wrythings

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.

Open source software is a geek’s gift to the world.

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.

We’re still re-learning how to work according to our values. 

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.

(more…)

‘Why the lucky stiff‘ - best known for his poignant guide to ruby has unveiled his secret project:  Hackety Hack: the Coder’s Starter Kit.  I can’t wait to check it out… though we’re limited to a windows environment at present. I’m excited because of the explicit intent to make programming more accessible to youth.

What is Digital Literacy without deep dedication to cultivating Literacy and Judgment? What is Digital Citizenship without ongoing effort to promote a robust Civic Life? What is Digital Inclusion without a true effort and policy of Inclusion? What’s the Expansion in Digital Expansion? Digital Government? Digital Community? Digital Neighborhoods? The Digerati? Don’t get me started on Digital Futures and Opportunities…

Digital isn’t the point, whatever the form: e-this, i-that. We single out recent technologies with magical promise by such signals as they arrive in successive waves. Technology that has permeated society is barely recognized as technology by most of us: television, telephone, tricycles, fire and other dangerous things. We know we need a mechanic when something goes wrong (if we aren’t technically inclined), but with the newer technologies most of society remains mystified (including practitioners).

We can no longer participate in the perpetuation of that mystification through repetition and variation on the incantations. We can’t proclaim the benefits of indiscriminate innovations and extensions in and of the virtual world dreaming that that is enough and will necessarily and sufficiently transform our society.

Digital Inclusion is the term of art that really broke the spell for me. “What art?” you may ask… the selling of networks and network consulting and ancillary services and technologies, whether wireless, WiMAX-WiFi or other broadbands and slices of spectrum. If we’re Keynesians after all, then let’s just say so. If not, or if we’re moderated Keynesians, we had better be more critical of our technology planning and spending. (And by odd coincidence, promoting public discourse on media and technology is just the prescription for an inclusive, civic minded, digital and media literate citizenry ready to take up tools to their own purposes and to make investments toward common purposes.)

We need to become serious about social justice questions, embrace them as the core of our movement. We need to become serious about issues that demand a holistic view, we need to treat our work in the context of the whole of lives of individuals, families and communities.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-digital. To be clear: the digital divide has not gone away but/and deserves our attention in so far as it is a divide, not because it is digital.

I favor a positive view on the way forward as long as it doesn’t deny where we are and what it will take. I see great potential in these technologies and in the expansion of communication capacity. I just want the digital in context and in service to the world we want and the dialogue that gets us headed there, and I want our individual and collective investments to consciously shape the character of our networks and our society. We can’t take these outcomes for granted. The sales pitch is always promising.

So, with each Digitized phrase, we must ask: how does it stand on its own? Can we forget the technical innovation of the moment, live without the distraction and get serious about living together?

In our work promoting Digital Excellence, we’re more than happy to Drop the Digital, we emphasize the Excellence. That’s what we want from students, citizens, families, communities, companies, politics, education and the economy.

If these digital prefix strategies are work-arounds (and no just new and improved sales pitches) for some of us… our attempt at concealing revolutionary socially transforming activity, it’s time for a reality check. We have to become clear about our goals. If it’s a dance of revolutionary work concealed behind revolutionary technologies and obstructed by reactionary policies and practices, make sure it is we who call the tune with the language we choose. Let’s choose what we want and aspire to, not settle upon the limited scraps we may or may not get.

Grassroots, and .org! Two of my favorite things. And GR is led by one of my favorite people… blah, blah, blah - I have lots of favorites. Don’t even ask about colors. I’m all about spectrum!

I’m very happy that the Grassroots.org Toolkit was selected along with 20 other projects in the recent NetSquared community vote. Here’s the Grassroots.org pitch for the Toolkit:

The Grassroots.org Toolbox will empower nonprofit organizations by granting free access to a suite of fully configured & hosted online tools, including content management, online event registration software, and CRM.

The whole GR team is great - I know several of them very well, including my former CTC Vista, Dave Chakrabarti. In fact that seems part of the management secret - hire alumni of the CTC Vista Project!

The Toolkit project is still in beta, and I am following on closely as a “Toolkit Advisor”…

They have some other developments in the works that are really cool (at least to me)… but we’ll have to wait a bit before exploring those.

Tonight (Thursday April 19) they’re hosting Malaria Bites - a fundraiser, in Columbus, Ohio.

Reggae, bednets and all.

The results of the NetSquared vote are due today. Without needing to know the outcome… I want to give a big thank you to CompuMentor, TechSoup and the NetSquared team … they really brought excitement to the field of socially conscious developers! Or at least they opened a space, invited us in, and made that space warm and productive and safe, and we brought the excitement together.

I personally needed that positive networking. I have felt it often in open space, but haven’t felt it to this extent online - not with so many groups and individuals. Thank you, thank you, thank you!