Notes for USSF ICT meeting Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 4:00 pm America/New_York time:

Present: Alfredo, Jamie, Sylvia, Josue, Charles, Nancy, Mallory, Micah, Mark, Aaron, Pamela, Daniel, Lou, Ross, Elijah
Meeting Chair: Alfredo
Notes: Mallory

Next meeting: Thursday May 14, 5:00 pm EDT (duration: 1.5 hrs.)

Concurrent online chat channel, minimum activity: ussf2010.silc.org

Notes are below. A decision to move this discussion around NPC homework questions has been moved to its own page.

  1. Introduction
     ICT history in 2007
    Draft Principles for 2010, approved by the NPC as a working document 03/29/09
    Currently using mailman lists, 2 trac wikis, drupal website
  2. NPC homework
    1. What are our main goals and objectives?
      strong connection and support of local organizing committee
      interact with media
      organize seamlessly along with other WGs, evolve our structure
      assure that technology organizers are integrated in the decision-making process, avoid service-provision
      address technology troubleshooting
      serve as a technology advisory group
    2. What is our main task/s?
    3. Who needs to be invited/recruited?
      communicators
      Mark Dilley
      Allied Media Conference
      linux-user groups
    4. How do we make decisions?
    5. How are meetings scheduled? Regularity? Method?
       Crabgrass, riseup
    6. Which organizations take on leadership and who are potential chairs/point persons?
  3. Organizing structure with other WGs
    ICT WG members participate in other WGs, too
  4. Coordination between national and local
    another meeting to support local efforts with 2007/ Atlanta-local memory
  5. Hardware locally
  6. During the course of our organizing, what (infrastructure) can we leave behind in Detroit?

Tech WG conference call
Sylvia’s detailed notes for sharing with Detroit Technology/Communications Committee

Jamie: Run down on what’s happened so far and in 2007—brief history:

  • Technology Work Group started Oct 2006, was a late start, lots of pressure.
  • Started w/ Tech Principles as to be grounded politically.
  • Helped coordinate registration and workshops for Atlanta.
  • Aaron and others helped get many computers running on Linux and had huge network of computers with free software.
  • Documentation that Alfredo has posted on ussf2007.org/ict has 2007 tech principles, email archives, mtg notes, initial work plan, etc so everything was transparent.
  • Many other articles were written, those will be linked on this site soon.
  • Tech principles are valuable and in Detroit before March 2009 NPC mtg, a local and national tech group met and put together 10 principles that were approved by the NPC—Mallory notes Tech Principles were approved as a working document.
  • Jamie, Alfredo, Mallory, and Josue at May First have put together a list of local organizing needs and resources to help get off the ground immediately and help work get done, including: main website, tech track (wiki installation), mailman list using ussf2010.org extension, and a wiki (wiki.ussf2010.org)
  • We want feedback and to think through tools and make decisions with a full group of people.

Alfredo:

  • Technology is the concern of all Social Forum organizers and everyone must be involved in the development of this organizing.
  • Political decisions are made by the entire community.
  • Every Work Group should have as one of its members someone from the Tech WG to foster an organic relationship and facilitate communication.
  • Tech was critical and central to Atlanta and even more so in Detroit.

Mark L.: There were shortcomings in ATL in communication between all WGs and with Tech WG—walls. It took a long time to get to know people’s needs; an overall lack of communication.

Charles: There were tensions between political principles and other interests, e.g., getting things done, expediency; also, indecision around online fundraising—where will this conversation take place?

Jamie: Tech principles have to be interpreted. In 2010 we need to create space on Tech WG to bring in people with all levels of expertise and be an inclusive body of people.

Sylvia: On local level, there are concerns with no real clarity on communication between local committees and WGs. What is the division of labor? What is local responsible for? How does it proceed?

Mallory: No clear picture, we’re figuring it out as we go along; all opinions are important.

Ross: He and Aaron worked in ATL—hearing echo of ATL experience in Detroit to help tech people and figure out definitive connection.

Nancy: Confusion/concern—in Detroit, especially at a recent Tech/Comm mtg, most of those participating are media/communications people, not techies. Local committee will likely break up into two committees: Tech and Media/Comm.Note from Nancy: actually I think I said that most of us were concerned about the fact that we were supposed to have two separate committees -- that we think the two should be carefully coordinated and not separated. Was glad to hear Alfredo's response.

Alfredo:

  • Doesn’t believe there’s really a separation between the two—mostly a political difference.
  • In 2007 did not do many of the things we want to do in 2010, e.g., developing concept of full participation in SF.
  • Experience in 2007 was implementation; not making tech owned by us but by whole SF.
  • Local ATL organizing force not same presence that it’s shaping up to be in Detroit—can do effective and powerful integration in Detroit.
  • Sylvia seems to have some ideas and may be able to provide some leadership and language.

Mark L: Perhaps we can think along the line of no Tech Com, instead have all groups deal with tech issues—it becomes every WGs domain, and we can look at matters purely as tech. We can be the group that advises you on tech but not do it for you.

Charles: Like idea but could we claim there’s no ITC Comm and have one anyway, but not incorp at level of service level.

Sylvia: As Nancy mentioned, local Tech/Comm Committee thinking of splitting and we don’t have enough techies. Likes idea of having Tech WG members join other WGs but don’t know if leaving Tech work to committees, esp at local level is a good idea. Many people already unclear and rather overwhelmed with all there is to do logistically, on organizing, etc—may be too much to sort out.

Mark L: Tech group can help with local needs—send people who can help with the tech work to your group under our leadership. Tech can advance relationship with all WGs; an advisory committee ties into all over the mind of the SF process.

Nancy: Nationally there is the website and listservs, but what’s local component that we can add, or the differences? Would like to hear great ideas of localizing national communication.

Alfredo:

  • Tech WG did nothing locally in ATL that was an achievement; did much nationally that was path breaking; had hefty army.
  • Locally, no comparison between what’s being done now and in ATL on tech thinking.
  • We’re breaking new ground; we don’t know how it should be done.

Ross: What was different and what did we need and wish for may not be apparent to local yet, e.g., database.

Alfredo & Ross: We can have another conversation with people working on ATL. For example, Aaron acquired computers, wired, outfitted all software for registration; set up media lab. Jaime was also there early.

Point of order: we’re not really getting to the six questions from the NPC, perhaps because we need more time to get acquainted and share info about ATL and process. Can leave questions on the wiki for us all to brainstorm about and return to discuss in 1-2 weeks.

Mark L: Seems like we’re moving more like an exploratory committee than a real committee; we’re still being formed.

Alfredo: How often can we meet?

Sylvia:

  • I think it’d help if we met weekly, there are many questions that the local has, e.g, where to set up email listservs, how get basic info on main website, how to get hardware for local office organizing, where do we refer people for more info: wiki, website, etc. What’s the process for deciding?
  • We need short-term answers along with long-term plans.

Jaime:

  • We have email process and strongly encourage committees to use it.
  • Still need to determine which wiki and website should have which content.
  • Need to determine what group organizing software to set up, for instance, any group that wanted to do work could create a group.
  • Need critical software to encourage groups to publish info on themselves.
  • Main website is going to be something for everyone—a main landing page—and from there can go to group pages.

Nancy:

  • We need to identify people, have transparency, assess needs and problems, etc.
  • Also, locally who needs to be invited, recruited for Tech Committee?
  • Allied Media Conference in Detroit this summer.
  • We’re recruiting more communicators than techies.

Mark L: ATL picked up techies by going to local Linux user group.

Lou: Is a member of Metro Detroit Linux users group—can send something out to ask people who wants to get involved.

Aaron: For ATL, got recycled computers out of a group in Athens; they provided majority of machines.

Alfredo: Detroit needs several dozen desktops. In ATL had over 90.

Charles: Whatever is the process for connecting with other committees, we need to know the process/mechanism for moving questions along. We should ask to put something about tech on agenda of other WGs.

Josué: WGs need to be open about how to work together; transparency in communication.

Aaron: Most Linux barriers are in people’s mind; Tech has core principles of making things free and open access to all—only possible with an open access solution.

Alfredo: Software appearance is mostly the same. ATL self-registration went fast. It’s essential that tech work include people who are not technologists.

Ross: Caveat—interval resistance of people. Linux itself is not scary in changing from Windows.

Mark L: There’s a difference in people using Linux for a task (e.g., registration), and people using it to do organizing work—need more support, can be scary.

Alfredo: We’re going to have political discussions throughout this process—how we use open source and make it work.

Mallory: We have Detroit notes on the six questions—Sylvia?

Jaime: Next meeting we’ll discuss more. Want to discuss Riseup group software.

Aaron: There are other group tools on Drupal and organic groups are another way.

Micah: Crabgrass is a free software project thru Riseup designed for social networking, collaboration, and network organizing.

  • Riseup working to create tools specifically for bottom-up grassroots organizing.
  • Social networking: ability of users to get to know one another through contributions and presence ( not like Facebook).
  • Group collaboration: ability of small groups to get things done, track, share decisions, repositories.
  • Network organizing: ability of multiple groups to work together on projects in a democratic manner.
  • Why? Riseup working in tech realm for over 10 years:
    • Social movements are adept at using web but not internally—still using inadequate tools for communicating.
    • Email and wikis don’t capture complexity of organizing work.
    • Other sites typically geared towards advertisers and other groups; mostly designed for small businesses and not material for what is needed in social movement organizing.
  • Currently getting word out, collaborating. Site is down, no overview website yet.
  • Has email functionality.

Next Tech WG meeting: Thurs, May 14, 2009 from 5-6:30pm (EST)