incompatibilities

I feel like this paragraph addresses my earlier concern about not being able to be paid during that period! Maybe surface this way earlier. I'd say, always lead with the care! It's what brought me in at least :)

I do wince a bit at this "marriage" metaphor, I guess also because it immediately brings monogamy to top of mind for me, but I do like the idea of positioning this (this love and commitment to the other people in the coop) in opposition to the super icky "baby" startup metaphor.

I understand and agree with the sentiment of putting in the time to grow relationships to the point where everyone feels comfortable. I also think that it is important when we talk about growing communities to move "at the speed of trust."

But at the same time, I do worry about the feasibility of a 9 month mostly unpaid work period for much of the world's work force. Being able to work for 9 months without getting compensated isn't a luxury most can take (and thats in addition to having likely been a contributor for an amount of time), and will require many to either work a second job while doing this or come from a background that gives them enough of a financial cushion to ride on during this period.

I guess my suggestion would be that we should think about how this dating process can happen simultaneously to the earlier contributor stages so that certain lessons or learnings can be gleaned without extending the process out too long.

Extra what?

DisCOlars

They both

Does this mean people are paid out at a 1/2 rate? What (if anything) incentivizes people to "cash out" here? Or is the purpose to get people to keep their shares in the org?

Should establish consistent use of "One" vs "1"

Stage One

Love this idea

DisCO.NP

Has been capitalized under most other uses

high level of

within

Formatting is kind of weird here and some text appears next to the image.

Vibe with this idea, but wondering if it could be taken a step further to make it like a recommitment process. Like, resigning the document comes after some calls with other members where we talk through things and adjust the document to fit how needs/commitment has changed, rather than default to renewing the already established statement. Just a thought.

I love this! Feels super in line with bell hooks' All About Love

There are a few places in this document where I can't quite tell if the text is bolded or if I'm just seeing things. Something to keep in mind! We should probably test if DisCO sites in general meet web accessibility standards.

feels a little harsh, not particularly consent drive, maybe "are asked"

I don't think this needs to be elucidated in this doc, but I think it might be a good idea to create a "dating pool" where folks that are interested in working with a DisCO are added and shared (as they're comfortable) with the DisCO community at large. One person may not vibe with a specific DisCO or meet the conditions needed at that time, but may be a great fit for another DisCO.

I feel like codependency has a bad rap and may raise some eyebrows. Interdependent?

prospective

With this kind of sponsorship, do you envision that some of the funds will go towards creating infrastructure or being piped into the DisCOs account to pay out other folks that aren't directly involved in the training process?

what if someone walks away from the process and has no desire to continue working with DisCOs?

This concept is brought up many times before here, but this is the first time we have it explained direct and succinctly. I would move this up higher in the doc.

Also important to note here, if this is a wiki that is hosted on multiple pages, you're probably going to want to repeat certain phrases/sentences so that people reading individual pages can get the gist without having to hunt through.

Finally, the "basically" here feels a little casual in a way that I think makes the tone inconsistent.

I think this sentence helps convince people that are interested in DisCOlarships, but may disuade people interested in contributing. the "expectation" for the credits to be unfulfilled. Question that pops to mind, why track my hours if there is an expectation that nothing will ever come of it?

This particular phrasing makes this paragraph sound like doublespeak.

DisCO.NP

One of the places where it feels like we need to explicitly address audience: is this a tool for other DisCOs to learn how to define their relationships, or for people interested in working within the existing DisCO ecosystem. If the former, this feels too prescriptive.

Idk what it is, but I get a weird feeling about how explicit the lines are being drawn around casual and committed relationships. I think it's related to the earlier comment about feeling like the text is overemphasizing the DisCOs agency in defining the relationship.

I think part of it is also the fact that the casualization of labor is a really sore point for a lot of workers right now, as we emerge as a new "precariat" class. While its understandable that a lot of this work may be considered volunteer work and thus unpaid, continually noting that this is a casual relationship with no obligation for pay definitely makes me recall toxic work relationships in my past and I imagine will do the same for other workers.

How necessary is this "in the real world" part of the training? If it feels like an absolute must, it could be helpful to elucidate why.

a practical

In this section, we have three examples of potential "contributor relationships." While I think exploring different possibilities is important, this is quite a lengthy document and I think we need prioritize word efficiency.

This isn't to say "don't include these examples," it's to say: if we're including all these examples, we should make it immediately clear to the reader why that example is being given and why that use case is so different from the others provided that it deserves to be included

I think we need at least a baseline in this section to explain what a "share" is, if the work has no monetary payout.

I definitely agree in the reasoning behind tracking casual contributions, but when you get to the part about DisCO Ley Lines, I think and underlying problem becomes way more salient:

value tracking, especially in the case of tracking for the purposes of some sort of recognition by a large third party is a sure fire way of "abstracting" an individuals labor. How do we address this feeling of "heaven is high, emperor is far away" when talking about value tracking, especially in relation to DisCOs unrelated to the DisCO Mothership? That line in particular makes this document less transferrable as a tool for teaching people interested in starting their own DisCOs because it is specifically addressing people's labor in relation to the Mothership.

TL;DR maybe remove the Ley Lines bullet

I think it's important to provide at least a quick summation of what people will find in that section here so that people don't feel obligated to hunt and peck at sections to understand what you mean.

why not just say "quantity and quality" here?

On this read, I'm putting myself in the shoes of someone that is interested in working as a contributor. These sentences feel way more relevant to the DisCO itself. Not to say this doesn't belong in this page, but I think we may need to work on shaping the tone of this document to more clearly delineate who. the audience is at each point of the text.

This paragraph paired with the above paragraphs about DisCO.NPs not having any obligation to use the contributions of the contributors feels like we may be going a little too hard in emphasizing the casualness of the relationship, and the current framing makes it feel like the DisCO has way more say in the relationship than the contributor. Frankly, these paragraphs read a little bit like a contract saying "the DisCO is under no obligation to x, y, or z" which I don't think is the tone that you want to strike. Obviously, we don't want to mislead people into thinking "ah, I'm interested in working with this org, so I'm entitled to x, y, and z" but I think a balance can be struck that shows people that they indeed have agency within this relationship, but that the DisCO also reserves the same amount of agency. I think the "Applying the dating metaphor..." paragraph does this really well, so maybe it's about taking these "precautionary" sections and bundling them down lower in the page and working hard to strike a caring town within that section.

I think this needs more elaboration.

I would move this final paragraph to be the second paragraph as it feels more directly related to the first, where as the other two feel like they touch on a very specific facet of the contributor-NP relationship.

artwork

DisCO.NP

Did you mean: for profit or paid for?

DisCO.NP

I think that the fact that there is no "one true way" for this process to go makes it hard to visualize this with a single graphic and including this, may give people the wrong impression if they're just scrolling through. At the same time, visualizing infinite paths will definitely confuse people.

Maybe something less representational/more abstract rather than "informative."

High level, I think it may make more sense to lead with "TL;DR"s rather then ending with them so that as people are browsing through the wiki, they can quickly decide if they're on the right page or not.

Why is the L capitalized and not the rest of the word?

The difference between these two options is not immediately clear.

Is it that the DisCOLar path is oriented towards creating new DisCOs and the dating is oriented towards joining the mothership?

This sentence feels too specific in a section that is talking about "casual relationships" in a more general sense.

I don't know that this sentence is necessary, as all of the types of relationships will fall on this spectrum.

I feel like this may be too prescriptive. IMO, these roles and responsibilities feel like they'd apply to basically any DisCO.

Do these templates already exist? Do we have orgs that we can pilot these templates with?

I don't know that this is inherent to DisCOs as individual organizations! I think that this might appear to be the case given that we're still building out the core of the philosophy while also trying to create organizations that work by these ideals while existing as an explicitly counter-hegemonic endeavor. All that to say, I think you may be selling DisCOs short by including this in there, but understand why it's included right now. My main reason for bringing it up is, we don't want to give people the impression that this is the hardest path possible because it will likely result in slower adoption of these principles.

I think this could be a cool way of collaborating on the gather.town stuff we talked about on the last call.

e.g. How can we create digital spaces that showcase our ideals in an engaging way, while also giving people the space to engage with these topics together?

Personally, given your mission, I think it would make more sense to flip these two. You all are human/community first, tech+contractual obligation second and I think this sentence could better reflect that.

Are these organizations that have reached out to DisCO Mothership, or are these orgs that y'all feel would be good DisCOs?

What is a mirror ball?

I think this is a really important point. You don't build community or trust without some broken eggs along the way. But those lows don't have to define the community.

I would be interested in exploring how the capturing, analysis, and monetization of our data en masse (while working or in leisure) alienates us in the sphere of idleness just as much as pre-platform capitalism alienated us from our work.

I can totally see this. I was thinking about this from pretty early on in the article.

This feels like the core of what makes post-capitalism (traditional left) and postcapitalism different. Traditional leftists sought to seize political power and wield it to change the system, meaning electing communists and setting about on revolutionary projects that install communists in positions of power.

In contrast, postcapitalists seek to "change the world without taking power," a more ground up approach.

Gqom Influenced

Gqom - Artists

Gqom - Album

Gqom - Artists