Bind the ritual into the hand-off mechanism to the enlarging compartments – add a team to the league as the league grows – add a song to the choirs as the congregation grows.

just some thoughts
dwc

Also, you seem to suggest that mutability is determinental to a replicator’s success because of the possibility of co-option and degradation. But there is an important tradeoff between fidelity to the original good ideas and flexibility to adapt to new situations. Ideas that are too rigid will always be limited in scope.

Platforms allow people to latch on and “call” something their own, activating their own network and potential in the process. We kind of noticed this with Cause for Drinks. It was a super simple idea, everyone got it, and because we had already created the materials, concept, process, people latched on and started contacting us across the country to host them. They wanted to do good but the barrier of starting their own was too great. They just needed someone to tell them what to do, allowing them to feel part of a movement but while also giving them enough creative leeway to feel ownership.

Where many platform models seem to fall apart are balance of top down management and bottom up outliers, laziness, etc. as well as money (re: Clay Shirky’s talk on open source being the act of collaboratively creating things out of love.. money and ownership has trouble fitting into an equation that’s built on that principle). But it seems those with the hugest potential to succeed are those that facilitate, connect, create frameworks for personal action and responsibility while making it easy for people to become involved.

Platforms allow people to latch on and “call” something their own, activating their own network and potential in the process. We kind of noticed this with Cause for Drinks. It was a super simple idea, everyone got it, and because we had already created the materials, concept, process, people latched on and started contacting us across the country to host them. They wanted to do good but the barrier of starting their own was too great. They just needed someone to tell them what to do, allowing them to feel part of a movement but while also giving them enough creative leeway to feel ownership.

Where many platform models seem to fall apart are balance of top down management and bottom up outliers, laziness, etc. as well as money (re: Clay Shirky’s talk on open source being the act of collaboratively creating things out of love.. money and ownership has trouble fitting into an equation that’s built on that principle). But it seems those with the hugest potential to succeed are those that facilitate, connect, create frameworks for personal action and responsibility while making it easy for people to become involved.