Paul Cereghino
Forum Replies Created
-
We met on Thursday 3/28. Larry, Jan, Paul, Clare S, and Julie shared the whole meeting, Brandon and Clare A had to drop off. Brian and Doris dropped in and indicated they were going to focus on local community development. We had some open conversation about this, and what our check in provoked. We spent time discussing our agreed upon mission categories. We compared our person assets and our passions and interests. We asked each other questions. We agreed on homework: to describe a vision for how we might connect our efforts and interests to create a shared body of work with positive feedback loops. We are going to each develop a one page draft, and then respond to each others drafts, and then at our meeting work on synthesis.
As always, notes are provided for viewing on our Circle Log.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GGRSNxf2rewJ5GnQE991EULK0sNi16528x7bw94qkZk/edit?usp=sharing
-
REPORT on Last Meeting in February
We had a whole bunch of new folks come! We spent time getting acquainted and then had an input session about a proposal to describe the anticipated work of this group. Paul offered to revise that proposal and bring it back next week.
As always the Log has useful notes. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GGRSNxf2rewJ5GnQE991EULK0sNi16528x7bw94qkZk/edit?usp=sharing
It seems increasingly important to have a more structured onboarding process so that our work meetings can stay focussed on an agenda that builds on past agreements. That said, it is vitally important to engage with people who want to join in the effort.
-
I very much like these questions of evaluation, and think we could go a step further and state explicitly why we believe these things have value… e.g. transfer of practices/tools among hubs reduced the effort necessary to achieve [other goals].
I am wary of how program evaluation can draw resources away from initial program implementation (I am not saying that is what you are proposing; I experience this as a tension, not an “either/or”)
Regarding “establishing hubs” I think if we do that we should do that in our own regions, with a commitment to building and tending those circles. I have never been able to establish something that wasn’t ready 80% ready to establish itself, and I think it is wise to apply tremendous consideration to these conditions of readiness and support those enabling conditions. By contrast, empty proclamations of “existence” without these enabling conditions are in my experience often futile. This said there is power in declared intention… I would just allow that declared intention to emerge from a coherent local group (including or not including an active member of a regional team) and be clear about what makes a “hub” valuable and possible. In particular I’d like to interrogate deeply over time what makes a hub valuable to local teams, and I suspect this is the central work of an ongoing “needs assessment” process which will feed into this goal setting and evaluation process more powerfully, because we will be in conversation with emerging hub teams that are showing coherence (not just random individuals with opinions). I think this is a critical feedback that Clare Attwell mentions periodically.
So yes, first draft GEFNSETT… then as quickly as possible start identifying and getting into conversation with potential regional hubs, while getting very clear about what that “system of mutual benefit” actually is (I am not sure we are clear; it’s not a website, but rather a website is only a possible communication tool that may or may not serve).
-
We met today and:
- Adjusted how we do information reports.
- Debriefed on the open-space and @quinngerald consented to support a group to capture learning in preparation for future open space
- We agreed to a set of aims for 6 months. In sociocracy, aims are used to test if we are going in the right direction, and form the basis for a “reasoned objection”–this decision doesn’t work for me because it undermines our aims.
- We had a guest, Cindy Bjorkland from the Skagit.
- We didn’t get to clarifying our shared work or discussion roles, beginning with what membership in the group means.
- Clair A. will provide information about the learning journey work by Joe Brewer.
PLEASE – consider what membership means to you, review the BACKLOG and think about what you think we should consider next meeting. If you want to suggest an agenda item, please define what you want to work on, why it fits our aims, and what the desired outcome will be.
Next week I hope that we will consider defining our shared mission… the work we do to achieve our aims, and start talking about roles, starting with what it means to be a member of the group, with a shared purpose and a commitment to consent.
Two weeks from now I hope we can follow up on the open-space learning.
-
Thank you Julie. I appreciate it!
-
Here’s my calendar EVENT for my “workparty” 🙂
https://regeneratecascadia.org/cascadia-events/biocultural-restoration-field-station/
-
There are networks that have formed around the Telegram group that have been having conversations about how to develop protocols and etiquette for how to use the platform well, and in turn how to evolve the platform to reflect a system of protocol and etiquette better! Which is why it is so fun and interesting to have our own platform that we can control.
To my understanding… the tools are:
FORUMS/FEEDS/DISCUSSSIONS – we can have as many forums as we want, including too many! Right now they are organized in four clumps… PLACE, TOPIC, PROJECT (which I wonder if this is too much). There is no Site Stewardship Forum, but I think there should be.
CALENDARS/EVENTS – this organizes information into Events… that can also have categories… and you can filter and present calendars. You can create a calendar event, and create a tag for events you want to present elsewhere on the site.
POSTS – this is the underlying blog functionality of WordPress, which allows each post to have various categories and attributes, and you can filter and present a sub-set of posts. We’ve talked about having Posts that describe ongoing projects that are looking for collaborators.
PAGES – these are less like posts in that they are intended to be a finite set of stable pages that provide the architecture of place and topic.
This is a description of the technology we have, but it doesn’t describe the social structures. The working proposal is that people form groups around FORUMS either based on PLACE or by TOPIC. I think “land stewardship” could be its own TOPIC forum (with topics ultimately forming into GUILDS through some process we are all still imagining… we have been having ongoing conversations on how to support a Bioregional Learning Guild Here)… whereas Salish Sea – North Megapolis/Snohomish Basin could be a PLACE (the one surrounding Anita for example…) Ideally these topics and places have categories…
I think therefore there are three levels of engagement…
- Post a one-off event to the calendar
- Create a project post that presents your project more coherently and links to the next events and a discussion on a forum.
- Find collaborators to develop a Site Stewardship Guild that can cultivate the platform to support site stewards across cascadia.
For one-off events, I’d use the calendar EVENT. Once you have an ongoing project, I’d create a POST with the appropriate categories, and then create a category or tag for your calendar entries… you can then have your part of the calendar show up on your POST.
Once we have a Site Stewardship GUILD, with its own PAGE, we can curate all the POSTS, EVENTS, and DISCUSSIONS about site stewardship on a page.
What this all means to me, is that if we want the infrastructure that does what we want, we CAN build it here, but it requires investment. However, industrial society being what it is… we are dependant on infrastructure… we either create it for ourselves or we live into that dependency. Something like that anyway… 🙂
regeneratecascadia.org
Updates on Formation of a Guild - Bioregional Education - Regenerate Cascadia
Updates on Formation of a Guild - Bioregional Education - Regenerate Cascadia
-
Maybe this angle… https://cmr.earthdata.nasa.gov/search/concepts/C1214604044-SCIOPS.html
The global modeling scene is on a rapid crash course with the local mapping scene… for my Cascadian datasets I ended up using derivatives of Space Shuttle Radar Topography, rather than actual rivers…
-
Here are two colorized lidar soil maps at a site and landform scale…
-
As you pointed out, scale and purpose will be your revenant. In some of my synthesis work I have been settling on a set of five scales for multi-scale information management three of which might make sense… just ideas, not prescriptions:
REGIONAL SCALE – 100s of square miles, usually encompassing many large watersheds or marine basins. At this scale just differentiating between parent materials will be useful… parent material describes glacial history, and a wide variety of soil attributes… and lumping parent material makes sense
WATERSHED SCALE – 10s-100s of square miles, still parent material, but not lumped, but in color families based on geomorphic origin (alluvial all cool, volcanic all warm…)
LANDFORM SCALE – 1s to 10s of square miles… at the scale of a floodplain reach, tributary, river delta, beach drift cell, etc… at this point you can dive into soil series with color by parent material.
Some of the coolest soil maps use color blending over lidar hillshade because there is often a correlation between landform and soils series or parent material. WDNR has been in an orgy of lidar lately… https://www.dnr.wa.gov/lidar#comparison-gallery
Of course you could focus on some other attributes for special purposes… but my two cents for general purpose.
These could become new baselayer tile services…!!
dnr.wa.gov
Giant ripple marks along the Columbia River at West Bar, created by catastrophic ice-age flooding Flow slides along the Cedar River, King County Lidar imagery of the Quinault River channel meanders Landslide within Mount Rainier National Park Crevasses within the … Continue reading
-
I personally haven’t explored the document capabilities of “BuddyPress” which is the piece of software, attached to this WordPress site, which constructs all the “forum” functionality. I don’t know where they are stored, how they can be managed, and if it is desirable to start accumulating stuff there. Simultaneous editing isn’t supported and version control less manageable. Because of those layers of uncertainty, my default is to use google, which we know.
@cascadiabrandon has established a google drive folders system under the regernatecascadia.org domain. I just sent you an invitation to the “Bioregional Education Guild folder”. Documents stored there can be shared in a wider variety of ways. Ultimately in our “activist toolkit” I suspect that we will need to suggest and encourage a basic kit of tools and behaviors (particularly for those that play the “secretary” roles in strongly-functioning groups).
For archival resources and out-group collaboration, I personally use https://salishsearestoration.org just because I am committed to the long-term stewardship of that space and it is funded with a governance system that I am part of, but that does not necessarily suit working needs, and has not yet expanded to a Cascadian domain. That is another story.
-
Hello colleagues,
My name is Paul and I live on the edge of Schneider Creek, on Budd Inlet in South Puget Sound in the City of Olympia in the Woodard Lane Co-housing community. I work as a professional ecologist for the federal government, from a background in private landscape construction, agroforestry, and environmental education.
I curate the Salish Sea Restoration Restoration Platform, a bioregional prototype for social-ecological system and knowledge mapping with the Society for Ecological Restoration – https://salishsearestoration.org/I do bioregional cartography which I make available through an at-cost print-on-demand website called https://watershedmaps.com
I also do community development to support the long-term stewardship of riverscapes through a concept called The Ecosystem Guild, whereby we train and support people to access, camp on, and restore ecologically valuable common lands in the Salish Sea, starting with a field station in the Skykomish Valley, in collaboration with Snohomish Conservation District and The Tulalip Tribes. This work is focused on redeveloping viable strategies for regenerative riverscape agroforestry https://ecosystemguild.org
-
Done
-
Hi Ryan, would love to have a conversation. Probably not until March :-). I am mostly professionally involved in “involuntary conservation markets”. I do quantification using Habitat Equivalency Analysis, have been involved in negotiating settlements around quantification of NRDA and ESA. I am familiar with wetland markets, and emerging markets in other services, like nutrients, temperature, stream flow. and have been involved in lots of conversations around defining instruments, assurances, monitoring, and verification, including long-term stewardship. We certainly have experiences on the involuntary compliance side that inform how market actors will respond to the opportunity to self deal and seek profit.
-
Welcome Brad! It’s still a little quiet around here as we try to build this inn on the digital crossroads, and get all the doors and windows working. I lived up on Chuckanut Drive and in B’ham back in the 1990s. @inspiration Brian and others are well connected up there. I do restoration work with both Nooksack Tribe and Lummi Nation, mostly up on the Nooksack Forks.
