Subject: [NYCGA Internet] Re: Internet SubGroups/ Objectives?
From: Jake
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: internet working group

Hi Filipe,

All great points. Lots of awesome insight and important questions.
Both the technical and logistical challenges of building this new site
on the necessary timeline have sometimes forced compromises in the
ideals of communication and collaboration workflow. That said,
everyone who has been working directly on the site got in the loop in
the exact same way: by just showing up and being persistent and
pushing to be as involved as possible, and taking initiative, and
being proactive, and all that stuff. I really think that your
involvement is what you make of it. I have also noticed that the best
way to jump in is, when you see a gap, fill it. If it looks to you
like something isn't being addressed, just start addressing it in an
awesome way, and everyone will love it and be forever grateful. The
last two weeks (since I got here) have demonstrated that phenomenon
countless times.

For those that want to get more involved in the nuts and bolts of the
process right now, we are working 24/7 and there is almost always
someone in the open IRC channel nycga-iwg on freenode. A lot of the
daily conversation about the moment-by-moment development of the site
happens there and it is a great way to join in the process, be a part
of the ongoing conversation in real time, and start jumping on tasks
as they come up. This IRC channel was, of course, announced publicly
on the google group, but as you noted, the threads get lost and the
leads get buried in a somewhat frustrating way. For that reason, we
have been trying to reach out to regulars on the google group here
(like Todd G) to act as google group "moderators" or greeters almost.
They could pass along info and try to keep a sense of institutional
memory on the constantly moving, evolving conversation here.

Also, as far as I know, since I have been here, the IWG has always
stuck to its published official meeting times/places. The next one of
these is on Sunday at 6:00 PM. We will meet near the info desk in
Liberty Plaza and move on from there. As I understand it, the main
focus of the meeting is going to be discussing how to organize
ourselves going forward, how to better integrate offers of help, how
to divide our resources, and how to keep evolving the site. now that
we have passed the main hurdle of getting something online and public.
I really hope you can make it!


On Oct 14, 3:08 pm, Chaz Cheadle <> wrote:
You have hit the nail on the head. There are many questions being asked and
no flow of useful information (yet). It is very nebulous as to who has any
power of decision making, or where if any input can be funneled. Numerous
people have been begging to help get involved and we are only met with
decisions that have already been made. And when those decisions are made,
very little information is shared with the group to let us know the
direction of progress so again, we unable to lend a hand.

Your questions are VERY relevant to this enterprise and ones which I don't
have a sense were ever considered, or at least not addressed to the group. I
can only suggest that we keep asking for information and offering advice.

This site and web presence demand a great deal responsibility as it is a
major face for our movement. The interest people have shown clearly
indicates that there is manpower to move whichever technologies are in place
forward and maintain them. That said, we should pick the most appropriate
technology that can address some of these questions.

I say all that to say this- we can ask the questions- now lets answer them!
We can get some feedback about what we IWGers think should go into this, but
after its initial incarnation, I think it should be reopened for GA
discussion and approval. We don't want people thinking we're not responsible
to the people and therefore not their voice.

For your questions, I'll start with my $0.0134 (after taxes):
1) Lets provide forum for people to discuss ideas and the ability to add
polls to them. The forum should be unmoderated by the admins, but governed
by the users with the caveat that illegal activities be removable.
2)  Do you mean cataloging documents or version tracking?
3) Allow users to create accounts on the site or remain anonymous and join
participate in forum/discussion groups (possibly allow OpenID, facebook
4) Allow for a rating/voting system to let users self-govern topics
5) I think as an internet formatted collaboration tool subjective polling is
fine- the 'real' results will come from action committees affecting real
world outcomes.

I think it is important to keep in mind that we are the architects of this
first and foremost. If we also wish to participate on the site that is
excellent, but it is our charge to make the site usable by the admins and
the users, not use what is easiest and familiar to us. We may be perfectly
familiar with one technology, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't evaluate
other tools which may better serve the purpose and the community.

We should definitely keep this discussion going so that we can continue to
keep the website actively on track.


On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM, felipe <> wrote:
Hey all,

I gather from this list that you are working hard on getting the MU WP
site off the ground but I'd like to ask if there is a place where
folks are posting what they are up to and how they need help? Without
this kind of a "map" it makes it difficult for folks to get involved.
Yesterday I went to Charlotte's place at 1pm, and didn't see anyone
from the IWG. Ditto for the FLO meeting, in theory held under the red
sculpture at 3.

I get that folks are working hard to get the new site up, I guess this
is a plea to put more time into directing people who want to get
involved on how to do so. For instance, who is currently dealing with
questions like these:

1) what mechanisms will be put in place to absorb suggestions from the
2) what collaborative document authoring protocols will be put in
place to allow for iteration?
3) how are we mapping identity, quantifying assent/dissent, and
encouraging/discouraging groupings of viewpoints?
4) in the case of wide-ranging discussion with sensitive topics, are
we allowing anonymity (encryption?) pros/cons?
5) what process is in place to allow a "meta" development of consensus
- agreement and voting/iteration of the norms of agreement itself,
therefore legitimating the outcome further?

If this movement is to attain critical mass, questions like these
should be being discussed openly. Since we're almost upon the 1 month
mark of the occupation, I wonder aloud where this discussion is
happening, and why it isn't being flagged, loud and clear, off the
main NYCGA website as either a subgroup of InternetWG, or a hybrid of
sorts with the FacilitationWG.  For a movement that depends upon
digital communication for survival, how is it that the conversation
about what the main platform will allow is obscure? I've only seen
Drupal vs Wordpress threads, but nothing regarding the intention of
the software, research pointing to best practices, etc.

If this is more of a FLO question, I'll post this there as well. I
guess the point is, I don't know where to go to find answers to these
questions within OWS, and this is frustrating because it amounts to
information hoarding, which is the opposite of transparency. Does it
matter that it's happening unintentionally?

MIC CHECK!! What groups are you a part of, when do you meet, and where
will you be posting this information so others can find it and join
you? (ie in addition to replies to this thread, which will be buried
and inaccessible to most b/c they won't know to look for it)

in the spirit of open collaboration,