L2 Concerns Editor

Title

0 characters

Description

0 characters

Origin

0 characters

Desired Outcome

0 characters

What Could Go Wrong

0 characters

Current Situation

0 characters

Strategy Narrative (JSON)

0 characters

Proposed Strategy

1 - Non-reactive comms stance (immediate):
1.1 - Keep Cubespawn references intact for now, with no public “announcement” of change.
1.2 - Align internally on one calm line: “Recycling solutions are being developed through multiple pathways; Cubespawn is one potential future option.”
2 - One attempt at respectful re-contact (immediate):
2.1 - Send a short, non-pressuring message to James: appreciation + door open + request for clarity on whether he wishes to remain associated in any way.
2.2 - No chasing campaign; a single clean outreach avoids drama while demonstrating good governance.
3 - Decision boundary + timetable (short term):
3.1 - If no response by a defined date, treat Cubespawn as unconfirmed and proceed with alternatives—without erasing history or implying wrongdoing.
4 - Parallel technical pathway (short–mid term):
4.1 - Identify at least two alternative options:
4.1.1 - a like-for-like technical partner; 4.1.2 - a lower-tech interim approach suitable for “on the ground” deployment.
4.2 - Convert this into a simple options matrix (cost, feasibility, timeline, sustainability, skills required).
5 - Messaging control (ongoing):
5.1 - Draft an FAQ-style “corporate reply” for any enquiry about Cubespawn: neutral, factual, future-oriented.
5.2 - Tighten project media language so that Cubespawn is described as one possible route rather than a dependency. Update gradually.
6 - Governance improvement (ongoing):
6.1 - Introduce lightweight role clarity: what commitments exist, what “leaving” means, and how handovers work—without making it bureaucratic.

0 characters

Action Strategy (JSON List)

Cause

0 characters

Event

0 characters

Consequence

0 characters

Notes

0 characters

L2 Concerns Detail Editor