Inter-subject Protocol

¶    (WHAT→) is a consequential mechanism of Subject description & activation

    by inter-relating them to others,
    via their similarities and differences

¶    (HOW→) defines a set of protocols on how to operate

    with other Subjects (projects, communities, institutions, individuals),
    in the context of a common struggle,
    beyond arbitrary / whimsical relations.

¶    ... their exchange and future interaction is unpredictable and random

    * in danger of misunderstanding by the whimsical:
        (arbitrary current context, momentary moods, etc)

    * limited by apparatus (nature of communication), usually workflow technologies, to follow-up:
        * inadequate and inexisting "ideal platform"
        * worse: different people use different non-ideal things
        * worse even: no setting to systemically study and resolve this!
        (ties to 🔗workflow)
### rewrite

¶    ... the outcomes at large are measurably disappointing

    * so called "networking" depends on chance meetings

    * the culture of ideas is non-consequential:
        relations are by choice & least resistance
        often, challenging/competing visions are simply ignored

    * there is too little productive systematic work (lists, curation, ...)

    * ... and too little critical/theoretical work (classifications, typologies, ...)

    * ... thus, expressions of identity and relations are dominated by PR/marketing concerns:
        "People will be scared if we call ourselves a Hackerspace"
        "We are kind of a Social center, but that has a stigma, so we call it a community living room"
        "If we call it a community, people will come to our bar"

    * in a culture that does not push towards co-operation, work is often simply co-opted:
        Legalities, like the Creative Commons-by-Attribution license, are weak if not non-enforceable, and simply ignored.
        Smaller projects within contexts with less access to capitals are especially vulnerable to this.

¶    →Beyond play-pretend uniqueness, a new, consequential logic of difference

Being a (different) Subject should mean having clear unsurmountable differences:

    Either on theoretical level, or "personal" level.

    These matters should not (be able to) "go unsaid".

¶    →Better co-existence infrastructure

### ... within a class/SECTOR/[...]
Developing better tools and processes that support & facilitate:

    * better commitments:
        ("Let's keep in touch" that means something, etc)

    * transparency & coordination of decisions and action within a "common struggle"

    * common oversight & narrative:

        "common statements", "neutral, third party grievance procedures", "true p2p curation", "anti co-option watch", "sector parliaments", "commoning resources", "common workgroup formation", "actively ensuring true diversity & global development", [...]

###
    * solve "attribution" void (and the wild-west of "borrowing" ideas):
        * ... solving co-option / dilution
        * ... in turn changing leadership and resource allocation politics
    * disqualify whim and rationalising based on moods

        $$$ (NOW)

¶1) Discoverability { A }

    * Enable complete and transparent co-discovery:
        Publicly list out all similar/related/alike/competing/...
        ###Each subject should have an "alike" page
        ↑ 🔗alike

    * Reject brand logic!:
        Adopt and openly co-develop clear, shared typologies,
        made to be self-descriptive in-name,
        and open to distributed adoption & replication
        not unlike "genus proximum - differentia specifica"
        ↑ ^{Hackerspaces.org}🔗Hackbase
        ↑ 🔗hackbase-type1

¶2) Contact / Inter-relation { A, B }

    * Each investigates others' standard presentation, attempting to:

        ground the "common language",
            ↑ 🔗commonground

        understand motivation,
            ↑ 🔗why-how-what

        understand key parts,
            ↑ 🔗puzzles

        ask additional questions
            ↑ 🔗faq


### keep an eye on / establish understanding of the procesuality of this
    * State machine of the inter-Subject relation phase:



    * Ensure process continuation:
        with transparent public queue
###        (for each Subject, full history of contacts with others, and plans)
### 🔗alike2

    * Establish best-possible workflow, considering:
        * rhythm and time-synchronisation
        * responsibilities
        ↑🔗workflow

    * Understand and recognize each-other:
        * crosslinking:
            a subprocess cross-mapping A and B's elements ("inter-hermeneutics")
        * form common language:
            * terminology / conceptual
            * logical (modal verbs, ...)
        * identify differences

    * Find and disclose convergent/common causes as well as divergent/competing

¶3) Co-Operation { A+B }

    * Have a post-individual logic of dealing with scarce resources:
        * money (grants / donations)
        * attention
        * labour
    
    * Logic of presentation (visual level, "brands", etc)

    * Remove cliquey inside/outside barrier logic:
        * memberships, "calls"
        * internal / external information logic

    * Safeguards against exploitation:
        * understand attributions
        * disclosure agreement
        * [...]

    * Shared work management:
        * shared infrastructure and upkeep (physical, virtual, fiscal/legal, ...)
        * shared general ideation ("knowledge management") and executive tools and processes
        * division of labour
        * reporting and cross-assessment
        * [...]

¶4) Consolidation { AB }

:
    * First, establish an abstract unity around a common higher-level concept
        (classes like "hackbase", "living system", "system", "eco village", etc)

    * Full consolidation / integration is always a goal:
        ("post-brand", etc)

    * Commonize differences as polemics under stronger common banners

¶Todo !!!
:
    * >CHT: define full co-operational level toolset
    * >CHT: apply on 🔗alike
    * think implications of this applied at total scale (as hypercommunist)
    * [...]

¶(schema)



so "Interobjective" sounds awesome...

¶GRANULARITY

inside a subject (group) there are subjects (individuals)
    at a low enough level, everyone disagrees
    at a high enough, everyone agrees (even if just "to make the world a better place", etc)

if you can't consolidate into "common struggle", you can at least do "common missions"


<------------------------------ ((new))