - headline: Identify the harm
+    description: >-
+      Together the group names who was affected and how — including family,
+      friends, and the wider community.
+  - headline: Build an agreement
+    description: >-
+      Participants propose what is needed to repair the harm — apologies,
+      restitution, behaviour change, support — and agree on specifics.
+  - headline: Follow up
+    description: >-
+      A follow-up meeting checks whether the agreement has been kept and
+      whether further repair is needed.
+outcome: >-
+  Those harmed are heard; those who caused harm take responsibility; an
+  agreed repair plan is created and reviewed.
+practice: >-
+  Preparation is most of the work. Never convene a conference without
+  individual meetings first. The facilitator holds the process, not the
+  outcome.

seeds/roca-circle-restorative.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+id: roca-circle-restorative
+title: ROCA Circle Restorative Practice
+description: >-
+  A circle-based restorative practice used by ROCA, a youth intervention
+  organisation in Massachusetts, to help young people address conflict and
+  change behaviour through relational connection rather than punishment.
+  Drawing on restorative and Indigenous circle traditions.
+source: ROCA Inc.
+source_url: https://www.rocainc.org/
+tags: [restorative, youth, circle, intervention, usa]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene the circle
+    description: >-
+      A youth worker convenes a circle with the young person and those
+      affected — family, peers, community. The circle opens with
+      guidelines: speak honestly, listen, no blame.
+  - headline: Share what happened
+    description: >-
+      Each person shares what happened from their view and the impact on
+      them. The young person hears the impact directly, not second-hand.
+  - headline: Identify what is needed
+    description: >-
+      The circle identifies what the young person needs — support,
+      skills, connection — and what those affected need to feel safe.
+  - headline: Build a plan
+    description: >-
+      Together the circle builds a plan: what the young person will do,
+      what support the youth worker will provide, what the community will
+      offer. The plan is specific and time-bound.
+  - headline: Follow up in circle
+    description: >-
+      The circle reconvenes to check progress. Success is measured by
+      changed behaviour and relationship, not by completion of a sanction.
+outcome: >-
+  A young person moves toward changed behaviour through relational
+  connection, with the community invested in their path rather than
+  punishing from outside.
+practice: >-
+  ROCA's evidence base shows that persistent relationship, not sanction,
+  drives change. The youth worker's presence in the young person's life
+  is the intervention, not just the circle.

seeds/sikhs-langer.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+id: sikhs-langer
+title: Sikh Langar Free Kitchen
+description: >-
+  A Sikh practice of preparing and serving a free communal meal to all who
+  come, regardless of caste, religion, or status, and eating it together
+  seated on the same level. Originating with Guru Nanak in the 15th century
+  and central to every gurdwara.
+source: Sikh tradition / Sri Guru Granth Sahib
+source_url: https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Langar
+tags: [sikh, langar, food, equality, community]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Prepare the meal
+    description: >-
+      Volunteers (sevadars) prepare a simple vegetarian meal — roti, dal,
+      vegetables — in the gurdwara kitchen. All food is vegetarian so all
+      can eat.
+  - headline: Serve to all
+    description: >-
+      Servers offer the meal to each person who comes, regardless of
+      background, caste, or faith. No one is turned away.
+  - headline: Sit on the same level
+    description: >-
+      All eat together seated on the floor in rows, at the same level. The
+      equality of the seating is the point — no one sits above another.
+  - headline: Clean together
+    description: >-
+      Volunteers and guests clean the hall, wash dishes, and restore the
+      space. Seva (voluntary service) continues through cleanup.
+  - headline: Renew the practice
+    description: >-
+      Langar is prepared daily in active gurdwaras; the practice renews
+      itself each day, funded by the sangat (congregation) and served by
+      sevadars.
+outcome: >-
+  All who come are fed equally, and the equality of shared food embodies
+  the Sikh principle that all are equal before the Divine.
+practice: >-
+  The same-level seating is the practice — not just the free food. If
+  seating is reintroduced hierarchically, the langar is diminished.
+  Vegetarian food ensures all can share.

seeds/six-thinking-hats.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+id: six-thinking-hats
+title: Six Thinking Hats
+description: >-
+  A parallel thinking method where a group considers a topic from one
+  perspective at a time, signalled by six metaphorical "hats." Developed by
+  Edward de Bono.
+source: Edward de Bono, "Six Thinking Hats"
+source_url: https://www.edwdebono.com/
+tags: [thinking, creativity, meetings, facilitation]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: White Hat — facts
+    description: >-
+      The group considers only information and facts: what is known, what is
+      missing, what data is needed.
+  - headline: Red Hat — feelings
+    description: >-
+      Each person expresses gut feelings and intuition, without needing to
+      justify them.
+  - headline: Black Hat — caution
+    description: >-
+      The group identifies risks, difficulties, and what could go wrong,
+      without being dismissed as negative.
+  - headline: Yellow Hat — benefits
+    description: >-
+      The group names the value, benefits, and optimistic possibilities of
+      the idea.
+  - headline: Green Hat — creativity
+    description: >-
+      The group generates alternatives, provocations, and new ideas without
+      critique.
+  - headline: Blue Hat — process
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator manages the sequence, summarises, and defines next
+      steps.
+outcome: >-
+  The group explores a topic thoroughly without arguments tangling
+  perspectives; each mode gets its full attention.
+practice: >-
+  Keep hat time short and clearly signposted. The hardest discipline is
+  staying in one hat — if black-hat thinking creeps into yellow-hat time,
+  name it and return.

seeds/sociocratic-election.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+id: sociocratic-election
+title: Sociocratic Election by Consent
+description: >-
+  A sociocratic method for selecting people to roles through consent rather
+  than majority vote. Developed in the Netherlands by Gerard Endenburg from
+  earlier Quaker-influenced sociocratic work.
+source: Sociocracy for All
+source_url: https://www.sociocracyforall.org/
+tags: [sociocracy, election, consent, governance]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Define the role
+    description: >-
+      The group defines the function, term, and tasks of the role to be
+      filled, written so all share the same understanding.
+  - headline: Nominate by discussion
+    description: >-
+      Members discuss who might fill the role, nominating others and
+      themselves, and explaining their reasoning for each suggestion.
+  - headline: Candidate consents
+    description: >-
+      The person proposed is asked whether they can serve; they may accept,
+      decline, or ask for changes to the role's scope or support.
+  - headline: Test for consent
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator asks whether anyone has a reasoned objection to the
+      candidate serving in the role. Objections are addressed until none
+      remain.
+  - headline: Confirm
+    description: >-
+      The election is confirmed by consent; the role definition and any
+      agreed changes are recorded.
+outcome: >-
+  A person is selected to a role with the consent of the group and the
+  candidate, and the role itself has been clarified.
+practice: >-
+  Nominations are not votes — discussion of why someone is suited is the
+  point. Allow the candidate to negotiate the role; elections that ignore
+  the candidate's consent produce poor results.

seeds/socratic-seminar.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+id: socratic-seminar
+title: Socratic Seminar
+description: >-
+  A structured discussion of a text where participants ask and answer
+  questions to deepen collective understanding, using Socratic dialogue
+  methods. Named for the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates and formalised
+  in modern education by Mortimer Adler.
+source: Mortimer Adler, "Paideia Proposal"
+source_url: https://www.paideia.org/
+tags: [socratic, seminar, education, dialogue]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Read the text closely
+    description: >-
+      All participants read a short text in advance, marking passages and
+      preparing one question they genuinely wonder about.
+  - headline: Open with a question
+    description: >-
+      The leader poses an opening question that has no single right answer
+      and invites the group into inquiry.
+  - headline: Refer to the text
+    description: >-
+      Participants respond, grounding their contributions in specific
+      passages: "On page three, the author says..." rather than free
+      association.
+  - headline: Ask follow-up questions
+    description: >-
+      The leader and participants ask follow-up questions that probe
+      assumptions and invite evidence, rather than offering opinions.
+  - headline: Close with reflection
+    description: >-
+      The seminar closes with each participant naming one idea that shifted
+      or deepened for them.
+outcome: >-
+  The group reaches a deeper shared understanding of the text and the
+  questions it raises, through disciplined inquiry.
+practice: >-
+  The leader asks, does not answer. If the leader becomes the expert, the
+  inquiry collapses into lecture. Ground every claim in the text.

seeds/somali-xeer.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+id: somali-xeer
+title: Somali Xeer Customary Law Council
+description: >-
+  A Somali customary law practice where elders of related clans convene to
+  adjudicate disputes through negotiated compensation rather than
+  punishment. Xeer is an ancient Somali unwritten legal system administered
+  by clan elders (nabaddoon).
+source: Somali customary law tradition
+source_url: https://www.jstor.org/
+tags: [somali, xeer, customary-law, conflict, indigenous]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene the elders
+    description: >-
+      A nabaddoon (peace elder) from the affected clans convenes a council.
+      Each party brings elders to represent them.
+  - headline: Establish the xeer applicable
+    description: >-
+      The council confirms which xeer (customary law) provisions apply to
+      the case, drawing on precedent specific to the clans and situation.
+  - headline: Hear each party
+    description: >-
+      Each side presents its account. The council questions and cross-checks
+      with witnesses, seeking agreement on the facts.
+  - headline: Negotiate compensation
+    description: >-
+      The council negotiates compensation (mag) to be paid by the offending
+      party to the aggrieved, restoring relationship rather than imposing
+      punishment.
+  - headline: Pronounce and seal
+    description: >-
+      The elders pronounce the settlement; it is sealed with a shared meal
+      and acknowledged by both clans, binding them to peace.
+outcome: >-
+  A dispute is resolved through negotiated compensation that restores
+  relationship between clans, with both bound to the outcome.
+practice: >-
+  Xeer is restorative, not punitive. The compensation is not a fine to the
+  state but a transfer that repairs relationship. The shared meal seals
+  the peace.

seeds/stand-up-meeting.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+id: stand-up-meeting
+title: Daily Stand-Up
+description: >-
+  A short daily team sync in which each member states what they did, what
+  they will do, and what is blocking them. Originating in Scrum and Agile
+  software development, derived partly from Toyota's morning meetings
+  (chorei).
+source: Scrum Guide / Agile Alliance
+source_url: https://www.agilealliance.org/
+tags: [agile, standup, teams, sync]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Gather standing
+    description: >-
+      The team gathers standing, at the same time and place each day, around
+      the team's visible work board. Standing signals brevity.
+  - headline: Each person reports
+    description: >-
+      Each member states three things: what I did since last stand-up, what
+      I will do by next stand-up, and what is blocking me.
+  - headline: Park discussions
+    description: >-
+      Any topic requiring more than a minute is "parked" for a separate
+      conversation after the stand-up, with those involved.
+  - headline: Confirm blockers
+    description: >-
+      The facilitator confirms who will address each blocker and by when,
+      and the stand-up closes.
+outcome: >-
+  The team synchronises daily on progress and impediments in under fifteen
+  minutes, with blockers surfaced and owned.
+practice: >-
+  Keep it under fifteen minutes. The stand-up is not problem-solving —
+  park everything that is not a status report. Face each other, not the
+  manager.

seeds/talking-circle.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+id: talking-circle
+title: Talking Circle
+description: >-
+  A circle process where a talking piece is passed so each person speaks in
+  turn without interruption. Rooted in Indigenous North American traditions
+  and widely adapted for restorative and dialogue work.
+source: Kay Pranis, "The Little Book of Circle Processes"
+source_url: https://goodbooks.com/the-little-book-of-circle-processes/
+tags: [circle, indigenous, listening, restorative]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Open the circle
+    description: >-
+      A keeper opens by explaining the guidelines: speak only when holding the
+      talking piece, listen deeply, speak from the heart, and respect all
+      voices equally.
+  - headline: Pass the talking piece
+    description: >-
+      The keeper passes the piece to one side; each person speaks when they
+      receive it and then passes it on. Anyone may pass.
+  - headline: Honour silence
+    description: >-
+      When the talking piece returns, it may be placed in the centre. Silence
+      is welcomed; the piece can be picked up by whoever is next ready to
+      speak.
+  - headline: Close the circle
+    description: >-
+      The keeper formally closes, often with a brief reading or a moment of
+      silence, acknowledging what was shared.
+outcome: >-
+  Participants experience equitable voice and deeper listening; the circle
+  builds a sense of shared community and safety.
+practice: >-
+  Choose a talking piece with meaning. The keeper keeps the circle safe but
+  does not direct content. Allow enough time — circles move slowly by design.

seeds/tibetan-bod-kyi-gtam.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+id: tibetan-bod-kyi-gtam
+title: Tibetan Bod Kyi Gtam Story Council
+description: >-
+  A Tibetan practice of using narrative (gtam) in council and teaching to
+  convey ethical and practical wisdom, where an elder tells a story whose
+  meaning the listeners draw out themselves. Rooted in Tibetan Buddhist
+  and folk traditions of teaching through narrative rather than
+  proposition.
+source: Tibetan narrative tradition / Tibetan Buddhist teaching
+source_url: https://www.tibetology.net/
+tags: [tibetan, story, council, narrative, buddhist]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene for the story
+    description: >-
+      The elder or teacher convenes the group — a family, a council, a
+      class — and announces that a story will be told. The listeners
+      settle.
+  - headline: Tell the story
+    description: >-
+      The elder tells the story without explaining its meaning. The
+      narrative is left to work on the listeners; the teller does not
+      moralise.
+  - headline: Sit with the story
+    description: >-
+      After the telling, the group sits in silence. Listeners let the story
+      settle; they do not immediately analyse or extract a lesson.
+  - headline: Invite reflections
+    description: >-
+      The elder invites reflections — what the story brought up, what it
+      asked. Listeners speak from their own encounter with the narrative,
+      not to agree on a single meaning.
+  - headline: Close without resolution
+    description: >-
+      The gathering closes without a forced resolution. The story is left
+      to continue working; its meaning is not pinned.
+outcome: >-
+  The group receives wisdom through narrative that resists reduction to
+  proposition, with each listener drawing their own meaning.
+practice: >-
+  The discipline is not to explain the story. If the elder moralises, the
+  form collapses into lecture. Let the silence after the telling do its
+  work.

seeds/tibetan-buddhist-debate.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+id: tibetan-buddhist-debate
+title: Tibetan Buddhist Debate
+description: >-
+  A formal debate practice from Tibetan Buddhist monastic education in which
+  a challenger poses questions and a defender answers, using prescribed
+  gestures and logical forms. Originating in the Indian Buddhist pramana
+  tradition and developed in Tibetan Gelug monasteries such as Sera and
+  Drepung.
+source: Tibetan Buddhist monastic tradition / Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
+source_url: https://www.studybuddhism.com/
+tags: [tibetan-buddhist, debate, education, logic, monastic]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Set the roles
+    description: >-
+      One person takes the role of challenger (asking) and the other the
+      defender (answering). The challenger stands; the defender sits.
+  - headline: Pose the thesis
+    description: >-
+      The challenger poses a thesis or question drawn from the text under
+      study, framing it in the prescribed logical form.
+  - headline: Defender answers
+    description: >-
+      The defender gives a one-word or short answer that commits to a
+      position, which the challenger will now test.
+  - headline: Challenger tests with consequences
+    description: >-
+      The challenger follows with a sequence of logical consequences
+      (thal-ching), using claps and gestures to mark each step, seeking to
+      draw the defender into contradiction.
+  - headline: Concede or restate
+    description: >-
+      The defender concedes if cornered, or restates the position more
+      precisely. The debate ends when the thesis is either confirmed or
+      shown incoherent.
+outcome: >-
+  The defender's understanding of the thesis is tested and sharpened
+  through public logical pressure; the audience follows the reasoning.
+practice: >-
+  The gestures and claps are not theatre — they mark logical steps and
+  keep the debate's pace. Honour the form; it enables rigour.

seeds/transition-town-open-space.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+id: transition-town-open-space
+title: Transition Town Open Space
+description: >-
+  A practice from the Transition Towns movement — founded in Totnes, UK, by
+  Rob Hopkins — where a community uses open space to launch working groups
+  around energy, food, and local resilience. Combines open space
+  technology with a resilience framing.
+source: Transition Network / Rob Hopkins, "The Transition Handbook"
+source_url: https://transitionnetwork.org/
+tags: [transition-towns, open-space, climate, community, resilience]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Frame the resilience question
+    description: >-
+      The convenor frames the gathering around the community's resilience
+      — how it will fare with less energy and a changing climate — and
+      invites participants to propose working groups.
+  - headline: Propose working groups
+    description: >-
+      Anyone proposes a working group — food, energy, transport, local
+      economy — and posts it. Participants sign up for the groups they
+      will join.
+  - headline: Groups meet and plan
+    description: >-
+      Working groups meet in corners of the venue, naming their first
+      practical project and the next meeting date. The groups are
+      self-organising from this point.
+  - headline: Report back
+    description: >-
+      Each working group reports its first project and meeting date to the
+      whole gathering. Public commitment strengthens follow-through.
+  - headline: Convene a coordinating hub
+    description: >-
+      A coordinating hub is named to convene the working groups periodically
+      and hold the whole transition initiative.
+outcome: >-
+  Self-organising working groups form around practical resilience
+  projects, with a coordinating hub to hold the whole.
+practice: >-
+  The framing matters — resilience, not apocalypse. People act on what
+  they can build, not on what they fear. The working groups must be free
+  to choose their own projects.

seeds/tswana-kgotla.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+id: tswana-kgotla
+title: Tswana Kgotla Assembly
+description: >-
+  A traditional Tswana (Botswana) public assembly at which a chief or
+  senior leader hears community concerns and deliberates decisions with
+  those present. The kgotla is the central institution of Tswana
+  governance and is enshrined in Botswana's national life.
+source: Botswana kgotla tradition / Government of Botswana
+source_url: https://www.gov.bw/
+tags: [tswana, botswana, kgotla, governance, africa]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Call the kgotla
+    description: >-
+      The chief or convenor calls the kgotla at the kgotla grounds. All
+      adult members of the community may attend and speak.
+  - headline: Present the matter
+    description: >-
+      The convenor presents the matter for deliberation — a dispute, a
+      community project, a policy — and invites responses.
+  - headline: Hear all voices
+    description: >-
+      Men and women, senior and junior, speak in turn. The convenor listens
+      and may question, but does not dismiss.
+  - headline: Deliberate toward consensus
+    description: >-
+      Discussion continues until a consensus or widely accepted decision
+      emerges. The chief does not impose against strong objection.
+  - headline: Pronounce the decision
+    description: >-
+      The chief pronounces the decision, framed as the community's will.
+      It carries moral authority because all were heard.
+outcome: >-
+  A decision is reached with the community's participation and consent,
+  carrying legitimacy that top-down decisions lack.
+practice: >-
+  The kgotla is not a rubber stamp — if the chief ignores the assembly, the
+  form loses its power. Free speech within the kgotla is its lifeblood.

seeds/ubuntu-imbizo.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+id: ubuntu-imbizo
+title: Ubuntu Imbizo Community Assembly
+description: >-
+  A Southern African community assembly rooted in the philosophy of ubuntu
+  ("I am because we are"), where community members gather to deliberate
+  matters of shared concern. Found across Nguni and other Southern African
+  societies, the imbizo is a forum for collective discussion and decision.
+source: Southern African ubuntu tradition / Nelson Mandela Foundation
+source_url: https://www.mandelafoundation.org/
+tags: [ubuntu, southern-african, imbizo, governance, community]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Call the imbizo
+    description: >-
+      A senior member or chief calls the imbizo, announcing the matter and
+      inviting all adult community members to attend.
+  - headline: Open with ubuntu
+    description: >-
+      The convenor opens by affirming ubuntu — that the community is bound
+      together and that each person's dignity is tied to the others'.
+  - headline: Deliberate together
+    description: >-
+      Members speak in turn, with elders and those most affected given
+      particular attention. The convener seeks the points of agreement
+      that all can accept.
+  - headline: Decide collectively
+    description: >-
+      The decision is reached collectively, framed as the community's will
+      rather than the chief's. Dissent is acknowledged and recorded.
+  - headline: Bind the community
+    description: >-
+      The decision is pronounced in a way that affirms the ongoing
+      relationship of the community, even where some disagreed.
+outcome: >-
+  A decision is made that carries the community's collective weight,
+  grounded in the recognition that each person belongs to the others.
+practice: >-
+  Ubuntu is not a slogan but the premise — that no decision stands apart
+  from relationship. If the imbizo becomes a chief's pronouncement, the
+  form is broken.

seeds/world-cafe.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+id: world-cafe
+title: World Cafe
+description: >-
+  A large-group dialogue method that uses small-table conversations and
+  rotating participation to cross-pollinate ideas. Developed by Juanita
+  Brown and David Isaacs.
+source: The World Cafe Community
+source_url: https://www.theworldcafe.com/
+tags: [world-cafe, dialogue, large-group, knowledge]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Set tables and a question
+    description: >-
+      Tables of four or five are set with paper tablecloths and markers. A
+      single overarching question is posed for all tables.
+  - headline: First round
+    description: >-
+      Participants converse at their starting table for twenty to thirty
+      minutes, writing and drawing key ideas on the tablecloth.
+  - headline: Rotate
+    description: >-
+      One person stays as "table host" while others disperse to new tables.
+      The host briefs newcomers on the prior conversation; a new round
+      begins.
+  - headline: Harvest
+    description: >-
+      After two or three rounds, the whole group gathers and tables share
+      emerging themes, patterns, and surprising insights.
+outcome: >-
+  Ideas cross-fertilise across the whole group; collective intelligence
+  surfaces that no single conversation would have reached.
+practice: >-
+  Keep the question open and juicy. The tablecloths matter — people who
+  doodle engage more deeply than those who only talk.

seeds/zulu-imbizo.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+id: zulu-imbizo
+title: Zulu Imbizo Royal Assembly
+description: >-
+  A Zulu practice in which a king or senior chief calls an imbizo — a
+  gathering of all men of the nation or region — to hear matters and
+  receive instruction. Distinguished from the smaller indaba, the imbizo
+  is a mass assembly for matters of national importance.
+source: Zulu Kingdom tradition / KwaZulu-Natal heritage
+source_url: https://www.kzn.org.za/
+tags: [zulu, imbizo, assembly, governance, southern-african]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Call the imbizo
+    description: >-
+      The king or chief calls the imbizo, with the call going out through
+      the regions. All men of the affected area are expected to attend.
+  - headline: Gather at the royal grounds
+    description: >-
+      The men gather at the royal grounds, seated by regiment and region.
+      The king or his representative opens the proceedings.
+  - headline: Present the matter
+    description: >-
+      The matter — a threat, a policy, a celebration — is presented. Those
+      gathered may speak, with senior men and regiment leaders heard first.
+  - headline: The king pronounces
+    description: >-
+      The king or his representative pronounces the decision or position,
+      framed as the will of the nation gathered. The assembly affirms by
+      presence and ululation.
+outcome: >-
+  A matter of national importance is addressed with the whole community
+  present, giving the decision the weight of the assembled nation.
+practice: >-
+  The imbizo is distinct from the indaba — it is a mass assembly, not a
+  leaders' discussion. The king's pronouncement carries the legitimacy of
+  the gathering; without the gathering, it would not.

seeds/zulu-indaba.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+id: zulu-indaba
+title: Zulu Indaba
+description: >-
+  A traditional Southern African gathering of community leaders for
+  deliberation on a matter of shared concern. Originating in Nguni
+  (including Zulu) practice, the indaba is a structured forum for chiefs and
+  senior members to discuss until consensus is reached.
+source: South African History Online
+source_url: https://www.sahistory.org.za/
+tags: [indaba, southern-african, governance, consensus]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Convene the indaba
+    description: >-
+      A senior leader calls the indaba, setting the topic and ensuring all
+      affected groups are represented by their recognised spokespeople.
+  - headline: Open statements
+    description: >-
+      Each representative gives an opening position on the matter, heard in
+      full without interruption.
+  - headline: Open deliberation
+    description: >-
+      Discussion proceeds among the representatives, with the convener
+      ensuring that senior voices do not dominate and that dissent is voiced
+      respectfully.
+  - headline: Seek a common position
+    description: >-
+      The convener works toward a position that all can accept, summarising
+      points of agreement and continuing until none object.
+  - headline: Pronounce the outcome
+    description: >-
+      The senior leader pronounces the agreed position, which becomes the
+      binding decision of the indaba.
+outcome: >-
+  A binding communal decision reached through inclusive deliberation, with
+  all represented groups accepting the outcome.
+practice: >-
+  Indaba takes the time it takes; rushing it breaks the form. The convener's
+  skill lies in drawing out quiet voices and synthesising rather than
+  imposing.