On 3/30/2012 9:28 PM, Yeshua wrote:
hello![Stephen replied]
On 03/30/2012 08:44 PM, Stephen Marshall wrote:
Then, the people on the ring do not need to get the replies from other ring people or local people. In my opinion, the inquirer is the logical recipient of email from anyone interested in what the inquirer has in mind. Besides, in consideration of the desire not to be swamped with emails, the ring person does not need to intermediate once the ultimate recipient gets the message. I would say that anyone, local or on the ring, who wants to be "in the loop" can communicate directly with the person who sent out the original message.
Is all of this making sense?
[Yeshua replied]
in my humble opinion, it seems overly complex, unless I am missing something? is there anything wrong with our setting up and using a mailing list? say on riseup.net, our own occupycentralvt.org (could be others if we wanted to take on the work to setup another domain) or even the evil google..?
In my opinion, it would be easier for us all if we had one website or similar place that we could all add to with these types of "statewide" or "collective" issues, and possibly even then have our own sub-sites for groups that want to.
If others would like, I could draft a more formal proposal along these lines, as I think it would greatly benefit us to have something like this. I am mostly speaking through the experience of setting up the occupycentralvt.org wordpress/buddypress social site. This is a scalable setup and very flexible, and I can see how some of the possibilities could serve us very well.
~Yeshua
If participation proves that human infrastructure, or this model, is not desired, hopefully something else will have superseded it. In any event, we will need technology. But I have had a strong and supportive reaction to this network model. My goal for the network is to formalize natural human networking, with the intention of efficiently getting the best most relevant information from someone who has it to someone who needs it. Human infrastructure is not intended to replace useful technology, it is intended to work with it.
I think that once the idea is understood, it will not seem so complicated. To me, and to many who are not saying anything, it is intuitive. What I said above is just an application of "step-up/step-back"
If I can try again, the members of this list are relay points, between each other and their local people. If one of us also is a person the message would actually go to, then s/he can act like the actual recipient. S/he IS an actual recipient. But the role of "Ring Person" is to RELAY messages from one part of the state to another, is help people find each other.
Finding people we need to talk to is sometimes difficult. Lists help if they are correct. To be correct they must be updated. Someone must do the work. If every person is responsible to do the work, then each of us becomes responsible to take our own name off of a list when it is obsolete, and if we do not there is bloat. This is a troublesome responsibility because even people with the best intentions frequently do not look back to see what messes they need to clean up.
Then the new person must figure out that there is a list and how to go to it and how to use it. If only one or a few people are responsible, it is a lot of work for them, and they must be forever checking to see who is still on the list and who is coming on or going off. A lot of information for people who do not always have direct access to it.
By contrast, A node person, or Ring Person, has a list for the area in which they live and are responsible. If they do not know who the right person is to give a message to, they can ask around. An internet list cannot do this. When that Ring Person wants to step back, s/he can simply turn the list over to another person. That person is given the information about other Ring Persons, and they are up and running.
The human infrastructure model has important advantages. It promotes communication person to person. This is first of all the most meaningful part of being in a movement - connecting and being informed about other people, and consequently being able to plan and act in solidarity. Hence, it also promotes movement solidarity. Solidarity via email and web sites is not emotionally dimensional. Knowing people by name and having their phone number and helping them link up with someone else is deeply human and irreplaceable. A list is passive and waits for someone to give attention. It does not reward with a human relationship. A person is an active agent who rewards other active agents with human connection.
But there is more. The buck stops with humans. If a list doesn't have the answer, you ask "Who would know?". You can start writing to everyone on the list, until you find a person who has an answer. It's hit or miss. If you ask a person, you are already talking to a person. If it is a ring person, s/he can direct you to the exact person who has the answer or knows someone who does. . You wanted a person in the first place. Human Infrastructure gives you a person who can answer your question, who can pass your message to the persons who do know.
Finally, if the technology is taken away, we still have each other. The world we live in, with its commerce and efficiency, wants us to be insertable cogs. Human infrastructure is the ultimate defiance. We are real, we are human, and we will not form ourselves into blind, subservient units of labor and consumption. We want more. We want our lives back. We want each other. It starts with relationships. Human Infrastructure facilitates this.
Yeshua, I would like very much to have internet resources which complement the aspirations of the Communications Working Group. For all of the reasons I have stated above, I would like to avoid describing one as necessary and the other as not necessary. Yes, let's work on it together. In fact, Ben Buckley, (AKA drkludge), is also working on technology based on the hub-and-spoke model, which the Communications WG is, and I would encourage you to be in touch with him. drkludge@rat-patrol.org This knowledge is what the Communications WG is about.
In the short term, I am building up my local list, plus adding names to the State-level Ring. I actually started yesterday to survey my local people for their areas of expertise. I am frequently adding names to the main table, which is on the OYO blog, which is where I am comfortable for now. It is an open platform in that anyone can post on this blog, and anyone can see it.
Eventually I would like to have an interactive map of Vermont which outlines the areas with Occupy members and those without any identified Occupy people. As an interactive map, it would link to a data base that would show who has signed up as a State-level ring person, or also the point persons for Working groups. The advantage of listing just the Ring Persons is the power of exponential expansion. There will never be an unmanageable number of them. The number of Occupiers could quickly become unmanageable for the administrator of a data base. Keep it simple, Keep it sweet, Keep it personal and Keep it local. Say, is that our (CWG) motto?
