On Accretive Dialogue

 
Using the "lens" available through, and the Direct System paradigm inherent in, TQM,
please review the following advocacy: for better balance, participation & coordination of 'the community-runned, Public Wall'

"Researchers
of any field: life, health, environment, internet, etc

• Review & discuss each others findings at your respective Community of Practice Research Wall
  
• Provide weekly summary and Q&A for everyone else
  

Everyone Else

• all, engage one another at your respective Local Co-opecracy Wall, on:
  • Local Currencies to fund
    
  • Local Cooperative Economy
    

In this way
We will have:

• Accretive Dialogue

  • Researchers tackle the latest issue(s)
    
    • not impeded by non-experts
      
    • not censorable by usurpers and their agents
      
    • with all the pieces of the puzzle
      
    • together - collaboratively
      
  • Everyone else
    
    • Can keep abreast with developments without risk of mind-gatekeeping:
      
      • Self
        
      • Others
        
    • able to engage productively undistracted"

 
CLAUDE (A):
  Here are some thoughts on this additional advocacy using TQM principles:

• Having researchers directly share and discuss findings at a specialized "Community of Practice Research Wall" could foster collaboration, peer review and continuous improvement aligned with TQM. Regular summaries ensure transparency.

• Allowing the public to engage locally on focused topics like currencies/economies through "Local Co-opecracy Walls" decentralizes while encouraging productive participation, consistent with TQM.

• The structure aims to balance expertise-based discussion among researchers with inclusive yet focused public discourse, in the spirit of TQM's holistic, systems-level views.

• However, some coordination may be needed to link discussions, avoid overlap or ensure representation across all stakeholders. Facilitation could help integrate insights.

• Privacy, identity & content policies would be important to structure discussions respectfully and avoid potential "mind-gatekeeping" or censorship risks over time as participation broadens.

• Continuous evaluation and refinement may also be needed to further optimize collaboration, transparency, participation and balance between expert and public spheres as dynamics change.

 
Overall, establishing specialized and local discussion spaces as proposed could operationalize public-private problem solving in a way that resonates with TQM ideals. But coordination and safeguards would benefit the initiative.