The hubbub at Philocrites is getting rather impassioned, and Philo (among others) is trying to get some product out of the desire and frustration. I’m trying not to be jaded, but I’ve heard murmurs like this before, something kinda happened but not really, and then the desire perished in more frustration. Then you notice formerly committed Unitarian Universalist drift off to other churches, or vanish altogether. Makes you not even want to try. Is it better to be unformed and united?
If some or all of the participants in the thread at Philocrites (plus silent readers) are serious about accomplishing something — note I haven’t hinted at what that might be — then let me suggest these unsorted ideas and warnings:
- A megalithic project will get mired in a desire to be something to all Unitarian Universalists and will prove pallid. I won’t be offended if there’s a popular project that has nothing for me (because I’ll be involved in some project.)
- It has to have a real goal. Neither “Awareness” nor “capacity development” count to me. Nor “dialog.”
- If the projects have costs, they need to be funded internally and fairly, or from easy to find “deep pockets.”
- It needs to have good boundaries with a fair and transparent way to remove disruptive persons. How many times in the Internet age — mailing list, bulletin board, blog — has someone ruined an experience for everyone?
- There needs to “awareness,” “dialog,” and “capacity development” — as a means to an end — with a govermance system appropriate to the medium. Since this discussion has run over blogs, it isn’t a stretch to think any project would be Internet based. Face-to-face governance models just don’t seem to work across the Internet, but models do exist, particularly in Free/Open Source software development teams.
Just random thoughts — feel free to comment.