Subject: Re: [NYCGA Internet] WTF Digital Strategy and IWG tonight....
From: Sam Boyer
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:11:05 -0700
To: internet_working_group@googlegroups.com

yep. i *hate* it as a goal. but in emerging social areas with rapidly
changing information where no one has a complete picture, it's a pretty
natural formation.

i'd go so far as to say that your hate for it makes you an even better
candidate to act as a hub in the network of information, because rather
than acting to make other people dependent on you for info, you'll seek
to even things out. and that's what we need.

On 10/18/11 1:38 PM, Charles Lenchner wrote:
I hate this. I don't want to be one of the right people. My goal in life is
just to be one of the people, while insisting on well lit, large printed
menus, rule books, and street signs in more than one language.

Charles

-----Original Message-----
From: internet_working_group@googlegroups.com
[mailto:internet_working_group@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Boyer
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:34 PM
To: internet_working_group@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [NYCGA Internet] WTF Digital Strategy and IWG tonight....

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 :)

On 10/18/11 1:16 PM, Charles Lenchner wrote:
Hey all,

 

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.

 

Charles




< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >