>My thanks to those of you who have already offered to act as NodeMaster for
>one
>or more of the lists. I won't be making final choices, with a few exceptions,
>immediately. First I want to give more of you a chance to apply to be a
>NodeMaster.
I remember discussing the outlines of this with Greg Burch in a London pub,
two years ago, in the context of how ExI might place itself within the
global scientific and economic community. That discussion thought of these
nodes as being limited in their membership to invited (or at least
'vetted') specialists, and hence carving out a niche for ExI as a global
facilitator of scientific networking and propagation. In that light, two
things occur to me. First, are these lists to retain the exclusivity which
might serve ExI best in the long run, by establishing its credentials as a
world-class organization, or are they to be open to all, hence increasing
publicity, but, more than likely, deterring the specifically
scientific/economic professional community from using the nodes as a
'trading' place? Second, with multiple, highly-specific nodes, how is ExI
to ensure that 'cross-pollenation' of ideas occurs effectively?
Put another way, is ExI a network for the discussion of popularized, though
sometimes innovative ideas, open to all, or is it to be a community of
multi-disciplinary thinkers, with a proven track-record of academic and
commercial success? Both roles are necessary in the world, but I can't help
thinking that ExI would serve its members more effectively in the
achievement of their goals, rather than the mere discussion of those goals,
if it were to become the latter type of organization.
One final way of considering this question: what form of organization does
ExI need to be in order to create the future, rather than merely comment on
it?
Sarah