Networks and Activism

Networks and Activism

from Lion 

When I cam in jan, to the salon here, I was surprised that the way I’m used to organizing is not understood, and it’s the only way I only know the way we do tings in the free software world.  For example, our communications are in secret.  The traditional model seems to go like people in a area are concerned, meet, try to get money to publish journal and sustain ops, they sell you a subscription etc.  The org seems very important.  Here’s what I’m used to, I look at public by default.  The issue of who keeps the mailing list, I mean, to me, that’s (shrugs and laughs)

The membership is irrelevant you just show up.  There was the inkscape project, they make diagramming software, anyone can copy the designs.  It’s a drawing programs. I wanted to make it possible to make it possible to post from inkscape to wikki, to me the concept of asking for permission for that is absurd to me. It’s assumed you’ll do something useful. Am I part of their membership?  There are membership boundaries of different sorts.  There are mailing lists harder to get to, because they’re on peripheries, but you have acces to them all.  People belong to several orgs, there are centers of power, of distribution, but it’s very complicated. 

It’s like two people talking is very complicated, ie body language, subtle and complicated, but it also feels very natural.  Very similar with network based activity. People who watch the systems without membership are integral to systems.  We have gatherings, but they aren’t project specific.  They’re called “bar camps.”  Is it social network, some people use it for specific meetings, it’s not totally casual, there may be a visiting fee.  It’s called unconferencing, from the open space lineage. 

Q: is it open source computing?

A: there’s usually a theme.  There are qualifications, it’s owned by reputation.  “Seattle Mind Camp”  We do not it’s very much the project is the unit of activity rather than the org.  Linnex is developed out of four projects, projects are three to four people, but people belong to multiple projects.

There is a free software org, but most people aren’t part of it.  They write the liscense we use.  They publish idealistic let.

There are leaders with vision, but it’s very soft. Operating systems are very complicated, and it works.

For activists, they can pull ideas from this, I don’t know what they can successfully pull from this, but I have some ideas:

-Public by default. We need spooks absolutely, but not forcing people to log in is very important.  If they perceive a lock up community, you lock out intelligence.

-Fresh meat: a web page, when you just released some code, you post it to fresh meat, and as long as it isn’t spam you’re listed.  Links to the projects are posted.

-The project is the unit of activity.  Rather than the organization.

At rise up we don’t believe anything is secret on the net. But we have a guy on riseup named J****** who has 50 or more emails who wants to spam activists with this messianic revolutionary thing.  SO we can’t be totally open. 

Oh, we have anti-spam blacklists.

I’m just saying open is a relative term.  Open to contributors.  We call it soft security.  You don’t have to put up a fence, you can put up stones on the side of the path.  Wait until you’re really popular to really isolate yourself if you need to.  It’s a gradient.

Is there a model to this kind of approach to earn income?

This is a soft economy, where half is in people’s heads and half is in currency.  “alternative currencies seattle.”   It’s in the idea phase for us.  In wikkipedia they have a soft currency.  Most alt currencies I see are in the early stages. “Second Life” is actually ATM money.

“If you kill a monster in WarCraft is that a taxable income?”