I interviewed Angela at the end of 2006 – at the CAIDA Commons workshop…. a little bit of history (unearthed from my backlog), but the issues are still valid. One of the biggest points is that we can’t just throw technology at people or problems. Part of the interview goes into the work she was doing while executive director of Grassroots.org.
Archive for the ‘grassroots’ Category
One Web Day at the Old Town School of Folk Music
Friday, September 19th, 2008One Web Day is almost upon us! (Monday, September 22) What are we doing in Chicago to celebrate? Among other things the Future of Music Coalition has organized a workshop at the Old Town School of Folk Music, and I’ll be speaking on the Policy Overview panel. Come say hello!
Here’s more info:
Today’s music landscape is filled with both excitement and foreboding. With so many new technologies and ways to promote and distribute music, how do performers, composers, songwriters and independent labels know how to participate, who to trust, and what is most effective?
Future of Music Coalition — a national non-profit that seeks a bright future for musicians and fans — is organizing a musician education workshop at the Old Town School of Folk Music on September 22, from noon to 7PM. The “What’s the Future for Musicians?” seminar will provide musicians, songwriters, independent label owners and music fans with practical advice about a range of internet-based promotion and distribution options, how to navigate the health insurance landscape, the importance of open internet structures and how copyright law and business models affect musician compensation. Breakout sessions will give attendees a chance to interact with the experts on the latest developments in music, technology and policy. The forum is a great opportunity to network with other musicians while getting informed on topical issues.
Admission is $25, though a limited number of musician scholarships are also available.
Event page:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/chicago08/index.cfmRegistration:
https://www.futureofmusic.org/events/chicago08/regform.cfmMusician Scholarships:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/chicago08/scholarshipinfo.cfm
What else is happening for One Web Day?
As part of Chicago’s NetTuesdays Meetups we’ve been recording interviews with people from the Chicago NPO & Tech Sector – hope to have some of those up by Monday!
these are not flip flops
Wednesday, June 25th, 2008I’d like to see the media get back to reporting as opposed to pretending to think for us, especially when they get the thinking wrong and ignore the bigger news sitting alongside and staring us in the face.
The story of the weekend was Obama’s supposed flip-flop on public campaign finance. I think we use the phrase too loosely. Changing your mind, or reversing direction/decision isn’t an adequate definition. Necessary, but not sufficient.
Fish flip flop when they are out of their element, politicians when they’re spineless – not when their decision is grounded in a position of strength and consistent with their higher values. So, I’d like to upgrade the definition to a reversal followed by subsequent reversal(s), or a reversal mainly employed by “leaders” to keep supporters or to keep one’s self in place when it was clear one’s position wasn’t grounded to begin with.
A strategic choice can not be a flip flop. It’s a clear decision.
Further: You’re going to have to go a little deeper to decide if something is hypocritical. It’s absurd to label someone hypocritical when their values are consistent. How much more must be said?
Obama has eschewed PAC money and has a tremendously broad base of financial support from none other than the public. This is the campaign that has drawn a bright red line between big money and the public. If Obama’s people change their mind and accept big money contributions or unleash 527s … then I’ll be disappointed, angry and feel betrayed as will millions of others. That would be hypocrisy and would undercut the values this campaign has established. That wouldn’t be a flip flop either, that would be a blunder, plain and stupid. Flip flops are about not knowing which way the wind was blowing ahead of time, not how strong the wind would be.
I’ll say it again, I’m not into hero worship or idolatry, but I also am not going to accept false logic. I’m not an apologist for the campaign but rabid punditry deserves a flogging.
Lastly, this strategic decision is not an attack on public campaign finance. I feel clear that Obama supports the principle of public campaign finance. It doesn’t mean one has to take it. It doesn’t mean he isn’t right to state bluntly that it is broken. It clearly is broken when the other candidate can illegally flip flop – i.e. reverse himself and reverse himself again – and the laws remain unenforced. McCain’s campaign is breaking the law and the law and order types are nowhere to be found, the media is fairly silent and worse offering us some red hering and it appears democrats are not pressing the issue, or meekly at best.
So, yes, it’s broken and it makes sense to opt out if the other candidate won’t be held accountable to the rules and you can effectively run a campaign grounded in your principles . It needs to be fixed, and it needs to be there for future candidates as an option.
Strategy and grounded campaigning are not opportunistic or hypocritical, and it’s not a flip flop.
Apply logic before speaking. Do a double dose before pontificating. Check some facts. Prioritize facts.
The people have to make up their mind whether the character of the campaign matters. I think it does. The character of the campaign reflects the character of the candidate. We’re deciding the character of discourse we’ll settle for, and the character of governance that we want.
Making little of nothing isn’t a sign of character.
disappointed by the debates? be the change
Thursday, April 17th, 2008What’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?