Michael, can there be a separate part of the “Open TP category” designated for TPV discussion?
I will be posting the following in the TPG Google group:
All -
The TPV Admin Group will be holding open conversations about the Transhumanist Party in Virtual Space on the Fractal Future Forum. The discussions will initially focus on TPV administration.
We are currently working to establish the forum space and will be posting an announcement in the TPV FB group in the near future.
All who are interested will be welcome to join the conversation. TPV is committed to transparency in administration, goal setting, and activities.
Mark Larkento
TPV Chair
Yes, done. I’ve created the “Transhumanist Party Virtual” subcategory and moved this thread into it.
Posted in TPV FB on 2015.06.09:
All -
The TPV Admin Group will be holding open conversations about the Transhumanist Party in Virtual Space on the Fractal Future Forum. The discussions will initially focus on TPV administration.
We are currently working to establish the forum space and will be posting an announcement in the TPV FB group in the near future.
All who are interested will be welcome to join the conversation. TPV is committed to transparency in administration, goal setting, and activities.
Mark Larkento
TPV Chair
1 Like
Conversation copied from FB TPV Admin meeting:
René:
" I checked FFF yesterday and now again and could not see anything of relevance to my question. Your post in the fb group seems to indicate that a decision has been made, and that wider audience is equivalent to at least readers of that group but still not formally defined. Instead of contributing to transparency this rather obscures the issue as does the apparent missing of an announcement of the decision from this forum. While of no importance to me personally, all of this indicates that procedures of TPV remain in a stage of infancy. While formalisation of such procedures is of no appeal to me, it must be undertaken, else the organisation will run into trouble before long. "
Michael:
" “Wider audience” means everyone who reads in the F3. This is not really a wide audience right now, but it has the potential to grow. The biggest difference right now is that the TPV area in the F3 is open, while this Facebook chat group is not. I hope this clarifies the situation. “
René:
” It clarifies half of one of the two issues i addressed and is mute on the question of formalisation. "
Michael:
" I see formalisation as optional. So far, this is more or less just another informal transhumanist group. It’s not very clear that it has the intention to become more. "
René:
" Accepting your view on this would completely demotivate me from further investment of resources into the project, which is only one reason that i won’t. It would be most interesting though to hear if it is shared by Mark. "
Mark:
" René, It’s unclear to me why Michael has the opinion that TPV has no intention to become more than “an informal transhumanist group”. That certainly is not the direction I plan to go while I remain Chair. "
" I am interested in what specific actions are lacking that lead either of you to conclude there is a failure to pursue formalization. "
" This conversation will be continued on FFF for those who remain committed to TPV Administration. "
Yes, that was certainly a rather provocative statement. My general feeling that groups that mainly exist as Facebook groups aren’t serious enough to be successful as formal groups. What is needed is at least a serious presence on a (self-)hosted site that explains the group and its intentions. I also feel that the efforts of Zero State and the Transhumanist Parties have been suboptimal in this respect. With the Fractal Future Network I want to support these movements with some decent (if maybe transient) functional online presence.
About formalization in general: Movements can be quite successful, even if they are not really formalized. The Occupy Movement is more a swarm than a formal organization, but it has gained a lot of media attention. In theory, TPV could try to do the same. That’s why I am ambivalent on the question of formalization. If formalization is targeted, then a lot of effort has to be put into that goal. Effort that comes from an active team of (co-)founders and admins. Inactivity of that core team can make any organization look less serious.
But people in there wants to make something serious out of it.
I have a proposal. As this is experimental, perhaps we can offer an “informal” formalization. The Bitnation project offers decentralized contracts, and while is still in beta this is actually a good point for affiliation and administrative roles.
If TPV agrees, we could experiment using Bitnation, while making changes and experimenting for an upcoming “formal” formalization. In this way we provide security and at the same time we ensure to grow things further beyond a beta usage.