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.
This commit is contained in:
Protocolbot
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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."
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user