On the Necessity for *Internal Readiness* for Growth/Scale

On the “ready for growth” theme. In personal growth, it’s easy to defer responsibility to a lack of the right ‘tools/techniques/resources’. The gym goer who is just waiting on the ‘perfect workout routine’. The wantrepreneur who blames lack of finances for not starting to take action.

The discussion around the passport/tech is completely valid. I also want to invite an inquiry around: if the SEEDS ecosystem had all the flawless tools/tech it needed — would we actually feel ready for significant growth?

There are a host of other areas (conflict resolution/issue clearing practices, information/knowledge management, onboarding flows for individuals/alliances, promoting full participation throughout visitor>resident>citizen path) that I wonder: are these in place? Do we feel internally adequately ready for 200k, 500k+ new folks to join?

If we don’t feel ready internally, there’s no level of external tech/tools/support that will fix that. I fully support the important discussion around the passport/hypha milestones, but feel internal cohesiveness/sovereignty is just as important of a conversation to be having. What is still lacking? What isn’t even built yet – the fact that a restorative justice channel was JUST created this week is an indicator of this. :yellow_heart:


Saw this on Discord and very glad that it is on Discourse, too – I wanted to share some resources on possibility-spaces where Technology and Technique meet in a way that inspires inner and outer growth.

Design Justice felt like a relevant and interesting concept that was aligned — I’ll share more here soon.

Design justice, an emergent concept that is being developed in is a normative and pragmatic proposal for a liberatory approach to the design of digital technologies, products, services, and systems. Design justice proponents might argue that we have an ethical imperative to systematically advance democratic participation in all stages of the digital technology design process, especially to center historically marginalized communities in this process, based on democratic inclusion and social justice principles. At the same time, a design that follows these principles can
produce products and systems that work better for all of us in the long run.

We need to ask a series of questions about how the design of digital technologies currently works and about how we want it to work. We need to raise questions of:

– who gets to do design?
– how do we move towards community control of design processes?
– what values do we encode and reproduce in the objects and systems that we design?
– What stories do we tell about how things are designed?
– How do we scope design challenges and frame design problems?
– Where do we do design
– How do we make design sites accessible to those who will be most impacted by design processes?
– What design sites are privileged and what sites are ignored or marginalized?
political economy
– who profits from, and what social relationships are reproduced by design?
– how do we teach and learn design justice skills and practices?

At the same time, we have to document innovative community-led digital design practices, each grounded in the specificity of a particular social movement"

"By default, digital technologies are designed in ways that reproduce existing forms of structural inequality. Only through conscious and coordinated intervention, can we bend the arc of digital technology development towards justice. There are many mechanisms at work in this process: designers intended beneficiaries, scope, values, discourse, sites, governance and other aspects of the development, deployment and use of digital technology are all structured by race, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, immigration status, disability, geography, and other intersecting axes of inequality.

Power reproduces itself through:

  • the stories about technology design that we center (design discourse)
  • who we pay to design and develop digital technologies (employment inequity)
  • the imagined ‘end users’ for whom we design the majority of digital technologies (design beneficiaries)
  • the affordances, features, presets, intentional and unintentional biases that we encode into digital technologies (encoded values)
  • the inclusion and exclusion of various kinds of people from the places and spaces where we design digital technologies (design sites);
  • the allocation of decision making power over the digital technologies in our lives (governance)."

Design Justice Zine #3


Thank you for sharing your thoughts around Design Justice. This resonates so well with me. So many important points and questions. I find the 10 Design Justice Network Principles extremely helpful for guidance.


Yes, I never liked the “justice” notion of it. It’s like “fair”… it is such a relative realm these concepts move in that it is easy to fall into the trap of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ while designing something that provides stability as well as flexibility to what “justice”, “fair”, “equality” etc. mean.

For me these design questions are to be reflected in every design.
Thank you for sharing!

1 Like