Living the New Economy… updates

The following are a few updates that I compiled over the six days of the confluence…

Oct. 21, 2013

Living the New Economy, 2013 came to a close with a series of information driven workshops. We started the day with a workshop on Financing the New Economy where Michelle Collusi and Suresh Fernando from the Canadian Centre for Community Renewal, Ross Gentleman from the CCEC Credit Union – The Official Facebook Group and Kevin Harding harding from the BC Cooperative Association provided a brief intro to various tools and models that people and local communities can use to finance their projects. Suresh higlighted the Ecosystem approach to resource allocation that he is working on that aims to shift the paradigm from allocating resources one project at a time to financing groups of projects collectively!

This was followed by an engaging discussion between a group of social entrepreneurs all working on collaboration platforms. This included Ben Scott Joy Case Van Hove from An Idea Nation – Global Think Tank, Vida Mas from Cyrka, Scott Israel from CoCreatrix and Caroline Smalley of Citizens Media. All of these platforms aim to do similar things and the question we were exploring was: why are those building collaboration platforms collaborating? Many things were revealed including the importance of the specific roles and skill sets of the entrepreneurs, the challenges of financing larger projects (if they decide to collaborate, for example) and the importance of reducing complex visions to easily digestible stories that people can actually engage in.

The late afternoon session focused on Shared Spaces. A recurring theme at LNE was the need for Shared Physical spaces in order to maintain our conversations; to bridge the gap between the projects; to get to know each other better; to build culture. The New Economy will bridge the gap between ‘economic’ issues and ‘life’ issues, revealing the dichotomy to be false. Life happens in physical space… To that end we had John Bromley from Benevoland Tara Mahony and Daniel J Pierce of the Junction and @Kim Cooper from Co-Lab and Jim Carrico from Redgate.

 

Oct 20, 2013

Another magical day at LNE… This whole experience is leaving many of us both exhilarated an exhausted as we now move into the final day of our program! Each day has been different and, as was pointed out to me yesterday, for those that have been there every day, a sense of family is starting to develop…

For this is what it is all about is it not? … the creation of a culture that values us as for who we are; not as functional entities in an economic paradigm that dehumanizes, commodifies and devalues our existence. This sort of culture, in some sense, is a large family; one where we really see and embrace each other for who we really are!

In terms of the day, it began with Tam Lundy doing a workshop in Generative Change; or, what might, more popularly be called, Systemic Change; the sort that requires that we broaden our perspective and see that whole; that we look beyond our own personal interests; that we realize that our personal interests are served by serving the collective interest.

This was followed by a session on Recliaming the Commons where Tiberius Brastaviceanu presented the Sensorica project which is working on developing the tools and methodologies for those working in distributed environments, to develop their own value exchange methodologies while they collaborate on projects together. Dallas Luther provided some local context by describing the MakerLABS project, the object of which is to create a space and associated community to empower those that want to creative make things! Michel Bauwens, of the P2P Foundation concluded by giving us a very brief description of a very exciting and seminal project that he is working on with the government of Ecuador; a project the focus of which is to develop an Open, Commons Based, Knowledge Society,

Joy Case Van Hove of An Idea Nation – Global Think Tank followed this by presenting a Live Crowdfunding workshop where provided us with an overview of what crowdfunding is, highlighted several projects, engaged the projects with those in the room and initiated crowdfunding campaigns on their behalf on the AnIdeaNation platform.

We closed with a shared feast!

Looking forward to today which promises to be equally spectacular!

 

Oct. 18/13

Yesterday was a mix of theory and magic! In the morning Randy Galowan facilitated a really powerful storytelling workshop where he introduced us to the work of Marshall Ganz, who has done a lot of work on the importance of storytelling in the context of movement building. The basic idea is that there are three stories that we need to be able to tell… The Story of Me, the Story of We and the Story of Now… and if you can make these stories fit together into coherent picture, then you have a persuasive and powerful story that can serve as the basis of a call to action!

The stories need to be as personal as possible, calling on specific life instances that resulted in major transitions… shifts in consciousness etc. Those moments need to be described in rich detail… This is what will connect you with others… build trust and form the basis for the communities that you want to build.

Randy emphsized, specifically, that People connect with People… not ideas and that there seems to be something fundamental about Stories and Human nature…

 

 

OpenKollab: inherent conflicts arising within generative collaboration spaces

SUBMITTED TO THE OPENKOLLAB LISTSERV: http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab/

Hey Folks,

I just drafted this as a part of a conference submission that I made and I would welcome your thoughts. Specifically, we have all come to realize that, even though we all share a passion for open collaboration and its potential, actually identifying what to collaborate on is much more difficult than you would think it should be.

I am interested in understanding why this is so and what we can do about it. There are a few thoughts below, but I still continue to be mostly puzzled…

OpenKollab: inherent conflicts arising within generative collaboration spaces

This paper will explore examples of conflict that have arisen in the development of OpenKollab (http://openkollab.com), an generative open collaboration environment that is developing a community of practice as well as tools and processes to foster collaboration amongst organizations with aligned missions. As a result it will discuss specific problems that have arisen during the actual practice of creating an open collaboration space. Potential solutions to the identified problems will then be suggested.

A generative open collaborative environment is one where a group, sharing a high level abstract goal (in our case a commitment to the benefits of open collaboration and a conviction that it can play a role in bringing about positive social change), but no definable or measurable goals, works together to identify such specific goals. Hence different sub projects can be identified and teams can be formed that can pursue these projects within the umbrella of a larger open collaboration environment.

It is our experience that generative open collaboration environments give rise to specific sorts of conflicts that need to be resolved. The challenges are great for those working on OpenKollab, but the rewards will be worth the effort since it is generative open collaboration environments that hold the promise of mass mobilization and coordination of action on a global scale.

The group’s mission has been driven by idealism, but we have learned the hard way that there are many pragmatic challenges that one must contend with. These challenges can be understood as conflicts that arise at many levels, including:

  • The mission of OpenKollab versus participants personal agendas
  • The mission of OpenKollab versus participating organizations
  • Conflicts arising from differing agendas of participating members and organizations.
  • Individual conflicts arising from lack of consensus in the formation of the vision.

All of these conflicts arise out of an inherent tension between the larger group, treated as an abstract entity, and the individuals (or sub-groups) that have a more tangible reality. At first glance it might seem as though the solution to the problem is to engage in sufficient dialogue to generate consensus. Practically speaking, this has proven to be more difficult than it would seem since consensus around high level principles does not necessarily lead to agreement on specific sub-projects and associated tasks.

If the larger objective is to bridge boundaries and create bonds in the spirit of collaboration, practical strategies to overcome these inhibitors will need to be developed.

To mitigate these inhibitors, we are working towards specific task and workflow procedures such as:

Autonomous Information Spaces With Simultaneous Content Publishing: technology mechanisms that allow content to be simultaneously published in a distributed fashion across different platforms (wiki’s, websites etc.)

Hybrid Branding Strategies: strategies that create a brand both for OpenKollab as well as the participating entities.

Commons based Reusable content: what is required is that workflows be structured so that work that is done for the collaborative group is work that can be leveraged by others within the collaborative community.

  • One groups output becomes another groups input
  • Flexibility given for content modification and re-use
  • Subject to commons based content licensing

These, and other such strategies for mitigating conflict in the development of generative collaborative spaces, will be described.

The Structure of Communication

The Structure of Communication

Temporal Structure

Synchronous (real time)

Synchronous Communication transpires in real time. In other words, it transpires when two parties are present in relation to each other in such a manner that that enables them to initiate a communicative act that is apprehended essentially instantaneously by the other party(ies) involved in the communicative act.

Examples of this is include face to face conversations, telephone conversations and instant messaging.

Asynchronous

Asynchronous Communication, in contrast to synchronous communication transpires when two parties are not present in relation to each other in such a manner that enables them to initiative a communicative act that is apprehended essentially instantaneously by the other party(ies) involved in the communicative act.

Examples of this include letters and email.

Distributive Structure

One-to-One

One-to–One communication when one individual initiates a communicative act intended for another individual.

Examples of this include letters, emails from one person to another person (not a group!), instant messenger, telephone calls between two parties (not conference calls!), video conferencing

One-to-Many

One-to-many communication when one individual initiates a communicative act intended for more than one other individual.

Examples of this include group email distribution, mail drops (letters sent to a whole postal code, form example), voice messages sent from a single source to a large number of mobile recipients.

Many-to-Many

Many-to-Many communication transpires when many people are in the presence of each other and therefore a communicative act can be initiated by a number of different individuals in such a manner that enables the communication to be received by a number of different individuals.

Examples of this include face to face group interaction (meetings), conference calls and video conferences.

Intentional Structure

Private

Private communication transpires when the intention of the communicator is such that what is communicated is intended for a precisely defined recipient or recipients.

Examples of private communications are letters, emails and telephone calls.

Public

Public communication transpires when the intention of the communicator is such that what is communicated is not intended only for a precisely defined recipient or recipients. In other words, it is the intention of the communicator that what is communicated might be received/apprehended by anyone.

Examples of public communication include advertising, magazine and newspaper publication and postings in public forums (internet discussion threads etc.).

It should be noted that what makes a communicative act public is the fact that a representation of what is communicated and archived.

Presence Structure

Unmediated

Unmediated communication transpires when the parties to the communication are present in space in relation to each other in a manner that enables them to apprehend each other through the use of all of their senses.

Examples of unmediated communication include face-to-face conversations, meetings (in a room, not online…)

It is important to note that associated with unmediated communication is the consciousness those that are party to the communication have of their spatial proximity to each other. This consciousness has evolved due to the obvious fact that, to date, it is not been possible to interact in an unmediated fashion in the absence of temporal proximity. However, there is no theoretical impediment to the possibility that unmediated communication might be non-spatially proximal. At this point this might be science fiction, but we might be able to imagine the possibility of technology advancing to the point where we can experience others through all of our senses in a precisely analogous manner to how we currently experience those that are in our immediate presence, yet where it is such that the other person is in a physically different location.

Mediated

Mediated communication transpires when the parties to the communication are not present in space in relation to each other in a manner that enables them to apprehend each other through the use of their senses.

Examples of mediated communication include letters, telephone calls and emails.

The nature of how communications are mediated needs to be analyzed in terms of the modes of sensory stimulation that are activated in the interaction. Hence, we can extend our taxonomy as follows;

Textual Mediation:  it is the written word that provides the essential mode of communication.

An example of this is the letter.

Auditory Mediation: it is the auditory sensory process that is essential to the mode of communication.

An example of this is the telephone.

Visual and Auditory Mediation: Both the visual and auditory sensory process are essential to this form of communication.

An example of this is a video conference.

Persistence Structure

Persistent: A persistent form of communication is one where the idea that constitutes the communication persists in time. In other words there is a record of the communication that can be viewed at a later time.

Impersistent: In contrast an impersistent form of communication is one where the idea that constitutes the communication does not persist in time. There is no record of the communication other than what resides in the mind of those that are party to the communication.

Implicit Potential

Reflects the extent to which a particular form of communication makes possible implicit communication.

Communications Taxonomy

Empirical Types Temporal Structure Distributive Structure Intentional Structure Presence Structure Persistence Implicit Potential
Face-to-face Conversations Synchronous One-to-One Private Unmediated Impersistent Very Strong
One-to-One telephone ccnversations Synchronous One-to-One Private Auditory Mediation Impersistent Moderate
Conference Calls Synchronous Many-to-Many Private Auditory Mediation Impersistent Moderate
Instant Messaging Synchronous One-to-One Private Textual Mediation Impersistent Weak/Moderate
Chat Rooms Synchronous Many-to-Many Public Textual Mediation Impersistent Wea/Moderate
Discussion Boards Asynchronous Many-to-Many Public Textual Mediation Persistent Weak
Letters Asynchronous One-to-One Private Textual Mediation Persistent Weak

‘Mail Drops’

Asynchronous One-to-Many Public Textual Mediation Persistent Weak
One-to-One Email Asynchronous One-to-One Private Textual Mediation Persistent Weak/Low
One-to-One video conferencing/web camera Synchronous One-to-One Private Visual and Auditory Mediation Impersistent Strong
Many-to-Many video conferencing Synchronous Many-to-Many Private Visual and Auditory Mediation Impersistent Strong
Group Emails Asynchronous One-to-Many Public Textual Mediation Persistent Weak

Next Generation Communication

We are most interested in forms of communication that satisfy the following conditions: are synchronous, many-to-many, public, visual and auditorily mediated, and persistent.

Transitions In The Possibility For Communication: summary[b1]

Transitions in the possibility of communication in respect to time, and its relationship to group formation can be briefly summarized as follows:

Basic Verbal Communication (limited communication form): Talking and shouting represent this form of communication. The ability to communicate is limited to the number of people who can hear you when you shout!

Basic Written Communication (limited communication form): Writing represents this communication form. The ability to communicate is limited in the sense that the pace of distribution of information is a function of how quickly one can distribute written material – books, flyers etc.

First Generation Electronic Communication (one to one communication): This form of communication is represented by the telegraph, telephone etc. These methods can be considered linear communication forms in that they represent communication from one party to another. With the exception of recent advancements that are not used widely (conference calls, for example), most electronic communication easily supports only one to one communication. Second Generation Electronic Communication (one to many communication): This form of communication is represented by email, the use of which is growing at an explosive pace. Email allows for the easy management of lists and groups, as well as control over how one communicates. It allows for easy communication to groups, and represents a recent evolution in group communication process

Third Generation Electronic Communication (real time many to many communication): This form of communication is represented by Instant Messaging: As a result of bandwith increases, and the proliferation of the internet as a medium for communication, we are seeing an explosion the use of Instant Messaging, which allows for real time communication between many participants simultaneously.

The Next Generation in Communication: (organized and mediated [SF2] real time many to many communication): The next generation of communication and interaction will include the ability to effectively organize, collaborate and work in real time dynamic groups on the Internet. Key components of this will be:

  • Organizational systems that facilitate the coordination of virtual teams and virtual projects; integrated collaborative tool systems.
  • Your ability to have your relationship with the internet mediated by Intelligent Agents that provide the capability to customize the nature of your interaction with the exponentially increasing volumes of data that are out there.
  • Your ability to interact in real time with members of your group if you wish.

Group Communication

Communication needs to be understood in four different ways:

Intentional: the act of communicating something where there is an intention to communicate. In other words a person means to communicate something to someone specific, or to some specific group.

Non-Intentional: the act of communicating something when there is no intention to communicate anything specific to anyone in particular. Note that you can communicate non-intentionally by creating the conditions that make communication possible.

Explicit: the act of communicating something that is crystallized in some way – written, verbal, a picture etc.

Implicit: the act of communicating something that is not crystallized – best understood, for example, as body language, tone, inflection etc.

The distinction between non-intentional and implicit communication is subtle and rests on the fact that implicit communication is part of an intentional communicative act. As per the example above, in the case of a someone that is having a conversation with someone else, we note that a component of what is intentionally communicated in this communicative act will be implicit – it will be the grounds for the sorts of inferences that are made by the other party in the conversation in relation to one of voice, inflection, gesture etc. We note, however, that this must be distinguished from non intentional communication since it is part of a communicative act that is fundamentally explicit.


[b1]Needs to be reworked

[SF2] Need to expand on nature an implications of mediation

Moving Forward!

It’s been a long time since my last blog entry. Much has changed in my life and this will be reflected in the blog as I move forward. Those of you that take the time to read some of my previous entries will note that the focus was highly abstract and theoretical.

As we move forward you can expect the content to be more balanced. Most of it will reflect what I am thinking about and working. Even so, due to the fact that there are some deep intuitions that underlie my opinions, one can expect the content to maintain a bit of a philosophical feel.

One easy way to get things going is to reference several documents that I have written in the last few months. These documents provide a good overview of what I am thinking about and working on:

Climate Change Collaboration Platform: A description of a platform and processes that could be used to develop collaborative processes within the climate change space. See: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc4gbgsj_71kxq8qhgs&hl=en

Open System Mobilization Platform: This is the very large vision for a platform that would enable very large numbers of people to collaborate in real time! See: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc4gbgsj_25hqc96xt3&hl=e

Ecosystem Collaboration Platform: This is a powerpoint presentation that contains a visual representation of the sort of platform that I think would make collaboration between organizations much more effective. You will need to download it from:http://www.mediafire.com/file/zt2wondwgmm/EcosystemCollaborationPlatform.ppt

Social Venture Investment Bank: This is a position paper exploring the viability of the creation of an investment bank in Canada, the purpose of which would be to finance social ventures.  You will need to download it from http://www.mediafire.com/file/hrimnoizwno/SocialVentureInvestmentBank_0312.09.doc

Let me know if you have any questions regarding any of these documents.

As we proceed, I’ll talk more about what I am doing to advance the ideas that are introduced in these documents.

Suresh Fernando

On Utilizing Technology To Connect People On Different Continents

As many of you know, I am greatly interested in the way that technology can be utilized to connect people across across the world – to make the constraints imposed by geography less relevant.

Since I am a musician, one particular angle on this that I am pursuing is using music at the centrepiece of this process. In other words using technology to broadcast music globally, and to use this process to engage people on issues of social change. The following is evidence that others are thinking along the same lines…

If this concept interests you, please let me know as I am working on putting a team together to explore potential projects in this area.

WE GOT SKILLZ
FACEBOOK GROUP: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=25921017860

We Got Skillz is bringing together basketball, music, fashion and dance to host an annual event to be held in Kampala, Uganda that will use these four areas to advocate for social change. This event has the potential to unify, empower and cultivate the importance of international cooperation in an exciting new way. Musicians such as Boys II Men, Joe Thomas, Tanya Stevens and Tanto Mentro & Devonte will be coming to perform. Other performers from in and around East Africa will be hosting workshops for young people in Uganda prior to the event. International dance crews, fashion designers and basketball players will also be coming to contribute to the workshops and the event.

The objective of the event is to showcase the local talent within Uganda and provide a platform for young people to maximize their potential. We believe that positive messages can only be received when they are delivered in a way that distinguishes them from other negative messages. That is why we have chosen to utilize what has already proven to be one of the most influential tools on the planet: hip hop culture. (According to Radiotron, Hip Hop School of Arts in Los Angeles CA, “Hip hop has proven itself to be a solution, an alternative, and a way out of poverty, crime, gang life, drug abuse, violence, vandalism, and negativity…Hip hop has saved and transformed the lives of thousands of people. It has become a vehicle through which young people can join forces together and empower themselves through the arts to make a difference in their own lives and in their communities.”)

Both the workshops and the event will be multicast around the world. The interactive multimedia communication technology provide and supported by Asita Informatica Inc. This event will launch the WGS Global Voice bridging the digital divide project that will be starting immediately preceding the event. Schools from all corners of the globe will be invited to connect through an online platform, allowing young people from various cultures and backgrounds to interactively learn about the lives of the other young people that they are sharing

Technology and Massive Dialogue

There has been much discussion on this blog about the changing nature of space; the way that we can extend the environments that we are in in order to bridge geographic boundaries.

Another theme that is related, and that I will expand further on in due course, is the idea that technology allows you to extend the range and scope of the conversations that we have. We can include more people in the conversations that we have, and to the extent that we do that, we can get to know others that are located at  distance from us, develop a consensus on how to deal with problems with these people and so on.

The following is a great example of what is happening.

THIS PROCESS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF HOW TECHNOLOGY CAN BE USED TO BRIDGE BOUNDARIES AND BRING TOGETHER PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE WORLD THAT HAVE A COMMON INTEREST IN ADDRESSING THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE!

Okay, we finally have a venue set for the Mass Dialogue session on Dec. 10th. It will held in the IRMACS theatre (ASB 10905, from 9 to 11 am.

Here’s a spiel from Amber to get you started, and below that is my own synopsis of what I think will happen, based on the larger pdf document that I’ve attached below. The documents below put together by Amber provide a good about of background (helped me a lot!). Please send info as far and as wide as you can, and ask them to RSVP to amber.church@gov.bc.ca.

On December 10, 2008 join youth from across BC as they connect with the youth delegation at the United Nations Climate Change Meetings, COP 14, in Poznan, Poland.
Young people across the province will gather together at schools and municipal buildings to hear an update of the international negotiations from youth working on the ground in Poland, to have their questions answered, and to find out how BC youth can help make a difference to the outcomes of COP 14. Youth unable to gather at the hubs throughout BC will be able to join the live videoconference through their home computers. This event is part of the Mass Dialogues, a program that will see 35,000 young people around the world connecting with youth at COP 14 to engage on the issue of climate change and create positive change.

The format will be something like this:
9am – we make the connection with the Poznan people and establish communication.
9-9:05 am – People arrive.
9-9:30 – participants learn how the question process is going to work.
9:28 am – 2 minute warning from Poznan
9:30 am – Moderator introduces and welcomes attendees, we have a brief video of ourselves shown worldwide (It will be a few seconds).
9:35 – Moderator introduces the session and the panelists in Poznan.
9:45 – Panel discussions begin – moderator poses his/her own questions to the panel of judges. During this time, SFU participants (and people around the world) write their questions on paper and give them to the SFU moderator, who types them into the Poznan moderator, who selects questions for the next section.
10:15 – Moderator begins to ask questions selected from Mass Dialogue participants. If you question is selected, you come up to our microphone and when ask it live.
10:45 – Thanks yous and session ends.

FAQs:
Who is a youth? Someone under 30.
Do I have to be an expert on climate change? NO. You have to be a youth. Prepare if you want, or just come and learn.
Will I be on camera? The whole group will be for a few seconds at the beginning. But if your question is selected your voice will be heard.

On Power, the Representation of Power and Visibility

It is a fact of existing or established power structures that the entity that is representative of power is, at the same time, represented as that which is powerful. For example, congress is both representative of power and represents power. The distinction is subtle but important. To be representative of power is to be a symbol of power. In contrast, to be represented as that which is powerful is to be powerful.The former is essentially symbolic, the latter is a claim about certain facts in the world. If the distinction is hard to envision its because in the world that we live in, their is no practical difference. That which is symbolically represented to us as powerful is also that which is powerful.

We might even say that what is constitutive of civilized, or modern, society is that these two notions converge. For the most part to be seen as powerful is to be powerful.

In the world that is forthcoming, this distinction will evolve and eventually be eroded. This is so because certain aspects of social formation will become visible that, heretofore, were invisible. The increased visibility of social forms will enable the emergence of alternative structures of power that, in time, will become visible. What will not change is that power is dependent upon visibility of social forms.

What will change is that the visibility of social forms will not be dependent upon their visibility emerging from existing power structures.

It’s important to note that. historically (and presently), visibility was closely related to established power structures, and in fact were mechanisms for reinforcing existing power structures. Controlling the media is an age old mechanism for the maintenance of power. In fact gaining access to the media is a well know strategy for the attainment of power. This line of argument is old news. What is less obvious is that this old news because in a very strong sense visibility is constitutive of power.

To get back to the point initially introduced… what is forthcoming are reduced constraints on the possibility of visibility and hence more possibilities for what is visible to represent power without as yet being represented as that which is powerful. To provide a simple example, we might envision an online community organizing for the purposes of eliminating poverty. At the outset what is observed would certainly be neither a representation of power nor representative of power. As the group grows and attracts members, commences certain action plans and starts achieving its goals, it will become visible as an entity that is truly powerful. It will represent power, but in a manner that is distinct from the structures where power is typically represented – powers that are represented as that which is powerful.

This will, in time, enable the emergence of groups such as this. They will emerge and in time be represented as that which is powerful.

If the distinction is still somewhat unclear then one must consider how, in the absence of systems, that eliminate the constraints of visibility, this group might have formed. The most likely scenario is that they would have formed a formal non-profit charter, organized local meetings, sought government and other funding support etc, Eventually they would likely have requested the support of government institutions, successful financiers and so forth. In short, they would have operated through the existing power structures as the conduit to power is through the existing power structure.

In what is forthcoming these relationships will evolve. We, therefore, see the intimate connection between visibility and power. That which is powerful is, in large part, what is most visible to most; what is most likely to be an object of the consciousness of others. The king is the most powerful in the kingdom because it is he that most people are aware of, most people are thinking about and so on. This is what it is to be powerful. It is this that creates the celebrity culture. It is that they are visible and that others desire to view them that results in their commanding the salaries that they do.      The important and interesting point is that historically their were constraints on the possibility of visibility. These constraints on the possibility of visibility can be understood as constraints in virtue of particular aspects of SPACE.

We might also now see why revolution happens so rarely… discussion of this issue will have to deferred…