i can sympathize, charles. fact is that the intense desire many of us
have to contribute in some way or another and the speed at which this is
all taking place amounts to a fair degree of systemic, necessary
disorganization. folks are gonna keep doin stuff based on their
interest, and as long as we can keep it all at least loosely
coordinated, the overall benefit in terms of bringing people in and
accomplishing the needs we see in front of us is probably a net
positive. so for the moment, at least, building interpersonal networks
is really the best way to get things done.
fwiw, the way i approach it (as someone who also likes precisely the
right process for a need) is to look at it as an evolving system. as the
dust settles and needs become clearer, more precise, democratic, and
transparent solutions will become possible. for the moment, we're a bit
(though not entirely) stuck with just hoping that well-meaning
individuals adhere to those principles.
even if there the situation you describe occurs, where a strategy WG
knocks comes up with an idea only to find it already implemented, you've
at least started the process of making a place people can go who want to
have that kind of discussion. maybe the only adjustment you need to make
in your expectations for the strategy group is that you do a lot of
talking to a lot of the 'right people' and try to make the group into a
hub for discussions that would otherwise happen elsewhere. and hey, at
that point, you become one of the 'right people,' and can start ensuring
more transparent, democratic process :)
regardless, it's frustrating, but please hang in there. we need all the
people we can get.
On 10/18/11 1:16 PM, Charles Lenchner wrote:
On Sunday evening I spent four hours with many wonderful folks. What I
thought we accomplished was the creation of four taskforces, and the
start of work on each of them. Most of the work of IWG is connected to
the development and management of the new website, but my heart was
invested in finding or creating a forum for ‘digital strategy’ that
addresses non website issues.
On Sunday night, I thought we had succeeded. Today, after talking to
Devon about my interests and attending a meeting of the FLO/Solutions
Working Group, I understand more AND I’m also more confused. I’m
hearing, more or less, that a meeting of a group to come up with
goals/solutions/plans addressing digital strategy are moot because
‘someone just needs to go to the Outreach WG and figure out with them
what they need from FLO/Solutions and then go to lots of other groups
and work it out.’
And indeed, someone is doing that, and it doesn’t include a stop at the
IWG or the Digital Strategy meeting later this evening.
So I’m torn between following this someone around (trying to come up
with solutions for ‘what mass lists should exist for email? What should
they say? Who should decide? How does it get managed and integrated with
social media and the needs of all WGs?’) and returning to the IWG
meeting. I mean… imagine that the Digital Strategy group comes up with
some great ideas in four days, only to discover that two empowered
individuals have it ‘all taken care of’ by making the rounds of ‘the
folks that matter’?
For me, this raises all kinds of questions about transparency,
accountability, democracy and efficiency. But then, I’m a bureaucrat at
heart who likes to know precisely what the right process is for any
activity. #OWS is kind of challenging….
So it’s 4:15 and I don’t know how best to plug in my expertise – after a
few weeks of meetings and personal conversations. Everyone I speak with
affirms that it’s like this ‘for everybody.’ Not sure where I’ll be at
5pm and 7pm.