Talk:Nodal Organisation

Naming ideas

There is a workspace which is becoming quite useful, yet which lacks a proper name: Names which have been used, none of which seem to fit properly, are: Business Sitter, Business Model and Active Business Plan. The idea is to have a Workspace which presents a complete, yet Evolving Model of the organisation. This model is in the form of a high-level overview of various aspects of the organisation which could be made accessible to a person or small group, who could use this interface to run the organisation. It is an important aspect of Peer-based Organisation, for it allows the creation of organisations which give stakeholders the freedom to hand over the roles they fill in the organisation to others, to travel or temporarily pursue other interests while staying (via Internet) informed about the day-to-day happenings. It is what a Business Plan really should be - aspiring entrepreneurs are commonly asked to put one together by potential investors or other interested parties , in an effort to get them to consider their undertaking from all sorts of perspectives. More importantly, a business plan should be a complete description of the business.

Now the idea is turn that into an interface

• Complete but casual
• Template aspect
• Evolving- can deal with change
• Feedback channels
• Model in the sense of: Description, representation of a system

Naming ideas

• Organic Business Model
• Evolving Business Model
• Business Model
• Active Business Plan
• Evolving Model
• Organisational Portal
• BOS Business Operating System, Business Orgainzation System,

my experience and 2 cents USD

in my implemetations, I and my clients have prefered a more "Friendly" name. I know we attempting to describing this as a whole, but since each iteration of "The project" will be unique to the users that adapt "it" to their business or person, I tend to think that it may be unwise to "name" the project after all. I propose that we keep it "nameless" for the following reasons:

• The Project:FAQ (specifically, the answer to question number 2)
• Once you name something, you define it, and thereby change it. The project, in the sense that we all intend it (if i may speak for everyone) is intended by design to be structured, but unbounded.
• It gives this work a kind of "mystique", (mysterious + unique) that demands attention, and
• Is a meta textual reference to itself. (see my second point above)

My iterations of this creature are known as

• Kermit (as in the frog)
• Piki (as in a cross between Wiki and Pinky, in Pinky and the Brain. )
• Div0 (as in undefined)

As a side note, how do we vote ? ;) Phalseid 06:24, 22 Mar 2006 (NZST)

---

I agree that the project should never have a name, as naming is the first step toward centralisation. These names listed above (I think/hope) refer just to the name of this particular notion. Also regarding voting, the project will inherently support democracy through the actions (eg. use and support etc) of users, and does not subscribe to the idea of voting as this is an opinion-based mechanism which leads to corruption (as does the voting in of politicians for a lengthy term).

Nad 08:47, 22 Mar 2006 (NZST)