open-organisations @ kybcah!


node:	open-organisations
template:	3
parent:	politika.spolocnost.media.historia .alt
owner:	dusanson

cwbe coordinatez:
18.12.2006 - 23:42:17

101
1551575
2817303

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

lpk	0
Rolf Lulsen	0
\|\|	0
pagastan	0
dark matter	0
(baky)	0
dusanson	0
sinka	0
melisia	0
pejoslava	0
L'amour et l...	0
muna	0
nefri	1
Odi[Locked_OUT]	2
rot	2
_	2
Daan	2
wsk	3
buenaventura	3
sardinka	3
tomuver	3
Toth	4
unstable	4
soc	4
aschenblond	4
prihoda	4
rame.klame	4
pikseliahky	4
keskusta	5
smolkop	5
vrq	5
kostja	5
nieni	5
e_	6
Joker	7
Ruza	8
MARS	8
rejden	9
Hilda	15
1480161	16
martin v	16
filio	16
Lusky	16
bujak	19
b00c	19
mrakoblak	19
escaline	20
ne	22
bozena	23
ka	25
what would j...	27
.:stigma:.	38
blut	38
harp	40

fórum a poznámky
debata, bookmarky, ale aj copy&pasty úryvkov textov, správy, videá
(kolaboratívny research)

http://kyberia.sk/open-organisations/rss

-- intro --
už dlhšie sa pohybujem okolo viacerých neziskových organizácií aj neformálnych zoskupení. a stále ma zaujíma aké majú transparencia, otvorenosť, pluralita a sociálna zodpovednosť miesto v spolupráci. ako byť efektívni s ohľadom na dlhodobé dôsledky. aké sú limity samo-organizácie. čo vlastne znamená reciprocita. či je ok byť zodpovedný len sám pred sebou. aké podoby má demokratické rozdeľovanie zdrojov. ako prijímať (spoločné) rozhodnutia bez toho, že by musel človek niekoho riadiť. ako otvoriť projekt druhým bez toho, že by ich bolo potrebné "motivovať". či dnes berieme človeka v prvom rade naozaj žiaľ cez to či vie komunikovať cez technológie. či je dnes naozaj možné udržať len krátkodobý projekt či organizáciu. ako v organizácii zaistiť pluralitu politických či ideologických postojov jej členov. kedy je projekt úspešný.

a tiež som zvedavý akej organizácie by ste boli radi členom v roku 2022 - čo sa týka spôsobu rozhodovania, pracovných metód, medziľudských vzťahov, propagácie, vzťahu ku zmene, inovácii, stabilite, či udržateľnosti.

-- týka sa --
projektový manažment / research a koncept / komunikácia a jej nástroje / riadenie a rozhodovanie / zdroje a fundraising / budget a administratíva / partneri a externá spolupráca / propagácia / evaluácia a reporty

-- plus plus! --
* The Open Organizations Project, úvod do otvorených organizácií, autori najmä ľudia z indymedia.org, http://www.open-organizations.org, viac o pozadí fungovania indymedie: http://docs.indymedia.org/
* konsenzuálne rozhodovanie: "diskutuj až kým súhlasíš", http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consens
* esej Jo Freeman Tyrranny of Structurelessness napísaná v kontexte feministických osvetových stretnutí v 70s, často citovaná ako vhľad do obmedzení nediferencovaných organizačných štruktúr, http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
* Workaholic culture: Life manažment pre kultúrnych pracovníkov, dielňa id MARS z augusta 2006, http://13m3.sk/?id=110
* prieskum inštitucionálnej vyspelosti (v oblasti riadenia, finančného a organizačného manažmentu) neziskového sektora na Slovensku 2006, Nadácia Pontis, http://www.nadaciapontis.sk/10950

-- susedia na kyberii --
copyright? intellectual property?? copyfuck! / neziskové organizácie / anarchizmus / eu fondy a iné / net cultures

fórum otvorené neziskovkám aj neformálnym zoskupeniam. teória aj prax. skúsenosti, príhody, ideály. zaujímavé sú často aj skúsenosti z korporátneho prostredia.

00000101015515750281730305179848

Viridian Note 00029: The Interfund
article

Bruce Sterling

From: Bruce Sterling
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:59:27 -0600 (CST)
Sender: owner-nettime-l {AT} basis.Desk.nl

Key concepts: art movements, Internet, reputation economics, arts grants, Europe, Interfund

Attention Conservation Notice: It's not about Viridians. It's about a group of European digital artists with a strange entrepreneurial scheme. Writers' original language not English. Written in postmodernese. Of interest mostly to net.organizational specialists. There's a manifesto tacked on at the end.
Entries in the Viridian "Fungal Typography" Contest: http://members.aol.com/stjude/

(((Parenthetical comments by bruces {AT} well.com)))

Source: Syndicate list; Xchange list; nettime list; Rasa Smite Diana McCarty Eric Kluitenberg

Links

[Interfund] - Create Your Own Solutions

Interfund meeting {AT} Xchange Unlimited, Riga November 29, 1998.
During the Xchange Unlimited Baltic New Media Culture Festival in Riga, a meeting was held to discuss the creation of the Interfund. The participants were Diana McCarty, Rasa Smite, Manu Luksch, Pit Schultz, Eric Kluitenberg, and others.

* What is the Interfund?

The Interfund does not actually exist yet.

(((Beta pre-release! I love it already!)))

The Interfund should be many things at the same time, a self funding project, a tool to create open spaces for sovereign experimentation in the digital networks. Neither a network nor a community, it should be a means for collaboration and exchange.

(((Fabulous! It sounds divine!)))

The Interfund was envisioned in Riga as a co-operative, decentralised, non-located, virtual but real, self-support structure for small and independent initiatives in the field of culture and digital media.

(((Sheer poetry! I couldn't have said this better myself!)))

What follows is a summary of the ideas that were discussed and the problems raised in connection with the possible shape of the Interfund.

(((Uh-oh...)))

First of all, the Interfund is an idea to create better ways to access funding and create funding possibilities of itself. The Interfund can also act as a redistributor of financial resources from the affluent enclaves to the impecunious. Funding and financing, however, is only one of the tools the Interfund will employ to achieve its aims.

(((Wait a minute -- you're giving away *free money* in your movement, and you expect this to be just *one* of your problems?)))

The Interfund should rather act as a "Resource Pool", shared by each of its members. These resources encompass a wide range of tools:

* knowledge & know-how * skills (a.o. translations in local languages) * software * open source development * access to servers, especially for streaming media in the net * reserving bandwidth and protocols (for example the registration for web multicasting, domain names, etc.) * support in dealing with official structures; = finding appropriate funding for projects = visa requirements = official letters of support, both in English and the local language = official invitations = official endorsements; * access to surveys and information sources about activities in the field of culture and digital media.

One practical way in which actual funding might work is that the Interfund creates its own capital to give micro-funding to individual projects. The organiser can then claim that the project in question is supported financially by the Interfund (complete with a letter of acceptance by the "board" of the fund). Funding may be as little as US$ 10 for a project, but can help to create interest from official institutions and structures.

(((A really clever idea here. They want to game the international art world by using a tiny amount of actual capital to create impressive, net-based, Interfund-conveyed, reputation capital. "Hi, I'm from Riga and I was sent here by Interfund! Look at this gold-plated, 256-color *Letter of Acceptance!*" "Really?! Wow! Let me see what the conference can do for you in the way of picking up that hotel tab!")))

Moreover the actual amount of funding by the Interfund need not be specified in all cases.

(((The tactic's even more effective when you boldly lie about it!)))

The possibilities for acquiring donations (not sponsorship) to extend the financial basis of the Interfund will be an area of attention.

(((Boy, I bet it will! Attention galore! We call that stuff "accounting" here in the USA.... So, are you bold pirates taking Yankee funds? The Pope-Emperor is totally down with your daring scheme! I got one of our goofy new 20- dollar bills for you, right here!)))

(...) (((considerable pious Euro arts/culture jabber deleted)))

* Form:

Though the Interfund will not have a fixed physical location, it should become a real virtual organisation (it is not a simulation). For this purpose a letterhead and design for the Interfund will be developed, as well as a web-site, e-mail address, a logo.... and... (a local Latvian speciality) an official Interfund stamp.

(((Why not a *mascot?* We Viridians got a mascot! And our own typography! The *Latvian stamp,* though, we envy that more than we can say....)))

All graphical elements will be made down-loadable from the Interfund site for its members (PDF files). The Interfund will be run as a strictly virtual office (a decentralised centre).
Possible legal forms and their implications for establishing the Interfund as an international state-less entity are currently investigated. Should it become a registered society, a charity, a foundation, or yet something else? (...)

By dealing with official structures, the Interfund is an attempt to prevent artists'-run and independent initiatives from becoming institutionalised themselves. It should act as an effective bureaucracy protection shield.

The emphasis of the Interfund will lie on horizontal co- operation, which is anti-hierarchical and fundamentally decentralised. Nonetheless the question cannot be escaped who will take responsibility for making the structure work, co- ordinate activities, deal with requests, etc. (who is doing what?).

(((I know the answer, I know! Try theocratic feudalism!)))

This division of responsibilities should be worked out. The Interfund will have to be multi-nodal.

(((A lovely phrase, and an obvious recipe for instant nightmare.)))

To develop the Interfund as a democratic structure, a voting system will have to be considered, for instance when accepting individuals to the "board" of the Interfund. The membership of this board would then be temporary and rotating between members.

(((That sure sounds like instant bureaucracy to me, but what do I know -- I'm just a lonely absolute dictator.)))

The Interfund should always be open to new members. However, every new member has to commit him- or her-self to contributing to the shared pool of resources in some way, by donating skills, knowledge, non-propriety software, financial means if possible, and a willingness to multilateral co- operation.

((("From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" -- but what is the *medium of exchange* between all these skill sets? You're trying to set up a barter economy with no gold standard.)))

These issues of membership, representation and expertise have to be clarified.

(((Yes they do. Obviously. Good luck getting that done before 2075.)))

* Actions:
* Contacts will be established to other cultural activists in the new media scene, via networks such as Xchange, Syndicate, Rhizome, , etc.
* In the local Nordic/Baltic context, where this initiative was emerging cultural networks in the region (BIN, PCC, Nordic Arts Council, etc.), and other parties who share similar or related interests (a.o. the EFF).

(((This might actually work if you got some kindly Scandinavian government to give you some start-up money. The Swedes, for instance == they're probably no better at closing arts councils than they are at closing nuclear power plants.)))

* For the Next 5 Minutes conference, March 12-14, in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, a meeting will be prepared to lay the foundation for the Interfund.

(((Another excellent reason to visit Holland before it vanishes underwater. I certainly hope to hear more about Interfund; despite my skepticism, I have the friendliest feelings about this idea, and would love to see it, somehow, against all odds, actually work.)))

Contact: Rasa Smite Diana McCarty Eric Kluitenberg

(((And now for a good-old-fashioned Interfund arts manifesto:)))

The Interfund initiators finally wish to make the following claims:

* Work of artists and independent cultural initiatives in the field of digital media, including innovative technical experimentation, should be considered as valuable in and of itself. This work should not be supported solely if it fits within an established policy framework (like social innovation, employment, etc..).

(((Art pour l'art! You betcha! We Viridians want to see *science* and *engineering* work like that!)))

* Technology should be seen as an integral part of contemporary culture.

(((Couldn't agree with you more!)))

* The Interfund demands less politicisation of culture. What independent new media culture needs is support, not political rhetorics or questionable historical narratives.

(((Right on! Let's start a committee to make sure art's not politicized, and to weed out all the historical narratives that are questionable!)))

* No competitions.

(((Wimps!)))

* Create your own solutions.

(((We'll do our best, and do let us know if you find any of your own!)))

Thank you very much for your attention.

[*The Interfund*] (under construction)

0000010101551575028173030517984805179927

mate v ofise na nastenke?

000001010155157502817303051798480517992705183864

nie, mame tu..:)
http://www.tacticalmediafiles.net/listing.jsp?pagetype=texts

00000101015515750281730305130406

BarCamp
A Barcamp is a very loosely structured, largely ad-hoc gathering of people who want to share information, socialize, teach and learn in an open environment. Everyone is expected to participate, nobody's supposed to just spectate.

Block Breaking
This is a hybrid of Speed Networking and Lightning Talks, combined and adapted for the purpose of breaking people out of mental blocks and creative dead ends... such as writer's block. People from different disciplines who've each reached a creative impasse in their work gather, briefly describe their mental blocks, and then pair up to brainstorm on ways to break each other out of blocks.

Code-A-Thon
During a Codeathon, a group of hackers get together for a nonstop 2 or 3-day session of intensive collaborative work to build open-source software that solves problems for nonprofit organizations. Is it possible to adapt this structure for other sorts of work? This follows along the barcamp tradition and it's not very structured, and anyone who comes up with a project that they want to see built at the Codeathon is expected to champion it to the group, recruit helpers, hash it out and manage the work on the fly.

Coworking/Jelly
A day-long casual coworking session that may or may not have a general theme. It's a way for people to shake up their routine a little, meet some new people and still get a lot of work done. The physical site and timeslot are the only things that bind the participants together. This leaves time and room for unprogrammed, unplanned, unstructured use of the spaces and infrastructure.

GTD
End your week on a high note by bringing your to-do list. Every time someone scratches something off their to-do list, write it on a post it, and post it on a "Done" board. Get things done before most people finish catching up on their morning email!

Lightning Talks
Each participant introduces herself and presents something she's working on or interested in very briefly. Then everyone mingles, helping each other with the problems, asking further questions about the successes, suggesting collaborations, gigs, etc.

Pair "Programming"
Inspired by "pair programming" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_programming ) People team up in pairs. Person A takes the role of "driver," cranking out his/her work and focusing on the tactical minutiae of the work; person B is "navigator:" observing person A, catching errors, making suggestions, helping, and thinking about the strategic direction of the work. Then they switch roles.

Speed Networking
Participants pair up for a brief period of one-on-one business networking, then one person in each pair moves to the neighboring table for the next session. This is repeated until everyone in the first group has networked with everyone in the second group, speed dating style.

(z http://www.breakoutfestival.org )

00000101015515750281730305036561

"At Google [..] developers bid for what they want to do with their time. If there’s a big job to be done people commit to parts of it. And the parts nobody commits to do? They don’t get done. Really. "

http://www.cringely.com/2009/09/the-peoples-republic-of-google/

0000010101551575028173030503656105036564

+

"There is no marketing input.

Effectively, there is no marketing.

This approach isn’t without precedent. I saw much the same thing during the early days at Apple where new products were entirely driven by engineering. Engineers built whatever they wanted to build and it was up to the company then to sell it. Google apparently operates in much the same fashion."

000001010155157502817303050365610503656405036599

jj. ale toto je imho rovnako dolezite:

Google is not your father’s software company, that’s for sure. The fact that it works so well (makes so much money) comes down to the realization I had that Google isn’t a software company at all. It’s an advertising company.

00000101015515750281730305036561050365640503659905036657

toto som nepochopil..

0000010101551575028173030503656105036564050365990503665705037655

ja si to interpretujem tak, ze zdroje prijmov spolocnosti a jej obchodna orientacia ovplyvnuju styl riadenia. "there's no marketing at all" je trochu zavadzajuce vyhlasenie, vzhladom na to, ze oni svoj softver nepredavaju. neviem si celkom predstavit, ze by taky system mohol fungovat v spolocnosti, ktora poskytuje nejaky uceleny produkt.

00000101015515750281730304878975

http://sicamp-cee.net

Social Innovation Camp Central and Eastern Europe (SICCEE) is scheduled for 16-18 September in Bratislava, Slovakia, to coincide with the CEE Trust's Civil Society Forum.
http://sicamp-cee.net/examples

00000101015515750281730304685931

vlastne pre nieco podobne som sa sem do kyberie (nakoniec uspesne) dobyjal. Zaujimaju ma podobne formy spoluprace ako su rozne open organizations, neformalne siete, collaborations a vselijake nizsie spominane formy. S par znamymi sme v malom sa nie celkom uspesne pokusali o vselijake formy (nic moc vysledky - sama diskusia, ziadna akcia - a ak mam byt zly, tak vacsina iniciativ linkovanych z tohto fora ma rovnake vystupy, len zahalene do dost dlhych cool viet).

Zatial jedina kolaboracia, ktora sa mi viac-menej podarila dlhodobejsie bola vlastne antitezou otvorenej organizacie - zalozili sme si pred 8 rokmi s par kamosmi z piva firmu, ktora doteraz funguje a zivi par rodin (no, zas VSZ to nie je). Kazdopadne sme to po cely cas viedli prisne hierarchicky, tajnostkarsky (tajilo sa co sa dalo, na hranici paranoje) a na taku malu organizaciu (max 10 stalych zamestnancov) rigidne. Do velkej miery sme prestali byt kamarati a v niektorych pripadoch sme byvalych kamaratov poslali do pecka. Niektore veci sa casom zjemnili, ale v od open organization to ma daleko, niektore pokusy zaviest otvorenost boli dokonca kontraproduktivne - zamestnanec ide vzdy cestou najmensieho odporu. Tolko moje "skúsenosti z korporátneho prostredia".

Odvtedy cokolvek nove zacinam, chcem, aby to bolo co najotvorenejsie a co najmenej hierarchicke - nechcem uz prist o dalsich kamaratov... ale vysledky su rozpacite, az tristne - mojou sukromnou teoriou je, ze tieto open veci nie su dobre struktury pre leadership a ze bez neho to proste nejde. Neverim na crowdsourcing, vsetky priklady, co sa snazim sledovat maju nedostatocne vysledky a aby som analyzou pricin tohto javu neobjavoal druhy raz koleso, vyjadrene je to daleko nad moje schopnosti tu:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html

Aby som pridal aj pozitivnu linku, myslim ze uspesne otovrene kolaborcie mozu vzniknut z tejto iniciativy:
http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Hackerspaces
(ozaj, ma to nejaku obdobu na Slovensku?)

0000010101551575028173030468593104831532

ahoj, pisem dizertacku o organizacii multipace, ktora sa snazi dodrzaviat pravidla a principy open org./(tie su popisane napr. tu: http://www.open-organizations.org/view/Main/IntroToOpenOrg / no ved to asi prestudovane mas)

dost som si k tomu nacitala aj takej tej klasickej literatury z manazmentu a riadenia organizacii, resp. toho, co je dostupne tu, pretoze som potrebovala niektore veci definovat cez existujuci slovnik, aby to aj skolitel a oponenti mohli nejak uchopit, ze co tu slecna riesi (a hlavne aj sa to dalo viac menej:))

multiplace ale nie je len otvorena organizacia, ma kombinovanu strukturu a zalezi, o akych procesoch sa bavime. resp. definovala som si to, tak, ze jej organizacna KULTURA je otvorena organizacia,
a organizacna STRUKTURA je kombinovana:
- "hierarchicka" (obcianske zdruzenie, ktore ma statutara, a stanovy, ktore su obmedzene sk legislativou. ale jasne, ze moze rozhodovat konsenzualne atd, ked chce.)
a
- "pruzna" a ta pruzna to je: sietova (tu patri napr.festival sietovej kultury) a maticova (uplatnuje princip vykonnych skupin, ktore spolupracuju na priprave festivalu i inych veciach)

asi by sa to dalo este vselijako inak zadefinovat, no ved uvidim, ci obhajim.

(inak suhlasim s tym, co pise dusanson)

0000010101551575028173030468593104701153

ahoj, vdaka za prispevok.

ja si myslim ze forma otvorenej organizacie je vhodna na urcite kulturne a umelecke projekty, pre socialne hnutia, a tvorbu sofveru...

pre zivenie rodiny by som hladal riesenia inde....

firemne prostredie ma uz inherentne zabudovanu nevrazivost, ktora sa prejavi skor ci neskor, uz len preto, ze je cloveku hovorene co ma robit - ci uz sefom, alebo dopytom.. kratkodobo ok, ale na dlhu trat to je nezvladnutelne.

snad rodinne podniky maju cosi do seba, zatial to neviem dobre nazvat

mozno by stalo este za pokus produkovat veci gratis a na globalnej urovni a zit z dobrovolnych mikro-prispevkov (?!)

tazko ti ale niekto povie, ze v otvorenej organizacii sa s niekym nerozhadas

c-base (ad hackerspaces) si skor myslim, ze nie su otvorenou organizaciou - toci sa okolo jedneho ikonickeho sefa

0000010101551575028173030468593104686135

ktore priklady maju podla teba nedostatocne vysledky?

000001010155157502817303046859310468613504686471

skusim presnejsie:
ak si zoberieme linku z predcahdzjuceho postu
http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/wintercamp/2009/03/09/overview-final-presentations-reports/
Tak v nej prezentovane iniciativy nie si zle veci, len mi cely ten cirkus okolo pride trochu overkill ak to potom porovname s realitou
napr.:
"Bricolabs describes itself on its website as a distributed network for global and local development of generic infrastructures incrementally developed by communities."

"Dyne.org is a decentralized, open, nomadic and displaced network, that exists through and in cooperation with multiple networks. Dyne.org mainly operates like a fluid grassroot power, through institutions. This means that the network will and can never be institutionalized (because this would mean settling down)."

....vsetko veci co sa dobre citaju, su plne sexy pridavnych mien, ale ked sa clovek pokusa najst nejaky netrivialny vysledok tychto projektov, vzdy narazi na nieco, co sa dalo zoragnizovat cez gmailovy kalendar a vygenerovany content dosahuje kvalitu blogu nejakeho DIY nadsenca. (Ponechajme bokom ze to cele casto vyzera ako dalsi sposob ako prinutit niektory zo stedrych fondov EU zatiahnut ceyhranicne stretnutia kamosov pod ruskom budovania nehierarchickych invacnych sieti etc.)

... takze toto myslim pod nedostatocnymi vysledkami.

Mozno to prehanam s pesimizmom (moj default mode je skepsa), velmi rad sa necham presvedcit o opaku, kedze take nieco chcem v buducnosti robit - nejae projekty uz v hlave nosim, hladam pre ne prave tieto ramce. (Moju skepsu merne nahlodava napriklad samotna kyberia, patri medzi tie uspesnejsie veci v tejto oblasti - zda sa, zas som tu tri dni aj s cestou - aj ked este budem musiet dlho odkryvat, ze ako to tu funguje).

00000101015515750281730304685931046861350468647104831566

"co sa dalo zoragnizovat cez gmailovy kalendar a vygenerovany content dosahuje kvalitu blogu nejakeho DIY nadsenca." haha dobre dobre .))) sa smejem.

no ber do uvahy aj fakt,ze sa proste niektore veci/procesy/principy "testuju", ze aj o tom to je.

0000010101551575028173030468593104686135046864710483156604831612

nechcel som aby to znelo znevazujuco (aspon nie primarne). ja vsetkym tymto experimentom drzim palce (zijem striedavo v SNV a v BA (s relativne vysokou frekvenciou striedania) a nejaka fungujaca multiplace forma organizacie by sa mi hodila do kramu), ale mozno keby menej vymyslali pridavne mena pre to co robia a prezentovali viac netrivialnych vysledkov, moje nadsenie by bolo meratelnejsie

000001010155157502817303046859310468613504686471048315660483161204831672

tak ale su aj vysledky .)

00000101015515750281730304685931046861350468647104831566048316120483167204831728

nevylucujem, je mozne ze som zle hladal/mal zle zadefinovane priority/bol skazeny "korporatnym" prostredim.
urobim si niekedy (oh the procrastination...) poctivy resers/mozno sa ta potom spytam nejako zmysluplne naformulovanu otazku, kedze si expert v teme :)

00000101015515750281730304598535

final prezentacie ucastnikov winter campu v amsterdame:
bricolabs, creative labour, goto10, meta-group, microvolunteerism, free-dimensional, floss manuals, edu-factory, mycreativity, upgrade! :
http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/wintercamp/2009/03/09/overview-final-presentations-reports/

00000101015515750281730304397255

http://www.toytowngermany.com/wiki/Stammtisch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertulia

00000101015515750281730304157486

douglas rushkoff nabudene hovorí o open source demokracii, strúha tiež vtipné komenty k individualizmu a blogovaniu

0000010101551575028173030415748604157584

len neviem preco je taky teatralny

000001010155157502817303041574860415758404158119

to on je asi taky, na svojom blogu pise ze tak vyzera, ked uci

00000101015515750281730304028750

BarCamp je ne-konferencia, otvorené stretnutie ľudí, ktorí chcú zdieľať svoje skúsenosti, nápady a názory. Obsah BarCampu tvoria samotní účastníci podujatia. Obyčajne sa zameriava na nové aplikácie a trendy na internete, nové technológie.

BarCamp Bratislava, 14. júna 2008, 10:00 - 19:00
A4 - nultý priestor, Námestie SNP 12, Bratislava
http://www.barcamp.sk

00000101015515750281730304008791

umelecká skupina Critical Art Ensamble píše o spolupráci v kolektíve, dočasných projektových hierarchiách:

For sustained cultural or political practice free of bureaucracy or other types of separating factors, CAE recommends a cellular structure. Thus far the artists’ cell that typifies contemporary collective activity has formed in a manner similar to band society. Solidarity is based on similarity in terms of skills and political/aesthetic perceptions. Most of the now classic cellular collectives of the 70s and 80s, such as Ant Farm, General Idea, Group Material, Testing the Limits (before it splintered), and Gran Fury used such a method with admirable results. Certainly these collectives’ models for group activity are being emulated by a new generation.

However, CAE has made one adjustment in its collective structure. While size and similarity through political/aesthetic perspective has replicated itself in the group, members do not share a similarity based on skill. Each member’s set of skills is unique to the cell. Consequently, in terms of production, solidarity is not based on similarity, but on difference. The parts are interrelated and interdependent. Technical expertise is given no chance to collide and conflict, and hence social friction is greatly reduced. In addition, such structure allows CAE to use whatever media it chooses, because the group has developed a broad skill base. Having a broad skill base and interdisciplinary knowledge also allows the group to work in any kind of space. Solidarity through difference also affects the structure of power in the group. Formerly, collective structure tended to be based on the idea that all members were equals at all times. Groups had a tremendous fear of hierarchy, because it was considered a categorical evil that led to domination. This notion was coupled with a belief in extreme democracy as the best method of avoiding hierarchy.

While CAE does not follow the democratic model,the collective does recognize its merits; however, CAE follows Foucault’s principle that hierarchical power can be productive (it does not necessarily lead to domination), and hence uses a floating hierarchy to produce projects. After consensus is reached on how a project should be produced, the member with the greatest expertise in the area has authority over the final product. While all members have a voice in the production process, the project leader makes the final decisions. This keeps endless discussion over who has the better idea or design to a minimum, and hence the group can produce at a faster rate. Projects tend to vary dramatically, so the authority floats among the membership. At the same time, CAE would not recommend this process for any social constellation other than the cell (three to eight people). Members must be able to interact in a direct face-to-face manner, so everyone is sure that they have been heard as a person (and not as an anonymous or marginalized voice). Second, the members must trust one an other; that is, sustained collective action requires social intimacy and a belief that the other members have each individual member’s interests at heart. A recognition and understanding of the nonrational components of collective action is crucial—without it, the practice cannot sustain itself. The collective also has to consider what is pleasurable for its members. Not all people work at the same rate. The idea that everyone should do an equal amount of work is to measure a member’s value by quantity instead of quality. As long as the process is pleasurable and satisfying for everyone, in CAE’s opinion, each member should work at the rate at which they are comfortable. Rigid equality in this case can be a perverse and destructive type of Fordism that should be avoided. To reinforce the pleasure of the group, convivial relationships beyond the production process are necessary. The primary reason for this need is because the members will intensify bonds of trust and intimacy that will later be positively reflected in the production process. To be sure, intimacy produces its own peculiar friction, but the group has a better chance of surviving the arguments and conflicts that are bound to arise, as long as in the final analysis each member trusts and can depend on fellow members. Collective action requires total commitment to other members, and this is a frightening thought for many individuals. Certainly, collective practice is not for everyone.

http://www.critical-art.net/books/digital/index.html / chapter 4

00000101015515750281730303988247

The Packet Gang: Openness And Its Discontents
Jan, 2004

Jamie King on the impasse of political organisation in the age of 'openness'

Openness – as an organising principle and political ideology – has become an article of faith across networked social movements. From its role as a central tenet of free and open source software production to its current popularity within activist circles, the concept of openness is attracting enthusiastic adherence. Here, as part of our series on the politics of alternative media structures, JJ King takes a less credulous view of what lies beneath the dream of organisational horizontality...

http://www.metamute.org/en/node/6349

0000010101551575028173030398824703989325

Jamie King píše o význame open source a FLOSS iniciatív ako inšpirácii pre nové socio-politické
organizačné modely sociálnych hnutí (People's Global Action, Indymedia, Euraction Hub)
a následne kritizuje takéto otvorené organizácie vo viacerých bodoch:

[..] Popular IMC sites have become targets for interventions by political opponents, often from the fascist
right, seeking opportunities to disrupt what they regard as an IMC’s ‘countercultural’ potential
and a platform from which to spread their own rhetoric. Of course there is nothing to prevent this
in the IMC manifesto; but it has impelled the understandable decision to edit out fascist viewpoints
and other ‘noise’, using the ad hoc teams whose function was previously to develop and maintain
the IMC’s open-publishing system. Some IMCs have ultimately been seen to take on a rather traditional,
closed and censorial function that is all too often undeclared and in contradiction with the official
IMC ‘become the media’ line. In other words, Indymedia channels are often politically censored by
a small group of more-or-less anonymous individuals to quite a high degree.

[..] it is formally true that anyone may alter or intervene in processes according to their needs,
views or projects; but practically speaking, few people can assume the necessary social position
from which to make effective ‘interventions’. Open source software is generally tightly controlled
by a small group of people: the Apache Group, for example, very open-handedly controls the development
of the Apache Web server, and Linus Torvalds has the final say on the Linux kernel’s development.
Likewise, in the social movement, decision making often devolves to a surprisingly small number
of individuals and groups who make a lot of the running in deciding what happens, where and when.
Though they never officially ‘speak for’ others, much unofficial doctrine nonetheless emanates from them.
Within political networks, such groups and individuals can be seen as ‘supernodes’, not only routing
more than their ‘fair share’ of traffic, but actively determining the ‘content’ that traverses them.
Such supernodes do not (necessarily) constitute themselves out of a malicious will-to-power: rather,
power defaults to them through personal qualities like energy, commitment and charisma, and the ability
to synthesise politically important social moments into identifiable ideas and forms.

[..] meetings may be ‘open to all’, but they can quickly become hostile environments for parties
who do not or cannot observe the ‘basic’ consensus that is often tacitly agreed between long-term
actors in a particular scene.

[..] The ‘block’ or ‘veto’ is in fact rarely used because of the peer pressure placed on those
who would use it (‘Aw, come on, you’re not going to block, are you?’ – a common enough plaint at
movement meetings). In some cases the apparently neutral ‘moderator’ role can also become bizarrely
instrumentalised, giving rise to the sensation that ‘something has already been decided’, and that
the meeting is just for performative purposes.

[..] participants in IRC discussions habitually inflect what they say because of the future publication
of the logs, using private channels to discuss key points and only holding ‘official’ discussions
and ‘lines’ in the open. Too often the open channel only ‘hears’ what it is supposed
to hear and important exchanges are not published.

[..] Underneath its rhetoric of openness, the non-hierarchical organisation can thus take on the qualities
of a ‘gang’. As Jacques Camatte and Gianna Collu realised in 1969, such organisations tend to hide
the existence of their informal ruling cliques to appear more attractive to outsiders,
feeding on the creative abilities of individual members whilst suppressing their individual contributions,
and producing layers of authority contingent on individuals’ intellectual or social dominance.

na záver sumarizuje:

[..] really open organisation cannot be realised without a prior radicalisation of the social-political field in which it operates.

00000101015515750281730303988216

The Three Ways of Getting Things Done. Hierarchy, Heterarchy and Responsible Autonomy in Organizations
by Gerard Fairtlough
2005, 110 pgs

In his youth Gerard Fairtlough, the author of The Three Ways of Getting Things Done, thought, just like everyone else, that hierarchy was a natural and necessary part of organizations. It took years of working for a large multinational organization for him to begin to doubt that this was so, and more years before he started to explore the alternatives to hierarchy.

In the end he has become convinced that it is vital to question hierarchy's inevitability and to develop alternatives to it. Tinkering isn’t enough; huge shifts are needed if our businesses are to become more profitable and creative, if our government agencies are to become more effective, and if our non-governmental organizations are to make real changes in the world and act in a really responsible way.

His method in this book is to expound some general principles and to develop some general models useful in all organizations.

An organization is an entity, is a group of people working together for some purpose. Organization is also an activity, and here the meaning relates to the creation of discipline and order.

He also tells stories about organizations, real and imagined, which illustrate and enliven these principles and models.

Mostly, his arguments are based on organizational learning, on efficiency and effectiveness, on success in achieving organizational purposes, including increased profits for business. But he does not neglect the possibility that alternatives to hierarchy are morally desirable, that they could help people lead better lives.

We must not neglect the possibility that alternatives to hierarchy are morally desirable, that they could help people lead better lives.

In this, his third book on organizations, Gerard takes a radical look at organizational theory and encourages the reader to engage in a new and flexible paradigm for an effective, long-term change in organizational theory and practice.

http://triarchypress.co.uk/pages/book1.htm
sample chapter: http://triarchypress.co.uk/downloads/BookThreeWaysSampleChapter.pdf

00000101015515750281730303978005

What did Openness mean to NODE.London?

Ruth Catlow:
http://wiki.nodel.org/index.php/Ruth's_Script_and_Slides

00000101015515750281730303884339

Pixelache has asked following questions from some grassroot organisations that are connected to Pixelache 2008:

> What are the aims of the project you are involved in?
> How is the project organised?
> How do you support the work financially and what impact does this have on your project?
> What do you feel you have achieved, and what are the problems you face?
> Are there any past projects/models which have inspired you?
> What are your hopes for the future?

Martha Wallner and Will Bradley asked these same questions in the book Self-Organisation/ Counter-economic Strategies published in 2006. The survey 'Independent media and self-organised culture in the US: Situations and strategies' featured answers from 5 US-based organisations, and luckily the Creative Commons licence allows us to publish these answers again here:

* Indymedia -– Sasha Constanza-Chock
* Free Speech Radio News – Adrienne Lauby
* Electronic Intifada – Nigel Parry
* Other Cinema (and A.T.A. Gallery) – Craig Baldwin
* Temporary Services – Brett Bloom

We thought it would be good to follow up on this, and ask the same questions from a few more organisations (not exlusively US based ones).

* Processing - Casey Reas & Ben Fry
* Arduino - David Cuartielles
* Dorkbot - Douglas Repetto

http://university.pixelache.ac/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=43

0000010101551575028173030388433903890828

odpovede od Indymedia a Dorkbot mi pridu zaujimave pre OO

-----

Indymedia
answers by Sasha Constanza-Chock

> What are the aims of the project you are involved in?

I’ll respond to these based on my involvement with the Indymedia network. Over the past few years I’ve worked to help organized temporary IMC’s to cover mass mobilizations (Cancun, Miami FTAA), on collaborative documentary projects including the Miami Model (ftaaimc.org/miamimodel) and on various other autonomist media gatherings and projects. I also work with video.indymedia.org and occasionally on features for global IMC (www.indymedia.org), as well as publish to local IMC’s (currently I find myself living in LA, so to LA Indymedia).
‘Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth.’

The Indymedia video distribution network (video.indymedia.org) is an attempt to better coordinate sharing of video material throughout the Indymedia network and beyond. See the next question.

> How is the project organised?

The Indymedia network is organized in a kind of globally federated network of local collectives. Each local collective has a great deal of autonomy from the network, although all have to adhere to the basic Points of Unity.

Decision-making at both local and international levels happens through consensus. The consensus process is different in different parts of the world and sometimes is more formal, sometimes looser, occasionally leads to splits and conflicts, but for the most part functions well and is a part of the Indymedia model and of prefigurative politics in general (build the new world we want within the rotting shell of the old …)

When decisions have to happen that affect the whole network, they happen via delegates from all the locals. This is incredibly complicated by language since everything has to be translated into as many of the network's working languages as possible, which is a large number that keeps growing every few months …

There is a (valid) critique of IMC process that is also a critique of the network in general, which is that it's internet-centric and therefore those with the most Internet access (personal computers, broadband connections, etc) have the most say. I would say that the truth of the critique for local IMC’s varies wildly across the network nodes – some use the net mostly as a resource and kind of like a news wire to pull content down for local distro via papers, radio stations, leaflet, whatever works. Others have reverse priorities and almost do everything on the website, only occasionally doing offline projects. It depends on the IMC.

> How do you support the work financially and what impact does this have
> on your project?

This is a huge question ... Again, local IMC’s have autonomy over finances. In practice, none of the IMC websites runs ads; none of the radio stations linked to Indymedia run ads (that I know of); many of the print projects do choose to run ads from radical or progressive businesses (worker-owned coops for example) in order to cover print costs. One-time mobilization costs (setting up a temporary IMC, transportation and equipments costs) are sometimes funded by funneling money from foundations or NGO’s through IMC-connected individuals or spin-off radical media projects, but almost never through ‘Indymedia’. Urbana Champaign IMC has 501(c)(3) [tax-exempt charitable] status and has served as fiscal sponsor for many projects, but that status itself has generated intense heated debate within the network based on some locals’ belief that no IMC should be a legal entity with recognition from any State, let alone the US Government. Locally, UCIMC has been very successful at raising money, and last year they raised enough to purchase the US Post Office building (!)

There is a long-running debate in IMC over “valid” sources of funding. Some think everything must be voluntary or in-kind contributions, others point out that this privileges those with access to other income. Very few people have ever received wages for Indymedia work, but it has happened on occasion within particular local contexts.

There was a huge debate a couple years ago when the Ford Foundation offered a large grant to Indymedia, but Latin American IMC’s insisted the money be rejected both on grounds of principled independence from private foundations, and specifically because of the history of the Ford company in Latin American politics.

> What do you feel you have achieved, and what are the problems you face?

Let me just say that there are lots of important critiques of Indymedia. White male, tech-centricity, questions of access, the tyranny of structurelessness, etc. However, at the same time I, like many, continue to participate in the network because at its best moments it becomes a powerful example of “actually existing” radically-decentralized, autonomous from state and market, deeply globally interconnected, bottom-up communication network that walks the walk and produces intense, vibrant, passionate tellings of truth and circulation of struggles throughout the world.

For more information: www.indymedia.org

--------

Dorkbot
Answers by Douglas Repetto

> What are the aims of the project you are involved in?

dorkbot has only a motto: "people doing strange things with electricity". Different groups have interpreted the motto in different ways. When I thought of the motto I purposely made it broad and inclusive so that it would interest many different kinds of people doing different kinds of things. Artists, inventors, scientists, engineers. The exciting thing to me is to learn about strange things that creative people are doing around the world, with no regard for genre, style, school of thought, area of expertise, etc.

> How is the project organised?

It is mostly dis-organized. We have a server at the Computer Music Center at Columbia University (where I work). That hosts many of the dorkbot websites (but not all). We also run many (but not all) of the mailing lists from the server. Other than that shared web-resource, each dorkbot is more or less completely autonomous. Very early on when there were just three or four dorkbots I decided that the best thing to do would be to give up any control I might have over the other organizations. At first I was worried about other people using the name in ways I didn't like, or organizing meetings in ways I didn't agree with, but I quickly realized that if I really wanted to be inclusive I would have to let go and let other people find their own way. We have a dorkbot-overlords mailing list, and we exchange occasional messages between the various people who run all the different dorkbots around the world. But even that is very low volume.

I think that the main thing that has given dorkbot an identity of sorts is the website and the motto. People see that it is not super self-serious, that it is informal and friendly. That it is about creativity. I think that is enough.

> How do you support the work financially and what impact does this have on your project?

There is no financial support at all for the global dorkbot organization. The use of the dorkbot.org server is free to everyone. Otherwise there are no real resources.

Each local dorkbot has to find its own way. In New York we run dorkbot on zero dollars. For several years I held the meetings in a space in the building where I work, and now we have them at a gallery called Location One. Everyone involved donates their time.

Other dorkbots have raised money in different ways, some have received government grants, some have sponsors, some take donations at the door. One thing I've learned is that the financial relationship between organizers, participants, and audience can be very different in different places, particularly in different countries. So I have not tried to impose my own ideas about how things should be arranged financially on the other dorkbots.

> What do you feel you have achieved, and what are the problems you face?

We have had thousands of people give informal presentations of their work. I think that dorkbot has played some part in encouraging people to get creative with technology, to experiment, to embrace a DIY mode. Of course the main idea behind dorkbot -- sharing your work with your neighbors -- is not new at all. But contemporary culture can often put a lot of pressure on people to "succeed", to "be the best", and that often makes people _not_ want to share what they're doing, puts tremendous pressure on them, makes them think that the only reason to do something is to be a star. I'm very happy when someone presents something unfinished, something a little bit crazy, a little bit not-so-good. The most important thing is that people feel like they can participate in our material culture, that they are not simply consumers. So dorkbot has been a nice way to encourage people to participate, while removing some of the pressure to be a star.

Problems -- each dorkbot has its own difficulties, sometimes it's space, sometimes its money, sometimes it's finding presenters. I've been very lucky in New York, we have a nice space that is donated to us, there are always many people who want to show their work. In some other towns it's more difficult. There have been occasional problems with power-struggles between the people running a dorkbot, and sometimes they come to me to help solve the problem. That is very unpleasant, but I try to be an objective resource. In general, for an unstructured international organization with many people involved, we have had surprisingly few big problems. That is partly because we have been un-ambitious, which I think is often a good thing.

> Are there any past projects/models which have inspired you?

There are many artist groups, collectives, etc. that I'm inspired by. Some have been wonderful, others have failed miserably. I think that a lot of it comes down to luck, particular combinations of personalities, rather than the specifics of how they were organized. I doubt that there are really optimal organizational strategies that will work everywhere.

One example that I find particularly inspiring:

frog peak music: this is a composers collective and independent publisher of experimental musical scores, recordings, and writing. They are committed to the idea of "availability over promotion", meaning their main concern is to help things exist, rather than making hits or selling lots of copies. Another idea of theirs is that the artists they work with decide what gets published and how. They accept artists, rather than particular works by artists. http://www.frogpeak.org

> What are your hopes for the future?

I try to stay kind of neutral about the future of dorkbot. As organizations grow they often develop self-protection mechanisms, and sometimes maintaining the organization becomes more important than the actual activities of the organization. If dorkbot is no longer useful or interesting in a particular city, then we just let it die. Sometimes it comes back in another form, sometimes it doesn't. I don't try to revive meetings or put any pressure on people to continue meeting. I will keep doing dorkbot in New York as long as it's interesting and people keep volunteering to give presentations. But there are lots of other organizations doing similar things to dorkbot, so I'm sure that if we go away other things that are just as useful/interesting will take its place.

I'm constantly working to understand how something can seem to be both the most important thing in the world and also completely inconsequential. That's my primary organizational strategy!

www.dorkbot.org

login::		password::
	name:: id::