2R Conflict Resolution: What to Change to?

[dvdjsph]

As explained in the following post:

2R Prerequisite Tree: How to Cause the Change?

I agree, and I see this as a good thing. It’s akin to the tension one feels when asked “well, what does this positive change you’d like to see actually look like practically? How would you know it when it happens?” The fact that this dependency chain exists means it puts some burden on us (or at least those of us who find value in this methodology) to address this as the primary bottleneck. And yet, ruminating on this very point has led me to reconsider whether this dependency chain is well…

I’ve update the CRT to include the following:

CRD 0 — Strategic Coherence vs. Distributed Legitimacy

Objective:

Use the LTP trees to guide effective Second Renaissance R&D.

Requirement A:

Maintain strategic coherence, clarity, and momentum.

Requirement B:

Ensure distributed legitimacy, plural intelligence, and revisability.

Prerequisite A:

Let the tree creator or a small strategy group maintain the trees decisively.

Prerequisite B:

Let the wider group review, challenge, and revise the trees collectively.

Conflict:

Centralized stewardship seems efficient but risks illegitimacy and blind spots.
Collective revision seems legitimate but risks endless discussion, diffusion, and paralysis.

Hidden assumption:

The group must choose between author-controlled coherence and open-ended collective editing.

Injection:

Create a bounded tree-governance protocol: distributed input, explicit criteria, accountable stewards, transparent decision rules, and time-bounded revision cycles.

New operating rule:

The trees are neither personal property nor open-edit chaos. They are stewarded commons.

That phrase — stewarded commons — feels especially apt for this group.