Lingering question after today's call re: purpose of ChangeCamp - please offer your thoughts
3 views
Skip to first unread message
reill...@gmail.com
Jul 21, 2009, 6:15:33 PM7/21/09
to ChangeCamp Canada
One outstanding question I have after today's call is - whose quality
of life will be improved by the conversation and community
transformation we're seeking to create with ChangeCamp?
For me, this is the fundamental question to answer about any process
or policy. Making choices about and clarifying whose lives will/should
be impacted also helps us decide who needs to be meaningfully engaged
in the process.
Who should experience improvements in their quality of life as a
result of ChangeCamp?
of life will be improved by the conversation and community
transformation we're seeking to create with ChangeCamp?
For me, this is the fundamental question to answer about any process
or policy. Making choices about and clarifying whose lives will/should
be impacted also helps us decide who needs to be meaningfully engaged
in the process.
Who should experience improvements in their quality of life as a
result of ChangeCamp?
Mark Kuznicki
Jul 22, 2009, 7:51:59 PM7/22/09
to chang...@googlegroups.com
Reilly,
I think you raise an important question.
However, I don't know that we are the right people to be asking it, or
answering it. I think that is the question a specific group of
organizers in a specific community may need to ask and answer
depending on their goals and context.
I also think that the question makes some assumptions that ChangeCamp
is advancing a specific policy agenda. If the goal is restoring
community as an end in itself and if ChangeCamp is a platform and not
a party, ideology, interest group or advocacy organization, I don't
know why it needs to define whose lives should be improved by its
existence.
Whose lives are improved by the existence of a public square? I hope
that the answer is everybody.
Is that naive of me?
I think you raise an important question.
However, I don't know that we are the right people to be asking it, or
answering it. I think that is the question a specific group of
organizers in a specific community may need to ask and answer
depending on their goals and context.
I also think that the question makes some assumptions that ChangeCamp
is advancing a specific policy agenda. If the goal is restoring
community as an end in itself and if ChangeCamp is a platform and not
a party, ideology, interest group or advocacy organization, I don't
know why it needs to define whose lives should be improved by its
existence.
Whose lives are improved by the existence of a public square? I hope
that the answer is everybody.
Is that naive of me?
Daniel Rose
Jul 23, 2009, 7:08:46 PM7/23/09
to ChangeCamp Canada
Reilly,
I loved your question too. And I loved Mark's response. I'm so torn
when it comes to defining objectives versus just letting it go. The
thing I liked about "100 ChangeCamps" is that it sets us in motion
towards a tangible goal which doesn't necessarily rely on defining and
coming to consensus on the type of change we want but gives motivated
change makers a platform and set of tools to use to push and recruit
for the change they want to see. Whether it's hyperlocal change, such
as improvements to a park or big policy issues people can do the work
they want to do and know that there are people and communities doing
the same thing at the same time and I think that's kind of cool.
As someone commented on the ChangeCamp blog, having a defining purpose
can help with funding and generating interest so that's a good point.
I'm kind of repeating myself here, as I did post about it on my blog:
http://www.omakasegroup.com/blog/archives/485
Dan
On Jul 22, 7:51 pm, Mark Kuznicki <m...@remarkk.com> wrote:
> Reilly,
>
> I think you raise an important question.
>
> However, I don't know that we are the right people to be asking it, or
> answering it. I think that is the question a specific group of
> organizers in a specific community may need to ask and answer
> depending on their goals and context.
>
> I also think that the question makes some assumptions that ChangeCamp
> is advancing a specific policy agenda. If the goal is restoring
> community as an end in itself and if ChangeCamp is a platform and not
> a party, ideology, interest group or advocacy organization, I don't
> know why it needs to define whose lives should be improved by its
> existence.
>
> Whose lives are improved by the existence of a public square? I hope
> that the answer is everybody.
>
> Is that naive of me?
>
I loved your question too. And I loved Mark's response. I'm so torn
when it comes to defining objectives versus just letting it go. The
thing I liked about "100 ChangeCamps" is that it sets us in motion
towards a tangible goal which doesn't necessarily rely on defining and
coming to consensus on the type of change we want but gives motivated
change makers a platform and set of tools to use to push and recruit
for the change they want to see. Whether it's hyperlocal change, such
as improvements to a park or big policy issues people can do the work
they want to do and know that there are people and communities doing
the same thing at the same time and I think that's kind of cool.
As someone commented on the ChangeCamp blog, having a defining purpose
can help with funding and generating interest so that's a good point.
I'm kind of repeating myself here, as I did post about it on my blog:
http://www.omakasegroup.com/blog/archives/485
Dan
On Jul 22, 7:51 pm, Mark Kuznicki <m...@remarkk.com> wrote:
> Reilly,
>
> I think you raise an important question.
>
> However, I don't know that we are the right people to be asking it, or
> answering it. I think that is the question a specific group of
> organizers in a specific community may need to ask and answer
> depending on their goals and context.
>
> I also think that the question makes some assumptions that ChangeCamp
> is advancing a specific policy agenda. If the goal is restoring
> community as an end in itself and if ChangeCamp is a platform and not
> a party, ideology, interest group or advocacy organization, I don't
> know why it needs to define whose lives should be improved by its
> existence.
>
> Whose lives are improved by the existence of a public square? I hope
> that the answer is everybody.
>
> Is that naive of me?
>
Mark Kuznicki
Jul 23, 2009, 8:38:25 PM7/23/09
to chang...@googlegroups.com
I think the question of "What is the change you seek?" is a very
relevant question for all of us, and I'd love to get more voices into
the mix to answer this question from their personal points of view.
My answer: I want to see community restored and our communities
transformed to be more resilient and adaptable in the face of
accelerating global change.
What is the change you seek?
relevant question for all of us, and I'd love to get more voices into
the mix to answer this question from their personal points of view.
My answer: I want to see community restored and our communities
transformed to be more resilient and adaptable in the face of
accelerating global change.
What is the change you seek?
Scott
Jul 23, 2009, 9:32:33 PM7/23/09
to chang...@googlegroups.com
I would like to see this question asked to the public consistently. The
answers will give us an accurate barometer of where we stand as a city,
province, country, or nation.
Scott
answers will give us an accurate barometer of where we stand as a city,
province, country, or nation.
Scott
Joe Dee
Jul 24, 2009, 11:00:17 AM7/24/09
to chang...@googlegroups.com
That is the core question in my opinion: What is the change you seek?
I've been asking myself that quite often recently and was amazed that I didn't really have an answer. It seemed I was more interested in how great it felt to be working on social change.
Having done some thinking, there are many changes I'd like to see, the financial system, the political system, media, community, etc etc etc. There is a lot of work to be done and a lot of capable and passionate people to do it, the key to me was in that Peter Block quote:
"The essential challenge is to transform the isolation and self-interest within our communities into connectedness and caring for the whole."
The change I want to see is for people to care. We need to undo the damage done by the consciousness of power and replace it with ethics and dignity.
Joe
I've been asking myself that quite often recently and was amazed that I didn't really have an answer. It seemed I was more interested in how great it felt to be working on social change.
Having done some thinking, there are many changes I'd like to see, the financial system, the political system, media, community, etc etc etc. There is a lot of work to be done and a lot of capable and passionate people to do it, the key to me was in that Peter Block quote:
"The essential challenge is to transform the isolation and self-interest within our communities into connectedness and caring for the whole."
The change I want to see is for people to care. We need to undo the damage done by the consciousness of power and replace it with ethics and dignity.
Joe
Brent
Jul 24, 2009, 11:12:51 AM7/24/09
to ChangeCamp Canada
From my brief experience, I think ChangeCamp is not only about civic
or action changes it’s also personal changes that alter individual and
collective understanding of ourselves and the world we live in.
These personal changes happen one conversation at a time, with small
groups of people.
In a book written by Carl Jung, Jung refers to a conversation he had
with a Native American Chief who pointed out to him that most white
people have tense faces, staring eyes and a cruel demeanour. He said:
“They are always seeking something. What are they seeking? The whites
always want something. They are always uneasy and restless. We don’t
know what they want. We think they are mad.”
As we consider what we are seeking with ChangeCamp, I think we should
remember the Chiefs comments. I know as a community worker and change
agent, it is a continuous challenge for me to let go or check my
desire to be right, liked, or a competent fixer/changer of things.
I am learning the value of laying back in my work and letting
conversations unfold. In small groups that I work with, I rely more on
the creative and natural abilities each of us bring to the
conversation as we seek solutions together.
Conversations, one person at a time, in small groups can lead to
community restoration. I think ChangeCamp can be a platform and a
community for action.
Through a community restoration lens, ChangeCamp can also be a vehicle
for individuals to change how we approach making changes together.
It has been an eye opener to see what outstanding work that changecamp
has accomplished across Canada and I am eager to be part of the next
chapter of the ChangeCamp story.
To summarize, I am supportive of Mark’s new rendition of the
ChangeCamp purpose. I look forward to following the discussion and
contributing as best I can.
Here are a few quotes from Peter Blocks writings that I found to be
useful as I reflected on our tel/conference discussion a few days ago.
I uploaded a white paper titled "Civic Engagement & the Restoration of
Community - Changing the Nature of the Conversation". There is some
very useful background information in this white paper.
“we change the culture by changing the nature of conversation. It’s
about choosing conversations that have the power to create the
future.”
“The challenge in life is to convert fate to destiny.”
Thanks,
Brent
jose...@gmail.com
Jul 24, 2009, 11:16:07 AM7/24/09
to chang...@googlegroups.com
Man that was lovely, thank you so much for sharing.
Joe
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent <bren...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:12:51
To: ChangeCamp Canada<chang...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [changecamp] Re: Lingering question after today's call re: purpose of
ChangeCamp - please offer your thoughts
Joe
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent <bren...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:12:51
To: ChangeCamp Canada<chang...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [changecamp] Re: Lingering question after today's call re: purpose of
ChangeCamp - please offer your thoughts
Reilly
Jul 24, 2009, 11:34:04 AM7/24/09
to ChangeCamp Canada
Thank you Mark, Daniel and Scott for your responses. It's nice to be
encouraged to share something I was a bit nervous would come across as
unnecessarily contrarian. You've now made me feel more comfortable
going further in sharing some of my thoughts, so I want to thank you
for that. And to emphasize that everything coming from me includes
great respect for your work and your opinions, and a desire to
strengthen the community we're developing here.
I agree with Mark that, in theory, a public square should benefit
everyone. One concern I have is that if we say we accept that
ChangeCamp is not democratic or representative, but then also that its
goal is to play the role of public square, don't we risk replicating
the problem of a "public" square de facto confined to and full of
elites? My own particular ideas about the change we're seeking are
based on the assumption that being elite-driven is a crucial part of
the problem with the old model. If that's true, we might be better off
being explicit about the need to change that, and our theory about how
ChangeCamp will do that.
I also agree with Mark that the goal should be to restore community,
but I believe that we need to think carefully about and surface the
assumptions we're making about belonging in that community, and the
consequences of our decisions about that. If we mainly want to engage
people in the long-neck of public policy, the pro-ams, I'm not sure
these are the people (http://eaves.ca/2009/01/22/changecamp-putting-
people-and-creativity-back-into-public-policy/) currently underserved
or poorly served by the current system. I'm concerned that we may be
giving more power, voice and access to a relatively privileged group -
and, as we are making demands on government attention and resources,
further diverting resources towards this group and away from others
who may need them more. If what we're assuming is that they (the pro-
ams) would make better decisions for populations who are truly
disenfranchised than our current decision-makers, I'd like to see some
conversation and concern amongst those pro-ams about what the needs
and interests of those populations are. In my experience, we'll
quickly come to realize that we can't figure out what their needs and
interests are without meaningfully engaging them in the conversation -
that counting on the ability of an elite to represent and make the
"best" decisions is the problem and not the solution.
I should make two of my assumptions very explicit here - one, the
change most of us are seeking involves a move from an elite-driven
society to a truly participatory society (not a move from the current
narrow elite to a new slightly wider set of urban, educated, tech-
savvy elites); and two, the change most of us are seeking aims not
mainly at improving our own quality of life, but that of those who are
truly excluded and disadvantaged by the current system (assuming that
sometimes we will need to make choices and allocate resources).
Equality (or equity if you prefer) is therefore a crucial
consideration.
Now, this is just me sharing my opinion and my rationale for the kinds
of considerations that drive my work and my thinking. I also strongly
agree with Mark and Daniel that each local ChangeCamp community group
should get to make decisions about whose quality of life it is aiming
to improve - for me, the hyperlocal, malleable nature of ChangeCamp,
under the auspices of a national network, is the appealing and
innovative part of it. I do want to ensure that if Vancouver goes more
in the direction I'm envisioning here, of focusing as much on
representativeness and inclusiveness as on specific policy expertise
or technical skills, that we won't be seen as wandering too far away
from the fold or not getting it. For me, these concerns are post-
partisan and forward-looking, and I'm saddened at the tendency to
write them off as somehow inherently old-fashioned, left-wing or
liberal.
One of the great things about ChangeCamp is that it's also a forum to
have these kinds of conversations on a national level. This is very
exciting, and it's a privilege for me to be able to connect with you
and ask you these questions in a way that would likely not have
happened otherwise. I look forward to learning more about your
perspective and continuing the conversation.
~R
encouraged to share something I was a bit nervous would come across as
unnecessarily contrarian. You've now made me feel more comfortable
going further in sharing some of my thoughts, so I want to thank you
for that. And to emphasize that everything coming from me includes
great respect for your work and your opinions, and a desire to
strengthen the community we're developing here.
I agree with Mark that, in theory, a public square should benefit
everyone. One concern I have is that if we say we accept that
ChangeCamp is not democratic or representative, but then also that its
goal is to play the role of public square, don't we risk replicating
the problem of a "public" square de facto confined to and full of
elites? My own particular ideas about the change we're seeking are
based on the assumption that being elite-driven is a crucial part of
the problem with the old model. If that's true, we might be better off
being explicit about the need to change that, and our theory about how
ChangeCamp will do that.
I also agree with Mark that the goal should be to restore community,
but I believe that we need to think carefully about and surface the
assumptions we're making about belonging in that community, and the
consequences of our decisions about that. If we mainly want to engage
people in the long-neck of public policy, the pro-ams, I'm not sure
these are the people (http://eaves.ca/2009/01/22/changecamp-putting-
people-and-creativity-back-into-public-policy/) currently underserved
or poorly served by the current system. I'm concerned that we may be
giving more power, voice and access to a relatively privileged group -
and, as we are making demands on government attention and resources,
further diverting resources towards this group and away from others
who may need them more. If what we're assuming is that they (the pro-
ams) would make better decisions for populations who are truly
disenfranchised than our current decision-makers, I'd like to see some
conversation and concern amongst those pro-ams about what the needs
and interests of those populations are. In my experience, we'll
quickly come to realize that we can't figure out what their needs and
interests are without meaningfully engaging them in the conversation -
that counting on the ability of an elite to represent and make the
"best" decisions is the problem and not the solution.
I should make two of my assumptions very explicit here - one, the
change most of us are seeking involves a move from an elite-driven
society to a truly participatory society (not a move from the current
narrow elite to a new slightly wider set of urban, educated, tech-
savvy elites); and two, the change most of us are seeking aims not
mainly at improving our own quality of life, but that of those who are
truly excluded and disadvantaged by the current system (assuming that
sometimes we will need to make choices and allocate resources).
Equality (or equity if you prefer) is therefore a crucial
consideration.
Now, this is just me sharing my opinion and my rationale for the kinds
of considerations that drive my work and my thinking. I also strongly
agree with Mark and Daniel that each local ChangeCamp community group
should get to make decisions about whose quality of life it is aiming
to improve - for me, the hyperlocal, malleable nature of ChangeCamp,
under the auspices of a national network, is the appealing and
innovative part of it. I do want to ensure that if Vancouver goes more
in the direction I'm envisioning here, of focusing as much on
representativeness and inclusiveness as on specific policy expertise
or technical skills, that we won't be seen as wandering too far away
from the fold or not getting it. For me, these concerns are post-
partisan and forward-looking, and I'm saddened at the tendency to
write them off as somehow inherently old-fashioned, left-wing or
liberal.
One of the great things about ChangeCamp is that it's also a forum to
have these kinds of conversations on a national level. This is very
exciting, and it's a privilege for me to be able to connect with you
and ask you these questions in a way that would likely not have
happened otherwise. I look forward to learning more about your
perspective and continuing the conversation.
~R
DJ Kelly
Jul 24, 2009, 1:54:10 PM7/24/09
to ChangeCamp Canada
One thing I would like to see in the near future is a short document
outlining some specific changes ChangeCamp would like to see
implemented in the near future and a list for the not-too-distance
future.
I realize this is an evolving list and the wiki is where the majority
of this kind of info is actually found (and grows) but knowing
government folks (and the average citizen too) they want bite size
pieces of information. i.e.: What can I do and what impact would it
have?
-dj
outlining some specific changes ChangeCamp would like to see
implemented in the near future and a list for the not-too-distance
future.
I realize this is an evolving list and the wiki is where the majority
of this kind of info is actually found (and grows) but knowing
government folks (and the average citizen too) they want bite size
pieces of information. i.e.: What can I do and what impact would it
have?
-dj
Mark Kuznicki
Jul 24, 2009, 2:25:33 PM7/24/09
to chang...@googlegroups.com
DJ,
I see what you're looking for, but I don't think anyone can really say
at this moment what "ChangeCamp would like to see". Who speaks on
behalf of ChangeCamp? On what basis of legitimacy?
One of my running assumptions is that ChangeCamp is not an advocacy
organization, so I find the idea of it representing a specific set of
positions difficult to achieve without breaking that assumption. This
is the single biggest difference between the CivicCamp and ChangeCamp
approaches. This assumption can and probably should be questioned, I'm
happy to hear opposing views. Maybe what people want is more CivicCamp-
like advocacy and less ChangeCamp-like platform.
However, as a platform, I think there are opportunities to get better
and easier to digest outputs. I'm thinking in terms of stories and
synthesized and structured data.
I am interested in looking at the content that the community creates
and exploring how to turn that content into useful and digestible
information and analysis for advocates within the community and
institutions outside the community. Chris Berry probably has some
thoughts on this from an analytics perspective. This is also the
domain of storytellers, and I think we need lots of storytellers
accessing raw community-generated content in order to turn it into
engaging and easy to digest stories.
Joe Dee
Jul 24, 2009, 2:46:08 PM7/24/09
to chang...@googlegroups.com
I think what we could look at is assigning ChangeCamp as the title of the events that happened (and may happen again)... but what is this group now? Who is on this thread that I'm responding to? What are we doing here? What is our common ground?
Are we talking about a national movement of citizens who are looking to reclaim community and government based on a set of common values? What are those? Who's already working towards that and is there an opportunity to "brand" this as something that's more accessible?
Just realizing that I've asked a bunch of questions there... hoping that some answers will help me clear up my understanding :)
Joe
Are we talking about a national movement of citizens who are looking to reclaim community and government based on a set of common values? What are those? Who's already working towards that and is there an opportunity to "brand" this as something that's more accessible?
Just realizing that I've asked a bunch of questions there... hoping that some answers will help me clear up my understanding :)
Joe
Mark Kuznicki
Jul 24, 2009, 3:00:33 PM7/24/09
to chang...@googlegroups.com
Reilly,
If this forum isn't an open and inclusive place for dialogue, then we certainly aren't living our values, are we? I think the question of meritocracy vs inclusion is really important to explore and I appreciate you raising it.
One thing that I think we need to confront right off the top is the principle that "open doesn't mean everyone". Self-selection and self-organization are key principles of how open communities work their magic. This has a tendency to introduce some in-group vs out-group schisms and concerns, which is normal. We need to recognize and understand them and consider appropriate responses.
These kinds of gatherings benefit from intentional design around diversity. An event organizer can't change the environmental conditions for participation like education, language, interests and abilities. But an event organizer can create a context for diversity, access, mutual respect and accountability. An event organizer can do outreach and invite participation from many diverse perspectives and create a welcoming space. An event organizer can make participation free of financial and other barriers so that the contributions of all are possible.
At the same time I think we have to recognize that people have different levels of value to contribute to a given conversation and we're looking to maximize value to make change. People experiencing urban poverty need to be part of a conversation to address urban poverty not only on principle, but particularly because they have a lot of value and relevant knowledge to contribute to that conversation.
This to me is the meaning of merit in this context, but it's not merit from status or membership in an elite group. It is the merit of having relevant knowledge, experience, interest, passion and contribution. And only the participants can decide if they belong in that conversation or not. Open makes it possible for participants to self-identify and self-select, but it needs a designer with understanding of barriers and their removal.
___________
Mark Kuznicki
blog: http://remarkk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/remarkk
email: ma...@remarkk.com
mobile: 416-994-2470
DJ Kelly
Jul 24, 2009, 3:44:31 PM7/24/09
to ChangeCamp Canada
I can certainly respect ChangeCamp as a platform for discussions
around this topic. But I do think at the very least the outcomes from
ChangeCamps should be posted so others have the ability to pick up the
torch and carry on with the work.
This all comes from the question I'm sure we've all heard: "What is
ChangeCamp? What do it's members want to change?" If we can't answer
this easily then it is all just talk. As a recent addition to the
group I think it is fair for me to say, right now, I don't feel
confident to answer this extremely basic question. And IMO that's a
barrier needing to be solved before ChangeCamp outcomes can enter into
the implementation phase. As I'm sure we all want to have happen.
-dj
around this topic. But I do think at the very least the outcomes from
ChangeCamps should be posted so others have the ability to pick up the
torch and carry on with the work.
This all comes from the question I'm sure we've all heard: "What is
ChangeCamp? What do it's members want to change?" If we can't answer
this easily then it is all just talk. As a recent addition to the
group I think it is fair for me to say, right now, I don't feel
confident to answer this extremely basic question. And IMO that's a
barrier needing to be solved before ChangeCamp outcomes can enter into
the implementation phase. As I'm sure we all want to have happen.
-dj
Message has been deleted
Michael Cayley
Jul 25, 2009, 1:26:55 AM7/25/09
to chang...@googlegroups.com
This add is likely inconsistent with the most recent end of this thread but I hope it is completely in context.
http://bit.ly/qsXRP
I look forward to your feedback.
Cheers,
mc
From: ma...@remarkk.com
To: chang...@googlegroups.com
http://bit.ly/qsXRP
I look forward to your feedback.
Cheers,
mc
Follow me on Twitter: memeticbrand
Principal, Social Capital Practice
mic...@socialcapitalvalueadd.com
mobile: 647-407-9598
office: 416-462-1859, ext. 2
Skype ID: mgcayley
BONUS Link: Check out Teresa Healy's stuff! gasp!
From: ma...@remarkk.com
To: chang...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [changecamp] Re: Lingering question after today's call re: purpose of ChangeCamp - please offer your thoughts
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:00:33 -0400
Stay in the loop and chat with friends, right from your inbox! Learn how!
Igniter
Jul 25, 2009, 9:58:01 AM7/25/09
to ChangeCamp Canada
Hey folks,
To me it seems that the purpose is to build a platform, processes, and
tools that empowers communities to come together through their own
changecamps to change whatwever they decide they want to change.
Empowerment.
If anytthing, the question of which community to serve would be a
light stratgic one of which communities to you want most to make aware
of changecamp, but the platform design should be focused on enabling
communities to deepen engagement in determining and acting on the
change they identify together.
Cheers,
M
> _________________________________________________________________
To me it seems that the purpose is to build a platform, processes, and
tools that empowers communities to come together through their own
changecamps to change whatwever they decide they want to change.
Empowerment.
If anytthing, the question of which community to serve would be a
light stratgic one of which communities to you want most to make aware
of changecamp, but the platform design should be focused on enabling
communities to deepen engagement in determining and acting on the
change they identify together.
Cheers,
M
Michael Cayley wrote:
> This add is likely inconsistent with the most recent end of this thread but I hope it is completely in context.
>
> http://bit.ly/qsXRP
>
> I look forward to your feedback.
>
> Cheers,
> mc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Cayley
>
> Follow
> me on Twitter: memeticbrand
>
> Principal, Social Capital Practice
>
> www.socialcapitalvalueadd.com
>
> mic...@socialcapitalvalueadd.com
>
> mobile:
> 647-407-9598
>
> office:
> 416-462-1859, ext. 2
>
> Skype
> ID: mgcayley
>
> BONUS
> Link: Check out Teresa Healy's stuff! gasp!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This add is likely inconsistent with the most recent end of this thread but I hope it is completely in context.
>
> http://bit.ly/qsXRP
>
> I look forward to your feedback.
>
> Cheers,
> mc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Cayley
>
> Follow
> me on Twitter: memeticbrand
>
> Principal, Social Capital Practice
>
> www.socialcapitalvalueadd.com
>
> mic...@socialcapitalvalueadd.com
>
> mobile:
> 647-407-9598
>
> office:
> 416-462-1859, ext. 2
>
> Skype
> ID: mgcayley
>
> BONUS
> Link: Check out Teresa Healy's stuff! gasp!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: ma...@remarkk.com
> To: chang...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [changecamp] Re: Lingering question after today's call re: purpose of ChangeCamp - please offer your thoughts
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:00:33 -0400
>
> Reilly,
> If this forum isn't an open and inclusive place for dialogue, then we certainly aren't living our values, are we? I think the question of meritocracy vs inclusion is really important to explore and I appreciate you raising it.
> One thing that I think we need to confront right off the top is the principle that "open doesn't mean everyone". Self-selection and self-organization are key principles of how open communities work their magic. This has a tendency to introduce some in-group vs out-group schisms and concerns, which is normal. We need to recognize and understand them and consider appropriate responses.
> These kinds of gatherings benefit from intentional design around diversity. An event organizer can't change the environmental conditions for participation like education, language, interests and abilities. But an event organizer can create a context for diversity, access, mutual respect and accountability. An event organizer can do outreach and invite participation from many diverse perspectives and create a welcoming space. An event organizer can make participation free of financial and other barriers so that the contributions of all are possible.
> At the same time I think we have to recognize that people have different levels of value to contribute to a given conversation and we're looking to maximize value to make change. People experiencing urban poverty need to be part of a conversation to address urban poverty not only on principle, but particularly because they have a lot of value and relevant knowledge to contribute to that conversation.
> This to me is the meaning of merit in this context, but it's not merit from status or membership in an elite group. It is the merit of having relevant knowledge, experience, interest, passion and contribution. And only the participants can decide if they belong in that conversation or not. Open makes it possible for participants to self-identify and self-select, but it needs a designer with understanding of barriers and their removal.
> ___________Mark Kuznickiblog: http://remarkk.comTwitter: http://twitter.com/remarkk
> email: ma...@remarkk.commobile: 416-994-2470Skype: markkuznicki
> To: chang...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [changecamp] Re: Lingering question after today's call re: purpose of ChangeCamp - please offer your thoughts
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:00:33 -0400
>
> Reilly,
> If this forum isn't an open and inclusive place for dialogue, then we certainly aren't living our values, are we? I think the question of meritocracy vs inclusion is really important to explore and I appreciate you raising it.
> One thing that I think we need to confront right off the top is the principle that "open doesn't mean everyone". Self-selection and self-organization are key principles of how open communities work their magic. This has a tendency to introduce some in-group vs out-group schisms and concerns, which is normal. We need to recognize and understand them and consider appropriate responses.
> These kinds of gatherings benefit from intentional design around diversity. An event organizer can't change the environmental conditions for participation like education, language, interests and abilities. But an event organizer can create a context for diversity, access, mutual respect and accountability. An event organizer can do outreach and invite participation from many diverse perspectives and create a welcoming space. An event organizer can make participation free of financial and other barriers so that the contributions of all are possible.
> At the same time I think we have to recognize that people have different levels of value to contribute to a given conversation and we're looking to maximize value to make change. People experiencing urban poverty need to be part of a conversation to address urban poverty not only on principle, but particularly because they have a lot of value and relevant knowledge to contribute to that conversation.
> This to me is the meaning of merit in this context, but it's not merit from status or membership in an elite group. It is the merit of having relevant knowledge, experience, interest, passion and contribution. And only the participants can decide if they belong in that conversation or not. Open makes it possible for participants to self-identify and self-select, but it needs a designer with understanding of barriers and their removal.
> ___________Mark Kuznickiblog: http://remarkk.comTwitter: http://twitter.com/remarkk
> Stay in the loop and chat with friends, right from your inbox!
> http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9671354Joe Dee
Jul 25, 2009, 4:42:47 PM7/25/09
to chang...@googlegroups.com
Just to share: A great lecture by John McKnight... I'm also looking for information on his research on the limitations of human systems' capacity to care, if you have any knowledge on that please let me know :)
http://www.truveo.com/john-mcknight-leveraging-community-assests-for/id/3831786466
Joe
http://www.truveo.com/john-mcknight-leveraging-community-assests-for/id/3831786466
Joe
interfaced
Jul 30, 2009, 3:00:01 PM7/30/09
to ChangeCamp Canada
What struck me on the call was a 2 very different paths:
1. A much more effective political policy and advocacy group fighting
for inclusion through amending the Canadian electoral system through
things like proportional representation.
2. A very deep building of resilience in communities all over Canada
in the hopes of inspiring the world.
One things that seems to be clear is that ChangeCamp is about Canada,
or at least very rooted in Canada. To this end, I would like to share
a lecture by John Ralston Saul. He highlights some very compelling
Canadian mythology that I would be proud to build upon.
Canadian foundational traits are opposed to European and United States
values. We value:
Negotiation
Conversation
Story-telling
Many nations living together
Ambiguity
Shockly, we are built more from the French, Native, and Irish that
settled here more so than the British. We might begin to accept that
we are not "like the states but more European", but in fact, we are a
young revival of an old model, based on some structured beliefs around
compromise and creativity.
http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?video?%20BI_Lecture_20090516_834123_JRSaul
On Jul 25, 4:42 pm, Joe Dee <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to share: A great lecture by John McKnight... I'm also looking for
> information on his research on the limitations of human systems' capacity to
> care, if you have any knowledge on that please let me know :)
>
> http://www.truveo.com/john-mcknight-leveraging-community-assests-for/...
>
> Joe
> > > mich...@socialcapitalvalueadd.com
> > > email: m...@remarkk.commobile: 416-994-2470Skype:
> > markkuznicki
> > > GTalk: m...@remarkk.com
> > > MSN: mkuzni...@hotmail.com
1. A much more effective political policy and advocacy group fighting
for inclusion through amending the Canadian electoral system through
things like proportional representation.
2. A very deep building of resilience in communities all over Canada
in the hopes of inspiring the world.
One things that seems to be clear is that ChangeCamp is about Canada,
or at least very rooted in Canada. To this end, I would like to share
a lecture by John Ralston Saul. He highlights some very compelling
Canadian mythology that I would be proud to build upon.
Canadian foundational traits are opposed to European and United States
values. We value:
Negotiation
Conversation
Story-telling
Many nations living together
Ambiguity
Shockly, we are built more from the French, Native, and Irish that
settled here more so than the British. We might begin to accept that
we are not "like the states but more European", but in fact, we are a
young revival of an old model, based on some structured beliefs around
compromise and creativity.
http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?video?%20BI_Lecture_20090516_834123_JRSaul
On Jul 25, 4:42 pm, Joe Dee <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to share: A great lecture by John McKnight... I'm also looking for
> information on his research on the limitations of human systems' capacity to
> care, if you have any knowledge on that please let me know :)
>
>
> Joe
>
> > > mobile:
> > > 647-407-9598
>
> > > office:
> > > 416-462-1859, ext. 2
>
> > > Skype
> > > ID: mgcayley
>
> > > BONUS
> > > Link: Check out Teresa Healy's stuff! gasp!
>
> > > mobile:
> > > 647-407-9598
>
> > > office:
> > > 416-462-1859, ext. 2
>
> > > Skype
> > > ID: mgcayley
>
> > > BONUS
> > > Link: Check out Teresa Healy's stuff! gasp!
>
> > markkuznicki
> > > GTalk: m...@remarkk.com
> > > MSN: mkuzni...@hotmail.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages