An interesting tension exists because the Network-First Manifesto community is also the first Network First community. Our purpose is to enable human connection and collaborative freedom. Our mission is to articulate, refine, and demonstrate the Network First methodology. Most of the time these reinforce each other. But sometimes collaborative freedom can pull attention toward initiatives that are not directly advancing the methodology itself. This creates both an alignment challenge and a scalability challenge. We don’t yet have the infrastructure to support thousands of members and initiatives at scale, but part of the reason is that the methodology is still being refined through practice. At the same time, complete openness can make participation harder. Starting from a blank page is often more difficult than building on examples, templates, and shared patterns. Perhaps the challenge is not choosing between freedom and focus, but finding the right balance between the two. How do you think communities can preserve collaborative freedom while maintaining enough focus to advance a shared mission?
This will evolve from just talking about it and there are a lot of super intelligent brains in the community so I am sure we will come up with the right steps forward.
That’s insightful and encouraging Francisco Marin. It’s a process of ‘working on the model’ while ‘working in the model’. Few are accustomed to this mode of operating, as individuals and as organizational constructs. Role modeling while the role model is being defined is a brave act of inspiration.
This is actually a huge challenge. I think it's the same thing that happens to any organizational group with time (towns, cities, etc.). Maybe by keeping smaller more niche communities INSIDE bigger communities? Like smaller cells within a whole body?
Does the tension dissolves when the methodology itself becomes the shared context rather than a constraint? Perhaps the work isn't choosing between openness and focus, it's making the methodology legible and inviting enough that people want to build on it rather than around it?
One, I love the transparency and I will echo most comments here: the manifesto provides the guardrails. We’ll bounce off of them from time-to-time as they are intended and, hopefully, they guide us back. So long as we don’t forget the values we stand for, we should be okay holding that tension in balance. *Hopefully* Second, it’s a real tension — it’s one part discipline and another part scale. Both are about positive impact and increasing connection. If the guardrails hold us back unnecessarily (and I am sure I have heard you say this to some degree) we can agree to update the manifesto appropriately. Honestly, it’s a good place for the manifesto and community to be in. But I dont envy you! Ha!