--- Log opened Sat Aug 03 00:00:41 2013
09:08 < conseo> mcallan:  what do i need to do to get the practice started with you? do you have a how-to for n00bs?
09:20 < mcallan> i don't know yet how to start it.  trying to learn
10:08 < conseo> ok
10:08 < conseo> it is also a bit like a democratic newspaper or black-board, right?
10:15 < mcallan> you mean what i'm now calling 'mirror'?  http://piratepad.net/hgtKtHkfnU
10:23 < conseo> i am wondering if we can model it like a traditional medium of speech, to make the terms and understanding easy, even if a fundamental aspect (reciprocity and electing redaction) are different
10:24 < conseo> technically that might sense, but it is difficult to grasp if we phrase too much newly if we can avoid it
10:24 < conseo> might make sense
10:25 < mcallan> not sure what you mean exactly.  want to talk?
10:46 < conseo> i mean that there are traditional speech mediums like newspapers, forums or even black-boards in communities. the new practice should align to that as far as possible and only introduce new terminology were necessary imo
10:46 < conseo> we can talk
10:54 < mcallan> i understand now, you are saying 'mirror' is not ideal word
11:03 < conseo> well, not only mirror, we have interesting free-speech mediums as examples from social movements and their newspapers (and now blogs). it should be familiar in that sense
11:03 < conseo> we can still have a different technological terminology, but ideally they should converge
11:05 < conseo> we open up the compilation process, if i understand it correctly
11:05 < conseo> otherwise it works like a newspaper allowing reader's letters and contributions
11:06 < conseo> or instead of compilation: editorial staff
11:18 < conseo> i'll get something to eat, be back in 20 mins
11:25 < mcallan> except it links to all "newspaper stories" in world, so it's not actually like a newspaper
11:29 < conseo> all newspapers potentially link to all other news sources, they are the traditional aggregator, only that they usually have a strict restriction by editorial policy.
11:32 < conseo> we should only introduce new-ness where absolutely necessary and then emphasize it, if we create a whole new process we and other people cannot align it to their experiences if we act as if it was totally new
11:33 < conseo> often the new-ness lies in a shift in totality, not in actual new "things" in the process, but the way it is rearranged and focused, in my humble understanding this is the case here, right?
11:40 < conseo> an example i came across through the book on american history is:  http://nativeamericanencyclopedia.com/akwesasne-notes/
11:50 < conseo> (if you have a better analogy than a newspaper, e.g. something online, we can take that as well, but terms like "social media", "blogs" or "news feeds" barely clearify the process imo. a forum might be closest...)
11:53 < mcallan> you are talking about impl. names (sites, etc) not design names.  so i guess this is up to participants together to decide
12:51 < conseo> how do you think will i reply to that?
13:02 < mcallan> maybe i don't understand you, after all.  not at all.  we can still talk, if you like
13:11 < conseo> well, i think we should start with the people, what already works on the ground as current process and only fix it where it is broken (which ideally they help us to find out). we shouldn't sketch "completely" new processes and then allow them to chose names for it
13:12 < conseo> (because nobody will as the process already very likely hides the real problems)
13:13 < conseo> you yourself told me to only fix a problem at a time and try to keep the process as simple as possible, which is what already exists
13:20 < mcallan> last time we spoke of this (connecting with the ground, etc), my understanding was you would lead it
13:21 < conseo> i do, i have carefully thought about it and chosen an issue which i think fits your definition and is hot enough to be attractive while neutral enough to not get sunk in the first attempt
13:22 < conseo> i can rename the terms in a newspaper sense, i just thought that breaking it down was in your interest as well
13:25 < conseo> you have already said here and on the list that you think form is more important than content, i disagree. form has to evolve from content and enable it. i think this is the same problem again and this is somewhat fundamental. you treat stuff only analytically and try to break it up into unrelated parts which you then can align in a new form
13:30 < conseo> but breaking them up like a mechanic very much kills the organic and reflective aspect of social relations (people think about their relations themselves at least). to give an abstract description of the problem i see
13:34 < conseo> i am not saying that it is plain wrong, this would be the same mistake applied to itself. i am just saying that collective intelligence is usually deeper than our understanding and theoretical thought, because it is many humans involved in the practicality of the problem who make up social reality. i don't think the process is bad, but we have to ground it and start from there imo
13:36 < conseo> so i would name the thing "collective climate-change newspaper/forum" or so and try to use similar terms for the process. does that help understand me?
13:41 < mcallan> overall you have something in mind that's different from what i'm working on, which is cool. :-)  but i can't see it, yet.  when i ask you to take the lead, what i mean is, 'show me'.  please show me how to do it.  once i see what you're doing, then i'll try to follow as best i can
13:44 < conseo> hmm, ok. personally i still would try to wire up a physical production process, as i think that discussion cannot beat economic reality, but i can try to model a free speech medium that way. it is just newspaper with an elected board of moderators and arbitrary input channels. how the moderators will be in permanent conflict though possibly
13:44 < conseo> i mean the moderation process will be target of conflict
13:46 < conseo> (as it always was, in all newspapers by the public. btw. marx started his political career as a journalist and stayed it with interruptions)
14:09 < conseo> have you consulted any empirical evidence for your design?
14:25 < conseo> (or what do you mean with "trying to learn"? have you had a look at some historical examples/problems somewhere? you mention that it is *not* mass media, so i have the impression this is a negative example you try to fix)
14:37 < mcallan> by 'learn', i mean to discover what works
18:30 < conseo> mcallan: i have started some risk assessment: http://piratepad.net/7RVW5Pfad0 feel free to comment
18:39 < conseo> mcallan: or add/adjust where you see fit
18:46 < conseo> probably you have contained some of the risks, but i think it is good to lay them out
19:01 < mcallan> thanks c, i looked briefly and have a question: can you indicate exactly what facility (etc) is at risk in each case?
19:03 < conseo> facility? you mean the moderators, the infrastructure or the actual value/meaning of the process itself? (or even discourse theory)?
19:06 < conseo> i tried to point it out
19:09 < conseo> i have put it under "cost"
19:50 < mcallan> conseo: as i say, i need first to understand where you are moving (show me), before i can understand the risks of that move
19:51 < mcallan> it's end of my day, guy.  back tomorrow...
19:52 < mcallan> (ps, you may remove my comments in risk assess pad.  i wrote them before i understood)
20:13 < mcallan> good night
21:44 < conseo> gn8
--- Log closed Sun Aug 04 00:00:58 2013