[wsfii-discuss] WSFII-Calendar & NewsBlog :-)

[Julian Priest]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:41:42AM -0800, Jo Walsh wrote:
> dear Julian, thankyou for this email. it flabbergasted me.

Aargh - the written word! Appologies for any heavy handedness - on a
re-read I seem to have come across unintentionally defensivley rather
than constructively. - oops over-lengthy explanation follows ;)

> We spend a lot of time talking about who We are, how We are defined,
> and what We believe in. We get caught up in discussion about Our
> processes, how We make decisions and how We should act to effect them.   

In this sense I think Kierkegaard is problematising the totalising
aspect of any appeal to a 'We' as in 'We the people' or 'We the media'
or I guess even 'The Royal We' in defence of subjectivity and
indiviual responsibility.

> if i had to pick one reason why i want the world to achieve 100%
> literacy, it would be so that everyone could read "The Tyranny of
> Structurelessness" at least once.
> http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/structurelessness.htm
> 
> this is the point i am trying to make about "The Tyranny of We":
> i think it is a key to cutting through the politics/semantics loop.

Yes - its definitley at the core. On the one hand many free
infrastructure ideas have a strong critique of hierachical structures
and control points built in to them. On the other hand it seems that
when structure is removed totally what emerges quickly is some kind of
gang/clique structure - Jamie King's packet gang goes over the ground
nicely.

http://tinyurl.com/cet93

In response to hierarchy and representation, organisations are created
which apparently are open, flat and participatory but in fact have
invisible power structures that can be far more difficult to deal with
than a visible hierachy.

In a representative democracy you have established rules which however
flawed define how the 'We' power is wielded. In an open organisation
you often have a 'We' that is wielded by whoever gets to hold the
speaking stick. If that isn't based in some very rigourous consensus
process then it has a danger of becoming an unfettered and
unrepresentative power.

I do like the thought that removing the 'We' altogether is a way round
this problem, the slower version is constructing a solid consensus
process.

Annecdote mode: I once went to try and interview the Zapatistas about
their march on Mexico city with a journalist friend. We were allowed
to stay in the village, but told that the interview would only be
given when everyone in the community had agreed to it. A brazilian
film maker who was there at the same time, had already been waiting 9
days and was giving up to go home and since we also had limited time
we left shortly afterwards without our interview. In this way they
ensured that only people who made a real commitment to being with them
for a longer period, maybe a month or more where able to represent
them to the outside world.

I guess the dilemma is that in a wider sense Wsfii isn't proposing
consensus in organisation or culture but only in the limited sense of
infrastructure so these types of consensual process aren't perhaps
feasible for us.

One can agree to share data, publish an interface, profer a network
connection, agree a licensing schema, but organising around 'Free
Information Infrastructure' doesn't necessarily provide a wide common
ground.

Wsfii is a space to explore touch points and similarities and share
and explore a diversity of approaches rather than try and acheive
consensus!

On the other hand I'd still argue that a feasible 'We' or identity is
needed for Wsfii just to make it happen.

> Saul and Rufus and I chose to go with very relaxed organising stance
> for the weekend of 1-2 October. It seemed to work out all right. 
> I appreciate that when planning a much bigger event, which will
> involve a lot more investment in travel, accomodation and time, in a
> cultural context which is necessarily defined by the requirements of
> people who are paying for all of that, you need a robust "image" of
> what Wsfii is expressing in order to carry that off.

Its true funders and others like to have something to get a handle on
and part of the rationale for the 'world summit' aspect of Wsfii is to
create something that can function as a global context to strengthen
people's local activity in the eyes of their communities and with
their backers.

But I think the main point about having a clear Wsfii identity, is to
have something that the participants can attach their practices to or
represent their practices in.

In that sense isn't it best to try and imagine a Wsfii which didn't
have any funding or funders as a starting point? Who knows how
successful our interactions with funders will be in any case? At a
pinch can we self-fund a series of wsfii events as we almost had to do
in London?

Then the question becomes;

"What _can_ we agree that Wsfii is about?" 

My sense is that the more limited that is the better without becoming
empty - and that could be limited to what is expressed in the MOU.

> The word "self-apppointed" usually carries negative connotations in
> English and this is why Saul chose it, as a kind of self-deprecating
> joke.

It's a good idea too - self-appoint yourself publicly to do something
- then you have to live up to it!

In summary what about some principles like these?

 * Limit what you claim for Wsfii as a whole to what is in the MOU

 * Be careful to say who you are speaking for - individually or
  organisationally - define the 'We'

 * Be explicit about what you offer to Wsfii - define your interfaces!

 * Take responsibility for providing what you offer.

> i don't want Us to spend all Our time talking about it. 
> for me, Wsfii is about the tao of organising by not trying too hard to
> organise (this is what i learned from Saul) and about acting out a
> sort of "political philosophy" by doing things that one enjoys doing,
> and getting together to talk about it (this is what i learned from Rufus).

It worked excellently and is a great model for other evets. Even doing
a bit of the organisational lifting for me wsfii.london was the least
stressful event I have ever been involved in helping to organise.

Lets get started on a Wsfii howto based on the experiences of london..

> but Wsfii can be all things to all people, and every Wsfii instance
> can be different, and i think that would great!

Yes!

chrs

~/julian

btw. Kierkegaard was a bit of a depressive character - kierkegaard
even means grave yard in Danish! He famously broke his own heart and
that of his sweetheart by never requiting the love of his life for
fear of destroying his perfect un-realised love!