I appreciate the larger statement from which the two paragraphs are pulled... especially the intention of respect for others engaged and engaging in the work. That's the only way we will come together, in reciprocity and respect.

The last line of the first paragraph above throws me a little, tho I get what you are aiming at.

Michael Maranda said:

I appreciate ... especially the intention of respect for others engaged and engaging in the work.

Absolutely, Michael. It is not the content of what we each do that I aim to influence, but the way we start communicating about what we're working on, and understanding ourselves and each other as part of a bigger picture that somehow needs to fit together. Like a puzzle. We each have our own piece of it, that means something new when it can be seen as part of a whole.

The last line of the first paragraph above throws me a little, tho I get what you are aiming at.

Let's face up to something early - this probably won't be the last time that something I write throws you a little! In my aging wisdom I have realized that just because you and I see something from different angles doesn't mean we're not seeing sides of the same thing. If my answer to why I see it is different than yours, that's a good difference for us to build systems around.

The challenges, the solutions and the people are all multifaceted and multidimensional, so in the understanding of that complexity it seems like the design solution still must be kept as simple as possible.

When I think of widely adapted tools like Hotmail to Instant Messaging, Google to Twitter...they are things used by tens or hundreds of millions and ultimately very easy to use.

Mark Grimes said:

When I think of widely adapted tools like Hotmail to Instant Messaging, Google to Twitter...they are things used by tens or hundreds of millions and ultimately very easy to use.

Exactly Mark. I think we need to simplify the process of putting order into the chaos of all the great and potentially great tools and ideas out there. Chances are pretty high that we already have all the pieces we need to build some great multi-platform systems that are tailored to maximizing the output of the social change sector.

Charles Cameron at social edge has embraced my suggestion to have parallel discussions on several platforms. I've posted some comments relevant to ned.com in the discussion there: http://www.socialedge.org/discus sions/responsibility/who-will-bu ild-a-more-efficient-marketplace

Forgot to also mention, Mark, that I am really eager to see what GoogleWave does for the collaborative space this year.

Here I go with a couple off the wall links.

The first one isn't precisely on point, but something that's hard to keep in mind is Internet connection speeds. It's important to design sites with slow speeds in mind. Myles Estey mad me laugh in talking about a race between an ASDL line and carrier pigeon in SA.

Coming off my first week back in Liberia, where download speeds reached as low as 258 bytes/sec (yeah, I said bytes, not kb) which took a year off my life as I struggled to download a 'massive' 48 kb Word document, this struck a chord with me big time.

You could send a 3 legged sloth hopped up on Quaaludes across Monrovia faster than you could send 4G's. And at the risk of promoting more vermin in this city, I say bring on the pigeons.

Clay Shirky really thinks well about how people and technology interact. I suspect you already follow him on Twitter, he's worth following if you don't. This short video he talks about two experiments in social media, one an abject failure the other a success. He note the difference doesn't have anything to do with the technology, but with social systems. He points to a notion of "incomplete contract." Thinking about social agreements online is very difficult because the what happens online is often different from what we expect from not-online.

Opps, thought maybe I should include a link to Apps for Democracy.

Also possibly related, I was interested int he social media response to the riots in Kampala. Jonathan Gosier's piece Asynchronous Info, Disjointed Data and Crisis Reporting is really smart. He's CEO of AppsAfrica and that's another good one to follow at Twitter.

One of the things that comes out of the event is how the online community in Uganda came together. Gosier's piece mentions some of that. Also Rebekah Heacock's round up fills in some of the personalities involved. Heacock is an American who was in Uganda. She was influential in setting up a regular meeting of Kampala bloggers while there. So folks know each other online and offline.

One of the details I loved was about Comrade 27. He wrote a blog called Communist Socks and Boots. Comrade 27 is clearly super smart, but also a bit of a smart-alek. He commented on all the blogs and argued a lot--lots of anti-American rants:-) He's dropped out of blogging to work on stuff and it turns out what he was working on was sending Twitter and Facebook updates via Uganda telephone. His application got rolled out early in response to the crisis.

The point is that there are many pieces to the puzzle around all over, some have already be fit togeether--like Heacock's organizing the bloggers on the ground a couple of years ago.

Part of what your effort entails is to catalyze the existing fitted parts to fit together more fully. The riots had that effect, the question is what to do to make it happen under more positive circumstances?

With ragard to catalyzing the existing fitted parts to fit together more fully, Charles Cameron has picked up on an important element of what I am trying to do. In a comment on the Internet4Change blog he says: it seems to me that getting conversations going at more than one site at once is one key stage.

I'd take that further to suggest that a public blog/profile which is designed to help us manage and share concurrent discussions at more than one site would be of huge practical benefit to social sector collaborators. To that end, as an experiment, I'm going to try to see how much conversation I can integrate from ned and other blogs into the Internet4Change blog.

While this thread stays open, I'd love to discuss/collaborate on managing conversations on more than on site at http://www.ned.com/group/i4c/new s/1/

I have found trying to hold different conversations on the same topic in different places frustrating. First of all, they are time consuming. Secondly, it can turn into a "He said", "She Said" game and third party communications always suffer from the Chinese whispers syndrome.

One of the things that has always seemed important in web page design is a feeling that you are in a single place. You can see this on facebook when they import a link into their site rather than link you out. I think there is an unconscious inner comfort in wander in one house rather than running all over the neighborhood.

I am still having a hard time understanding the desire to run different places to communicate with people as opposed to building a warm and welcoming hub and working to bring everyone to work together. It's great to have a telephone book of great thinkers that you can call up and converse with but isn't it even better and more productive to have a hub like the Ned Spaces or the plce you have found to work in Belgium?

I agree with Linda about hubs in a way. Being of "a certain age" one of the big benefits is having old friends. It's really important to have share some history, and hubs seems to foster that. But the problem is people are only capable of paying enough attention to say "groom" a fairly limited number of people, but we are capable of paying some attention to many more. So I think the idea of having ways of drawing in conversations that you might want to pay some attention to has real utility.

I use Bloglines as my primary Blog reader. Apparentlythis is very old hat, people even thing that Google Reader has jumped the shark. But Bloglines is still very useful to me. I need some way of finding the streams of news about communities of people I pay some attention to.

So I think people need both sorts of things: hubs and ways to draw in conversations. I do like Facebook, but find the groups nearly useless, there's just no way to sustain conversations in them. Fan Pages are a bit better, but they require a dedicated curator to be of any use. Facebook is a great way to keep in touch with friends and family, but seems to me at this point to leave a lot to be desired as a hub. The key innovation there will be better ways to sort our social graphs.

I am trying to get caught up. I have to agree with Linda when she says

"I have found trying to hold different conversations on the same topic in different places frustrating. First of all, they are time consuming. "

Time comsuming is the key for me. I can't seem to even keep caught up on ned and I find Facebook so confusing and so time consuming that I sometimes avoid it because I just don't have the time needed to learn my way around.

For me personally, I need one place I can go to and understand. I need it to allow me to be involved with only about 30 minutes a day. Jumping from site to site and trying to get caught up on each site just not fit into my time schedule. Sometimes even here on ned I end up using all my time just reading and trying to figure out what is happening. That leaves little time for meaningful conversations. Am I just so out of it that I don't get it?

I know it's not on point, but reading Evvy's comment brings to mind something that Wilfried van der Veen said on David's post asking why it sometimes gets really quiet here.

Lots of talk going on elsewhere on this site about this site. But it seems to me that managing concurrent discussions even at Ned is a real challenge.

The Front Porch is the easiest place for new people to post. But I think David was really onto something important with posting a simple open-ended question. One of the writers at a blog I read Firedoglake, has a regular Saturday morning feature: "Pull Up a Chair." My grandad would always walk to the general store to get his morning Boston Globe. At the store and especially on the porch the gossip was as essential as the newspaper. Perhaps what this site needs is more trivial posts on the Front Porch or General News threads: threads where dumb questions and random observations are welcome and which serve to orient each other to conversations going on at this site.

There's a new post at Internet4change.com that goes a little deeper into my thinking on the multiple sites question: http://internet4change.com/?p=56

The thing is, potential collaborators are not always where we are. Sometimes we need to go and find them, where they are. As I see it, working on multiple sites is confusing and time consuming - but it's a reality of the digital world. I would hope to develop a kind of system that can help to simplify it (evvy - like the internet4change uganda startpages).

John, I have been working today on a post about the importance of old friends and being able to share history. Look out for it :)

Christina Jordan said:

I would hope to develop a kind of system that can help to simplify it (evvy - like the internet4change uganda startpages).

Now that is something I could get into. I still use the Uganda startpage to this day.

Jhon said,

I know it's not on point, but reading Evvy's comment brings to mind something that Wilfried van der Veen said on David's post asking why it sometimes gets really quiet here. Lots of talk going on elsewhere on this site about this site. But it seems to me that managing concurrent discussions even at Ned is a real challenge. The Front Porch is the easiest place for new people to post. But I think David was really onto something important with posting a simple open-ended question. One of the writers at a blog I read Firedoglake, has a regular Saturday morning feature: "Pull Up a Chair." My grandad would always walk to the general store to get his morning Boston Globe. At the store and especially on the porch the gossip was as essential as the newspaper. Perhaps what this site needs is more trivial posts on the Front Porch or General News threads: threads where dumb questions and random observations are welcome and which serve to orient each other to conversations going on at this site.

Yes I agree, as this illuminating contribution may have been overlooked.

Except we want to create an information apartheid or force compliance by all languages and cultures to our complex and intellectual perspectives, we need again to observe nature.

True, we don't want too many tweets!

But consider, too much complex English grammar strung together on an international platform, leaves room for confusion, misunderstanding and plausible deniability. Removing the sharp focus of opinions required to attack malingering issues.

We should ssk ourselves why such a civilisation is still settling scores and driving global policy with nuclear power and mass slaughter.

A Simple design solution or application would be more favorable for proliferation.

I agree too, not to rule out the dumb and random, because there is no question that just like frogs, we humans are notorious for overlooking the obvious.

Okay now a hand at formatting, hope I have enough time before Junior comes banging at my door again. Argh!

Maybe I'll expand on what threw me -- the notion of willingness to set aside old forms and structures and agreements is fine with me, but there is also plenty worth honoring and retrieving within our collective heritage(s).

That is, there are things we've forgotten about working together, as much as things we will discover, and discover anew.

Any plans for One Web Day? (September 22, soon)

Thanks for clarifying Michael, and sorry to have thrown you. I completely agree there is much worth honoring within our collective heritages.

What I mean by making our old boundaries and structures "irrelevant to the task of mobilizing solutions" is that we need to rise above the silo-systemic issues that constrain us from working cross-dimensionally to solve problems together.

btw Michael - I had hoped to post something for OneWebDay today but ironically have been having connectivity problems at home in Brussels this afternoon!

You can post something mentioning or connecting to the OWD idea on any day , even if the OWD 9/22 has passed.

And yes, I fully support transcending siloism ...

Before I posted my initial reaction I worked on some alternatives trying to express the nuanced reaction/reframing ... some reaosn or other I decided to refrain -- largely I wasnt happy enough with what I came up with -- the gist I was playing with explored two senses of "irrelevance" -- but rising above so we can reconfigure out efforts serves well.

There's more to the Internet4Change equation than just a profile that enables a consolidated overview of our activities online - the real secret sauce could be a new economic model for fueling collaboration.

I have some concrete new ideas about how to inject some funding fuel into helping collaborative efforts for good get off the ground. I'll be sharing and asking for feedback and input on those ideas at a future date.

Meanwhile, what does the term "collaboration" - as applied to the social change sector context - actually mean? I'd love your views in a new discussion I've started on Defining "Collaboration" in the Social Change sector. See you there.

looking forward to the thoughts on economic models etc. are you following what is emerging with #openmoney and #metacurrency?

I've been following #openmoney and #metacurrency with only half an eye. The model I have in mind is more about creating/providing financial resources to change-related initiatives and collaborations, but it needs a semi-defined group/community context first. Working on that behind the scenes now.

I have been really thrilled with the responses to Defining "Collaboration" in the Social Change sector. While general in nature, it's helped me to identify several potential allies, and confirmed the 4 main directions that I hope to lead this work in the coming years:

1. I'd like to develop Internet4Change.com into a portal for a range of practical resources that are online to assist social entrepreneurs. The list we've started developing at collaboration_resources is just a start;
2. I'm hoping to identify the right technology for enabling personal pages at My.Internet4Change.com that can aggregate an individual's online presence in the social change space - ie, consolidating not only static links but also dynamically creating an easily accessible current and historical record of conversations (where you are discussing/working on what).
3. Within the context of being able to see who is working on what, where, the economic model I have in mind would make it more financially feasible for change agents around the world to justify (and pay for) their time spent online, and provide financial incentive especially for works/initiatives created transparently in collaboration with others.
4. The final big piece of the Internet4Change vision (2-4 years down the line!) involves targeted training for Internet4Change agents in under-connected parts of the world, enabling not only more north/south collaboration but south/south collaboration as well. In other words, once a system that encompasses a collection of online resources, the ability to find the right people using those resources, and financial fuel to pay for using those resources is in place, then proactively teaching people to use the system will hopefully help to kick global social change into overdrive.

I have just now found this thread because I usually don't go looking for what others are doing unless it gets really quiet here.

Christina said:

The model I have in mind is more about creating/providing financial resources to change-related initiatives and collaborations, but it needs a semi-defined group/community context first.

I find the 'openmoney' and 'metacurrency' people to be highly "siloized". They believe that problems derive from the design of money and the solution to those problems is a new design for money.

The important part of those discussions is that money is a measure of relative value for purposes of exchange. There are things that we value that have no monetary value ('measure what you treasure') and I don't think an alternative medium of exchange is going to do any better than our current system at measuring the value we place on things that are abundant.

Within a semi defined group/community we can define tools to measure contribution - as opposed to exchange value of output - and share the value of output based on relative contribution. If that is along the lines of the model you are contemplating please allow me to collaborate.

I don't quite see them as highly siloized... but somewhat yes. They appear to be establishing a wider and wider network over the last 18 months, yet are still struggling to put forward a compelling path for others to get actively involved. I don't think this challenge is unique to them. For my part -- the aim of building community invokes for me their notion of the deep linkages between transparency and awareness of flows (which is part of what I see the #metacurrency folk aiming at) and community building/consciousness.