wrythings

What’s the deeper formula to “be the change” when you feel frustrated by mainstream media and their handling of presidential politics - and politics in general? Where can we direct our efforts to promote meaningful civic discourse? We need a space dedicated to that purpose and for which we share responsibility. What will serve as town square in the digital era?

The e-democracy project offers a model for supporting local civic discourse online. We take it as given that online efforts don’t replace other modes of interaction in civil society - they are meant to support and enhance civic life. We also take it as given that the digital divide and disparities in tech literacy and local Internet connectivity/accessibility remain a problem that should get more serious attention.

In Chicago I have been involved in numerous discussions around using technology to improve our quality of life, our capacity to work together for a better city, and to deal with the pressing issues of our day. I’ve come to learn that many efforts fall short when groups involved fail to remain open and inviting to others and when the impetus to control an initiative or block it if you can’t control it holds sway.

No one person or group can own a movement, nor can they assert themselves as the legitimate venue for public discourse. Others will feel excluded or will sense that if they support the effort they are bolstering someone else’s constituency.

What is needed? Venues and Resources that are truly held in common and over which we feel stewardship and responsibility, not ownership or control. With that in mind, I am working with others towards advancing the e-Democracy model within Chicago area. I invite you to join me in this effort.

This model is the embodiment of a fair amount of wisdom. In the local issues forums certain guidelines and constraints are necessary to safeguard the spirit and intention of civic space. Participants are expected to identify with a real name; everyone is limited to two posts a day; and topics are focused on our lives within the polity, from a local frame. In terms of technology - there is a sensible bridging of modes of online interaction. members can participate through email, through the web forum or they can keep up with the discussion via RSS feeds. None of these technologies are new, but they aren’t exactly going away either. They are widespread in use, and they represent a framework that can be built upon.

I know there is probably temptation for the civic minded tech group to roll your own, or perhaps make use of “groups” tools on well-known sites. I thought a lot about those options myself. It was easier for me to dismiss the latter as not being the best strategy for an effort intending to foster civic discourse. First, there is the issue of whether the public/commercial site will persist over the long haul or whether it’s policies might fundamentally change. Second there is the general issue of “joining” a site and submitting oneself to the terms of use under which your personal data is regarded as an asset they might trade upon, and where you are the object of marketing which relates directly to the third issue I’ll address in relation to this … maintaining the civic discourse in a space free from commercial speech (i.e. advertising).

I haven’t addressed the issues around “rolling your own” civic forum … certainly with the diffusion of open source content management systems such as Drupal, setting up a forum is relatively easy.

Establishing a successful online community isn’t as easy. Earlier I brought up the notion of “ownership” and perceptions of constituency building and branding opportunities that come up when a group launches efforts like this. We bypass those pitfalls in promoting the e-Democracy model. We’re not making a claim of ownership over the initiative - except in broadest sense of collective ownership. The other issue is that you are going to have to make a lot of design choices, and while exploring the technical issues is a topic of interest to me and many in the circles I frequent, it’s going to delay the effort, and the group may drop the project or worse the effort may fork based on ego or conflicting tech-philosophy.

Who’s with me?

Today I had the fortune of joining a group of civic entrepreneurs advancing data collaboration in Illinois. They introduced me to the 8 Principles of Open Government Data drafted in December 2007 at a California Summit. The Illinois effort - IDEA - Illinois Data Exchange Affiliates is concerned to promote civic engagement and better governance through collaborative data practices among non-profits/civic sector, research & planning efforts and all layers of government. This is where Digital Excellence meets eGovernment.

If Chicago is a world-class city in a leading region of the nation, what are we waiting for? If we are ready to embrace the information age I don’t know what could make us more globally competitive than to remove the artificial barriers to information exchange in city and county. I hear tell there is a committee on data sharing among departments of Chicago city government. I look forward to hearing what progress they have made thus far and how aggressive they intend to be with regard to unfolding a new era in accountability and transparency. Someone, ping Hardik.

Good data is about feedback. Feedback regulates an organism or process. Here it would inform individual choice and guide regional planning. We all know the Mayor loves to have city services on the ball when it comes to potholes and attention to the visible amenities. These eight principles would allow Chicago to set new benchmarks for service delivery and quality of life. You don’t have to be an XML geek to grok this.

Open Government Data Principles

Government data shall be considered open if it is made public in a way that complies with the principles below:

1. Complete
All public data is made available. Public data is data that is not subject to valid privacy, security or privilege limitations.

2. Primary
Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms.

3. Timely
Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the value of the data.

4. Accessible
Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest range of purposes.

5. Machine processable
Data is reasonably structured to allow automated processing.

6. Non-discriminatory
Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of registration.

7. Non-proprietary
Data is available in a format over which no entity has exclusive control.

8. License-free
Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may be allowed.

Compliance must be reviewable.

G I O - Get Illinois Online. We’ve been hosting an email conversation for several years. Join the conversation.

Subscribe to GIO-Talk

Email:

Visit this group

There is also a more Chicago-centric mailing list, here:

Subscribe to GIO-Chicago

Email:

Visit this group

I’m taking a course on storytelling. Although I have been involved in community informatics for several years as an activist and organizer on digital divide/digital excellence and community networking, I found this work to involve the telling of stories and general reframing community and what we are about, or what is possible for us.

I was watching a video from the TED conference where Isabel Allende offered the old adage: What is truer than truth? The story. (Variants on this answer may be a matter of translation: Legend, Myth, Story, Narrative.)

I grew up on Grimm, and many mythologies… great preparation for an early encounter with Joseph Campbell via the Power of Myth (where Bill Moyers, another hero, interviewed him). I later made extensive study of semiotics and have an enduring interest in narrative, and the importance of story and discourse.

In recent years Italo Calvino brought me back to the play of stories/storytelling in the work of the OuLiPo — where art is craft that you work at each day, and good art or literature arises from finding the right combination of signs through experiment and experienced judgment.

Campbell’s work on myth and ritual, the idea of the story opening a path to greater truth than mere facts, or perhaps a greater truth in discourse around a story than in any particular telling or offering of an account, and the idea in Calvino that folktale is not myth degenerated but that myth arises out of folktale when the right combination his hit upon, these are all connected.

Storytelling is part of the natural and necessary repertoire of human behavior… it helps us cope and adapt as well as honor and remember. Though stories can be used to divide, their healing potential is critical in this moment. Our creative play can reconfigure our individuality and our collective life.

Josh Breitbart blogs a warning to all who seek digital inclusion or more (perhaps excellence) for their community, here: Horizontal vs. Hub-and-Spoke Relations, or The Emperor has no Invisible Thread. The bottom line: unless your city has character and backbone, and cares for the people, the people will be ill-served by the network they get.

There are no tangents in holistic approaches to technology and community, so please bear with me as I tug that thread metaphor in another important direction.

Robust networks/redundancy; generosity/capacity.

Consider this image (evoked by Breitbart’s commentary on the as-yet missing (but promised) invisible thread): Sidney J. Mussberger (the character in the Hudsucker Proxy played by Paul Newman) dangling upside down at the ledge of a skyscraper reflecting on the need for the robust redundancy of a double stitch as the seam at his waist begins to give.

Mussberger (Newman) reflects on his (stingy/cynical) scoffing at his tailor’s suggestion of the double-stitch for his hand-tailored trousers. When a single-stitch will do, why spend more? He regards the tailor’s suggestion as an unnecessary expense and worse, an attempt to rip him off.

(Warning: Minor spoiler!) Mussberger’s pants don’t give way at the moment he needs them to hold together most. The Tailor generously gave him the double-stitch anyway.

What lessons to draw?

Along with tying our communities together in many horizontal relations (Neff and Philadephia’s “invisible thread”), and assurances of digital inclusion and economic development benefits there are public safety needs related to these networks. (We should explore how horizontality in planning and design would strengthen those purposes.) Robust, redundant networks are critical to public safety. Or, consider the demonstrated value of a small cadre of community wireless networkers post Katrina. (The lesson there being, volunteer knowledge and technical capacity, and the freedom to act in the deployment of networks is just as critical.)

We are being promised a lot of things in the selling of broadband and wireless networks. We had best make sure we are getting what we pay for and that we are prepared to pay enough. I wouldn’t bank my hopes on the generosity of the network vendors. Get what you need and get it in writing, then get it verified. You don’t want to be left in regret or wonder when hanging by a thread.

Peter gave us the heads up on the first fruits from the Minneapolis Wireless Community Benefits Agreement. The Minneapolis Digital Inclusion Fund, supported by wireless network revenues and vendor contributions has put out a first request for proposals for innovative digital inclusion and access activities. Meanwhile Chicagoans await word on a city-driven grant process initiated early this year (and indefinitely stalled).

(Minneapolis) Digital Inclusion Fund RFP

Whether public or private and whatever the scope, there are three critical aspects to any communications or technology project:

1. the ownership and business model,
2. the state of the technology (physics/network/system considerations), and
3. the purpose (or purposes).

Of course these aspects are interwoven, but each heading stands on its own, and we can determine a logical flow for project planning. We’ll need clarity on each, and anything less would be irresponsible.

Consider public communications initiatives such as municipal (or more accurately, city-wide) wireless and broadband networks as have been the focus of many cities and towns across the country, including Chicago.

The inconvenient truth about communications infrastructure (and other public technology) projects is that we’re horribly irresponsible about achieving the clarity needed in these three areas for a good outcome.

Our tendency has been to take the ownership and business model for granted (let industry do it!), to accept the technology on offer by the vendors, and to build a constituency for the network among different interest groups with claims that the network will meet their needs and desires.

We’re doing this bass-ackwards, we’re costing the people, the public, a lot of money (in aggregate, and individually), and we aren’t getting the reliability and functionality we should be getting from these networks.

Network purpose (or purposes) and character should be the logical driver of the process. Purpose should drive technology choice and together these should map out the options for ownership and business model.

We shouldn’t accept any limitation on the ownership/business model options without a deep and clear understanding of the network purpose and the sort of reliability, functionality and accountability that purpose demands. Too much effort is spent in debates and lobbying promulgated by the usual suspects, the purveyors of networks. Unchecked, each vendor’s biased agenda with respect to business model and ready-technology warps public deliberation.

All too often, American cities have closed the doors to viable ownership models as a result of lobbying and tactical rhetoric. To state the case more strongly: they do so at great cost to the public and to the commonweal; they do not serve our interests well, they do not proceed with clarity of public purpose.

What are the ownership models? We can build, buy, or rent. If we take business as our paradigmatic example, big businesses tend to build and buy their own networks whenever they can. Doesn’t it make as much sense for communities and for local governments to do likewise?

I’ve spent a lot of time arguing which of the three aspects should drive the other, and why the business-ownership model should not drive the process. Exploring the technology and the purposes of the network are a lot more work, but that is where we should be directing our attention.

I’ll only briefly mention that the range of technology options is more constrained by a policy regime then it is by the physics and network design.

The definition of network purposes is left as an exercise for your community.