Wiki

[jamesbeebop]

I copied content from the Google Site to here:
http://opensourceparty.wikia.com/wiki/Open_Source_Party_Wiki

It needs work, I don't speak wiki yet. Also didn't want to spend a
ton of time if it won't be used. Specifically, are the host provider
and license agreeable? If it seems ok as a direction, I'll continue
cleaning it up.

[Trevor Tomesh]

Is this Zach?

--
Trevor Tomesh, McNair Scholar
Physics Major, Mathematics Minor
University of Wisconsin-River Falls
Phone: (715) 651-1346

[jamesbeebop]

Ummm ... I don't know. What do I win if I say yes? :)

Just kidding. I'm James Bryant, nice to meet you.

On May 10, 11:35 pm, Trevor Tomesh <slug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this Zach?
>

[Jon Lebkowsky]

Thanks for doing that. I'd rather be on Wikia than Google Sites for now, I think.

~ Jon

--
Jon Lebkowsky (@jonl)
Internet Expert and Strategist

Honcho, Polycot Associates, LLC

Work |  Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Wikipedia | Blog | EFF-Austin

[Devin Balkind]

James, I think we should make it a point to use open source tools whenever possible.

MediaWiki is the 'industry standard' for open source projects. I think we should use that. 

Does anyone have a URL for this group?

What are the intentions of the people here: to discuss what open source politics means, to create a political platform, to assist candidates...?

--
Devin Balkind
@devinbalkind
vitamindwb.com

[Patrick Anderson]

Devin Balkind wrote:
> James, I think we should make it a point to use open source tools whenever
> possible.
>
> MediaWiki is the 'industry standard' for open source projects. I think we
> should use that.

I always assumed Wikia was using http://MediaWiki.org code,
but now see they have forked to http://dev.Wikia.com

Both these projects use the GNU GPL, though the GNU AGPL would be
a strategically better choice...

I wish I could find a group interested in reconsidering how we
should *host* such software, for addressing the difficulty in
sharing the costs of physical sources is a link missing toward
our finalizing a plan for complete User Freedom.

[Devin Balkind]

Hosting resources are quite inexpensive these days so I think costs are negligible until the community is large enough to donate necessary resources.  We could also work with the P2P Foundation to populate and maintain an open source politics section in their wiki.

Another option is TiddlyWiki.  It's an entire wiki in a single HTML file, allowing anyone to download the entire wiki at any time.  It's also designed to make it easy to share specific posts (tiddlers.)  My favorite hosting service is tiddlyspace.com because they're deployments make multi-user editting easier - but still not as easy at MediaWiki.

[jamesbeebop]

I agree this group should use open source tools. I personally
consider Wikia to be a temporary measure. Once this group has more
members than the Demopublican party, we'd be better served having our
own hosting provider and domain.

Wikia seems more open than a Google Site, and is running MediaWiki, so
porting out should be relatively painless when the time comes. And
speaking of ... does anyone here own the domain opensourceparty.org?
Whois says "eXtensible Media", but maybe they're fronting for someone
in this group.

I'd also like to see a discussion thread around expectations for the
OSP. For myself, I'm interested in world domination by whatever means
necessary, but preferably involving a quantum transmogrifier, or a
shrink ray. And cookies.

On May 11, 11:28 am, Devin Balkind <devinbalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James, I think we should make it a point to use open source tools whenever
> possible.
>
> MediaWiki is the 'industry standard' for open source projects. I think we
> should use that.
>
> Does anyone have a URL for this group?
>
> What are the intentions of the people here: to discuss what open source
> politics means, to create a political platform, to assist candidates...?
>

> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Jon Lebkowsky <jon.lebkow...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks for doing that. I'd rather be on Wikia than Google Sites for now, I
> > think.
>
> > ~ Jon
>

> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:50 PM, jamesbeebop <jamesbee...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Ummm ... I don't know.  What do I win if I say yes?  :)
>
> >> Just kidding.  I'm James Bryant, nice to meet you.
>
> >> On May 10, 11:35 pm, Trevor Tomesh <slug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Is this Zach?
>
> >> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:57 PM, jamesbeebop <jamesbee...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > I copied content from the Google Site to here:
> >> > >http://opensourceparty.wikia.com/wiki/Open_Source_Party_Wiki
>
> >> > > It needs work, I don't speak wiki yet.  Also didn't want to spend a
> >> > > ton of time if it won't be used.  Specifically, are the host provider
> >> > > and license agreeable?  If it seems ok as a direction, I'll continue
> >> > > cleaning it up.
>
> >> > --
> >> > Trevor Tomesh, McNair Scholar
> >> > Physics Major, Mathematics Minor
> >> > University of Wisconsin-River Falls
> >> > Phone: (715) 651-1346
>
> > --
> > Jon Lebkowsky (@jonl)
> > Internet Expert and Strategist
> > Honcho, Polycot Associates, LLC

> > Work <http://polycotassociates.com> |  Twitter <http://twitter.com/jonl> |
> > LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonlebkowsky> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/jonlebkowsky>|Wikipedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lebkowsky>|
> > Blog <http://weblogsky.com> | EFF-Austin <http://effaustin.org>
> >  <http://weblogsky.com>

[Patrick Anderson]

Devin Balkind wrote:
> Hosting resources are quite inexpensive these days
> so I think costs are negligible

Control is more important than Costs.

We don't have real Control because we do not have real
Ownership, and do not know how to *share* Ownership,
and so we remain subject to the whims of the Owners
who stop us in arbitrary ways for the purpose of Profit.

Or as Stallman would say "Free as in Freedom, not
necessarily Free as in Beer".

[Devin Balkind]

This brings me back to my previous question: what is the intention of the people in this group?

Patrick, is your intention to propose a way to "'share' Ownership?"

[Patrick Anderson]

Devin Balkind wrote:

> Patrick, is your intention to propose a way to "'share' Ownership?"

It seems to me the only realistic way to gain control of the political
is to gain control of the production.

Ultimate control of production can be had through the normal
property ownership that we can use to share costs and have
dominion over the products we need.

But I don't think we can co-own property unless we understand
what usually goes wrong with organizations that try, and then
devise a "Terms of Operation" which we, the orginators, can
apply to some real material assets to stop us from causing the
troubles that usually capsizes such group efforts.

I think I have discovered two of the Terms needed to solve this
problem, and so concentrate on this area.

[Patrick Anderson]

jamesbeebop wrote:
> I agree this group should use open source tools.  I personally
> consider Wikia to be a temporary measure.

The virtual sources (source code) for Wikia are open.

The physical sources (machines, buildings, electricity)
used to *host* those virtual sources are not open.

> Once this group has more members than the
> Demopublican party, we'd be better served having
> our own hosting provider and domain.

At that point we will need to address the complexity
of shared ownership or end-up like every other well-
intended organization with control concentrated into
the hands of the originators.

[Devin Balkind]

Patrick, what are the two terms you discovered?

At that point we will need to address the complexity
of shared ownership or end-up like every other well-
intended organization with control concentrated into
the hands of the originators.

Do you intend to start an organization?

[R. U. Sirius]

I think the intention is to develop a statement of purpose, indeed what is our intention...   in other words, as a group, to identify who we are and what we are trying to do.  Sorry to be so recursive.  Once that is done, there ought to be a public website that brings still more people in to participate.

I again refer to my original statement:  http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/02/24/open-source-party-2-0-liberty-democracy-transparency/

My personal hope is that we are taking the politics of radical transparency and participation mainstream and not trying to create another appeal to the subcultures... but that's up to all of you.

R.U.

[Devin Balkind]

Mr. Sirius, I read you 10 zen monkey's post.  I agree with 5-7 of them, depending on implementation.

Addressing the specifics laid out in the h+ post.  I agree that:

"Government should be as open and transparent as possible. There may be some rationales for closed doors, but few — for the most part, citizens should be able to clearly see how decisions are made. That’s a key component of our political platform: we want to see the actual “source code” for the decisions that affect our lives."

I think explaining what the government  'source code' is and how we could open that source code up to participation is extremely important.  The points about collaboration, leadership and adaptability are useful in that they describe aspects of a new paradigm, but we'd need to go much deeper to explain how we'd structure a system to achieve those ends.

I think participation is the fundamental quality of an open source political system.  Participation requires information to be comprehensive (transparency), accessible (inclusive) and actionable (competitive).  This opinion can be articulated using conventional political science language.  I explain more here (needs some updating.)

Whether or not we establish basic principles, I think it would be very productive for us to articulate how open source (software, hardware, data and knowledge) can be incorporated into the existing political system.  Ex: explain why the government should use open source operating systems (ex. linux), CMS platforms (ex. drupal) and accessible data structures.

I've begun putting a presentation together that advocates open source in the US government here.  I've been presenting it to Ron Paul supporters because libertarians are - by nature - very responsive to open source messages.  I'd say the average Paul supporter would agree with 5 of your 10 zen monkey points.  I've begun a dialog with some green party folks, but to a much lesser extent as it seems they won't field any effective candidates in 2012.

There's tremendous opportunity to bring open source into local, state, federal and transnational governance.  If you - or anyone here - would like to participate in a skype call I'd definitely be interested.

[WBT]

Hello Devin, RU, etc.,

Question for RU:
In the initial proposal (2007 /10 Zen...) I thought you set entry
barriers at a $15 entry fee, agreement with the 7-point platform, and
active continued participation (e. g. any collective outcome required
an affirmative vote of 75% of all registered users.) Is that
accurate?
It was my conclusion that the high entry barriers were likely a factor
in why that initiative didn't do as well as you'd hoped. Do you have
any ideas about what you'd like to try this time around? It's a
general question open to this whole community - where do you think
should entry barriers be set, and why?

Note for Devin:
You may want to hook up with Open Source For America (http://
opensourceforamerica.org/) and their significant resources and efforts
for getting open source into government at all levels. As feedback on
the PPT, your presentation could have audiences skeptical of the
claims to reduce/eliminate entitlement spending through open source
deployment, wondering why you say revenues would drop, and feeling a
little left in the dark with such a short overview of "How FLO
projects work." Check out OSFA, and if you find something that fits
with you well, enjoy!

Grace and peace,
WBT

On May 11, 7:24 pm, Devin Balkind <devinbalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mr. Sirius, I read you 10 zen monkey's post.  I agree with 5-7 of them,
> depending on implementation.
>
> Addressing the specifics laid out in the h+ post.  I agree that:
>
> "Government should be as open and transparent as possible. There may be some
> rationales for closed doors, but few — for the most part, citizens should be
> able to clearly see how decisions are made. That’s a key component of our
> political platform: we want to see the actual “source code” for the
> decisions that affect our lives."
> I think explaining what the government  'source code' is and how we could
> open that source code up to participation is extremely important.  The
> points about collaboration, leadership and adaptability are useful in that
> they describe aspects of a new paradigm, but we'd need to go much deeper to
> explain how we'd structure a system to achieve those ends.
>
> I think participation is the fundamental quality of an open source political
> system.  Participation requires information to be comprehensive
> (transparency), accessible (inclusive) and actionable (competitive).  This
> opinion can be articulated using conventional political science language.  I

> explain more here <http://vitamindwb.com/?p=39> (needs some updating.)

>
> Whether or not we establish basic principles, I think it would be very
> productive for us to articulate how open source (software, hardware, data
> and knowledge) can be incorporated into the existing political system.  Ex:
> explain why the government should use open source operating systems (ex.
> linux), CMS platforms (ex. drupal) and accessible data structures.
>
> I've begun putting a presentation together that advocates open source in the

> US government here<https://docs.google.com/a/sarapisfoundation.org/present/view?id=ddrgs...>.

> I've been presenting it to Ron Paul supporters because libertarians are - by
> nature - very responsive to open source messages.  I'd say the average Paul
> supporter would agree with 5 of your 10 zen monkey points.  I've begun a
> dialog with some green party folks, but to a much lesser extent as it seems
> they won't field any effective candidates in 2012.
>
> There's tremendous opportunity to bring open source into local, state,
> federal and transnational governance.  If you - or anyone here - would like
> to participate in a skype call I'd definitely be interested.
>

> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM, R. U. Sirius <siri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think the intention is to develop a statement of purpose, indeed what is
> > our intention...   in other words, as a group, to identify who we are and
> > what we are trying to do.  Sorry to be so recursive.  Once that is done,
> > there ought to be a public website that brings still more people in to
> > participate.
>
> > I again refer to my original statement:

> >http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/02/24/open-source-party-2-0-liberty-dem...

>
> > My personal hope is that we are taking the politics of radical transparency
> > and participation mainstream and not trying to create another appeal to the
> > subcultures... but that's up to all of you.
>
> > R.U.
>
> > On May 11, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Devin Balkind wrote:
>
> > This brings me back to my previous question: what is the intention of the
> > people in this group?
>
> > Patrick, is your intention to propose a way to "'share' Ownership?"
>

[Devin Balkind]

WBT, very much appreciate your thoughtful comments. 

OFA focuses on making open source accessible to the existing government.  It's hard to determine how effective they are, but since there haven't been any federal directives to use Linux, it's safe to say they're incrementalists.  I appreciate their work but it's top down.  I'm more interested in bottom up.

FLOAmerica takes an alternative approach: building open source systems that help people/communities govern themselves.  Ex. Build a drupal deployment for a K-12 school, create a library of components and organize technical support teams.  People who want to 'upgrade' their school deploy and configure the system themselves, promote it to their community and see what happens.  The primary point is that they don't ask for permission - they use free tools to build a free solution and let the people decide.  At some point the 'conventional' leadership (principle, superintendent, etc) either adopts the system or lose relevance. 

I think the revolution will be gifted. :)

[WBT]

Hi Devin,

Are you familiar with open source library projects, such as Evergreen
and Koha?
Other GPL Integrated Library Systems (ILS) include Greenstone (NZ, UN,
NGO), Invenio (CERN; scientific), NewGenLib (India), PhpMyBibli (FR),
and OpenBiblio (small libraries). News for a selection of these
systems is tracked at OSS4lib.
From what I read in your paragraph below, it seems like you're
interested in community organizing to have local communities
(configure and?) adopt this kind of software.
I think you need the cooperation of e. g. a library manager to adopt
an open source library management system, or a school principal/
superintendent (and staff in each case!) to adopt an open source
school management system. Their actions and use will determine
whether or not the adoption is a success, provided the technology is
actually up to the task. If it is up to task, and there's a good
argument for adopting it, and local patrons/parents are asking for it,
and particularly if the software is co-designed with the end users and
their processes (not separate from them e. g. "don't ask for
permission"), then the open source for adoption seems like a likely
step.
If you're going town by town or install by install, that's a "bottom-
up" approach but also an incremental one. That's fine, but your first
sentence there seems to indicate you prefer giant steps...it could
just be an issue of clarifying terminology.

Enjoy the references above,

WBT

[Devin Balkind]

Thanks for the info.  One of my partners is very passionate about open source for libraries/historical societies.  I'll forward your message to him.  He's deployed a few library systems in what you'd call a 'town-by-town' model.  I view this approach as aggressively grassroots approach because it's empowering people to take control of their own technology.  I view advocating open source to developers within government bureaucracy as an incrementalist approach.  Both are certainly necessary.

I'm interested in creating physical and virtual support for the grassroots type of activity, but such an endeavor is obviously a very sizable undertaking that requires lots of time and money.  The only way I can imagine such an effort getting off the ground in the short term is if it could be incorporated into a political movement that wanted to see American communities take more responsibility for themselves... so I'm advocating open source within the Ron Paul movement.  Libertarians love open source - but we need more advocates in the movement. 

Is anyone here working with any established political movements?