(07-09-2019, 06:18 AM)robkelk Wrote: There's one idea that's obvious to me, keeping in mind the concept of letting people take their stories in the direction they want them to go, and trying to interfere as little as possible.
Before the cooling-off period, we had two highly-active writers: Labster and me. Now, we have one: me. What will it take to go back to two? EDIT: Or more?
Well, the easiest way to get back to two active writers is for me to rejoin the circle. Remember, I didn't actually want to leave, but given the ultimatum, I decided it might make everyone happier and more productive if I left. That obviously didn't happen, so it's time to try something different.
(07-09-2019, 03:30 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: Trying to be objective about this, I think we need some kind of middle ground that's more in line with what I was talking about earlier - basically just letting people take their stories in the direction they want them to go, and trying to interfere as little as possible.
Me stepping down.... We can leave that as the metaphorical "Nuclear Option". So, does anyone have any ideas? I'm sure I could come up with something on my own, but it would take a lot of time with me constantly dwelling on the issue. And I've been having problems with not having enough mental bandwidth to puzzle these things out on my own.
No, it's not really the a last resort "nuclear option." It's what you're been doing for the last two months. Leadership, first and foremost, involves showing up. Second task is to communicate to others. Third is to share your vision. Since every small group like this is functionally an anarchist collective, work happens when people decide to work and leadership happens when people decide to lead.
Similarly, letting people write what they want is the natural state of an anarchist collective, so you just have to, well, let it happen. Disagreement about the vision is the main thing that tears apart groups like this. So clarity about the vision is key.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto