# On Method

This document is written in response to David Beatty. My intuition in reading his structured and reasoned statement is one that I often have - that "it is all one". Here we test this intuition through writing live and raw - can infact all three basic "pulls" be synthesised easily into one "pull" and in so doing do the concerns described fall away?

## Original concerns
Below is the map of concerns mapped out in David Beatty's original message:

1. I have a life-time addiction of getting involved in big ‘What’Ifs’,
1. I have a number of personal & interpersonal responsibilities that preclude launching a Big Plan.
1. I am a stumbler in real-time e-cologies & tools.
1. Corona & Beyond turbulence makes estimates of feasibility highly uncertain
1. I have 3 ‘pulls’ at this Moment. UbiQaravan, Flourish & Fly Learning Network, and Book of Codes. In all 3, I have the same challenge: Don’t take on responsibilities that I can’t live up to.

## Syntheisising
Let's start by synthisising the pulls. This is a little tricky as I have to intuit the projects based on previous more abstract conversations. The understanding here, whether I get this synthesis write or not, is that it is relatively quick and easy to come up with a single simple synthesis of the three "pulls" - and having phrased these as one. we can go onto address the concerns above.

## Single Pull
> UbiQaravan, Fly Learning Network, and Book of Codes are all an expression of the single project to develop a radical, and succesful p2p learner led, practically focussed, learning methodology based around geometric or pattern based arrangements of conversations between learners. The single aim is to pilot experiments in this space rapidly, learning form each experiment to improve the raange and diversity of patterns that learners find useful.

## Toss of a coin
The "difference" in the three "pulls" is simply in the nature of the pilot and the people that offer assistance. If this is true then the choice of which pull to go with is pragmatic. If that is true, and there is a benefit to joining forces on any particular pilot, then the choice of which pull to choose is not especially important - we could choose by tossing a coin, or we could agree simply to focus on the "pull" that David Beatty selects.

Essentially DTB is happy with any "pull", whether it is a good choice or bad is not as important as avoiding everyone "pulling" in different directions. So the way to solve that issue is straght forwars - let David Beatty choosea method that he believes in regarding choosing a "pull". DTB will be happy to go along with that.

## Concerns addressed

> Addiction of getting involved in big ‘What’Ifs’

Solution: we absolutiely don;t do anythin big, and no "what if's". We agree only to do small simple things we know we can definitley do. This is not incompatible with there being the possibility of something becoming big - but our action and choice is focussed exclusively on the practical, here an nwo things that are within our control.

Example: We plan to do a Zoom event at COP26, with the people we know are committed to help, and our aim is to do an event that adresses the single aims / pull above.

> I have a number of personal & interpersonal responsibilities that preclude launching a Big Plan.

First we agree not to do a big plan. We do a simple small thing. Second we look to integrate this simple small thing into an existing personal & interpersonal responsibility - as that may well be possible.

> Corona & Beyond turbulence makes estimates of feasibility highly uncertain.

Doing a Zoom (online) event at COP26 plays well with Corona & Beyond. Similarly there is no issue with increasing or decreasing time availability to whatever works within ppersonal constraints - for instance we could say 1 hour / zoom per month - or the equivalent.

# Improvisation
Improvisation as per:

> I am a stumbler in real-time e-cologies & tools.

is a valued skill. However when this leads to a conclusion that makes a commitment to say November COP26 Zoom hard to state in public space due to the nature of ecosystem stumbling - then that makes the group work hard.

## Problems remainging
In summary as I see it the problems reamining are to do with concepts and the perceived needs and difficulties with "authenticity", "reliablitity", "slippery slope", "concrete vs vague", "open ended" etc

The solution I see is to minimise the project to a very simple but clear and bold proposition and to align that as strongly as posiible with an "personal & interpersonal responsibilities". Then to feel happy to stumble as much or as little as the wind takes you.