1. Explain in clear language what the problem is you are trying to solve. Consider sentences like 'if you are a supporter wanting to accomplish X, this service/website/app offers the following process for meeting that demand: a, then b, then c. In other words, explain the behavior of your idea, not only ultimate goals like 'more coordination' or 'outreach' or event 'communication between people'.
2. Define the target audience in behavioral ways. Like: tech savvy activists who have time to give but aren't physically present at an occupation. Or: 2nd and 3rd tier supporters unlikely to become active but who seek accurate information to share on their own networks.'
3. Define the outcome as something that can be measured for success. 'We think it will help 100 people a day locate volunteer opportunities, provided we reach traffic of 1000 people a day.' Or 'This idea will increase the Google ranking of movement friendly sites, to help drown out opposing or MSM sites, so that 'friendly' sites comprise 50% or more of the first 20 links.'
4. Say something about whether this is an essential, urgent priority or a nice thing to have once we're done with what IS urgent. 'Video aggregation portals that facilitate conversation won't impact operations on the ground. But It's a great add on service to a site that is already up and running.' Don't make us decide on our own how important this is relative to other things. If you don't know - then first learn what we're doing. And don't bullshit us with crap like 'there is an urgent need to change Twitter hashtags!'
5. If your service/website/app is not constructed using open source technology that can be replicated by others, then say so up front, and make the case that the value it provides justifies the efforts of a community that prioritizes open source technology. If you intend to keep your branding on something, explain precisely what that looks like, how it compares to similar branded services. Branding is not evil, we just need to understand.
6. If you are asking others to review something new, make the case for why we should give it any attention; this requires that you NOT assume anyone shares your excitement that a great new X does Y. Put the perceived needs of actual working groups at the fore, instead of your own desires for rapid adoption.
7. Ask yourself: do you need working group of OWS approval for this? OccupyTogether.org, occupywallst.org never asked for permission, they just did it. Maybe that's better? If our attention/adoption is essential, say so; if you are engaging in marketing and outreach so that more folks will hear about and use your new thingy, say so upfront. It's fine! We are techies who get excited about our own shit as well. Just be clear about it.
8. If some kind of decision or assistance is necessary, please phrase it as an explicit request. "To make this work, IWG developers must come to a decision to use my idea, and work with me on implementation. Please let me know your plan for getting this on the agenda, and the name of an individual who will be my connection to your work."
9. Members of the FLO/Solutions WG, or the Internet Working Group: let's figure out how to name individuals as 'the' connection to new people and new ideas. If there was a list of active members, and a few coordinators, it would be possible to assign things sensibly. It might work, as a start, to assign every new person or idea to one of the four teams: backbone, web development, digital strategy, and that other one.. ;P
> 1. Explain in clear language what the problem is you are trying to
> solve. Consider sentences like 'if you are a supporter wanting to accomplish
> X, this service/website/app offers the following process for meeting that
> demand: a, then b, then c. In other words, explain the behavior of your
> idea, not only ultimate goals like 'more coordination' or 'outreach' or
> event 'communication between people'.
> 2. Define the target audience in behavioral ways. Like: tech savvy
> activists who have time to give but aren't physically present at an
> occupation. Or: 2nd and 3rd tier supporters unlikely to become active but
> who seek accurate information to share on their own networks.'
> 3. Define the outcome as something that can be measured for success.
> 'We think it will help 100 people a day locate volunteer opportunities,
> provided we reach traffic of 1000 people a day.' Or 'This idea will increase
> the Google ranking of movement friendly sites, to help drown out opposing or
> MSM sites, so that 'friendly' sites comprise 50% or more of the first 20
> links.'
> 4. Say something about whether this is an essential, urgent priority
> or a nice thing to have once we're done with what IS urgent. 'Video
> aggregation portals that facilitate conversation won't impact operations on
> the ground. But It's a great add on service to a site that is already up and
> running.' Don't make us decide on our own how important this is relative to
> other things. If you don't know - then first learn what we're doing. And
> don't bullshit us with crap like 'there is an urgent need to change Twitter
> hashtags!'
> 5. If your service/website/app is not constructed using open source
> technology that can be replicated by others, then say so up front, and make
> the case that the value it provides justifies the efforts of a community
> that prioritizes open source technology. If you intend to keep your branding
> on something, explain precisely what that looks like, how it compares to
> similar branded services. Branding is not evil, we just need to understand.
> 6. If you are asking others to review something new, make the case for
> why we should give it any attention; this requires that you NOT assume
> anyone shares your excitement that a great new X does Y. Put the perceived
> needs of actual working groups at the fore, instead of your own desires for
> rapid adoption.
> 7. Ask yourself: do you need working group of OWS approval for this?
> OccupyTogether.org, occupywallst.org never asked for permission, they just
> did it. Maybe that's better? If our attention/adoption is essential, say so;
> if you are engaging in marketing and outreach so that more folks will hear
> about and use your new thingy, say so upfront. It's fine! We are techies who
> get excited about our own shit as well. Just be clear about it.
> 8. If some kind of decision or assistance is necessary, please phrase
> it as an explicit request. "To make this work, IWG developers must come to a
> decision to use my idea, and work with me on implementation. Please let me
> know your plan for getting this on the agenda, and the name of an individual
> who will be my connection to your work."
> 9. Members of the FLO/Solutions WG, or the Internet Working Group:
> let's figure out how to name individuals as 'the' connection to new people
> and new ideas. If there was a list of active members, and a few
> coordinators, it would be possible to assign things sensibly. It might work,
> as a start, to assign every new person or idea to one of the four teams:
> backbone, web development, digital strategy, and that other one.. ;P
this is great, I was in the middle of an email to a FB plugin developer about this, I'll send it to him. I was going to say something like:
Trust, along with the utility of your solution, is a big part of whether something will get the thumbs up or down. Being perceived as someone who is using OWS, while trying to mask it as a gift, will get the thumbs down. So openly address exactly what is in it for you, and a bit about who you are - a 2 year old startup? Do you have relationships with venture capitalists? The ethic of keeping collaboration with small, indy producers is pretty much explicit. Lastly, if your technology uses user data, explicitly address what you do with that user data, whether you store permanent copies, and what standards you've adopted re: data security.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Charles Lenchner <
clench...@organizing20.org> wrote: > **1. **Explain in clear language what the problem is you are trying > to solve. Consider sentences like ‘if you are a supporter wanting to > accomplish X, this service/website/app offers the following process for > meeting that demand: a, then b, then c. In other words, explain the behavior > of your idea, not only ultimate goals like ‘more coordination’ or ‘outreach’ > or event ‘communication between people’.****
> **2. **Define the target audience in behavioral ways. Like: tech > savvy activists who have time to give but aren’t physically present at an > occupation. Or: 2nd and 3rd tier supporters unlikely to become active but > who seek accurate information to share on their own networks.’****
> **3. **Define the outcome as something that can be measured for > success. ‘We think it will help 100 people a day locate volunteer > opportunities, provided we reach traffic of 1000 people a day.’ Or ‘This > idea will increase the Google ranking of movement friendly sites, to help > drown out opposing or MSM sites, so that ‘friendly’ sites comprise 50% or > more of the first 20 links.’****
> **4. **Say something about whether this is an essential, urgent > priority or a nice thing to have once we’re done with what IS urgent. ‘Video > aggregation portals that facilitate conversation won’t impact operations on > the ground. But It’s a great add on service to a site that is already up and > running.’ Don’t make us decide on our own how important this is relative to > other things. If you don’t know – then first learn what we’re doing. And > don’t bullshit us with crap like ‘there is an urgent need to change Twitter > hashtags!’****
> **5. **If your service/website/app is not constructed using open > source technology that can be replicated by others, then say so up front, > and make the case that the value it provides justifies the efforts of a > community that prioritizes open source technology. If you intend to keep > your branding on something, explain precisely what that looks like, how it > compares to similar branded services. Branding is not evil, we just need to > understand.****
> **6. **If you are asking others to review something new, make the > case for why we should give it any attention; this requires that you NOT > assume anyone shares your excitement that a great new X does Y. Put the > perceived needs of actual working groups at the fore, instead of your own > desires for rapid adoption.****
> **7. **Ask yourself: do you need working group of OWS approval for > this? OccupyTogether.org, occupywallst.org never asked for permission, > they just did it. Maybe that’s better? If our attention/adoption is > essential, say so; if you are engaging in marketing and outreach so that > more folks will hear about and use your new thingy, say so upfront. It’s > fine! We are techies who get excited about our own shit as well. Just be > clear about it.****
> **8. **If some kind of decision or assistance is necessary, please > phrase it as an explicit request. “To make this work, IWG developers must > come to a decision to use my idea, and work with me on implementation. > Please let me know your plan for getting this on the agenda, and the name of > an individual who will be my connection to your work.”****
> **9. **Members of the FLO/Solutions WG, or the Internet Working > Group: let’s figure out how to name individuals as ‘the’ connection to new > people and new ideas. If there was a list of active members, and a few > coordinators, it would be possible to assign things sensibly. It might work, > as a start, to assign every new person or idea to one of the four teams: > backbone, web development, digital strategy, and that other one…. ;P****
> this is great, I was in the middle of an email to a FB plugin developer
> about this, I'll send it to him. I was going to say something like:
> Trust, along with the utility of your solution, is a big part of whether
> something will get the thumbs up or down. Being perceived as someone who is
> using OWS, while trying to mask it as a gift, will get the thumbs down. So
> openly address exactly what is in it for you, and a bit about who you are -
> a 2 year old startup? Do you have relationships with venture capitalists?
> The ethic of keeping collaboration with small, indy producers is pretty much
> explicit. Lastly, if your technology uses user data, explicitly address what
> you do with that user data, whether you store permanent copies, and what
> standards you've adopted re: data security.
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Charles Lenchner <
> clench...@organizing20.org> wrote:
> > **1. **Explain in clear language what the problem is you are trying
> > to solve. Consider sentences like ‘if you are a supporter wanting to
> > accomplish X, this service/website/app offers the following process for
> > meeting that demand: a, then b, then c. In other words, explain the behavior
> > of your idea, not only ultimate goals like ‘more coordination’ or ‘outreach’
> > or event ‘communication between people’.****
> > **2. **Define the target audience in behavioral ways. Like: tech
> > savvy activists who have time to give but aren’t physically present at an
> > occupation. Or: 2nd and 3rd tier supporters unlikely to become active but
> > who seek accurate information to share on their own networks.’****
> > **3. **Define the outcome as something that can be measured for
> > success. ‘We think it will help 100 people a day locate volunteer
> > opportunities, provided we reach traffic of 1000 people a day.’ Or ‘This
> > idea will increase the Google ranking of movement friendly sites, to help
> > drown out opposing or MSM sites, so that ‘friendly’ sites comprise 50% or
> > more of the first 20 links.’****
> > **4. **Say something about whether this is an essential, urgent
> > priority or a nice thing to have once we’re done with what IS urgent. ‘Video
> > aggregation portals that facilitate conversation won’t impact operations on
> > the ground. But It’s a great add on service to a site that is already up and
> > running.’ Don’t make us decide on our own how important this is relative to
> > other things. If you don’t know – then first learn what we’re doing. And
> > don’t bullshit us with crap like ‘there is an urgent need to change Twitter
> > hashtags!’****
> > **5. **If your service/website/app is not constructed using open
> > source technology that can be replicated by others, then say so up front,
> > and make the case that the value it provides justifies the efforts of a
> > community that prioritizes open source technology. If you intend to keep
> > your branding on something, explain precisely what that looks like, how it
> > compares to similar branded services. Branding is not evil, we just need to
> > understand.****
> > **6. **If you are asking others to review something new, make the
> > case for why we should give it any attention; this requires that you NOT
> > assume anyone shares your excitement that a great new X does Y. Put the
> > perceived needs of actual working groups at the fore, instead of your own
> > desires for rapid adoption.****
> > **7. **Ask yourself: do you need working group of OWS approval for
> > this? OccupyTogether.org, occupywallst.org never asked for permission,
> > they just did it. Maybe that’s better? If our attention/adoption is
> > essential, say so; if you are engaging in marketing and outreach so that
> > more folks will hear about and use your new thingy, say so upfront. It’s
> > fine! We are techies who get excited about our own shit as well. Just be
> > clear about it.****
> > **8. **If some kind of decision or assistance is necessary, please
> > phrase it as an explicit request. “To make this work, IWG developers must
> > come to a decision to use my idea, and work with me on implementation.
> > Please let me know your plan for getting this on the agenda, and the name of
> > an individual who will be my connection to your work.”****
> > **9. **Members of the FLO/Solutions WG, or the Internet Working
> > Group: let’s figure out how to name individuals as ‘the’ connection to new
> > people and new ideas. If there was a list of active members, and a few
> > coordinators, it would be possible to assign things sensibly. It might work,
> > as a start, to assign every new person or idea to one of the four teams:
> > backbone, web development, digital strategy, and that other one…. ;P****
[mailto:internet_working_group@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jake Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:49 PM To: internet working group Subject: [NYCGA Internet] Re: I think #OWS should use my service/website/app - what should I do about it?
Charles, please also post this as a doc on nycga.net
Thanks, Jake
On Oct 20, 1:15 pm, felipe ribeiro <felip...@gmail.com> wrote: > this is great, I was in the middle of an email to a FB plugin > developer about this, I'll send it to him. I was going to say something like:
> Trust, along with the utility of your solution, is a big part of > whether something will get the thumbs up or down. Being perceived as > someone who is using OWS, while trying to mask it as a gift, will get > the thumbs down. So openly address exactly what is in it for you, and > a bit about who you are - a 2 year old startup? Do you have relationships with venture capitalists? > The ethic of keeping collaboration with small, indy producers is > pretty much explicit. Lastly, if your technology uses user data, > explicitly address what you do with that user data, whether you store > permanent copies, and what standards you've adopted re: data security.
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Charles Lenchner <
> clench...@organizing20.org> wrote: > > **1. **Explain in clear language what the problem is you are > > trying to solve. Consider sentences like ‘if you are a supporter > > wanting to accomplish X, this service/website/app offers the > > following process for meeting that demand: a, then b, then c. In > > other words, explain the behavior of your idea, not only ultimate goals like ‘more coordination’ or ‘outreach’ > > or event ‘communication between people’.****
> > **2. **Define the target audience in behavioral ways. Like: > > tech savvy activists who have time to give but aren’t physically > > present at an occupation. Or: 2nd and 3rd tier supporters unlikely > > to become active but who seek accurate information to share on their > > own networks.’****
> > **3. **Define the outcome as something that can be measured > > for success. ‘We think it will help 100 people a day locate > > volunteer opportunities, provided we reach traffic of 1000 people a > > day.’ Or ‘This idea will increase the Google ranking of movement > > friendly sites, to help drown out opposing or MSM sites, so that > > ‘friendly’ sites comprise 50% or more of the first 20 links.’****
> > **4. **Say something about whether this is an essential, > > urgent priority or a nice thing to have once we’re done with what IS > > urgent. ‘Video aggregation portals that facilitate conversation > > won’t impact operations on the ground. But It’s a great add on > > service to a site that is already up and running.’ Don’t make us > > decide on our own how important this is relative to other things. If > > you don’t know – then first learn what we’re doing. And don’t > > bullshit us with crap like ‘there is an urgent need to change > > Twitter > > hashtags!’****
> > **5. **If your service/website/app is not constructed using > > open source technology that can be replicated by others, then say so > > up front, and make the case that the value it provides justifies the > > efforts of a community that prioritizes open source technology. If > > you intend to keep your branding on something, explain precisely > > what that looks like, how it compares to similar branded services. > > Branding is not evil, we just need to > > understand.****
> > **6. **If you are asking others to review something new, make > > the case for why we should give it any attention; this requires that > > you NOT assume anyone shares your excitement that a great new X does > > Y. Put the perceived needs of actual working groups at the fore, > > instead of your own desires for rapid adoption.****
> > **7. **Ask yourself: do you need working group of OWS approval > > for this? OccupyTogether.org, occupywallst.org never asked for > > permission, they just did it. Maybe that’s better? If our > > attention/adoption is essential, say so; if you are engaging in > > marketing and outreach so that more folks will hear about and use > > your new thingy, say so upfront. It’s fine! We are techies who get > > excited about our own shit as well. Just be clear about it.****
> > **8. **If some kind of decision or assistance is necessary, > > please phrase it as an explicit request. “To make this work, IWG > > developers must come to a decision to use my idea, and work with me on implementation. > > Please let me know your plan for getting this on the agenda, and the > > name of an individual who will be my connection to your work.”****
> > **9. **Members of the FLO/Solutions WG, or the Internet > > Working > > Group: let’s figure out how to name individuals as ‘the’ connection > > to new people and new ideas. If there was a list of active members, > > and a few coordinators, it would be possible to assign things > > sensibly. It might work, as a start, to assign every new person or idea to one of the four teams: > > backbone, web development, digital strategy, and that other one…. > > ;P****
I am going to follow Charles's advice and introduce my project in a way that isn't so technology-oriented (see my earlier "ows.offline" thread on the IWG list). I'll also be coming to the Internet Working Group meeting tonight and I'd be glad to talk more in person. (Also, I'm renaming the project from ows.offline to occupy.wifi)
1. Here is the problem I'm trying to solve: our current venues of conversation at OWS are often noisy and don't facilitate constructive debate as well as they could. While I continue to be impressed by the innovations of the Human Microphone and the refinement of the General Assembly model, these forms have their drawbacks. They are slow, they require all individuals to be present to participate, they don't scale up very well.
An internet-based alternative seems like an obvious choice. While I applaud what IWG has done with nycga.net and what other groups have done to facilitate online discussions, these are vulnerable to their own set of problems including outside disruption, not being easy enough to find, not having a single source that can reach critical mass, or having so much discussion as to become overwhelming. To me physical proximity seems like the best filter.
2. My primary audience are the occupiers at Zuccotti park who may wish to socialize, share their views, debate, coordinate working groups, etc. I'm also interested in helping occupiers in other cities (the software includes a method for syncing data between its various installations). I would like to emphasize that this includes all occupiers, not just those fortunate enough to have smart phones or laptops. So I'm hoping to simultaneously explore how I can promote access to the forum in general. I'm happy to donate my own 1st gen iPhone if there is a mechanism for lending it out.
3. The measurable outcome is participation on the forum. I would consider a dozen or so message threads per day, with meaningful replies, to be a success.
4. I think the urgency depends on the extent that you see our current OWS communication methods to be sufficient. As somebody who doesn't sleep over at the park, I feel it's hard for me to participate beyond the people I've managed to speak to in person -- meetings which have been super valuable and cannot be replaced! One specific source of urgency is effectively debating the spokes group proposal (see: http://www.nycga.net/spokes-council/), which has had ongoing difficulties reaching a consensus in GA.
5. My code is open source (see GitHub link above), but I haven't put a license on it yet. I don't have strong feelings about licenses, GPL or MIT seem like good choices if they're compatible with my dependencies. The Linksys WRT54GL is open-source friendly, but I'm looking into alternatives to Cisco hardware. Cisco is kind of like the Citibank of the tech industry. That said, the WRT54GL is the one I have and I'm willing to donate it.
6. Ultimately my project is about communication and effective coordination, not technology. The current form of things at the occupation feels very inefficient to me: too many meetings I can't possibly make, too much duplicated effort, too many missed communications. I would love to talk to other working groups to support their specific needs more directly. Since I wrote the forum code, I can make fundamental changes to it rather quickly.
7. I don't need approval from the working group, but I do need help establishing a process for maintaining electricity and keeping the hardware safe from the elements. (It would be nice if I could work with the Free Network Foundation, but I've been having difficulties reaching Isaac.) Once the router is reliably online, I'll probably want to announce it at GA. It needs an initial influx of users to make it valuable. I do have some paper pamphlets I can leave at the park to promote the forum.
8. The assistance I need from the group is to establish a process for maintaining the router. My version 1.0 attempt was to just leave the router plugged in behind the info desk and see what would happen. Lacking an agreed upon process it was unplugged, and then went missing after a few days.
Thanks! -Dan
On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Charles Lenchner wrote:
> 1. Explain in clear language what the problem is you are trying to solve. Consider sentences like ‘if you are a supporter wanting to accomplish X, this service/website/app offers the following process for meeting that demand: a, then b, then c. In other words, explain the behavior of your idea, not only ultimate goals like ‘more coordination’ or ‘outreach’ or event ‘communication between people’. > 2. Define the target audience in behavioral ways. Like: tech savvy activists who have time to give but aren’t physically present at an occupation. Or: 2nd and 3rd tier supporters unlikely to become active but who seek accurate information to share on their own networks.’ > 3. Define the outcome as something that can be measured for success. ‘We think it will help 100 people a day locate volunteer opportunities, provided we reach traffic of 1000 people a day.’ Or ‘This idea will increase the Google ranking of movement friendly sites, to help drown out opposing or MSM sites, so that ‘friendly’ sites comprise 50% or more of the first 20 links.’ > 4. Say something about whether this is an essential, urgent priority or a nice thing to have once we’re done with what IS urgent. ‘Video aggregation portals that facilitate conversation won’t impact operations on the ground. But It’s a great add on service to a site that is already up and running.’ Don’t make us decide on our own how important this is relative to other things. If you don’t know – then first learn what we’re doing. And don’t bullshit us with crap like ‘there is an urgent need to change Twitter hashtags!’ > 5. If your service/website/app is not constructed using open source technology that can be replicated by others, then say so up front, and make the case that the value it provides justifies the efforts of a community that prioritizes open source technology. If you intend to keep your branding on something, explain precisely what that looks like, how it compares to similar branded services. Branding is not evil, we just need to understand. > 6. If you are asking others to review something new, make the case for why we should give it any attention; this requires that you NOT assume anyone shares your excitement that a great new X does Y. Put the perceived needs of actual working groups at the fore, instead of your own desires for rapid adoption. > 7. Ask yourself: do you need working group of OWS approval for this? OccupyTogether.org, occupywallst.org never asked for permission, they just did it. Maybe that’s better? If our attention/adoption is essential, say so; if you are engaging in marketing and outreach so that more folks will hear about and use your new thingy, say so upfront. It’s fine! We are techies who get excited about our own shit as well. Just be clear about it. > 8. If some kind of decision or assistance is necessary, please phrase it as an explicit request. “To make this work, IWG developers must come to a decision to use my idea, and work with me on implementation. Please let me know your plan for getting this on the agenda, and the name of an individual who will be my connection to your work.” > 9. Members of the FLO/Solutions WG, or the Internet Working Group: let’s figure out how to name individuals as ‘the’ connection to new people and new ideas. If there was a list of active members, and a few coordinators, it would be possible to assign things sensibly. It might work, as a start, to assign every new person or idea to one of the four teams: backbone, web development, digital strategy, and that other one…. ;P
> 1. Here is the problem I'm trying to solve: our current venues of conversation at OWS are often noisy and don't facilitate constructive debate as well as they could. While I continue to be impressed by the innovations of the Human Microphone and the refinement of the General Assembly model, these forms have their drawbacks. They are slow, they require all individuals to be present to participate, they don't scale up very well.
> An internet-based alternative seems like an obvious choice. While I applaud what IWG has done with nycga.net and what other groups have done to facilitate online discussions, these are vulnerable to their own set of problems including outside disruption, not being easy enough to find, not having a single source that can reach critical mass, or having so much discussion as to become overwhelming. To me physical proximity seems like the best filter.
Just to be clear, I don't think "alternative" is the best choice of word here. What I'm thinking of is more like a backchannel that can make in-person communication at OWS more effective.
> Let's stand this service up on the tower. > We can then federate the service over the VPN that we're building. > This seems like a nice integration.
> Have been meaning to get back to you for some time, and I'm very sorry > that I haven't. I'm headed to liberty in a few minutes. Will you be > around? > My # is 8163778433. Call or text so that we can figure out when to > meet up and discuss details.
> carefully, > imw
> On 10/25/2011 01:25 PM, Dan Phiffer wrote: >> I am going to follow Charles's advice and introduce my project in a >> way that isn't so technology-oriented (see my earlier "ows.offline" >> thread on the IWG list). I'll also be coming to the Internet >> Working Group meeting tonight and I'd be glad to talk more in >> person. (Also, I'm renaming the project from ows.offline to >> occupy.wifi)
>> 1. Here is the problem I'm trying to solve: our current venues of >> conversation at OWS are often noisy and don't facilitate >> constructive debate as well as they could. While I continue to be >> impressed by the innovations of the Human Microphone and the >> refinement of the General Assembly model, these forms have their >> drawbacks. They are slow, they require all individuals to be >> present to participate, they don't scale up very well.
>> An internet-based alternative seems like an obvious choice. While I >> applaud what IWG has done with nycga.net and what other groups have >> done to facilitate online discussions, these are vulnerable to >> their own set of problems including outside disruption, not being >> easy enough to find, not having a single source that can reach >> critical mass, or having so much discussion as to become >> overwhelming. To me physical proximity seems like the best filter.
>> 2. My primary audience are the occupiers at Zuccotti park who may >> wish to socialize, share their views, debate, coordinate working >> groups, etc. I'm also interested in helping occupiers in other >> cities (the software includes a method for syncing data between its >> various installations). I would like to emphasize that this >> includes all occupiers, not just those fortunate enough to have >> smart phones or laptops. So I'm hoping to simultaneously explore >> how I can promote access to the forum in general. I'm happy to >> donate my own 1st gen iPhone if there is a mechanism for lending it >> out.
>> 3. The measurable outcome is participation on the forum. I would >> consider a dozen or so message threads per day, with meaningful >> replies, to be a success.
>> 4. I think the urgency depends on the extent that you see our >> current OWS communication methods to be sufficient. As somebody who >> doesn't sleep over at the park, I feel it's hard for me to >> participate beyond the people I've managed to speak to in person -- >> meetings which have been super valuable and cannot be replaced! One >> specific source of urgency is effectively debating the spokes group >> proposal (see: http://www.nycga.net/spokes-council/), which has had >> ongoing difficulties reaching a consensus in GA.
>> 5. My code is open source (see GitHub link above), but I haven't >> put a license on it yet. I don't have strong feelings about >> licenses, GPL or MIT seem like good choices if they're compatible >> with my dependencies. The Linksys WRT54GL is open-source friendly, >> but I'm looking into alternatives to Cisco hardware. Cisco is kind >> of like the Citibank of the tech industry. That said, the WRT54GL >> is the one I have and I'm willing to donate it.
>> 6. Ultimately my project is about communication and effective >> coordination, not technology. The current form of things at the >> occupation feels very inefficient to me: too many meetings I can't >> possibly make, too much duplicated effort, too many missed >> communications. I would love to talk to other working groups to >> support their specific needs more directly. Since I wrote the forum >> code, I can make fundamental changes to it rather quickly.
>> 7. I don't need approval from the working group, but I do need help >> establishing a process for maintaining electricity and keeping the >> hardware safe from the elements. (It would be nice if I could work >> with the Free Network Foundation, but I've been having difficulties >> reaching Isaac.) Once the router is reliably online, I'll probably >> want to announce it at GA. It needs an initial influx of users to >> make it valuable. I do have some paper pamphlets I can leave at the >> park to promote the forum.
>> 8. The assistance I need from the group is to establish a process >> for maintaining the router. My version 1.0 attempt was to just >> leave the router plugged in behind the info desk and see what would >> happen. Lacking an agreed upon process it was unplugged, and then >> went missing after a few days.
>> Thanks! -Dan
>> On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Charles Lenchner wrote:
>>> 1. Explain in clear language what the problem is you are >>> trying to solve. Consider sentences like ‘if you are a supporter >>> wanting to accomplish X, this service/website/app offers the >>> following process for meeting that demand: a, then b, then c. In >>> other words, explain the behavior of your idea, not only ultimate >>> goals like ‘more coordination’ or ‘outreach’ or event >>> ‘communication between people’. 2. Define the target >>> audience in behavioral ways. Like: tech savvy activists who have >>> time to give but aren’t physically present at an occupation. Or: >>> 2nd and 3rd tier supporters unlikely to become active but who >>> seek accurate information to share on their own networks.’ 3. >>> Define the outcome as something that can be measured for success. >>> ‘We think it will help 100 people a day locate volunteer >>> opportunities, provided we reach traffic of 1000 people a day.’ >>> Or ‘This idea will increase the Google ranking of movement >>> friendly sites, to help drown out opposing or MSM sites, so that >>> ‘friendly’ sites comprise 50% or more of the first 20 links.’ 4. >>> Say something about whether this is an essential, urgent priority >>> or a nice thing to have once we’re done with what IS urgent. >>> ‘Video aggregation portals that facilitate conversation won’t >>> impact operations on the ground. But It’s a great add on service >>> to a site that is already up and running.’ Don’t make us decide >>> on our own how important this is relative to other things. If you >>> don’t know – then first learn what we’re doing. And don’t >>> bullshit us with crap like ‘there is an urgent need to change >>> Twitter hashtags!’ 5. If your service/website/app is not >>> constructed using open source technology that can be replicated >>> by others, then say so up front, and make the case that the value >>> it provides justifies the efforts of a community that prioritizes >>> open source technology. If you intend to keep your branding on >>> something, explain precisely what that looks like, how it >>> compares to similar branded services. Branding is not evil, we >>> just need to understand. 6. If you are asking others to >>> review something new, make the case for why we should give it any >>> attention; this requires that you NOT assume anyone shares your >>> excitement that a great new X does Y. Put the perceived needs of >>> actual working groups at the fore, instead of your own desires >>> for rapid adoption. 7. Ask yourself: do you need working >>> group of OWS approval for this? OccupyTogether.org, >>> occupywallst.org never asked for permission, they just did it. >>> Maybe that’s better? If our attention/adoption is essential, say >>> so; if you are engaging in marketing and outreach so that more >>> folks will hear about and use your new thingy, say so upfront. >>> It’s fine! We are techies who get excited about our own shit as >>> well. Just be clear about it. 8. If some kind of decision >>> or assistance is necessary, please phrase it as an explicit >>> request. “To make this work, IWG developers must come to a >>> decision to use my idea, and work with me on implementation. >>> Please let me know your plan for getting this on the agenda, and >>> the name of an individual who will be my connection to your >>> work.” 9. Members of the FLO/Solutions WG, or the Internet >>> Working Group: let’s figure out how to name individuals as ‘the’ >>> connection to new people and new ideas. If there was a list of >>> active members, and a few coordinators, it would be possible to >>> assign things sensibly. It might work, as a start, to assign >>> every new person or idea to one of the four teams: backbone, web >>> development, digital strategy, and that other one…. ;P
Let's stand this service up on the tower. We can then federate the service over the VPN that we're building. This seems like a nice integration.
Have been meaning to get back to you for some time, and I'm very sorry that I haven't. I'm headed to liberty in a few minutes. Will you be around? My # is 8163778433. Call or text so that we can figure out when to meet up and discuss details.
> I am going to follow Charles's advice and introduce my project in a > way that isn't so technology-oriented (see my earlier "ows.offline" > thread on the IWG list). I'll also be coming to the Internet > Working Group meeting tonight and I'd be glad to talk more in > person. (Also, I'm renaming the project from ows.offline to > occupy.wifi)
> 1. Here is the problem I'm trying to solve: our current venues of > conversation at OWS are often noisy and don't facilitate > constructive debate as well as they could. While I continue to be > impressed by the innovations of the Human Microphone and the > refinement of the General Assembly model, these forms have their > drawbacks. They are slow, they require all individuals to be > present to participate, they don't scale up very well.
> An internet-based alternative seems like an obvious choice. While I > applaud what IWG has done with nycga.net and what other groups have > done to facilitate online discussions, these are vulnerable to > their own set of problems including outside disruption, not being > easy enough to find, not having a single source that can reach > critical mass, or having so much discussion as to become > overwhelming. To me physical proximity seems like the best filter.
> 2. My primary audience are the occupiers at Zuccotti park who may > wish to socialize, share their views, debate, coordinate working > groups, etc. I'm also interested in helping occupiers in other > cities (the software includes a method for syncing data between its > various installations). I would like to emphasize that this > includes all occupiers, not just those fortunate enough to have > smart phones or laptops. So I'm hoping to simultaneously explore > how I can promote access to the forum in general. I'm happy to > donate my own 1st gen iPhone if there is a mechanism for lending it > out.
> 3. The measurable outcome is participation on the forum. I would > consider a dozen or so message threads per day, with meaningful > replies, to be a success.
> 4. I think the urgency depends on the extent that you see our > current OWS communication methods to be sufficient. As somebody who > doesn't sleep over at the park, I feel it's hard for me to > participate beyond the people I've managed to speak to in person -- > meetings which have been super valuable and cannot be replaced! One > specific source of urgency is effectively debating the spokes group > proposal (see: http://www.nycga.net/spokes-council/), which has had > ongoing difficulties reaching a consensus in GA.
> 5. My code is open source (see GitHub link above), but I haven't > put a license on it yet. I don't have strong feelings about > licenses, GPL or MIT seem like good choices if they're compatible > with my dependencies. The Linksys WRT54GL is open-source friendly, > but I'm looking into alternatives to Cisco hardware. Cisco is kind > of like the Citibank of the tech industry. That said, the WRT54GL > is the one I have and I'm willing to donate it.
> 6. Ultimately my project is about communication and effective > coordination, not technology. The current form of things at the > occupation feels very inefficient to me: too many meetings I can't > possibly make, too much duplicated effort, too many missed > communications. I would love to talk to other working groups to > support their specific needs more directly. Since I wrote the forum > code, I can make fundamental changes to it rather quickly.
> 7. I don't need approval from the working group, but I do need help > establishing a process for maintaining electricity and keeping the > hardware safe from the elements. (It would be nice if I could work > with the Free Network Foundation, but I've been having difficulties > reaching Isaac.) Once the router is reliably online, I'll probably > want to announce it at GA. It needs an initial influx of users to > make it valuable. I do have some paper pamphlets I can leave at the > park to promote the forum.
> 8. The assistance I need from the group is to establish a process > for maintaining the router. My version 1.0 attempt was to just > leave the router plugged in behind the info desk and see what would > happen. Lacking an agreed upon process it was unplugged, and then > went missing after a few days.
> Thanks! -Dan
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Charles Lenchner wrote:
>> 1. Explain in clear language what the problem is you are >> trying to solve. Consider sentences like ‘if you are a supporter >> wanting to accomplish X, this service/website/app offers the >> following process for meeting that demand: a, then b, then c. In >> other words, explain the behavior of your idea, not only ultimate >> goals like ‘more coordination’ or ‘outreach’ or event >> ‘communication between people’. 2. Define the target >> audience in behavioral ways. Like: tech savvy activists who have >> time to give but aren’t physically present at an occupation. Or: >> 2nd and 3rd tier supporters unlikely to become active but who >> seek accurate information to share on their own networks.’ 3. >> Define the outcome as something that can be measured for success. >> ‘We think it will help 100 people a day locate volunteer >> opportunities, provided we reach traffic of 1000 people a day.’ >> Or ‘This idea will increase the Google ranking of movement >> friendly sites, to help drown out opposing or MSM sites, so that >> ‘friendly’ sites comprise 50% or more of the first 20 links.’ 4. >> Say something about whether this is an essential, urgent priority >> or a nice thing to have once we’re done with what IS urgent. >> ‘Video aggregation portals that facilitate conversation won’t >> impact operations on the ground. But It’s a great add on service >> to a site that is already up and running.’ Don’t make us decide >> on our own how important this is relative to other things. If you >> don’t know – then first learn what we’re doing. And don’t >> bullshit us with crap like ‘there is an urgent need to change >> Twitter hashtags!’ 5. If your service/website/app is not >> constructed using open source technology that can be replicated >> by others, then say so up front, and make the case that the value >> it provides justifies the efforts of a community that prioritizes >> open source technology. If you intend to keep your branding on >> something, explain precisely what that looks like, how it >> compares to similar branded services. Branding is not evil, we >> just need to understand. 6. If you are asking others to >> review something new, make the case for why we should give it any >> attention; this requires that you NOT assume anyone shares your >> excitement that a great new X does Y. Put the perceived needs of >> actual working groups at the fore, instead of your own desires >> for rapid adoption. 7. Ask yourself: do you need working >> group of OWS approval for this? OccupyTogether.org, >> occupywallst.org never asked for permission, they just did it. >> Maybe that’s better? If our attention/adoption is essential, say >> so; if you are engaging in marketing and outreach so that more >> folks will hear about and use your new thingy, say so upfront. >> It’s fine! We are techies who get excited about our own shit as >> well. Just be clear about it. 8. If some kind of decision >> or assistance is necessary, please phrase it as an explicit >> request. “To make this work, IWG developers must come to a >> decision to use my idea, and work with me on implementation. >> Please let me know your plan for getting this on the agenda, and >> the name of an individual who will be my connection to your >> work.” 9. Members of the FLO/Solutions WG, or the Internet >> Working Group: let’s figure out how to name individuals as ‘the’ >> connection to new people and new ideas. If there was a list of >> active members, and a few coordinators, it would be possible to >> assign things sensibly. It might work, as a start, to assign >> every new person or idea to one of the four teams: backbone, web >> development, digital strategy, and that other one…. ;P
I'm Adam from OccupyAssembly.org. If you're at Occupy Wall Street, I
may well have met you. I don't live in the area, but I was there for
the first three weeks. We are trying to organize web developers to
create a site for a near real-time General Assembly. I have already
responded to an e-mail from the NYCGA Internet Team, but it was
suggested that I also mention this here.
