Open-Media-Network
/
openwebgovernancebody
8
4
Fork 0
Code Issues 3 Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

needs further work

master
mj-saunders 2022-03-30 18:13:33 +00:00
parent faed8915a5
commit 705a6d7803
1 changed files with 73 additions and 26 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

99
-02a.-Draft-Funding-Application-for-NLNET.md

@ -96,11 +96,21 @@ We aim to shape things such that to be "native" in the fediverse means to use #4
**Have you been involved with projects or organisations relevant to this project before? And if so, can you tell us a bit about your contributions?**
The project comes from the life times of lived experience of activist culture. We are coding an important/hidden part of our society. We as a team have been at the heart of organising these events for generations, back to my grandparents.<br/>
We have been involved with social change groups from squats, protest camps, climate camps; to indymedia, Reclaim the Streets; to XR and even Occupy.<br/>
Rainbow Gatherings are a working example of this grassroots governance. They have been going on for 50 years and the core is still based on the founding traditions which came from the Vietnam War - not the hippy dippy origins that people talk about.
We have been actively working in the area where this project would be used.
We've seen directly what works and what doesn't.
All of our team have worked in social adaptation and technology for there careers.<br/>
Hamish has 30 years experience in runnning grassroots social tech projects. He has been involved with UnderCurrents, VisionOnTV, London Boating, ... and has a firm grasp of what does and does not work in both social and technological forms.
Tom has 30 years of experience in development and project management, bridging the divide between the chaotic human aspects and the quantifiable tech.
Saunders is a permaculture designer/teacher working on grassroots social aid projects. He is also a sysadmin/programmer and has kept the OMN servers online for the last 6 years.
The project comes from our life times of lived experience of activist culture. We are coding an important/hidden part of our society. We as a team have been at the heart of organising these events for generations, back to my grandparents.
We have been involved with social change groups from squats, protest camps, climate camps; to indymedia, Reclaim the Streets; Permaculture.
The team also has experience of working on UN and World Bank projects in West Africa and from this has completely moved to managing them through community/scrum, rather than formal methods.
All of our team have worked in social/technology for there careers.
Currently we run 6 servers hosting public instances within the fediverse, including http://visionon.tv, grassroots journalism running for over ten years.
@ -112,23 +122,20 @@ Development and stage one rollout and testing. We will be looking for further fu
**Explain what the requested budget will be used for?**
This will be initially paid into https://opencollective.com/open-media-network.
Payment will be handled via https://opencollective.com/open-media-network.
Over a period of 9 months - 1 year
Hardware: Servers, Backup
Human labour: Programming, Community/University outreach, training and support
Travel: Outreach and training events (e.g. UK universities).
Misc: Company upkeep
At the next stage of the funding application we will submit a more detailed budget.
It will be used to pay 4 people to work on the project at a fixed rate of ten thousand euros for 6-9 months work, invoiced at the end of specific milestones. The remaining ten thousand will be used for servers, expenses, outreach work and company upkeep.
The project team includes:
* Tom - programming manager, coding, UX
has 30 years of experience in development and project management
* Saunders - programming, sysadmin
has keept the 6 OMN servers online for the last 6 years, has been involoved in #OMN coding projects and is a permaculture designer/teacher working on grassroots social aid
* Hamish - project management, outreach, and testing social use
has 30 years experience of runnning grassroots social tech projects, and has a firm grasp of what does and does not work, and what needs to work
* New coder to be found - programming
we need a solid "activist" coder to widen the OMN collective, to build sustainability and keep up levels of ongoing support
New coder to be found - programming
we need a solid "activist" coder to widen the OMN collective, to build sustainability and keep up levels of ongoing support
Social outreach and testing/feedback; this is core to the coding. The project is developed as it is used.
@ -141,28 +148,68 @@ it comes from the grassroots, so no, but to make it real will take some resource
**Compare your own project with existing or historical efforts**
Foundation funding agenders oftern have a bad affect on openweb projects agenders. lets brefly look at some projects https://decidim.org is #NGO process this like https://www.loomio.org has, as offline process, been imposed lots of time in activism and has always failed. Formal process is a BAD tool for "herding cats" in social chalange/challange groups.
The results of foundation funding too often has a bad effect on openweb project agendas. Let's briefly look at some projects.
https://decidim.org follows an #NGO process much like https://www.loomio.org has; they formed a face-to-face process that imposed formal consensus in activism, which has always failed [why?]. Formal process is a BAD tool for "herding cats" in social challenge groups.
Looking through https://www.loomio.org for a week and its the same ideas/workflows that were pushed onto climatecamp, indymedia and occupy in the first two case it ossified the projects in the last it was a mess.
Both Loomio and Decidim came directly out of an encoding of the failure of formal consensus; Climate Camp is a great example of this.
These #process geeks have not changed, their projects are a bad fit for life and a terrible fit for the #fediverse or actavisam.
Climate Camp started of flexible, open - with the introduction of formalised consensus it became ossified, with sub-optimal results.
E.g. 200 people in the room, 10 geeks had rigid process of formal consensus that no one could grasp. Ultimately led to the agenda of the 10 being pushed through.
Though they might work for some #NGO and more formal #coop organising.
We build from actual producers/active members of a community; those who are already evidentially participating and doing something - thus there is a higher chance of producing a functional outcome.
Formal vs informal - both build and use "consesuess"
We are similar to an un/-conference or to the do-ocracy of Noisebridge.
OGB is designed for chaotic governance.
A lack of community leads to money not being enough for a project to succeed in the long term - when the money runs dry, there is no community to uphold the work.
Our project focusses on developing and supporting the community.
ActivityPub works. It was developed by a community and continues to be upheld by one. It is a rare example of a sensible standard.
NextCloud and XWiki ticked boxes to work with the ActivityPub community and standards - NextCloud no longer supports ActPub in recent releases, nor test it's application. A plugin for ActPub has been developed for XWiki but no one is actively testing or using it - we will.
These #process geeks have not changed, their projects are a bad fit for life and a terrible fit for the #fediverse or activism.
They might work for some #NGO and more formal #coop organising.
Link for more info https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/Looking-at-existing-projects
**What are significant technical challenges you expect to solve during the project, if any?
Fill a obvuise hole in our set of openweb digital tools, not repuduce the mastakes of the past. I think this last one is the hardist thing to solve. take something that has worked for gennerations and turn it into #openweb code.
Fill a obvious hole in our set of openweb digital tools, not repuduce the mastakes of the past. I think this last one is the hardist thing to solve. take something that has worked for gennerations and turn it into #openweb code.
People challenges:
Mapping messy human processes to rigid code.
An API that is open and flexible - not too micro-focussed to do one thing only. ActPub is a good example.
Integrating into complex live systems.
While ActPub is a standard, may implementations do not strictly follow.
Technological:
(D)DOS disruptions handled with standard techniques.
Access control managed by OAuth2.
Re-captchas to deal with account creation.
Bad actors cannot hold positions of power indefinitely. They may form or influence groups, but within a group they have no direct power enact change.
Mis- and dis-information is the responsibilty of a "Security Group" (part of all Templates) -
"Newbie's" are tagged as such to encourage others to be patient with them.
Generate output over input - prevent pollution via the wider ActPub community - OGB comments made directly on the Wiki pages, by active members, avoiding noise/heresay (comments on comments do not generate notifications).
**Describe the ecosystem of the project, and how you will engage with relevant actors and promote the outcomes?**
we start with sub coultures of fedivers and actavisam, but rapidly move beyond this as the project UX and workflow matures to mainstram producer groups.
The ecosystem ultimately encompasses all scales of community, from e.g. a local neighbourhood, through districts and out to nations and global.
Stage one rollout and testing will be for the fedivers, a local street markit and a communerty group working for bike use in chisick, london.
We start by engaging with subcultures of the fediverse and specifically activism, but rapidly move beyond this as the project UX and workflow matures to more mainstream "producer" groups.[Define producer more clearly]
These communitites are predominantly reached via ...
Stage one rollout and testing will be for:
- the fediverse: predominantly online, run by technologists; those who should make the decisions are those who are running the instances followed by those utilising.
- a local street market: predominantly offline
- a community group working for bike use in Chiswick, London: predominantly offline, but whom communicate largely online.
The outcomes will be published publically via the instances themeselves, being _OpenWeb_ Governance. Further the OGB project itself
**Attachments**
Attachments: add any additional information about the project that may help us to gain more insight into the proposed effort, for instance a more detailed task description, a justification of costs or relevant endorsements. Attachments should only contain background information, please make sure that the proposal without attachments is self-contained and concise. Don't waste too much time on this. Really.