27 Jul
2014
27 Jul
'14
12:51 p.m.
Hi that's fine!
What you're describing isn't what I would have thought "not very invested
in the project" describes.
An example of what you're describing sounds like someone who is in fact
"invested" in the project - uses it, has ideas about it, is affected by
various possible configurations, HOWEVER, is dissuaded from giving input.
Is that right rabbit?
from my examples before you can tell I was thinking "not very invested"
meant that the person wasn't affected by decisions about configuration,
hadn't spent (invested) time on the project, doesn't have ideas about the
project (didn't invest time in thinking about it), and doesn't have any
financial investment in the project or its outcome.
Now part of the reason I asked is that in some systems, say, a
neighborhood, you might have a class if users each of whom are only in the
geographical area for a short time - transients. I think you could say that
any one transient is "uninvested" in the neighborhood, however, a
neighborhood can be more or less comfortable for transients, so if one is
interested in protecting the interests of that class, she would have to get
information (and self advocacy) out of a population made of individuals
- each of whom does not consider herself "invested" in the particular
neighborhood. ("What do I care, I'm leaving soon.")
I was wondering if there is some analogous group for something like gittip
or task rabbit, looking for a description of that dynamic.
Thanks
On Sunday, July 27, 2014, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for responding, Sonja, and sincere apologies
for the targeted
inquiry on my part for the sake of proving the point. That is, all forms of
participation comprise the social dynamics of any given system.
Understanding all of these forms of participation (or lack thereof) reveals
inbalances, power structures, and opportunities to iterate on the current
model.
I think what Rabbit is speaking to boils down to the problem sudo room is
tackling in its own offbeat experimental way, which is, how do we develop a
culture that encourages especially the disempowered to feel they can be
equal participants in and take ownership of the community? To not strive
for individual profit and power over, but rather, to endeavor toward mutual
aid and self-motivated responsibility? It is a very hard problem, because
most of us have grown up embedded in a culture of hierarchy and oppression.
We need to develop better models, and open source software communities are
a fascinating grounds of experimentation and exploration in that regard.
Really excited about this project. Thanks Rabbit!
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sonja.trauss@gmail.com');>>
wrote:
I participate in the part of the community called
"the mailing list."
I never comment on the threads about sudo room mechanics - I chat on
threads about general interest topics - porn, gentrification, now this
mysterious line in the gittip email.
I don't think the analogy is sound. What rabbit was talking about was
"what if the users of task rabbit owned it," yes, sounds good.
Now I know there are lots of people who have signed up for task rabbit,
but never got around to using it. They have a log in, they forget what it
is. Those people sound "not very invested in the project." My question is,
why would you need their input? They never log onto your site. Or take a
less extreme case. Someone who uses the site, even regularly, but is "not
very invested in the project." This person doesn't actually care what
happens to the site, they has some other site they also uses, or they is
about to move away so they doesn't care... Why do you need this person's
input?
On Sunday, July 27, 2014, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tunabananas@gmail.com');>> wrote:
> I might ask the same of you, Sonja, wrt why sudo's mailing list would
> need input from people who don't really participate in our community?
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Why would you need input from people who aren't very invested in the
>> project?
>>
>> On Friday, July 25, 2014, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all!
>>>
>>> Recently there was a controversy at Gittip which resulted in a project
>>> to fork or rebuilding it with better governance structures and more focus
>>> on the needs and safety of marginalized users.
>>>
>>> They are figuring out how to run a web application in a cooperative
>>> democratic way that focuses on the needs of the users, as opposed to a
>>> TaskRabbit like model where a central corporation controls or extracts
>>> value from their users and makes unilateral decisions.
>>>
>>> They're working on bylaws and legal structures for this, and would
>>> appreciate advice or connections to people with advice. Talk to them in
>>> IRC at #atunit, particularly @adrienneleigh, or send me resources to pass
>>> along.
>>>
>>> This is an exciting frontier for the cooperative movement. What if
>>> TaskRabbit was owned by the rabbits? Websites have very concentrated power
>>> structures compared to the number of users; what are effective ways to get
>>> input from so many people who might not all be very invested in the
>>> project? What other models can we draw from -- credit unions? What
>>> lessons can be learned from Wikipedia? Etc.
>>>
>>> This especially matters for this particular use case, recurring
>>> donations, because some people will be making their living off of proceeds
>>> from the site and it's important that their voice is heard.
>>>
>>> Sudoroom may be one of the largest users of this site when it
>>> launches, like we are now with Gittip.
>>>
>>> -Rabbit
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>