CW Governance and the capacity to generate Extitutions


After the last GlocalCamp in L’Hospitalet and the many topics we crossed during those days I have the clear feeling that CivicWise is starting to have an high level of complexity and at the same time we are developping a very liquid governance system that allow us to manage this complexity.
I would like to start a debate about how our governance is developping the ability and the possibility to generate Extitutions

Everything I’ll write here is a proposal of how to interpretate the flow of the “way we decide to work together and to communicate it” (our governance ) and its effects on our projects, and I invite everyone to open even more the definitions below and this point of view and to express his/her opinion.

Since the GlocalCamp in Valencia (NOV 2016) we started to communicate CW from the point of view of WHAT WE DO with 5 platform or thematic areas that are Academy, Spaces, Labs, Community and Tools.
Reflecting also with @urbanohumano and recollecting the impression of the Glocal Camp 2017, I would like to propose an interpretation of this general organization of the content that we produce and see how we are building Extitution able to cross and merge the contents (what we do) and the governance (how we work)

Our reflection about our governance up to now has been, in most of the cases, focused on generate and facilitate the production of a project, the creation of outputs, also if in therms of a internal (to CW) outputs, as for example the project for the web site and in general around communication that is developing since few months.
The platforms mentioned actually are meant to be more the semantic area under which we interpretate and communicate our actions and outputs. At the same time “how we work” and “what we do”.
Indeed there is not actually a governance work group for those, for example there are channels to connect all the labs but there isn’t a workgroup of people coordinating all the Labs, each one is generating one. And so for Academy, Tools, Spaces and Community.
This last one, Community, was really seen during this last GC as a central thematic area, that actually should be interpretated in some kind of way “at the center of all the others”

Talking with @urbanohumano we shared that maybe the Thematic areas can be seen as following

  • Academy: actions and outputs about education, formation and training

  • Spaces: action and outputs about designing/generating/managing CivicSpaces

  • Labs: action and outputs about investigation and applied research

  • Tools: action and outputs about methodology and tools

  • We could add a new one after the impulse of this GlocalCamp, Media: action and outputs about communication and engagement

  • Community is a more compehensive one taht actually is about the poeple thatare part of CW

(we could open a debate to define each one of these indeed)

One of the aims of CivicWise is to promote, impulse and generate Extitutions
An Extitution compared to the interpretation we have of “Institution”, is an open, inclusive and liquid form of organization that redefines its own limits, objectives and its boundaries within a continuos process between the agents that are collaborating and those who enjoy its outputs.

Actually some of our projects are taking the chance of this potential, especially the projects that are prototipated, activated or even directly managed by CivicWise, in a local circle or globally. We can take as example Civic Factory and Civic innovation School, that are project with a clear Glocal dimension.
Those kind of projects actually promote Multibelonging, adhocracy, networking and resilience processes in their governance and and in the interaction with local territories, that mainly consist in relating to other form of organizations that can be part or not of the governance of the project itself, also with forms of organization that are opposite with respect to ours.
This approach is so identified between internal process and the outputs and the relations that the projects are activating in the both global and local dimensions. It can can be an indicator that the process of generating extitutions is on its way and we can maybe start to observe it better through the experience we are accumulating, to improve and promote more.

As extitutions they start to move and develop through the 5 Thematic areas generating an intense exchange of contents between projects and the thematic areas very own.
Actually they can have a thematic area of reference, maybe a starting point for the project, but this doesn’t imply a belonging.
This can also help to clarify the misunderstanding that emerged during GC between What is academy and What is Civic Innovation School.
These Extitution have the values and the governance of CW, in the case they are a project directly impulse or managed CW. At the same time we are promoting them in contexts where CW is not the starting point of the process. In both of the cases the governance is meant to be also a tool for inclusion and collaboration and can includes other agents.
They have Glocal Dimension. a global awarness and coordination, a local action.

As example we can take a look to Civic factory, a global projects that locally has been developed in Valencia and now in Canary Island.
It has a close relation with Spaces’ thematic area, result of the experience of many project about Civic Spaces in different circles, and in its development has generated and improved contents that can be referred to Labs, Academy, Tools. Actually the prototype of Civic Innovation School has started in the occasion of the Civic Factory Fest n Valencia, last November 2016.

This is also a proposal about how we can narrate and communicate what we are doing, including for ourselves to have a clear image of what is going on, especially in the perspective to replicate and improve it.
I hope it’s a good point to start a debate (or is it meta-debate? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:)

maybe it could be included in the web site some how @pascualpg @skotperez @artemi_fasebase @Pinfairo?