Here’s something fun I invite you all to explore and join in with if you are so moved: http://ow.ly/11y6A

These short URLs tell you next to nothing so I’ll offer a little context.

There’s a group of people I know convened together in open space in the cause of the “metacurrency project (MCP)” … their cause is heavily shaped by the question of play. There are technical dimensions to their work, but their work is aimed at making new things possible for humanity. If I could, I’d be with them now. I’m with them in spirit.

One quick point of entry to their world view (and my own) is in the contrast between Scarcity and Abundance as dominant meme. This is about the attitude in which we engage each other more than about how many resources their are in the world at any given moment. (It’s also a question of not being dominated by this contrast of scarcity and abundance.)

Even accepting some finitude, or relative finitude: as human’s in the application of intelligence we are meant to conduct ourselves in a stewardly manner towards life… that is to say, our behavior should be generative.

So, even though this group is in part engaged in a technical question – building software and protocol under the MCP effort – the larger challenges are social and ideational: how we might live together… opening the space not to offer a final answer, but to situate us in generative spaces of inquiry and infinite play… where the burdensome quality of tasks slip away and joy comes to the fore and where we collectively and selectively form responses and rules with a freedom to mutually adapt ourselves and the rules.

On the voicethreads platform you can add your own voice and your own vision.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

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.

The metaphor of the mash-up is perfect for our vision. We want to bring together the talents and assets and interests and needs of Chicago — Chicago techies and community activists, NPOs and others ready to give back to the community and grow the network. Fundamentally, our perspective is that while NPOs are addressing deep needs in the communities they serve, our city and the neighborhoods and professions and trades are full of resources and talents that we have but to put together in new and exciting ways. This has been my credo for some time … this perspective informed the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance and our campaign for Digital Excellence (in the context of the Citywide Wireless Initiative that wound up stalling out).

We started off the evening with an invitation to everyone to step up and join us as co-convenors for this effort going forward… we all introduced ourselves to the group and then we sunk our teeth into our first big question about what Chicago Non-Profit’s really need.

That is an important question, to be sure, but I’ve reached the point where I want to start from our strengths and assets. We need to figure out how to share our skills and talents. We don’t have to start from a scarcity mindset.

More important than the answers to the question we started with, or any alternative positive framing I might offer, is the question of conversation and story, and widening the circle of participants. What questions do we have to ask? What are the big questions that will open some real conversation for Chicago? Who do we address the big questions to? Can we ask ourselves the really hard questions?

For myself – the issue of new social technologies leaves me rather ambivalent. We have to start from our purposes, and not from the faddish new tools. We have to get clear about what we want for our city. Let our technology choices and investments stem from that vision.

Wendell offered a comment that if working with XSL is hurting, you are probably approaching it in the wrong way. This applies to many other things in life, certainly.

In the Mumonkan – the Gateless Gate – a collection of 48 koans, the second koan is known as wild fox koan. Having recently reflected upon that koan at some length while thinking of the a-temporality of xslt, I’ve been reading some Zen into the programming philosophy behind XSLT. I’ve applied my own transformation to the question posed in the Wild Fox.

Shall the XSLT Master, applying templates with devotion, escape the law of temporal-causality?

It is worthwhile to think more about the FLOSS (free/libre open source software) context in relation to the Gateless Gate.

Join us, so Chicago can grow more technology savvy social change organizations that benefit our local communities.

Staff and volunteers of non-profits, web innovators, and any individuals pushing for change are encouraged to attend. Come tell us about your effort, your concerns, and what you need and want from a collective of like-minded individuals and organizations.

“Net Tuesday” meetings are a program of NetSquared whose mission is to spur responsible adoption of social web tools by social benefit organizations.

NetSquared is a project of TechSoup (http://www.techsoup.org) the technology place for nonprofits.

RSVP to Aaron With at The Point, please, so we can be sure to have adequate refreshments for your enjoyment: aaron@thepoint.com or call 312.676.4535.

Public Transportation: 600 W. Chicago is a 4 block walk west from the Chicago stop on the Brown Line. The Chicago Avenue (#66) bus drops you off directly in front of the building at Larabee.

Parking Information: There is some limited free parking 1-2 blocks North on Larabee. Metered parking on Chicago 1-3 blocks East, though this is often taken. Paid parking across the street from our building costs $6 for under 2 hours and $8 for 2-4 hours..

Call Aaron at 312.676.4535, if you need information about getting to The Point.

Our first meeting will be hosted and sponsored by The Point, a new group action network that helps people congregate around the issues they care about and combine forces to make things happen.

Organizers:

Demetrio Maguigad, New Media Manager with Community Media Workshop at Columbia College, manages online new media projects, and also conducts community-based popular education workshops.

Michael Maranda – promoting digital excellence, media & social justice through purposive community.

David Marques is an IT Coordinator with the Southwest Youth Collaborative, a community-based youth services and activist agency.

Justin Massa is executive director of MoveSmart.org, a startup non-profit organization that promotes racial and economic integration through technology.

Jean Russell nurtures nonprofit leaders and weaves networks for social change (nurture.biz).

Aaron With is a Community Organizer for The Point and has a background working with Chicago non-profits.

Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2008

Time: 6pm-7:30pm

Location: The Point

600 W. Chicago Ave, Suite 830

(entrance is North on Larabee)

Chicago, IL 60610

Co-convene with us.

UPDATE: We have a Meetup group (and a Facebook group)!

Jon citing David on simplifying the Net Neutrality cause under the more general framework of Structural Separation.

And I certainly concur: Structural Separation is the way to go. There’s a lot to be learned from the folks that convene around David Isenberg at Freedom-to-Connect. Don’t think I can make it there this year – but I would if I could! (Or I will if I can? We’ll see.)

Billy & Marnie explain the MashUp Challenge concept. Challenge Deadline: March 14, 5 PM – Pacific.

(Let’s not neglect open-hardware nor open-standards!)

With commodity tech running Free & Open Source Operating Systems and Software, priced at $300 $200, new (do I hear $100 per new system yet?) and with plenty or older hardware available for re-purposing, not to mention a proliferation of new networking and communication devices … we might take a moment to think of the potential ready to be unleashed, and to view how far we have come an achievement worthy of note.

What is next? Take our cheap hardware running software we’re free to modify and improve and interconnect, and let’s start interconnecting on our own terms.

We can and must move civil society communications infrastructure to the next level.

The International Summit for Community Wireless Networks is on the horizon… these are the folks who have been leading the way. We have the power to create the networks we want and need. If you were outraged at efforts to sink Net Neutrality or by the lack of a National Broadband Policy worthy of the name, if you are shocked by aspirations to filter, block and spy on content and services over the ‘Net, now is the time for us to (re)build our own.

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.

As members of Sourcetree Commons, we pledge to:

• Keep this community and its platform open and stable.

• Build and refine tools that enhance collaboration and productivity.

• Recognize the skills and contributions of the open source community.

We stand for generosity, freedom and responsibility. Join with us or judge us by our code.

This is as it should be.

Following is the project description for Sourcetree Commons, as posted at the Net2 challenge 2007.

Sourcetree Commons: Geeking our way to a better world

To develop better social software, we must use these very tools in the communities that are building them. We leverage social software to amplify the creative power of geeks and provide increased resources, efficiency, feedback and support.

Project Vision Statement & Potential Social Impact:

Our goal is to leverage social software to amplify the creative power of geeks.

Geeks are a force to be reckoned with. They are creating the tools to strengthen communities, share ideas and shape information flow in an information age. Yet we still struggle with old ways of competing, collaborating and decision making. If we are to develop better social software, we must incorporate the very principles of collaboration and collective intelligence into the communities that are building them.

We see a place where developers are supported in doing what they do best – an online community with tools to support development, leadership, project management, decision making and conflict resolution. This community fosters in a context of creativity and openness.

Open source software is a geek’s gift to the world and giving is the very heart of community. We are building the tools to let these geeks enjoy the full benefits of a gift economy where full and free participation is acknowledged in your reputation, performance and feedback metrics. Our challenge is to create such a powerful culture of sharing and mutual reward that developers experience abundant connection and support.

Ideas beget ideas. If you watch the creative process, you can trace the evolutionary trees of concepts. Software development follows the same principle.

What if we tracked genealogies of code across projects? Projects could remain part of a family of software even when they fork to meet new needs. Each family could share modules in common which comply with their backbone API. Projects departing from the core standards then start new families with new standards. This approach allows for maximum reuse of code and prevents the duplication of effort.

Expanding our conception of a sourcetree beyond the code for a single project to the whole evolutionary tree of projects which it is related to allows us to see software from a whole new level. Each tree can have shared object repositories, clearer standards and APIs and better interoperability. We can encourage projects to branch into new directions, yet not lose the value of people’s work in another branch.

All of this is built on an open platform, which can be hosted and managed in a distributed manner, yet still provide searchable metadata across all projects. But it is more than a place to share code and manage projects, the social software also transforms it into a community of partnership and support.

Sustainability (financial) model:

• A thriving gift economy: Infrastructure is open source and its ongoing development and maintenance is supported via TreeHouse events (Code-a-thons with free food and lodging)
  Corporate sponsorship for Code-a-thon food & lodging
• Citizenship revenue: Anyone can post projects and download for free, but citizenship (which carries a reputation and allows you to participate in various rewards) requires a one-time validation of your identity through a verfyable financial transaction (membership fee + optionsl donation)
• Alternative currencies for acknowledging impact and rewarding participation
• Corporate sponsorship for hosting branches of the codebase & infrastructure
• Add-on services: project management tools, time-tracking, project currencies, Freelance project connections – charge for posting jobs to the community

Resource Needs:
• Technical Infrastructure – Servers & bandwidth
• Geeks – Development of Sourcetree Commons infrastructure and tools
• Organizational Development – Marketing, Community Development
• Sponsorship of SourceTreeHouse events – Lodging, food, travel

Some Milestones accomplished:

• Strategic planning sessions at Recent Changes Camp 2007
• Design and development of distributed data architecture (Congo-DB)
• Design and development of reputation and feedback currency tools to acknowledge and reward participation
• Created partnership with Open Source Guild
• Strategic planning sessions
• Acquired corporate sponsorship for lodging at first TreeHouse Code-a-thon

Project Summary:

Projects as Living Entities…

What if we recognized that OSS projects exist to fill niches in our technological ecosystem? Sometimes software “mates” with other software to produce offspring which solves different problems than the projects they grew out of. Some species of software can viably mix with others because they share certain core (genetic) patterns such as running on the same operating system, or speaking to the same databases, or complying with certain APIs.

What if we tracked and managed software in service to the niches it fills instead of serving our egos? What if projects could fork to meet new needs, but still remain a part of a family of software with the ability to share modules in common which comply with their backbone API? Projects departing from the core standards start new families with new standards. We track genealogies of code – Sourcetrees which span across projects and contain their evolutionary roots and relationships with other projects.

All of this inside of a community with collaborative decision-making tools, reputation ratings and feedback which build partnership and acknowledge contribution. The social software tools to support self-governing projects in a self-governing community.