Re-membering
From Margeret Heath’s Re-membering · reconstructed by AI
Question 5 of 6 · First steps
What has to happen first?
What stands in the way of the change, and what gets past it.
- Statements
- 13
- Connections
- 12
- Open questions
- 2
How to read it. Read from the top down: the objective needs each step beneath it, and each step overcomes the obstacle below it.
Part 1 of 3
Find a willing host and agree what matters
Only the absence of an agreed host is established here. The other obstacles are candidates for a host to check. A group needs to make the purpose and criteria its own.
Draws on Margeret Heath (documents).
Beyond this part · 3 links
- Participants agree observable criteria for benefit and harm. is needed for Consent, withdrawal and harm response are usable. in “Make participation and control workable”
- Participants agree observable criteria for benefit and harm. puts into practice Combine reliable safeguards with shared control, alternatives and withdrawal. The change
- Participants agree observable criteria for benefit and harm. put into practice by Agree desired effects, criteria, consent and ways to opt out. Actions
Part 2 of 3
Make participation and control workable
Usable consent and harm response, available time and repair roles, and meaningful tool control address candidate obstacles. Preparation can happen in parallel; drawing these objectives does not establish readiness.
Draws on Margeret Heath (documents).
Outline
Beyond this part · 10 links
- Consent, withdrawal and harm response are usable. is needed for Participants assess the pilot together and revise next steps. in “Create shared evidence and revise together”
- Time, space and repair roles are available. is needed for Participants assess the pilot together and revise next steps. in “Create shared evidence and revise together”
- The selected tool is visible, contestable and reversible. is needed for Participants assess the pilot together and revise next steps. in “Create shared evidence and revise together”
- Consent, withdrawal and harm response are usable. puts into practice Agree how people can decline, raise harm and seek repair before a shared practice. The change
- Consent, withdrawal and harm response are usable. puts into practice Protect solitude and declining participation without penalty. The change
- Consent, withdrawal and harm response are usable. put into practice by Agree desired effects, criteria, consent and ways to opt out. Actions
- Time, space and repair roles are available. puts into practice Offer shared rhythms of rest and meeting that participants can adapt or leave. The change
- The selected tool is visible, contestable and reversible. puts into practice Make a tool visible, contestable and reversible, with consent and override. The change
- The selected tool is visible, contestable and reversible. puts into practice Limit data collection and provide privacy, override and accountability. The change
- The selected tool is visible, contestable and reversible. put into practice by Review the tool and enable explanation, privacy and override. Actions
Part 3 of 3
Create shared evidence and revise together
For this illustrative pilot, consent, resources and tool control are readiness conditions for a shared assessment. Benefits, harms and surprises need actual experience and relevant participants’ judgements.
Draws on Margeret Heath (documents).
Outline
- ObjectiveA willing group can judge and revise a small voluntary shared practice and one tool's effect on agency.From Margeret Heath
Beyond this part · 2 links
- Participants assess the pilot together and revise next steps. puts into practice Adjust actions by listening to bodies, people and environments. The change
- Participants assess the pilot together and revise next steps. put into practice by Ask what helped, harmed or surprised people, then revise or stop. Actions
Where this comes from
In the Logical Thinking Process this view is a prerequisite tree. How a commons works →