David, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I learn something every time I read your views. What I like about your explanation above is that it keeps the future open and doesn't go too far into the kind of normative developmental approach that others have advocated. As a student of complexity theory, I feel that this kind of openness to the emergence of something new is important and reflects a real and ontological uncertainty about the future. As to your question above about the development of a +N commons and whether all those organizations (e.g. schools and hospitals) will become DAOs, I cannot say. I am just learning about DAOs myself (which drew me to Jordan's post!) and see them as one interesting form of governance, but so far I don't think it's the only option.
Rick, thanks, that’s encouraging to hear from you. And right now is a good time for me to feel encouraged, as I’m trying to muster the energy and resolve to re-focus on TIMN in a way that that pulls together scattered pieces, updating and integrating them. Maybe I’ll try doing so here on Substack.
As for DAOs, I remain keen but with caveats: Despite points about their scaling-up potential, my sense is that schools and hospitals, for example, are too big and complicated to be transformed into DAOs (or sets of DAOs) as they are currently being conceived. Something more/else will be needed. Also, the A in DAO currently stands for “autonomous”; and that’s just not quite right (as Kei Kreutler points out in her “Prehistory…” post). TIMN’s +N will require organizational forms designed from the start for connectivity (not for standing-alone like typical government and business organizations). Organizational autonomy is not what +N implies. The A in DAO would be more accurate if it stood for “associative” or “associational” instead.
David, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I learn something every time I read your views. What I like about your explanation above is that it keeps the future open and doesn't go too far into the kind of normative developmental approach that others have advocated. As a student of complexity theory, I feel that this kind of openness to the emergence of something new is important and reflects a real and ontological uncertainty about the future. As to your question above about the development of a +N commons and whether all those organizations (e.g. schools and hospitals) will become DAOs, I cannot say. I am just learning about DAOs myself (which drew me to Jordan's post!) and see them as one interesting form of governance, but so far I don't think it's the only option.
Rick, thanks, that’s encouraging to hear from you. And right now is a good time for me to feel encouraged, as I’m trying to muster the energy and resolve to re-focus on TIMN in a way that that pulls together scattered pieces, updating and integrating them. Maybe I’ll try doing so here on Substack.
As for DAOs, I remain keen but with caveats: Despite points about their scaling-up potential, my sense is that schools and hospitals, for example, are too big and complicated to be transformed into DAOs (or sets of DAOs) as they are currently being conceived. Something more/else will be needed. Also, the A in DAO currently stands for “autonomous”; and that’s just not quite right (as Kei Kreutler points out in her “Prehistory…” post). TIMN’s +N will require organizational forms designed from the start for connectivity (not for standing-alone like typical government and business organizations). Organizational autonomy is not what +N implies. The A in DAO would be more accurate if it stood for “associative” or “associational” instead.