Jan+14+Convening+Synthesis

// At the end of the day, participants had a chance to reflect on key takeaways from the day’s discussions: //

 * Some network **catalysts** are outside the funder’s control. For instance, network members could rally together in response to an external event (e.g., Katrina) or in retaliation against the funder.
 * The **weaver role** is not one universal activity (e.g., a weaver can be a pusher / driver of the network and a guardian). Funders should to consider which of these they would like take on and/or fund, particularly once a network has become mature.
 * Having **patience and perseverance** is extremely important for funders; it takes time to weave networks and bring those relationships to fruition.
 * Funding network weaving requires a **shift in mindset**:
 * In the context of network weaving, funders need to develop some comfort with delegating a lot of responsibility to the grantee, e.g., permitting grantees to fund whatever network weaving effort they see fit.
 * Normally, funders seek grantees with the capacity to do work. However, picking winners and losers can stifle innovation within a network. Moreover, funders often seek grantees that do not have the capacity to do the work themselves as members of the network.
 * Rather than choosing to fund one organization with the capacity to organize/execute an initiative, funders may fund an outsider (e.g., consultant) that in turn helps each organization take on a piece of the leadership. This approach would result in a network of weavers who take on a particular initiative.
 * To make network theory more digestible, it may be easier to “rediscover” elements in our current work that have networked elements to them.
 * There is danger that funders engage in field building to such a high degree that the networks they help to weave are less resilient.