(discourse saved my half written comment!) Don’t worry about being disagreeable, that’s why we are here! Your point at Valve is a bit of a special case perhaps? That they basically have enough money to “ship when we’re ready” and a lot of things in life just can’t run on that kind of schedule, certainly at scale.
What about accountability to some degree? Again only a transitional element needed, but important in integrating into existing systems.
Also the people at Value are perhaps some of the best people in the world at self managing and getting things done perhaps? Also I assume it’s pretty hard to get a job there, so in that way it’s a pretty elitist group?
A core idea of my(!) system is to engage everyone at every level of education and involvement. It’s about putting better reasons in front of people to base their decisions on, which are backed up through clear debate/discouse.
I think it definitely is a stop gap, but given todays world, I feel it’s more productive to optimise towards a wider range of people, than to focus on experts and high achievers. I think in the future, when the poverty gap has been reduced, it would be possible to have people engaging more productively as independent teams, almost devolving back to highly organised tribal groups on local issues, joined by distributed systems for global points.
So I think there are definitely a few strands to this. My idea was always split into two stages, one for contesting existing power, and one for when you are in power. I feel the harder issue will be the contesting stage, and therefore I think it has the most value to look into (at least for me?)
What do you think? I think our goals our aligned yet looking at different ranges of people involved? Hopefully we can find useful overlap in our approaches and ideas.
If we say that our end goal is the same, what would be your “launch strategy” as it were? We can build whatever tech we need, it’s getting the engagement to happen as always that is the tricky part.