DOCSLIB.ORG

How We Use Sociocracy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How We Use Sociocracy NJ Cohousing Development Cooperative How We Use Sociocracy Why do we propose to use Sociocracy? others, to opening space for solutions to emerge. Sociocracy, also called Dynamic Governance, is Because using rounds offers full transparency in a type of organization and collaborative decision-making, they tend to build trust. Designed governance designed for fairness, transparency, to result in fair decisions by hearing everyone's inclusiveness, and accountability. Using voice, rounds provide an opportunity to listen and understand more than talk. Everyone has a turn, sociocracy's methods enables the cooperative to without cross talk or debate. meet the needs of the whole group while continually adapting to changing circumstances. (a) opening—we start the meeting with space for each person to transition from previous Using Sociocracy Instead of Consensus: Our activities into the meeting. It can be a chance to movement used consensus until we learned over share whatever might be affecting you. the years that consensus has significant drawbacks (a) understand—ask clarifying questions only (no unless a group is and remains very small. Thus, opinions) many groups within the ecovillage- cohousing- (b) explore—quick cooperative movement have more recently responses to get a gravitated toward sociocracy which is more efficient feel of where the and adaptable. group is. Can do multiple exploratory Reaching Consent—is crucial to sociocracy: rounds as needed. When we're each ok with something and it doesn't (c) consent or interfere with what we're trying to accomplish, object—brief either we've reached consent and can move forward. “I consent/have no Unlike consensus, which implies widespread objection” or “I have an objection ___[one agreement, consent is permission to test something phrase explanation]______”/ “I am not ready to consent and have concerns, so I want to to see how well it works. explore more” (d) process—when it's not clear how to move Consent is not agreement or the same forward as “consensus,” it’s the acceptance of a (e) closing—we end each meeting with a moment proposal as good enough to try for for each person to evaluate the leaders, now, having resolved all objections. teamwork and/or activity; it's a chance to express appreciation. Objections—are explanations of how carrying out Members can, of course, chose to pass during a a proposal would interfere with the Cooperative's round, but it's often useful to affirm that you agree mission and/or operations, distinguished from with what someone else has stated so that the full concerns. So as to make group decisions that range of views is clear. accurately reflect diverse perspectives and promote buy-in, objections are invited into the decision- Using proposals making process. Coming to meetings prepared with proposals helps operate efficiently, so individuals or groups should Rounds--change the dynamics of conversations put together a clear, short format recommendation. and the energy of the group from convincing Cohousing Development Cooperative Sociocracy August 6, 2019 Policy Decision-making: All members are asked Aims—Defines to consent to those of NJ CDC's decisions that specifically what the affect them. A proposal is made and goes through circle will produce (to rounds until consent is reached as follows: (1) To support the mission of ensure full understanding, a round of questions is CDC) undertaken. (2) Next a round for member reactions Circle—self provides feedback. Multiple exploratory/reaction governing, semi- rounds may be warranted. (3) The input autonomous working is incorporated into the proposal as appropriate. group Concerns— are (4) A further consent round determines whether the criticisms that can be proposal is accepted. (5) If necessary, objections expressed during are addressed and integrated into the proposal exploratory rounds. They do not preclude moving forward which is then presented again. with a decision. They can be addressed during evaluations, particularly if they are quantifiable Feedback: We Distributed Authority—collaborative leadership promotes include measurable accountability as well as collective intelligence results in a proposal Double-linked—method circles use to ensure communication flow both to and from the larger/smaller to enhance group accountability in Dynamic Governance—synonym for Sociocracy, but addition to soliciting sometimes uses distinct terms input from other Facilitator—ensures meetings: stay on track, use rounds following accepted procedures, and are evaluated helping circles as Hand motions—thumbs up for consent, wavering hand down for needed. Decisions concerns, open palm up for objections: can be used instead of a include a time period verbal round for a quick decision. The CDC also uses COLOR CODED cards which are a non- for reevaluation, so sociocratic method to improve ongoing experimentation refines and improves our efficiency. work. This is crucial to make consent workable, Leader/Execution Coordinator—responsible because all policies are temporary. for ensuring the implementation of the work Governance: Circles carry out the work of the of the group Cooperative: each circle selects a Leader to ensure Paramount Objections- the implementation of the plans and a Delegate, Perhaps a clearer term to both of whom serve on the upper circle describe objections: any (Coordinating Circle). Similarly, circles can have objection will stop a proposal from being implemented sub-circles with their own Leader and Delegate. Range of tolerance—From Additionally, each meeting has a Facilitator and enthusiasm to not objecting; a Note-taker who participate in setting the agenda. decision or action that works Sociocracy is non-hierarchical: circles choose how for each of us (even if we don't agree) best to approach their own work and each member Self-organization— has an equivalent voice. Operations and decision-making are decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system Other Terminology: To get started, check these out: • a six minute video on decision-making. • general information on rounds • video summary less than 4 minutes • videos ranging from 4 -25 minutes Sociocracy 3.0 Tutorials with practical lessons. More information will be posted to our website: cdc.ecovillagenj.org .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is Dynamic Governance?
    What is Dynamic Governance? By Becky Bowen J.D. I attended a workshop on Dynamic Governance recently. While the concepts were not entirely unfamiliar to me, it wasn’t until I used them at a recent group facilitation that I noticed how big a difference they made in both the energy level and the satisfaction of the individual group members. What is Dynamic Governance? To answer that question, we need to take a look at what governance is. More than just the process of decision-making, governance is also the system by which decision-makers are determined and decisions are implemented. Back in high school we learned about our nation’s Constitution and the Bill of Rights that amended it. With all the political bickering that occurs over what is and is not a “constitutional right,” we sometimes forget that the Constitution is also the document by which our government was formed. It provides the structure for the three branches of government and the checks and balances system that has made for a pretty good system of law-making, law-enforcement, and law-interpretation. It also describes the system by which our Senators, Congressmen, President, Vice-President, and Supreme Court Justices take office. It isn’t so specific as to describe congressional rule-making procedure, but most of us are familiar enough with the voting process to know that in most cases, majority rules, and in some cases, a super-majority vote is required. How we run our town councils, non-profit boards, and other governance structures pretty much mirrors the government system just described.
    [Show full text]
  • Governance in Decentralized Networks
    Governance in decentralized networks Risto Karjalainen* May 21, 2020 Abstract. Effective, legitimate and transparent governance is paramount for the long-term viability of decentralized networks. If the aim is to design such a governance model, it is useful to be aware of the history of decision making paradigms and the relevant previous research. Towards such ends, this paper is a survey of different governance models, the thinking behind such models, and new tools and structures which are made possible by decentralized blockchain technology. Governance mechanisms in the wider civil society are reviewed, including structures and processes in private and non-profit governance, open-source development, and self-managed organisations. The alternative ways to aggregate preferences, resolve conflicts, and manage resources in the decentralized space are explored, including the possibility of encoding governance rules as automatically executed computer programs where humans or other entities interact via a protocol. Keywords: Blockchain technology, decentralization, decentralized autonomous organizations, distributed ledger technology, governance, peer-to-peer networks, smart contracts. 1. Introduction This paper is a survey of governance models in decentralized networks, and specifically in networks which make use of blockchain technology. There are good reasons why governance in decentralized networks is a topic of considerable interest at present. Some of these reasons are ideological. We live in an era where detailed information about private individuals is being collected and traded, in many cases without the knowledge or consent of the individuals involved. Decentralized technology is seen as a tool which can help protect people against invasions of privacy. Decentralization can also be viewed as a reaction against the overreach by state and industry.
    [Show full text]
  • A Syncretic Theory on Corporate Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainable Development Fabien Martinez, Ken Peattie, Diego Vazquez-Brust, Diego Vazquez-Brust
    Beyond win–win: A syncretic theory on corporate stakeholder engagement in sustainable development Fabien Martinez, Ken Peattie, Diego Vazquez-brust, Diego Vazquez-Brust To cite this version: Fabien Martinez, Ken Peattie, Diego Vazquez-brust, Diego Vazquez-Brust. Beyond win–win: A syn- cretic theory on corporate stakeholder engagement in sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley, 2019, 28 (5), pp.896 - 908. 10.1002/bse.2292. hal-02887685 HAL Id: hal-02887685 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02887685 Submitted on 9 Jul 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Beyond Win-Win: A Syncretic Theory on Corporate Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainable Development* By Fabien Martinez1, Ken Peattie2 and Diego Vazquez-Brust3,4 1EM Normandie Business School, Métis Lab 19-21 Aston Quay Temple Bar Dublin Republic of Ireland [email protected] 2 Sustainable Places Research Institute Cardiff University 33 Park Place CF10 3BA Cardiff Wales, United Kingdom [email protected] 3Portsmouth Business School Richmond Building Portland Street Portsmouth PO1 3DE United Kingdom [email protected] 4Federal University of Santa Catarina Florianopolis, Brazil *Postprint of: Martinez, F., Peattie, K., & Vazquez-Brust, D.
    [Show full text]
  • From Competition and Collusion to Consent-Based Collaboration: a Case Study of Local Democracy
    From competition and collusion to consent-based collaboration: a case study of local democracy Citation for published version (APA): Romme, A. G. L., Broekgaarden, J., Huijzer, C., Reijmer, A., & van der Eyden, R. A. I. (2018). From competition and collusion to consent-based collaboration: a case study of local democracy. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(3), 246-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1263206 DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2016.1263206 Document status and date: Published: 17/02/2018 Document Version: Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers) Please check the document version of this publication: • A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing Sociocracy
    Introducing Sociocracy An elegant whole system approach for inclusive decision making, efficient governance and the ongoing evaluation and development of harmonious organisations With James Priest Developed by: thriveincommunity.co.uk Special acknowledgement and thanks goes to James Priest, Diana Leafe Christian, John Buck, The Sociocracy Group & numerous other contributors, all of whom have influenced and contributed towards the content of this booklet. Sociocracy I̋įĢſ̊ĀБűĢ̋ IĀ̋ĠĢЬБ INDEX: 2 Index 3 Sociocracy - 3 defining elements 4 What is Sociocracy – In brief? 5 3 streams of influence 6 3 core principles 7 Vision, Mission, Aim/s 8 Policy matters and Operations – 2 distinct types of meeting 9 Plan ~ implement ~ evaluate - Dynamic workflow and feedback cycle 10 Consent Decision Making Process 11 Consent and 6 Sociocratic Meeting Processes 12 Long Form Proposal Forming Process 13 Role Selection Process a.k.a. Sociocratic Elections 14 A typical Sociocratic circle structure 15 Circle Roles 16 Three aspects of a Healthy Thriving Community & your organisation 17 Violence ~ Power ~ Supremacy – Delegating Supremacy to the argument 18 Some common decision making methods used by groups 19 Developmental stages and its relevance to Consent Decision Making 20 Performance Reviews and Role Improvement Feedback 22 Guidelines for Policy Circle Meetings 23 Resources 24 A Hopi Elder Speaks 2014 James Priest, A Full Circle Resource from Thrive in Community - thriveincommunity.co.uk 2 SOCIOCRACY Values: Effectiveness, Equivalence, Transparency GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ñ Organize projects and tasks by groups of people (circles) sharing a specific purpose (aim). Some circles have more general aims, others have more specific aims. ñ Double-links (D) between more general and more specific circles provide for two-way flow of information (proposals, policies, reports, feedback).
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to Amherst Charter Commission Requested by Gerry Weiss from Joshua Hornick, Amherst MA Martin Luther King, Jr Day 2017
    Letter to Amherst Charter Commission requested by Gerry Weiss From Joshua Hornick, Amherst MA Martin Luther King, Jr Day 2017 Dear Commissioners, This is exciting! On January 5, I shared an academic article with the Charter Commission, entitled “From Competition and Collusion to Consent-Based Collaboration: A Case Study of Local Democracy”, from The International Journal of Public Administration. The article is about the implementation by a town in Holland of new participatory governance techniques. I hoped this might inform and inspire the Charter Commission. Three days later, I ran into Meg Gage at a mutual friend’s house where we discussed it a bit. Two days after that, I heard back from Gerry Weiss asking if I could summarize the important points. I told him that I would. Two days later, I heard back from Andrew Churchill who had excerpted a few points from the article that seemed especially useful to him. Thanks to all of you for taking on this important work and for being so responsive to what I hope you find as exciting as I do. To understand this letter, it is important to have a big-picture, socio-psychological-historical perspective. Amherst has the opportunity, I believe, to become the cutting edge for creating a better world. And, I think that we are just smart and gutsy enough to do it. While the details are beyond me, I will summarize the rationale and the contours for a government based on sociocratic principles. I appreciate your giving them consideration. Democracy was a big step up from monarchy and other forms of totalitarian rule.
    [Show full text]
  • When Islam and Democracy Meet
    When Islam and Democracy Meet: Muslims in Europe and in the United States This page intentionally left blank When Islam and Democracy Meet: Muslims in Europe and in the United States Jocelyne Cesari WHEN ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY MEET © Jocelyne Cesari 2004 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. First published in 2004 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN™ 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 and Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England RG21 6XS Companies and representatives throughout the world. PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN 0–312–29401–8 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cesari, Jocelyne. When Islam and democracy meet : Muslims in Europe and in the United States / Jocelyne Cesari. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–312–29401–8 1. Muslims—Europe. 2. Islam—Europe. 3. Muslims—United States. 4. Islam—United States. 5. Europe—Relations—Islamic countries. 6. Islamic countries—Relations—Europe. 7. United States—Relations— Islamic countries. 8. Islamic countries—Relations—United States. I. Title. D1056.2.M87C47 2004 305.6’97’0944—dc22 2004044763 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India.
    [Show full text]
  • The Creative Forces of Self-Organization
    THE CREATIVE FORCES OF SELF-ORGANIZATION By JOHN A. BUCK and GERARD ENDENBURG Table of Contents Introduction. 3 Why Empower Workers. 3 Introduction to the Defining Elements . 6 First Example: A Hairdressing Shop. 7 Second Example: An Alternate Idea in a Crisis. 12 New Corporate Structure . 14 Implementation. 18 Benefits of Self-organization. 20 Systems Theory and Dynamic Engineering. 20 Conclusion. 23 Selected Bibliography and Related Resources. 24 About the Authors. 26 List of Figures Figure 1 The Defining Elements of Dynamic governance. 6 Figure 2 Format of a Dynamic governance Circle Meeting. 7 Figure 3 Template for Dynamic governance Elections. 8 Figure 4 Dynamic governance Ballot. 8 Figure 5 Template for Making Policy Decisions by Consent.. 9 Figure 6 Electrical Company’s Functional Structure. 12 Figure 7 Electrical Company’s Dynamic “Circle” Structure. 13 Figure 8 The Classic Corporate Model Uses Majority Vote and Autocratic Decision-making. 15 Figure 9 The Classic Corporate Model with Union Feedback . 16 Figure 10 Classic Corporate Model with Employee Stockowner Feedback Loop. 17 Figure 11 Dynamic governance Circle Functions: Leading-Doing-Measuring 18 Figure 12 Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of Dynamic governance . 21 © Copyright 2010 Sociocratic Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands Original article published in 2004. Revised 2006, 2010. The Creative Forces Of Self-Organization 3 Introduction This overview will first introduce a few Consider a group of workers. If they act key concepts that include consent decision- jointly under the direction of a leader to making and double-linked hierarchies. Then, produce a product or service, we consider after presenting two simulated examples their behavior organized.
    [Show full text]
  • PICK a GOVERNMENT :; a Hybrid
    141 1 old word PICK A GOVERNMENT :; a hybrid noun's en­ ective, and ljeetive; I lich I can PAUL HELLWEG es sion a Northrid~e, California :3 in 1927 =:inc innatus , Living in a democracy, we are pe riodically cur sed ( ble s s ed?) with Trocenia' election year mania. Occas ionally, it all seems to amount to naught, Atlas Index; and people have been heard to ask: II Isn' t there another way?" Of such as Tro­ course there is. Different types of qovernment abound. More than n) both be­ eighty varieties are presented below. As you read through them, per­ ler than a haps youlll find one that sounds a little better than democracy. On the has any other hand, a look at these alternatives might be enough to renew every­ l? one's faith in the electoral process. thousands For the sake of this discussion, I have limited consideration to s Borg­ forms of gove rnment ending in - archy (G reek II arkhos" = rule r) and \.CEINORST. -ocracy (Greek "kratos" = strength, power). Admirers of dynasti­ orne kind of c ism, feudali sm, tr ibalism, and related gove rnments needn I t fear -­ ords, names there are regime s here bound to please anyone. To begin with, my personal favorite is LOGOCRACY, II a community or system of govern­ ment in which words are the ruling power" (OED). ::es lat By The Numbe r s es Ito Everyone knows that a monarchy is a state headed by a single rule r. 'on Lesser- known appellations referring to a specific number of leaders ian are listed here: ,In te r AUTOCRACY, MONOCRACY one ruler .te BIARCHY, DIARCHY (DYARCHY), DUARCHY two rulers :ic TRIARCHY three rulers ne TETRADARCHY (TETRARCHY) four rulers :an PENTA RCHY five ruler s in HEPTARCHY, SEPTARCHY seven rulers ns OCTARCHY ei~ht rulers ns DECARCHY (DEKARCHY, DECADARCHY) ten rulers DODECARCHY twelve rulers ~where? HECATONTARCHY (HECATONARCHY) one hundred rulers 1 scientific lude phras­ Oddly, the term HEXARCHY refers to a group of six states, not a gov­ was so cer­ ernment of six leaders.
    [Show full text]
  • Governance by Design - Sociocracy Values, Principles, Definitions and Resources John Schinnerer – [email protected]
    Governance By Design - Sociocracy Values, principles, definitions and resources John Schinnerer – [email protected] Values • Equivalence – individuals function as peers in deciding how to accomplish their collective aims • Effectiveness – designing for action; continuous development for efficiency; process design • Transparency – direct access to all policy documents and records relating to one's work. ◦ Supports equivalence, effectiveness and responsibilities of co-leadership. Principles • Consent ◦ Consent governs decision-making. Consent means there are no argued and paramount objections to a proposed policy decision (a proposal for a policy). ▪ “Argued” means reasoned or explained. “Paramount” means all-important. ▪ An objection is not a veto or block; it is a valid reason why a particular decision will prevent a member of the group from doing their job or otherwise supporting circle aims. ▪ Objections are solicited because they provide useful and positive information (feedback) for designing a better decision. Reasons given for objections are used to improve a proposal so that all members of the group can work toward their aim more effectively. • Circles ◦ A circle is a semi-autonomous and self-organizing unit that has its own domain and aim. It makes policy decisions within its domain; delegates leading, doing and measuring functions to its own members; maintains its own memory system; plans its own development (learning, adapting). ▪ Circles essentially correspond to organizational working groups, such as departments, divisions, teams, task forces, etc.. Each circle has its own aim and steers its own work by performing functions of leading, doing, and measuring on its own operations. Together the three steering functions establish a feedback loop, making the circle self-correcting, or self-regulating.
    [Show full text]
  • Trust-Boosting Sociocracy 3.0 with Blockchain
    Towards self-determinant citizen governance: Trust-boosting Sociocracy 3.0 with Blockchain Alexandre Ribas Hortal a b 1 Facundo Bromberg a c 2 [email protected] [email protected] a Laboratorio DHARMa Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Facultad Regional Mendoza, Rodriguez 273, Mendoza (Argentina) dharma.frm.utn.edu.ar b MediAccions Research Group in digital media and culture Universitat Oberta de Catalunya Av. Tibidabo, 47, Barcelona (Spain) mediaccions.net c Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), (Argentina) conicet.gov.ar Keywords: self-determination, citizen governance, reputation, Blockchain, Sociocracy 3.0. Abstract This work introduces a novel technopolitical artifact that opens up the possibility for a system of non-dominant citizen governance that eliminates the representative layer and puts citizens at the top of the decision making process. A socio-political approach that arises by merging two disrupting technologies: Sociocracy 3.0 as an organizational technology for efficiently governing large, self- determinant organizations; and Blockchain as a digital reputation technology for overcoming the limitations preventing standalone Sociocracy 3.0 of being used in organizations governing the public domain. 1. Introduction Recent years has observed an increase in the distrust of the citizenship in public institutions and the traditional governance systems (Castells, 2017). It is our understanding that the main reason of this distrust is that, despite all the improvements achieved since the advent of democracy, it is still holding representation and voting as decision making mechanisms, resulting in a partially dominant system where large portions of the populations feels that many of their needs are excluded by the democratic decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to Collaborate: the Influence of Physical Digital Workspaces on the Development of Collaborative Competencies
    Learning to collaborate : the influence of physical digital workspaces on the development of collaborative competencies Andrea Tucker To cite this version: Andrea Tucker. Learning to collaborate : the influence of physical digital workspaces on the de- velopment of collaborative competencies. Education. Université de Lille, 2020. English. NNT : 2020LILUH039. tel-03174392 HAL Id: tel-03174392 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03174392 Submitted on 19 Mar 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Ecole Doctorale des Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société (SHS) Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche en Education de Lille (CIREL - EA 4354) Equipe Théodile THESE DE DOCTORAT Préparée et soutenue le 23 novembre 2020 par Andrea TUCKER Pour l’obtention du grade de Docteur en Sciences de l’éducation Learning to Collaborate: The Influence of Physical Digital Workspaces on the Development of Collaborative Competencies Sous la direction de M. Cédric Fluckiger et co-encadré par M. Thierry Gidel JURY Georges-Louis BARON Professeur émérite, Paris V / EDA Rapporteur Thérèse LAFERRIERE Professeure, Université Laval Rapportrice Pierre DILLENBOURG Professeur, EPFL Examinateur Ecaterina PACURAR Professeure, Lille / CIREL Examinatrice Cédric FLUCKIGER Professeure, Lille / CIREL Co-directeur de thèse Thierry GIDEL Maître de Conférences, UTC / COSTECH Co-encadrant de thèse DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of François Villemonteix.
    [Show full text]