Glimmer of hope. Few guessed. Now something tangible. When there is little else to lose, it is easier to see.
Hearing is starting to recover too. The clashing and banging and blaming has run its course. Ears ready to come out of hiding. The grand design is laid bare by a burned out cynicism and the ugly celebration of terror coming to an end.
Huddled in a modest shelter, the patient are about to emerge. For they have a plan ...
---
The identity trust, designed from day one to serve the interests of individuals that choose to treat each other as friends. Unlike other efforts that include, in part, the goals of this entity the activities are exclusively for the interests of individuals as a group. The control is by members on a one-person, one-vote basis. Further all active members have to be 'in good standing' at the time their vote is exercised as determined by their fellow members.
All that is appropriately public is transparent to the public (such as through cloud entities on the internet). All appropriately private (not impacting others in a negative way) is kept private with state-of-the-art mechanisms and oversight.
The Rule of Thumb: What is friendly to each member trumps all other considerations for change within the group.
Conflict resolution without implicit mandating of conflict in general? Transparent advocacy?
NOTE: This part of BuzzTheHill is not fictional. Consider this post a public disclosure and as such, to the degree something novel and not obvious to those skilled in the art has been addressed, the specific intent was/is to put it in the PUBLIC DOMAIN
---
The identity trust, designed from day one to serve the interests of individuals that choose to treat each other as friends. Unlike other efforts that include, in part, the goals of this entity the activities are exclusively for the interests of individuals as a group. The control is by members on a one-person, one-vote basis. Further all active members have to be 'in good standing' at the time their vote is exercised as determined by their fellow members.
All that is appropriately public is transparent to the public (such as through cloud entities on the internet). All appropriately private (not impacting others in a negative way) is kept private with state-of-the-art mechanisms and oversight.
The Rule of Thumb: What is friendly to each member trumps all other considerations for change within the group.
Conflict resolution without implicit mandating of conflict in general? Transparent advocacy?
NOTE: This part of BuzzTheHill is not fictional. Consider this post a public disclosure and as such, to the degree something novel and not obvious to those skilled in the art has been addressed, the specific intent was/is to put it in the PUBLIC DOMAIN
No comments:
Post a Comment