The division of the 4 strategic pillars between community and center as depicted in this image seems to be a very good one to me (the community slogan proposal there, not so much). It restricts the community’s scope and allows:
- The community to be (mostly) political neutral, less involved in politics directly and more resistant to corporate lobbying
- —> Preconditions to be fully transparent, working in the open on inclusive crowdsourced initiatives
- We can be more outspoken than the CHT, less diplomatic, as we represent the public’s view
- —> Strategic strength (public pressure) for the CHT in their advocacy to governments and corporations
The fact that community and center are separately positioned as independent entities is important to make this workable.
When discussing this with @patm she responded with these good points:
What occurs to me when I read this is the need for specificity and precision. If we can pinpoint what is wrong, we can focus companies’ attention–just as they try to focus ours–on particular things to fix.
And if we can speak respectfully as well as knowledgeably, perhaps we can get their cooperation without having to compromise.
Exactly. The pillar division is just the first part of scope restriction to attain focus within the community. I imagine a 2-dimensional grid. On the y-axis are the topics of humane technology, and on the x-axis is the ‘breadth’ or extent to which we’ll cover it.
The limitation to 2 strategic pillars restricts the breadth —> From Awareness to Improvement.
The knowledgeability that is involved increases going from one to the other. We make everyone aware (inclusivity) and on a journey to help find solutions. Their skills and interests determine where they can help. This goes along a ‘funnel’ with researchers and experts on the far end.
On the X-axis there are still too many humane tech topics. I think we should combine them into a max. of 3 different focus areas. Then we can effectively divide the community to these areas based on people’s primary interests (focus groups).
On ‘speaking respectfully’: That should be part of the community principles and philosophy. It is the norm. We do not compromise here and deliver honest feedback and criticism where it is due - just as we do with people presenting their own apps to the forum.
Now what could be the focus areas on the x-axis?
Just brainstorming, I am thinking of the following:
Not so easy to find a good division, needs more thinking. Note also that e.g. ethics can be in each of the areas.
Finally, there could be a z-axis to make a division of the community audience in: Everyone and Children
