On Sunday, July 27, 2014, Rabbit <rabbitface@gmail.com> wrote:

About this "not very invested" thing, I mean:

-- In large democratic organizations, participation can be low even though decisions affect all the participants. This happened in the Berkeley Student Coops, for example. How can everyone be encouraged to participate and be informed when that takes time and effort and wading through lots of boring stuff? And problems can happen when suddenly the other 90% of people show up to vote during a controversy but they're under-informed, but of course we want their voices too.

-- If democratic participation requires a large investment of time (going to all the meetings, reading every email), this disadvantages people who don't have the privilege to spend all that time because of childcare, jobs, etc. How can they become informed and listened to? The Gittip spinoff is trying to focus on marginalized people and this issue has been mentioned a few times already.

I expect that, like with a credit union, the vast majority of users of a website like Gittip will just expect it to be well-run by other people and won't put any effort into participating. We want to make sure that there are obvious on-ramps to participation and that participation is possible for busy people.

More practically, the question is what legal and governance structures meet these goals? Who gets votes, how are they counted, etc. Should people who are receiving more donations through the site get more votes because they might be depending on that income? Can people create 50 accounts to get more votes?

I'm only slightly involved in this project; just signal boosting for them. If you have ideas or resources or want to get involved, share them with the people on IRC at freenode.#atunit

-Rabbit

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss@gmail.com> wrote:

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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss