Hi,

It's been a while since my last post, but this break was mainly due to the personal and work-related issues. Fortunately everything is back in place (stable job, aquaponic system running and collecting data etc.)

I think I have mentioned it before, but I would like to again start the discussion about the necessary (in my professional opinion) changes.

I think we should change the legal status a little bit to be able to accept different organizations under our "wings" (into technate). Having this said here is my proposal:

1. EOS Global should remain the central body for the whole organization "binding" it legally together.
2. New chapter in the statute shall be introduced, which will allow creation of the semi-autonomus regional chapters/branches. (I can write the proposal).
- we will have EOS Sweden, Taiwan, Slovenia etc.
- under this umbrella different projects will be conducted (like GrowTaiwan project under the EOS Taiwan).

Of course there are plenty of details to discuss (control issue, legal structure etc.), but in order to be successful and efficient we need to be percieved as a single entity. From marketing point of view it is a mess.

On a side note - I would recommend dropping "technate" and "technocracy" as the first-contact words. Don't get me wrong, I have NOTHING against these words,they are fine as a "background" and spine of the theory, they are simply not good to attract people. Or rather I should say they can easily be used against us.

Ok, let's discuss!

An idea with both good and bad traits. It would be good since it would be a source for more manpower for the entire project.

If EOS is going to do this, we would need to perhaps take away a few of the projects and the parts which are making us uniquely EOS, in order to be neutral enough as a platform to appeal to all organisations. This would mean that some of the research projects we are doing and aiming to be doing will be harder to accomplish. Moreover, I am not certain all organisations are positively inclined. The purpose of the technate is to allow each group autonomy will providing a structure that does exactly what you are proposing.

Even if it had many benefits, I think it is somewhat unrealistic that EOS should become the dominant organisation. I mean, Atlas, RBEF, TNZP, the FP, Ecova and WE all have their unique characteristics, and none of them would probably be comfortable placing themselves under the moniker of another organisation. While we were crucial to the establishment of the technate, I think that we are not less or better than the other movements, we are just slightly different and so are all the movements within the network.

I also think the term technocracy is bad, since it doesn't evoke the associations of what we really aim to do.

Hello,

The history of the issue is that a while ago, when EOS was still NET, a decision was made to separate the effort into two entities:
* EOS - the research organization
* Technate - the community of organizations

While EOS is part of the Technate and while the Technate initiative was started by mostly the same people, we see value in keeping them separate. Each will do what is necessary to accomplish it's purpose -- EOS to continue to research viable sustainable options and the Technate to create a networked community of (nonprofit) organizations, which facilitates Production.

The name "European Organization for Sustainability" was chosen because we thought it better represented what we are going for in modern terminology than "Network of European Technocrats". The name "Technate" was chosen because that's what our theory at the time called that particular concept. In the time being, we renamed EOS to "Earth Organization for Sustainability", so that we are better accepted in the circles with which we usually interact... And if we need to rename the Technate into something that lets it serve it's purpose better than we certainly can!

It has been suggested that the Technate should have it's own forum where technate-specific issues can be discussed. An all-technate meeting is scheduled this weekend. I believe it is important that the Technate forms it's own board of people interested in developing the project further, who regularly attend meetings to discuss changes. (We should strike a balance between utilizing the interest of those willing to help and waiting considerately for those who are not directly available to discuss their perspective.)

We have some suggestions that we will disucss on how this may be, but it's important that this become more than just a project of us "EOS guys" and becomes a real community of it's own.

LP,
Jure

I think I didn't express my self clearly - it is purely legal question / problem.

As far as the naming goes it can be whatever - I chose EOS as the name is nice for the umbrella organization. However from the legal point of view and organisational as well we are in total chaos. The idea is to clear the thing out a bit.



Here is the problem - as far as I know only Atlas is the full legal entity, right? Other organizations are pretty much non-existent from the legal point of view.

Don't get me wrong, but I don't think we can be efficient without sorting the things out. Right now it is a bit unclear what are the relations between participating organizations. I am very much in favor of using the existing system (law and contracts) to sort it out rather than building something on the quicksands without the real power to enforce the rules. Sorry, but internet community is working as long as everyone is happy. In case of problems (which we did, and will encounter) it usually falls to pieces.

From the perspective of the new potential organizatioins it is not clear as well. For example GrowTaiwan can apply for the grant. I would like to do it on the behalf of Technate (however EOS sounds much better). In order to do it I need the papework. To open the branch, we need to change the statute etc. etc.

I hope it clears my point of view a little bit. It is strictly organizational and legal matter. Having the "purerly online" organization simply doesn't cut it



Hmm, is technate going to be the legal entity or an online platform? Perhaps I've missed something. Sorry for that in advance then.

EOS is also registered. As for registering the umbrella organisation, that should be a task when we have elected a board of directors. After that, the technate could very well become a legal entity (I am all for it). Then the registration of new organisations could be taken part of by them joining the technate and sharing the same organisation number, while being autonomous parts.

Rafal MSc. wrote:
...

The Technate is an idea that did not materialize in any way until we made it's online platform. The idea of course was that it would be an Association into which nonprofits can join, but that has not yet materialized because many of the organizations which wish to be members are not formally registered, many even don't wish to be.

In other words, we want to make things really work and it's not that simple.

LP,
Jure

the technate exists at the moment just as a lose network of other groups with various levels of cooperation. We did talk about making it a legal organisation but decided not too (but we can review that decision).

As for "begin in chaos", I see it as in the state we want it in at the moment. That doesn't mean we want to stay in that state. Part of the next technate meeting will concern better organisation as we take things to the next level.

ui

I will do my best then to participate in this meeting and express my point better than on the forum.



And this is what I percieve as another problem - accepting organizations which don't want to be registered. I think we shouldn't even refer to them as organizations. There is a huge difference between group which has problems with registering (this is where I see the role of technate NGO - assistance and providing platform) and groups that decide not to. In the second case the term "hobbysts" would be perhaps more appropriate.


I do hope we can. The best case scenario would be:
- transforming the EOS into mentioned platform, which then can easily accept new members, branches and units (legal organizational layer)
- operating through independent and semi-independent projects and branches (functional layer)

Having one, clear structure (legal and functional) would greatly help us to build the real network.

Again, I am all for dropping the term "technate" and replace it with something more generic like EOS that everyone can identify with easily.

Finally I do understand that EOS was created with other purpose in mind, but the researches can be conducted as a project within the broader EOS. This proposed path is IMO the best as changing the existing statute is a way easier than establishing new entity. Not to mention that Earth Organization for Sustainability sounds better.

Rafal MSc. wrote:


Negative. Registering a group as a formal organization has more to do with the affinity to the legal system than it does with the dedication of it's members. The groups which did not want to be registered organizations did so because they disliked the idea of being plugged into their government via any sort of paperwork. EOS is registered as an organization because we thought this would be beneficial.

See also, the RBOSE "hobbyists" as you call them.



Ugh. Well if it comes down to personal opinions I disagree. It's just mucking everything up. Like the Adobe FAED and FEAD (download optimizers) which are two different products which nobody knows exist because of the terrible naming scheme.

LP,
Jure

I agree to some extend - it all depends what as a group you want to achieve. Perhaps I see this situation from my perspective and experience. Simply put - not having the legal status limits the possibilities of getting serious funds and realising bigger projects. I hit this wall couple of times already. That's why I used term "hobby"

Anyway, let's talk about it on 21st and see if we can reach consensus. My opinion is that we need some form of the legal status and I believe that having the rules and procedures (and more importantly power to enforce them - law&courts) will be benefitial.

Rafal MSc. wrote:

Not EOS becoming. We have a distributed structure composed of many different autonomous organisations running themselves but working towards a common goal. Somewhat different from a transitional hierarchical structure we traditionally use. EOS then becomes one of those autonomous organisations and the technate should exists as a separate organisation. (You read the design document?)

ui

I've added this to the agenda for the 21st

wiki.eoslife.eu/index.php/Technate_Meetings#Agenda

I wasn't aware of this document until yesterday - please disregard my comments about the legal status until I finish this amazing lecture. I have the whole week (Chinese New Year), so I will print it out and offer some comments.

On the side note, I think we HAVE TO register technate in one way or another. The reason for it is quite simple - currently whole world operates within the legal and financial frameworks. In order to change them we need to play by the rules - I am very much for this evolutionary approach rather than revolutionary (burn & rebuild).