**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sun Aug 15 13:15:22 2004
Aug 15 13:15:22 -->   You are now talking on #openorg
Aug 15 13:15:22 ---   che.indymedia.org sets mode +n #openorg
Aug 15 13:15:22 ---   che.indymedia.org sets mode +t #openorg
Aug 15 13:18:33 -->   ben_geer (~ben_geer@chaucer.socialtools.net) has joined #openorg
Aug 15 13:18:41 <ben_geer>   hello
Aug 15 13:18:48 <toni>   hey!
Aug 15 13:18:55 <toni>   have you got 10-15 min?
Aug 15 13:18:58 <ben_geer>   yes
Aug 15 13:19:09 ---   toni gives channel operator status to ben_geer

Aug 15 13:19:27 <toni>   ok, can i send you my mail on horizontality now
Aug 15 13:19:32 <toni>   and you give me feedback in here?
Aug 15 13:19:38 <toni>   i don't wanna scare patrice off
Aug 15 13:19:53 <toni>   yet, i wanna have a discussions that's as hard as i see neccesary
Aug 15 13:21:05 <ben_geer> I think there should be something in open org about how to handle
contributions from newcomers.  A balance between (a) being tough to maintain the project's
standards of quality, and (b) being encouraging so as not to scare people off.  That would
address my interaction with Gabriel as well as your concern about Patrice.

Aug 15 13:30:38 <ben_geer> some quick comments:
Aug 15 13:31:39 <ben_geer> About the content: with the food example, you're raising something
very important that we need to address in OpenOrg:

Aug 15 13:32:09 <ben_geer> specifically, failure conditions caused by too much interference
in decision-making, whether by newcomers or by people outside a working group.
Aug 15 13:32:26 <ben_geer> More generally, the problem is this:
Aug 15 13:32:45 <toni>   (i would like to have in IRC client what yahoo messanger haas:
'ben_geer is now writing', it helps a lot in online chat! is that part of yahoo protocol, i guess it is))
Aug 15 13:32:59 <ben_geer> Accountability can paralyse the system.
Aug 15 13:33:00 <toni>   (listening)
Aug 15 13:33:31 <ben_geer> Therefore accountability needs to be channelled somehow.
Aug 15 13:34:12 <ben_geer> If the food group are making poisonous food, anyone (inside or
outside the organisation) should be able to raise that and make them stop right away.
Paralysis (cancelling the event in your example) is better than continuing with poisonous food.

Aug 15 13:34:15 <toni>   maybe i should add what you wrote here to the bottom of that text,
or at the top, it's clearer.
Aug 15 13:34:45 <toni>   yes, so, it's matter of degree.

Aug 15 13:34:49 <ben_geer> However, if someone doesn't like the fact that the bananas are not
organic, because no organic bananas were available and now it's too late to get some other fruit,
that should not be a cause for paralysis.
Aug 15 13:35:08 <ben_geer> So there needs to be some mechanism for evaluating the importance of objections.
Aug 15 13:35:44 <toni> you remember what we said that in some situation objections can be raised
only if they endanger the existance of the organization.
Aug 15 13:36:10 <ben_geer> I think 'endanger the existence of the organisation' is too narrow for
some situations, and too broad for others.  and it's also subjective.
Aug 15 13:36:23 <toni> so, if organization/community, or immidiate goal (the event) are endangered,
objections should be taken in cosideration.

Aug 15 13:36:44 <ben_geer> I would propose something like this:
Aug 15 13:37:41 <toni>   true, it's broad and subjective. however, in your example of poison,
if people die, there are no organization any more. that's as objective as it gets. (listening). 
Aug 15 13:37:51 <ben_geer> Accountability can take place via many different processes.
 E.g. by setting agendas for periodic reviews (i.e. a low-priority process),
or by raising an alarm that causes everything to stop.
Aug 15 13:38:14 <ben_geer> (Yes but there could be serious problems that would threaten not the
organisation creating them, but other people outside the organisation.)
Aug 15 13:38:47 <ben_geer> There needs to be a process for deciding *which accountability process
to use* in each given case.
Aug 15 13:39:21 <ben_geer> This should take into account: who is raising the objection, and what
the consequences are of continuing the present work unchanged.
Aug 15 13:39:51 <ben_geer> it should be lightweight so that the stupid-newcomer problem doesn't
overwhelm the decision-making process (lots of people complaining about non-organic bananas)
Aug 15 13:40:05 <ben_geer> it should be fast so that serious problems can get handled quickly
Aug 15 13:40:18 <toni>   i agree with it, but it has to be done in the 'rough consesus' style
i.e quick and rolling by default,  otherwise we would end up with another bearucratic layer.
Aug 15 13:40:30 <ben_geer> it should be fair so that it doesn't become a vehicle for making
people *less* accountable than they should be.
Aug 15 13:40:37 <toni>   yes, lightweight is the word i used in that text, i think (i actually removed it).
Aug 15 13:40:56 <ben_geer> I don't know exactly what this process should be but I think we need to
 describe some possible ways it could work.
Aug 15 13:41:22 <ben_geer> I think it's the sort of thing that would be much easier in a world
where everything was an open-org.
Aug 15 13:41:38 <ben_geer> Then there would be agreed interfaces between organisations.
Aug 15 13:41:52 <ben_geer> But we need a way to bootstrap it, however imperfectly, in our present world.
Aug 15 13:42:05 <ben_geer> Richard's proposal about inter-working-group groups could help.
Aug 15 13:42:10 <toni>   yes, if information was organized in the way that is digestible in
given time (time that an average participant has).
Aug 15 13:42:39 <toni>   yes. we need to bootstrap it, agreed.
Aug 15 13:42:59 <ben_geer> Maybe we just need to describe this as a problem to be solved
(put it on our TODO list), and collect ideas about it.
Aug 15 13:43:24 <toni>   ok.
Aug 15 13:43:35 <ben_geer> OK, here's a completely different way of looking at this problem,
even more general (still have time to listen?)
Aug 15 13:43:39 <toni>   but speaking about patrice intro
Aug 15 13:43:42 <toni>   (yes)
Aug 15 13:44:05 <toni>   would you personaly leave work _horizontal_

Aug 15 13:44:14 <ben_geer> no I agree that we should take out horizontal.
Aug 15 13:44:19 <toni>   or woudl you preffer to say that form is not predetermined.
Aug 15 13:44:24 <toni>   ok
Aug 15 13:44:30 <ben_geer> I would rather have it more vague; we can clarify it later.
Aug 15 13:44:52 <ben_geer> I think it's better just to say what we're sure we can say clearly,
and ignore the rest in this little text.  It's just an introductory paragraph.
Aug 15 13:44:54 <toni>   i think that given complexity of the issue:
Aug 15 13:44:56 <toni>   "Maybe we just need to describe this as a problem to be solved
(put it on our TODO list), and collect ideas about it"
Aug 15 13:44:59 <toni>   is best approach now.

Aug 15 13:45:28 <ben_geer> OK I do want to tell you this other way that I've been thinking about
the general problem you raised.
Aug 15 13:45:47 <ben_geer> Basically this is a problem in all democratic systems.
Aug 15 13:45:52 <toni>   (listening, say </end> when done)
Aug 15 13:45:58 <ben_geer> (will do)
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Sun Aug 15 13:46:02 2004

**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sun Aug 15 13:46:02 2004

Aug 15 13:46:31 <ben_geer> The problem is that sometimes people who have power are wrong.
Aug 15 13:46:53 <ben_geer> If the majority rules, it's that sometimes the majority is wrong,
 and the minority is made to suffer.
Aug 15 13:47:30 <ben_geer> If minorities have enough power to overrule the minority, then
sometimes the minority is selfish, and everyone suffers, e.g. because work is paralysed as you suggest.
Aug 15 13:48:00 <ben_geer> People are good at looking after their own interests, but less
good at looking after other people's interests.
Aug 15 13:48:20 <ben_geer> Having power over your own interests inevitably means having power
to make problems for other people.
Aug 15 13:48:30 <ben_geer>   I've been thinking about how this can be solved in the general case.
Aug 15 13:49:00 <ben_geer>   My general approach to problems like this is to see if there's anything that people have already done that can be adapted to solve the problem.
Aug 15 13:49:18 <ben_geer>   So I thought: the general sort of process that people have used to solve this kind of problem is the justice system.
Aug 15 13:49:57 <ben_geer>   The purpose of a justice system is to provide a fair way of determining when someone has a legitimate complaint.
Aug 15 13:50:24 <ben_geer>   When there is a conflict, the justice system is meant to determine whose interests should take priority.
Aug 15 13:50:51 <ben_geer>   Now, the justice systems we have are terrible at arranging compromises.  They are terrible at win-win solutions.
Aug 15 13:50:56 <toni>   (bill is on jury those two weeks, chats we had about it, although general and limited - he can't say much, have been aplicable to what we do)
Aug 15 13:51:01 <ben_geer>   But the general framework seems like it could be fixed.
Aug 15 13:51:53 <ben_geer>   I think we could propose a kind of judicial process for sorting out some of these problems.
Aug 15 13:52:14 <ben_geer>   (Maybe not the urgent poisoned-food problem, but slower versions of the obstruction problem, yes.)
Aug 15 13:52:24 <ben_geer>   (almost done now)
Aug 15 13:53:04 <ben_geer>   For example, in Ethics and Social Transformation, I say that people should have control over the decisions that affect their well-being.
Aug 15 13:53:15 <ben_geer>   However, people sometimes have crazy ideas about what affects their well-being.
Aug 15 13:53:23 <toni>   which bring us to what toni nergri said in the workshop i attended, and what gabriel mentioned too, we need to start developing our own legal system. it's hard, but neccesary)(still listeing, don't worry about lenght, i'll interrupt if too bored -not at all at the moment)
Aug 15 13:54:17 <ben_geer>   Some people may think, e.g. that having homosexuals or blacks or atheists living in their neighborhood is a threat to their well-being.  The purpose of a legal system is to determine that those people are just hallucinating.

Aug 15 13:54:42 <toni>   heh. ok, stop for a sec.
Aug 15 13:54:44 <ben_geer>   ok
Aug 15 13:54:56 <toni>   it's a bigger problem that i meant to write about - had no time yet.
Aug 15 13:55:03 <toni>   when you write well-being
Aug 15 13:55:27 <toni>   it necessarily brings up the notion of hegemony. 
Aug 15 13:55:50 <ben_geer>   why?
Aug 15 13:55:55 <toni>   of course, you know, 'hallucinatin' means: they have different value system, imposed or not.
Aug 15 13:56:11 <toni>   because most citizens of UK seems to think
Aug 15 13:56:16 <toni>   that they live well, for example.
Aug 15 13:56:32 <toni>   for me, that is because they are under the hegemony of their political system.
Aug 15 13:56:55 <toni>   they work near 50hrs week on average. they hardly have life outside work. that's no life.
Aug 15 13:57:03 <toni>   however,
Aug 15 13:57:20 <ben_geer>   yes, I think a legal system should be able to look at what people say their needs are, and determine in some fair manner how important those imagined needs really are.
Aug 15 13:57:21 <toni>   they might say that are happy with their well-being.
Aug 15 13:57:35 <toni>   well, legal system is extension of political one.
Aug 15 13:57:39 <toni>   not the other way around.
Aug 15 13:57:58 <ben_geer> ok, but if people say they're happy, and it's not hurting anyone else, I think that's all right.
Aug 15 13:58:07 <ben_geer> The problem in the case of britain is that it's not sustainable and is hurting others.
Aug 15 13:58:30 <toni>   that's one way too look at it, and a good one i think.
Aug 15 13:58:45 <ben_geer>   The situation I have in mind is when people say, "But we'll be miserable if X happens!"  and really they won't be miserable, they just think they will, because they're not looking clearly at the situation.
Aug 15 13:59:40 <toni>   'not looking clearly at the situation' is another way to describe 'being under hegemony'.
Aug 15 14:00:08 <toni>   the reason they don't look clearly is? and what do we call that?
Aug 15 14:00:23 <toni>   i don't care do we used terms like ideology or hegemony. we just have to deal with it.
Aug 15 14:00:25 <ben_geer>   You know, if the Muslims or the homosexuals can't be Muslims or homosexuals, they really *will* be miserable.  A legal system should be able to recognise that their claim is more valid than that of the people who want to exclude them.
Aug 15 14:00:48 <ben_geer>   I don't know what to call it; that's a very good question.
Aug 15 14:01:00 <ben_geer>   Ideology is always someone else's beliefs. )
Aug 15 14:01:01 <ben_geer>   :)
Aug 15 14:01:08 <toni>   i don't know either. i'm just reading about what others have used.

Aug 15 14:01:29 <toni>   yes, however. marxs capital is a way to have a scientific approach to economy and history.
Aug 15 14:01:58 <toni>   which still ends up in ideology. so the Q is, which ideology?
Aug 15 14:02:20 <ben_geer>   Scientific... maybe.  I studied philosophy of science and I think it's really hard to say whether something is 'scientific'.
Aug 15 14:02:31 <ben_geer>   I don't think the word 'scientific' means much actually.
Aug 15 14:03:13 <toni>   i agree. however, materialistic dialectic does cut well through
Aug 15 14:03:49 <toni>   the link that opressors (feudalist,monarch,capitalist) made with the science throughout centuries.
Aug 15 14:03:54 <ben_geer>   But in the case of pure religious or racial or sexual prejudice, it's hard for me to see how it relates to material relations.
Aug 15 14:04:21 <toni>   yes, i told you, i have no answer to it. it's a good Q.

Aug 15 14:04:29 <ben_geer>   You know, some of those Israelis think that their well-being will never be adequate unless they drive all the Palestinians out...
Aug 15 14:04:29 <toni>   it's a good extreme example.
Aug 15 14:05:24 <toni>   that's because nation, as a concept, is useles to us.
Aug 15 14:05:31 <ben_geer>   And actually for the israelis, the opposite is true.  Now they have suicide bombs and war, they're anxious all the time... if they embraced the Palestinians and lived with them as equals, their own quality of life would be vastly better.
Aug 15 14:05:39 <toni>   as you said, it was useful for geting rid of imperialism.
Aug 15 14:05:48 <toni>   but what else is its use?
Aug 15 14:05:56 <toni>   from our point of view, i mean.
Aug 15 14:05:59 <ben_geer>   nothing, I think.
Aug 15 14:06:27 <ben_geer>   In this case I think nationalistic Israelis are really shooting themselves in the foot.
Aug 15 14:06:49 <ben_geer>   But it's all about a sense of identity.
Aug 15 14:06:52 <toni>   yes they are. like nationalist brits and northen ireland.
Aug 15 14:07:22 <toni>   all they achieved (there was no big riches in NI) was sense of terrorist threat in the middle of UK at all times.
Aug 15 14:07:37 <ben_geer>   So that's the sort of situation I have in mind.  I don't know whether to call it ideology or something else.  But I think we need some process for dealing with it.
Aug 15 14:07:41 <toni>   i always think about it as the MAIN reason not to have bins in public places, and i hate it.
Aug 15 14:08:03 <toni>   one has to invest a lot of energy just to put litter in bins, because of stupid nationalist crap.
Aug 15 14:08:15 <ben_geer>   :) I feel the same way about bins.

Aug 15 14:08:36 <toni>   yes, identity is the key.
Aug 15 14:08:47 <toni>   we, humans, are still animals. we like hords.

Aug 15 14:08:50 <ben_geer>   I think something a little bit like a legal system (but also vastly different from current legal systems) could be a way to handle this.
Aug 15 14:08:54 <toni>   we follow shepards too.
Aug 15 14:09:06 <toni>   yes, i think so too.
Aug 15 14:09:15 <ben_geer>   Something that focuses much more on finding workable comprimises, rather than on blaming and punishing.
Aug 15 14:09:15 <toni>   that's too much work though!!! i'm a lazy programmer!
Aug 15 14:09:21 <ben_geer>   :)
Aug 15 14:09:43 <toni>   humans are lazy! that's good. they/we invent as a result of it.
Aug 15 14:10:06 <toni>   "workable comprimises, rather than on blaming and punishing", yes, sounds good.
Aug 15 14:10:38 <ben_geer>   I was thinking that the first thing would be to examine the merits of the competing claims and give some fair estimate of their seriousness.
Aug 15 14:10:53 <ben_geer>   Then start proposing compromises, through a process of mediation.
Aug 15 14:11:06 <ben_geer>   Focus on the end results that everyone could live with.
Aug 15 14:11:15 <ben_geer>   Look for the 90% solution (the unix philosophy!)
Aug 15 14:11:28 <toni>   yeah, yeah. that's common sense for most people (not unix though).
Aug 15 14:11:36 <toni>   i liked the bit about unix you wrote.
Aug 15 14:11:41 <toni>   have we used that in indymedia
Aug 15 14:11:41 <ben_geer>   Have a time limit.  If the parties can't agree by the time limit, the court imposes a solution.
Aug 15 14:12:00 <toni>   we would have solved a lot of problems, with %90 approach.
Aug 15 14:12:10 <toni>   hehe.
Aug 15 14:12:26 <toni>   who's the court in an open-org? and what/who give it authority?
Aug 15 14:12:45 <ben_geer>   I think it could be a working group.
Aug 15 14:12:52 <ben_geer>   The legal working group.
Aug 15 14:12:55 <toni>   hehe
Aug 15 14:12:55 <toni>   ok
Aug 15 14:12:57 <toni>   LOL
Aug 15 14:13:00 <ben_geer>   :)
Aug 15 14:13:33 <toni>   so, that is a hierarcychal strucuture, with points of authority your proposing? no?

Aug 15 14:13:41 <ben_geer>   well...
Aug 15 14:13:53 <ben_geer>   it could be required that everyone serve in the legal working group periodically, like jury duty.
Aug 15 14:14:02 <toni>   i'm happy with it. just thinking that lotsa hippies current and former and eco-warriors will have a proble with it.
Aug 15 14:14:25 <toni>   so, we all becomes judges too? 
Aug 15 14:14:35 <ben_geer>   I don't think it's hierarchical if its membership is constantly changing, and everyone gets a turn.
Aug 15 14:14:41 <ben_geer>   Yes I think so.
Aug 15 14:15:01 <ben_geer>   The idea is that everyone will be fair because, when it's their turn to be judged, they will want others to be fair with them.
Aug 15 14:15:51 <ben_geer>   I think it could be like jury duty, but also with skilled mediators who would have a longer-term role.

Aug 15 14:20:30 <ben_geer>   one problem is that current legal systems are designed so that trials are like battles.
Aug 15 14:20:35 <ben_geer>   There is a winner and a loser.
Aug 15 14:20:46 <ben_geer>   Someone is punisheed.
Aug 15 14:21:01 <ben_geer>   I think we should get rid of the whole idea of punishment. (I know this is very controversial)
Aug 15 14:21:17 <toni>   i would replace punishment with work.
Aug 15 14:21:42 <toni>   you do shit, you do useful but boring work for the society at large,
Aug 15 14:21:53 <toni>   of course this is not possible in capitalist society
Aug 15 14:21:53 <ben_geer>   Instead I think the purpose of a legal system (and of a political system) should be to resolve conflicts, find ways to repair damage, to make people take responsibility without punishing them.
Aug 15 14:21:59 <toni>   since indivudals benefit from any work.
Aug 15 14:22:21 <ben_geer>   I think taking responsibility for the effects of your actions is good; that's accountability.
Aug 15 14:22:38 <ben_geer>   Spending huge amounts of money to have people rot in prisons is just useless.
Aug 15 14:22:44 <ben_geer>   It doesn't improve anyone's well-being.
Aug 15 14:22:49 <toni>   well, it's industry today.
Aug 15 14:22:52 <toni>   makes money.
Aug 15 14:23:11 <ben_geer>   Yes, did I send you that think about prison labour being used in the US?  They're building call centres in prisons.
Aug 15 14:23:12 <toni>   on the other hand, it feels to me like a leftover of times of slavery and imperialism.
Aug 15 14:23:34 <toni>   i read lots about it coupld of years ago. i know about general trends.
Aug 15 14:24:17 <ben_geer>   Anyway a good legal system would be focused on finding solutions, so that everyone benefits and, if possible, everyone saves face.

Aug 15 14:24:19 <toni>   so, in your vision about replacing punishment
Aug 15 14:24:26 <toni>   what to do with serial killer
Aug 15 14:24:56 <toni>   who is guilty beyond doubt? (all jury agrees, and let's say he admints guilt).
Aug 15 14:24:57 <toni>   ?
Aug 15 14:25:02 <ben_geer>   About the serial killer: I'm going for the 90% solution.  It won't handle the problem of the serial killer.
Aug 15 14:25:14 <ben_geer>   The serial killer is a special case, a very unusual one.
Aug 15 14:25:15 <toni>   yes, i agree with you 100%
Aug 15 14:25:20 <toni>   on that %90 :)
Aug 15 14:25:40 <toni>   for example, i heard on Radio 4 the other day
Aug 15 14:25:52 <toni>   that most people in UK prisons are there for
Aug 15 14:25:54 <ben_geer>   Some kind of imprisonment (though not like prisons we have) will be needed for those few special cases.
Aug 15 14:26:01 <toni>   stealling small things!!!! how crap is that!
Aug 15 14:26:05 <ben_geer>   Yes.
Aug 15 14:26:39 <toni>   and 3-times-strike US (i think in California) thing, which probabaly is responsible for
Aug 15 14:26:52 <toni>   most of those 2 milion male blacks in prisons.
Aug 15 14:27:07 <ben_geer>   Yes.
Aug 15 14:27:10 <toni>   you still in supermaker 3 times, you go in jail FOR LIFE!
Aug 15 14:27:15 <toni>   that's what i understood.
Aug 15 14:27:19 <toni>   you think that's correct?
Aug 15 14:27:26 <ben_geer>   Yes I think so.
Aug 15 14:27:39 <toni>   well, that's extension of slavery, nothing else.
Aug 15 14:27:48 <ben_geer>   Plus it's well known that if you've been to prison once, you're much more likely to be sent to prison again later.
Aug 15 14:28:03 <toni>   you're born poor, your learn bad habits (to steal), they give you LIFE in PRISON.
Aug 15 14:28:05 <toni>   how greate.
Aug 15 14:28:06 <ben_geer>   Foucault's analysis is that prisons are really crime schools set up by the state.
Aug 15 14:28:16 <toni>   yes, i read bits. i agree with him.
Aug 15 14:28:25 <ben_geer>   The state needs there to be lots of petty criminals in order to justify big repressive measures.
Aug 15 14:28:36 <toni>   precisely
Aug 15 14:28:49 <toni>   it gives me carte blanche
Aug 15 14:29:01 <toni>   or however you say it in fench
Aug 15 14:29:04 <toni>   french
Aug 15 14:29:13 <ben_geer>   carte blanche is correct :)
Aug 15 14:29:17 <toni>   give them. blah. tired of typing.
Aug 15 14:29:29 <ben_geer>   ok let's take a break from this
Aug 15 14:29:30 <toni>   yes, that's what states gets handed over because of focus on petty crime.
Aug 15 14:29:44 <toni>   good. tired of it.

Aug 15 14:29:49 <toni>   back to open-org
Aug 15 14:29:58 <toni>   have you digested my proposal for IWGs?
Aug 15 14:30:07 <toni>   and for treating problem we discovered through server crisis
Aug 15 14:30:15 <toni>   as a IWG-dep, a special case of IWG.
Aug 15 14:30:16 <toni>   ?
Aug 15 14:30:38 <ben_geer>   I just read DependenciesProcess, and I think it's fine.
Aug 15 14:30:41 <toni>   and, i'm convinced that IWG is implemetnation and belongs on separate page from introduction doc.
Aug 15 14:30:53 <ben_geer>   haven't digested the relation to IWG yet
Aug 15 14:31:03 <ben_geer>   But my first reaction is that I agree it should be separate from the intro.
Aug 15 14:31:27 <ben_geer>   will catch up on reading everything else today.
Aug 15 14:31:30 <toni>   ok

Aug 15 14:32:09 <toni>   here's something i'll try to attend
Aug 15 14:32:11 <toni>   http://www.gre.ac.uk/sep2004/
Aug 15 14:32:11 <ben_geer>   as for patrice's paragraph, let's not get too deeply into theory for it
Aug 15 14:32:27 <toni>   was told about it by my new academic collegues :)
Aug 15 14:32:32 <ben_geer>   looks like fun
Aug 15 14:33:26 <ben_geer>   I don't think we need to open the whole can of worms about accountability processes and legal systems (what we talked about above) in that little paragraph.
Aug 15 14:33:40 <toni>   me neither. but i still wanna send my mail 
Aug 15 14:33:45 <ben_geer>   No problem.
Aug 15 14:33:52 <toni>   and propose removal or _horizontal_/
Aug 15 14:34:04 <ben_geer>   That seems fine to me.
Aug 15 14:34:06 <toni>   ok
Aug 15 14:34:14 <toni>   then, next thing,

Aug 15 14:34:20 <toni>   good energy for another short chat?
Aug 15 14:34:23 <toni>   shorter then this?
Aug 15 14:34:25 <ben_geer>   yes
Aug 15 14:34:32 <toni>   on power.
Aug 15 14:34:52 <toni>   one sec.
Aug 15 14:34:58 <ben_geer>   ok as long as it's not too theoretical, my brain is getting tired (I was up all night writing that thing, barely slept).

Aug 15 14:37:06 <toni>    The wish for open organisations stems from a widespread dissatisfaction with formal, power-driven and power exercising bodies,
Aug 15 14:37:12 <toni>   that's from patrice's text
Aug 15 14:37:22 <ben_geer>   OK no I see what you mean, that's no good.
Aug 15 14:37:27 <toni>   now, i see nothing wrong with power.
Aug 15 14:37:30 <ben_geer>   exactly.
Aug 15 14:37:51 <toni>   that's first thing that richard and i tried to explain to activists (who look at as like two lunatics because of it).
Aug 15 14:37:54 <toni>   right!
Aug 15 14:38:03 <toni>   patrice did clarify to say:
Aug 15 14:38:06 <ben_geer>   it definitely stems from a dissatisfaction, but not with power per se.
Aug 15 14:38:15 <toni>   "'Power' is of course the key word. Good luck with it! It is in any case 
Aug 15 14:38:15 <toni>   something more than the usual social sciences 'ability to impose one's 
Aug 15 14:38:15 <toni>   decision on someone else'"
Aug 15 14:38:18 <toni>   exactly.
Aug 15 14:38:30 <ben_geer>   I think maybe we should say something about power in the Intro, like we do about politics.
Aug 15 14:38:30 <toni>   dissatisfaction is understandable, we share it!
Aug 15 14:38:40 <toni>   yes, i think so too.
Aug 15 14:38:50 <toni>   it was part of one of docs i wrote initialy
Aug 15 14:38:59 <toni>   a paragraph on power.
Aug 15 14:39:15 <toni>   i'll look at it, how we could add it, in one/two sentences to intro.
Aug 15 14:39:29 <ben_geer>   I think it's something very basic for OpenOrg.  It's nonsensical to talk about getting rid of power.  The question is who has which powers, and how can they exercise them.
Aug 15 14:39:49 <toni>   exactly. to paraphrase Lenin:
Aug 15 14:39:49 <ben_geer>   ok
Aug 15 14:39:58 <toni>   Power for WHOME to do WHAT.
Aug 15 14:40:06 <ben_geer>   yes and I add: and HOW. :)
Aug 15 14:40:14 <toni>   yes, good point.
Aug 15 14:40:34 <ben_geer>   the HOW is a lot of what we are dealing with in OpenOrg, which Lenin didn't address.
Aug 15 14:40:49 <toni>   so, i wanna challenge, mildly, partrice on this. i'll look at my old writings and see what's applicable.
Aug 15 14:40:56 <toni>   YES! i agree 100%.
Aug 15 14:41:05 <ben_geer>   actually I think Lenin said 'for WHO to do WHAT to WHOM'.
Aug 15 14:41:28 <toni>   let's look at circumstances though, they lived in poor societies at that time,
Aug 15 14:41:30 <ben_geer>   OK that sounds good.
Aug 15 14:41:33 <toni>   it was hard to think HOW as well.
Aug 15 14:41:49 <toni>   we have the privilege today to think that as well, and technology.
Aug 15 14:42:00 <ben_geer>   I don't know, it's hard for me to imagine what was difficult for people to think about long ago, to imagine their mental world.
Aug 15 14:42:38 <ben_geer>   I don't know if you can really explain why some ideas appear at a given time, and not sooner.
Aug 15 14:42:51 <toni>   Lenin said: "Freedom - yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?"
Aug 15 14:43:02 <ben_geer>   ok
Aug 15 14:43:30 <toni>   well, i can imagine that they lacked food and clothes. we don't.
Aug 15 14:43:37 <toni>   entire west is too fat. that's a fact.
Aug 15 14:43:56 <toni>   hehe, listen to me, a fact! as if it adds weight to what i say. that's ideological.
Aug 15 14:44:00 <ben_geer>   wikipedia says: 'Lenin said politics was about "who could do what to whom" (Russian "Kto-Kogo" for "Who-Whom").'
Aug 15 14:44:04 <ben_geer>   (entry for Politics)
Aug 15 14:44:51 <toni>   this is what he said about freedom specificaly, when addressing Mensheviks
Aug 15 14:45:08 <ben_geer>   yes Lenin didn't lack food and clothes.  culture makes a difference too... I don't know, my brain is tired. :)
Aug 15 14:45:15 <toni>   but yes, one about politics sounds good, with addition of HOW.
Aug 15 14:45:23 <toni>   ok, let's stop.
Aug 15 14:45:33 <toni>   good chat. useful.
Aug 15 14:45:40 <toni>   can of worms is scary though.
Aug 15 14:46:08 <ben_geer>   Scary is good.  It means we're asking the questions we should be asking.

Aug 15 14:47:44 <ben_geer>   One more little thing.
Aug 15 14:47:54 <toni>   (listening)
Aug 15 14:48:23 <ben_geer>   Since we're having all these private chats about open org, I'm getting concerned that we're becoming the OpenOrg mafia.
Aug 15 14:48:38 <ben_geer>   Maybe we should have the discipline to write summaries, or post chat logs on the list.
Aug 15 14:49:01 <ben_geer>   The easier option would be to post edited logs, as if they were meetings.
Aug 15 14:49:42 <toni>   that touches on another can of worms though.
Aug 15 14:49:53 <toni>   yes, i think too that we should post edited logs.
Aug 15 14:49:56 <toni>   like minutes.
Aug 15 14:50:04 <toni>   we can do it over email.
Aug 15 14:50:16 <toni>   on the can of worms ...
Aug 15 14:50:25 <ben_geer>   over email?
Aug 15 14:50:27 <toni>   when it comes of open participation in open-orgs
Aug 15 14:50:53 <toni>   (well, one of two of us does first edit, sends to another, then we post it to wiki as minutes)
Aug 15 14:50:58 <ben_geer>   oh ok fine
Aug 15 14:51:06 <toni>   since we wanna cut crap, private thoughts, and whatever else out.
Aug 15 14:51:18 <toni>   so, no totaly transparency.
Aug 15 14:51:24 <toni>   hehe, you agreed to it :)
Aug 15 14:51:46 <toni>   see, this is what pauline was telling me at mute
Aug 15 14:52:09 <toni>   that some form of private space to work in is necessary.
Aug 15 14:52:17 <toni>   that's precisely what we're doing now.
Aug 15 14:52:28 <toni>   she was right, as a general remark.
Aug 15 14:52:30 <toni>   you there?
Aug 15 14:52:53 <ben_geer>   I really wouldn't mind it if we agreed in advance that it was an open-org meeting, then I would only talk about open-org stuff, and there would be nothing to edit out.
Aug 15 14:53:25 <ben_geer>   The problem is simply that people tend to mix work discussions with unrelated discussions.
Aug 15 14:53:28 <toni>   but, we meet totally ad-hoc.
Aug 15 14:53:41 <toni>   these are both problems.
Aug 15 14:53:48 <toni>   we can't fix time, well it's super hard to do so.
Aug 15 14:53:53 <ben_geer>   Meeting ad-hoc is another problem, yes.
Aug 15 14:54:04 <ben_geer>   I was wondering whether I could really manage doing this on a schedule.
Aug 15 14:54:16 <toni>   at least at this stage, when it's either: we do it ad-hoc, or we don't do it.
Aug 15 14:54:32 <toni>   open-org framework benefits if it actully do manage to do it, as transparent as we can.
Aug 15 14:54:37 <toni>   how about this
Aug 15 14:54:40 <toni>   each time we do it
Aug 15 14:54:43 <toni>   when we get online
Aug 15 14:54:49 <toni>   we post a message at open-org list
Aug 15 14:54:52 <ben_geer>   I was wondering how, say, Ricardo feels: he must see us as exactly the sort of friendship-network problem that OpenOrg is supposed to solve.
Aug 15 14:54:53 <toni>   saying, we're at irc.....
Aug 15 14:55:05 <toni>   discussing this and that. join us if you like.
Aug 15 14:55:22 <toni>   and we can have that as a protocol, explainaing that it's that or nothing for us.
Aug 15 14:55:35 <toni>   if people than start expressing desire to join
Aug 15 14:55:40 <ben_geer>   we could do that, but it wouldn't help much....
Aug 15 14:55:41 <toni>   we think about regular ones.
Aug 15 14:55:44 <toni>   you think so/
Aug 15 14:55:45 <toni>   ?
Aug 15 14:55:48 <toni>   </end>
Aug 15 14:56:06 <ben_geer>   what good is it to see the email the next day, saying that while you were asleep, someone was having a meeting?
Aug 15 14:56:27 <toni>   ok, yes, litte sense.
Aug 15 14:56:32 <toni>   but in this concrete example
Aug 15 14:56:51 <toni>   partice's email and our work on it, along with discovery of DepndencyIssues
Aug 15 14:57:03 <toni>   are immediate concenrs that we're dealing with in real time.
Aug 15 14:57:27 <toni>   my paid work pressure, for example, very concrete issue, doesn't give me opportunity to plan much.
Aug 15 14:57:29 <toni>   so, what do we do?
Aug 15 14:57:35 <toni>   </end>
Aug 15 14:57:54 <toni>   i might be in italy on Wed? i don't know.
Aug 15 14:57:55 <ben_geer>   I think we have to post the logs.  In one of our documents it says that you can have discussions off-line, but you have to post a summary to the list.  It's understood that sometimes unplanned discussions will happen, and not everyone can be notified in time.
Aug 15 14:58:12 <toni>   no, no, i said above, logs, yes!
Aug 15 14:58:17 <ben_geer>   yes I know
Aug 15 14:58:21 <ben_geer>   but I think that's really all we can do
Aug 15 14:58:35 <toni>   but, how to communicate the fact of what are we doing at the moment to the list. that's the question.
Aug 15 14:58:46 <toni>   ok
Aug 15 14:58:52 <ben_geer>   Sending an email to the list at the time is nice, but in practice won't make much difference.

Aug 15 14:59:10 <ben_geer>   Maybe the more important question is: do we make decisions in these chats?
Aug 15 14:59:41 <ben_geer>   I.e. do we make decisions that should instead be happening on the list?
Aug 15 14:59:53 <toni>   well, we shouldn't. that's the begining of the can of worms i mentioned above.
Aug 15 15:00:08 <toni>   i don't think we do. i'll post my mail about horizontals anyway
Aug 15 15:00:21 <ben_geer>   I don't think we do either, actually, but I'm not sure.
Aug 15 15:00:23 <toni>   and i Joe Jim and Patrice have issue, i will discussed them.
Aug 15 15:00:36 <ben_geer>   who's Joe and Jim?
Aug 15 15:00:41 <toni>   it's more generic problem then decisions or not.
Aug 15 15:00:46 <toni>   imaginary charaters :)

Aug 15 15:01:13 <toni>   problem we never addressed so far is following
Aug 15 15:01:24 <toni>   (let me just say it, so that we know it's an issue):
Aug 15 15:01:38 <toni>   as open-org project becomes and open organization itself
Aug 15 15:01:59 <toni>   how do we handle, and do we need to handle it at all, the fact that 3 of us
Aug 15 15:02:10 <toni>   invested huge amount of time and energy in it.
Aug 15 15:02:14 <toni>   are we, because of it
Aug 15 15:02:34 <toni>   entitled to anything more than a new particpant (imaginary) Joe?
Aug 15 15:02:52 <toni>   this is something that ALL activist i ever worked with feel (when they have been working
Aug 15 15:03:00 <toni>   long in an org, yet it never gets discussed.
Aug 15 15:03:09 <toni>   equality is superficial.
Aug 15 15:03:12 <toni>   </end>
Aug 15 15:03:51 <ben_geer>   I think two things have to be balanced:
Aug 15 15:04:33 <ben_geer>   1. Old-timers know the project better, and they may know the problem domain better.  Newcomers may make mistakes that old-timers wouldn't.  This is just respect for skill.
Aug 15 15:04:55 <ben_geer>   2. Old-timers may have limitations (in their thinking, in their skills) that newcomers don't have.  Old-timers may become an obstacle to progress.
Aug 15 15:05:14 <ben_geer>   Some social systems favour old-timers, others favour newcomers.
Aug 15 15:05:48 <ben_geer>   I don't know how this can be formalised in a political process, but I think it needs to be formalised.
Aug 15 15:05:52 <ben_geer>   </end>
Aug 15 15:05:59 <toni>   can you give me one example that favoure newcomers?
Aug 15 15:06:19 <toni>   i can't think of one, sadly or not.
Aug 15 15:06:38 <ben_geer>   Well if newcomers are in the majority...
Aug 15 15:06:52 <toni>   gcc and linux kernel, and activist orgs both favour oldcomers, i think.
Aug 15 15:07:02 <ben_geer>   like when AOL appeared and suddenly Usenet was flooded with newbies, destroying the old Usenet culture.
Aug 15 15:07:03 <toni>   although criteria is clearer in tech projects.
Aug 15 15:07:49 <ben_geer>   And then the commercial internet appeared and suddenly adverts and spam were everywhere.
Aug 15 15:08:17 <ben_geer>   The Internet community did not have adequate mechanisms for protecting itself from the changes made by the newcomers.
Aug 15 15:08:43 <toni>   well, newcomers were also, to large extent, result of goldrush
Aug 15 15:08:54 <ben_geer>   It was a system that relied on good manners (netiquette), and had no mechanisms for handling the failure condition where lots of people arrive with no manners.
Aug 15 15:09:07 <toni>   everyone wanted to make cash out it, by being an ISP, or whatever else. the .com craze.
Aug 15 15:10:01 <toni>   well, internet was a community in it earlies days, when it was mostly linking universities.
Aug 15 15:10:22 <toni>   as soon as public started geting access, we can not speak of community any more.
Aug 15 15:10:27 <ben_geer>   Another example: look at how everything is marketed to young people now.  And pensions for old people are abolished.
Aug 15 15:11:00 <ben_geer>   Young people have money because they have credit, so the market adapts to serve them, and throws old people in the bin.
Aug 15 15:11:02 <toni>   yes, that's makes more sense.
Aug 15 15:11:11 <toni>   and links with previous example.
Aug 15 15:11:22 <toni>   universities aren't good enough as consumers.
Aug 15 15:11:58 <toni>   however, we're mixing apples and potateos here.
Aug 15 15:12:30 <toni>   defined organizations (rougly defined), and its proceses, is different from generic medium (like Net)
Aug 15 15:12:38 <ben_geer>   Some traditional African societies were based on a system of age groups, where as you got older, you automatically got more responsibility and power in the community.
Aug 15 15:12:42 <toni>   or from economic system imposed by the State and Capital.
Aug 15 15:12:56 <ben_geer>   Those societies were therefore very conservative.
Aug 15 15:13:05 <ben_geer>   There were specific roles for each age group.
Aug 15 15:13:18 <ben_geer>   You couldn't keep the same role all your life.
Aug 15 15:13:31 <toni>   'free market' is no an organization, although there is a well crafted system behind it (which is what favours young people and kills pensions).
Aug 15 15:14:23 <ben_geer>   Yes I agree with you that in most organisations, everything favours the old-timers.  The problem is often how to get rid of the founders or limit their power.
Aug 15 15:14:39 <toni>   by defined processe.
Aug 15 15:14:44 <ben_geer>   Most organisations can never outgrow the prejudices of their founders.
Aug 15 15:14:52 <toni>   true.
Aug 15 15:15:22 <ben_geer>   So people are forced to create new organisations from scratch in order to overcome the limitations of the previous ones.  Huge waste of effort.
Aug 15 15:15:29 <toni>   ok, how about we leave this as another issue we opened up today?
Aug 15 15:15:33 <ben_geer>   ok

-- ToniPrug - 15 Aug 2004
to top