Subject: Re: [NYCGA Internet] Internet SubGroups/ Objectives?
From: Chaz Cheadle
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:08:39 -0400
To: internet_working_group@googlegroups.com

Felipe, 
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 logins)
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.

thanks,
chaz

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM, felipe <felipetr@gmail.com> 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
web?
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,

felipe

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >