Life Itself Research - next steps for 2025

[rufuspollock]

How can we continue to iterate and improve Life Itself Research in 2025?

Make a plan and sign it off

Preview Give feedback

1. Draft an outline SCQH ✅2025-01-05 see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nr-vnNcCBT5z_rEX7PAft45aCrHvIprwb1F7RkBUHGg/edit?tab=t.0
2. Comments round from community 🚧2025-01-05 sent message to whatsapp group ✅2025-01-10 had group meeting and reviewed
3. Agree hypothesis 🚧2025-01-11 submitted poll to group ✅2025-01-16 signed off now!
4. Convert that into actions and shape implementation
5. Update Research Homepage

Roadmap

Preview Give feedback

1. Publish (tidied) SCQH as a blog post in research section
2. Create a document/page with links to recent Research Group documents for members to review
3. Update website presence - to include members names and outputs (and allow for members to manage)
4. Update Get Involved page - and reference the clear pathway for people to get involved in LI Research
5. Draft an agreed vision statement and share
6. Organise the first 2025 Hackathon or Barnraising
7. Develop research dissemination idea(s)

[catherinet1]

Read through and commented on the SCQH doc

[rufuspollock]

Had group meeting yesterday. Now have poll and then we have this approved.

[asimong]

When I was involved for several years in the community governance in Lancaster Cohousing, we devised what I see as a much more productive and robust consensus approach. There was, roughly speaking, (1) agree and support (2) stand aside—neither objecting nor actively supporting (3) hold for reframing (4) block.
The point of (3) was to say something like "I'm sure we can do better than this, and bring more into consensus, and I'm willing to participate in the reframing process to get there"
"Block" means, roughly, "I have a principled objection and I can't see how any reframing process could resolve this." Because we had option (3) we never (in my recollection) needed recourse to blocking. Such is the power of dialogue.

Thus, in the spirit of (3) I'm saying, this proposal isn't bad, but I believe we could do much better, and thus it in the interests of the collective as a whole that we give this an opportunity to be reframed.

The wider point is that if we use any process, voting, or consensus, to push something through without bringing in as much opinion as possible is firstly divisive and polarising, and secondly, as I see it, very much against the very paradigm that we are seeking to embody.

[rufuspollock]

We now have sign off on the plan. Need to turn into actions and start implementing. I think we can start with the web presence as that will drive other items (e.g. showing who are members in what way etc)