maybe OT - values of CivicAccess

[Michael Lenczner]

Thanks so much Hugh.  That's felt great to read.  :-)

and yeah, I did think this was being ignored before.  It's fully
possibility that I was mistaken though and that I didn't need to bring
this up.

The specific trigger for this post was a conference on new social
practices where a lot of the people attending were workers in the
social services sector.  They are being *managed* out of resources,
out of autonomy, away from the clients, etc.  Many of the tools that
are being used to take away their abilities are metrics created and
interpreted in certain ways.  That corresponds with some of my
experiences of working in the non-profit sector and from some of my
readings (impact of expanding bureaucracies and management "science").

Also, in the technology activism area here is a strong current of
technological positivists and determinism.  I guess I'm more alert now
than I used to be about working for justice in technological areas
without wanting to be seen as supporting people that believe that
technical innovation prevents the need for addressing issues of power
and injustice.  I'm okay with working alongside people with different
politics and philosophies on this goal.  I just wanted the distinction
to be clear, and I felt that it wasn't and was being made less clear
through what we were showing excitement about.

Tracey mentioned the idea that many people interested in this area are
right + left libertarians interested in direct democracy.  I've talked
with many people who are into that and who see the Internet and the
access to the data we are talking about as a key in making that
happen.  They are a good example of people I'm happy to work with on
this issue but who I don't want to support in general.  Personally I
dig representative government and John Raulston Saul's idea that
voting is only the punctuation of democracy. Same concerns with
hard-core free market types or fiscal or social conservatives seeking
to minimize social programs by the state (an overlapping group with
right-libertarians) by "proving" they are inefficient or ineffective
compared to the private sector.  I may or may not personally agree
with different policies, but I was just worried about our ability to
distinguish between all these different agendas (the agenda of getting
access to data from other agendas like that of judging efficiency of
government interventions).

Sorry for not responding earlier, but I didn't want to rush and I
really enjoyed reading other people's thoughts.  I feel a lot better
after seeing other members' reflections on the topic.

cheers
mike

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I see.  And you feel that this multiplicity of backgrounds was being ignored before?
>
> I'm curious what the specific trigger was for this thread...
>
> Jennifer
> visiblegovernment.ca
>
> --- On Fri, 11/21/08, Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT - values of CivicAccess
>> To: [hidden email], "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
>> Received: Friday, November 21, 2008, 3:35 PM
>> > I'm curious: what makes you think the values of
>> Civic Access are being shanghied?
>> not speaking for michael, but i don't think there is a
>> concern that values of of CivicAccess are being shanghied.
>> rather a desire to recognize that the collection of people
>> her come from different philosophical and practical angles.
>>
>> strangely, though I know michael well, i never really
>> understood why my particular concern about open data -- that
>> is, "better decision-making" -- was not
>> michael's interest in the issue. I never quite got what
>> his interest was ... answered in his last post: a question
>> of justice: ie, all citizens should have access to the same
>> benefits from the government, not just corporates who can
>> afford to pay high feeds for government data.
>>
>> that makes for a very different take on things, as does a
>> desire for more efficiency, better tax/spending
>> accountability etc.
>>
>> they are all different reasons for being interested in
>> civic access issues ...
>>
>> so not to put words in michael's mouth, i'll
>> instead say what I think about all this: the issue of civic
>> access is important enough that a broad coalition of
>> people/groups can support it, without having to agree on the
>> reason for *why* they want civic access to happen...but we
>> should also remember that the group here spans the political
>> and philosophical spectrum.
>

[Jennifer Bell]

I have to admit this thread makes me feel a bit autistic.  It's clear sensibilities have been offended, but I'm not sure how.

Micheal: can you point to a post, or series of posts, that you felt were not reflective of, or were otherwise ignoring, the established values of Civic Access?  It's useful to have concrete examples to know what to avoid.

And, as an outcome, are you proposing content guidelines to prevent enthusiasm being shown by members on topics that Civic Access, the group, has not agreed with or does not condone?

Otherwise, it seems like this is going to keep coming up.

Jennifer

--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT - values of CivicAccess
> To: [hidden email], "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
> Received: Monday, November 24, 2008, 1:57 AM
> Thanks so much Hugh.  That's felt great to read.  :-)
>
> and yeah, I did think this was being ignored before.
> It's fully
> possibility that I was mistaken though and that I
> didn't need to bring
> this up.
>
> The specific trigger for this post was a conference on new
> social
> practices where a lot of the people attending were workers
> in the
> social services sector.  They are being *managed* out of
> resources,
> out of autonomy, away from the clients, etc.  Many of the
> tools that
> are being used to take away their abilities are metrics
> created and
> interpreted in certain ways.  That corresponds with some of
> my
> experiences of working in the non-profit sector and from
> some of my
> readings (impact of expanding bureaucracies and management
> "science").
>
> Also, in the technology activism area here is a strong
> current of
> technological positivists and determinism.  I guess I'm
> more alert now
> than I used to be about working for justice in
> technological areas
> without wanting to be seen as supporting people that
> believe that
> technical innovation prevents the need for addressing
> issues of power
> and injustice.  I'm okay with working alongside people
> with different
> politics and philosophies on this goal.  I just wanted the
> distinction
> to be clear, and I felt that it wasn't and was being
> made less clear
> through what we were showing excitement about.
>
> Tracey mentioned the idea that many people interested in
> this area are
> right + left libertarians interested in direct democracy.
> I've talked
> with many people who are into that and who see the Internet
> and the
> access to the data we are talking about as a key in making
> that
> happen.  They are a good example of people I'm happy to
> work with on
> this issue but who I don't want to support in general.
> Personally I
> dig representative government and John Raulston Saul's
> idea that
> voting is only the punctuation of democracy. Same concerns
> with
> hard-core free market types or fiscal or social
> conservatives seeking
> to minimize social programs by the state (an overlapping
> group with
> right-libertarians) by "proving" they are
> inefficient or ineffective
> compared to the private sector.  I may or may not
> personally agree
> with different policies, but I was just worried about our
> ability to
> distinguish between all these different agendas (the agenda
> of getting
> access to data from other agendas like that of judging
> efficiency of
> government interventions).
>
> Sorry for not responding earlier, but I didn't want to
> rush and I
> really enjoyed reading other people's thoughts.  I feel
> a lot better
> after seeing other members' reflections on the topic.
>
> cheers
> mike
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Jennifer Bell
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I see.  And you feel that this multiplicity of
> backgrounds was being ignored before?
> >
> > I'm curious what the specific trigger was for this
> thread...
> >
> > Jennifer
> > visiblegovernment.ca
> >
> > --- On Fri, 11/21/08, Hugh McGuire
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT -
> values of CivicAccess
> >> To: [hidden email], "civicaccess
> discuss" <[hidden email]>
> >> Received: Friday, November 21, 2008, 3:35 PM
> >> > I'm curious: what makes you think the
> values of
> >> Civic Access are being shanghied?
> >> not speaking for michael, but i don't think
> there is a
> >> concern that values of of CivicAccess are being
> shanghied.
> >> rather a desire to recognize that the collection
> of people
> >> her come from different philosophical and
> practical angles.
> >>
> >> strangely, though I know michael well, i never
> really
> >> understood why my particular concern about open
> data -- that
> >> is, "better decision-making" -- was not
> >> michael's interest in the issue. I never quite
> got what
> >> his interest was ... answered in his last post: a
> question
> >> of justice: ie, all citizens should have access to
> the same
> >> benefits from the government, not just corporates
> who can
> >> afford to pay high feeds for government data.
> >>
> >> that makes for a very different take on things, as
> does a
> >> desire for more efficiency, better tax/spending
> >> accountability etc.
> >>
> >> they are all different reasons for being
> interested in
> >> civic access issues ...
> >>
> >> so not to put words in michael's mouth,
> i'll
> >> instead say what I think about all this: the issue
> of civic
> >> access is important enough that a broad coalition
> of
> >> people/groups can support it, without having to
> agree on the
> >> reason for *why* they want civic access to
> happen...but we
> >> should also remember that the group here spans the
> political
> >> and philosophical spectrum.
> >

      __________________________________________________________________
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com

[Michael Lenczner]

Oops.  Sorry then. I didn't do a good job of communicating.  I'm
definitely not offended and never was.   I had some questions about
what people thought of this space and I very much appreciate having
had the chance to voice this and discuss this with you all. I feel
much more coherent about participating here after that discussion.  It
think Hugh's point about disambiguation of motives was what I was
looking for.  My only regrets is if this was too off-topic for the
list and if people thought it was a distraction.

Back to our regularly-scheduled programing?

mike

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I have to admit this thread makes me feel a bit autistic.  It's clear sensibilities have been offended, but I'm not sure how.
>
> Micheal: can you point to a post, or series of posts, that you felt were not reflective of, or were otherwise ignoring, the established values of Civic Access?  It's useful to have concrete examples to know what to avoid.
>
> And, as an outcome, are you proposing content guidelines to prevent enthusiasm being shown by members on topics that Civic Access, the group, has not agreed with or does not condone?
>
> Otherwise, it seems like this is going to keep coming up.
>
> Jennifer
>
> --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT - values of CivicAccess
>> To: [hidden email], "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
>> Received: Monday, November 24, 2008, 1:57 AM
>> Thanks so much Hugh.  That's felt great to read.  :-)
>>
>> and yeah, I did think this was being ignored before.
>> It's fully
>> possibility that I was mistaken though and that I
>> didn't need to bring
>> this up.
>>
>> The specific trigger for this post was a conference on new
>> social
>> practices where a lot of the people attending were workers
>> in the
>> social services sector.  They are being *managed* out of
>> resources,
>> out of autonomy, away from the clients, etc.  Many of the
>> tools that
>> are being used to take away their abilities are metrics
>> created and
>> interpreted in certain ways.  That corresponds with some of
>> my
>> experiences of working in the non-profit sector and from
>> some of my
>> readings (impact of expanding bureaucracies and management
>> "science").
>>
>> Also, in the technology activism area here is a strong
>> current of
>> technological positivists and determinism.  I guess I'm
>> more alert now
>> than I used to be about working for justice in
>> technological areas
>> without wanting to be seen as supporting people that
>> believe that
>> technical innovation prevents the need for addressing
>> issues of power
>> and injustice.  I'm okay with working alongside people
>> with different
>> politics and philosophies on this goal.  I just wanted the
>> distinction
>> to be clear, and I felt that it wasn't and was being
>> made less clear
>> through what we were showing excitement about.
>>
>> Tracey mentioned the idea that many people interested in
>> this area are
>> right + left libertarians interested in direct democracy.
>> I've talked
>> with many people who are into that and who see the Internet
>> and the
>> access to the data we are talking about as a key in making
>> that
>> happen.  They are a good example of people I'm happy to
>> work with on
>> this issue but who I don't want to support in general.
>> Personally I
>> dig representative government and John Raulston Saul's
>> idea that
>> voting is only the punctuation of democracy. Same concerns
>> with
>> hard-core free market types or fiscal or social
>> conservatives seeking
>> to minimize social programs by the state (an overlapping
>> group with
>> right-libertarians) by "proving" they are
>> inefficient or ineffective
>> compared to the private sector.  I may or may not
>> personally agree
>> with different policies, but I was just worried about our
>> ability to
>> distinguish between all these different agendas (the agenda
>> of getting
>> access to data from other agendas like that of judging
>> efficiency of
>> government interventions).
>>
>> Sorry for not responding earlier, but I didn't want to
>> rush and I
>> really enjoyed reading other people's thoughts.  I feel
>> a lot better
>> after seeing other members' reflections on the topic.
>>
>> cheers
>> mike
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Jennifer Bell
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I see.  And you feel that this multiplicity of
>> backgrounds was being ignored before?
>> >
>> > I'm curious what the specific trigger was for this
>> thread...
>> >
>> > Jennifer
>> > visiblegovernment.ca
>> >
>> > --- On Fri, 11/21/08, Hugh McGuire
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]>
>> >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT -
>> values of CivicAccess
>> >> To: [hidden email], "civicaccess
>> discuss" <[hidden email]>
>> >> Received: Friday, November 21, 2008, 3:35 PM
>> >> > I'm curious: what makes you think the
>> values of
>> >> Civic Access are being shanghied?
>> >> not speaking for michael, but i don't think
>> there is a
>> >> concern that values of of CivicAccess are being
>> shanghied.
>> >> rather a desire to recognize that the collection
>> of people
>> >> her come from different philosophical and
>> practical angles.
>> >>
>> >> strangely, though I know michael well, i never
>> really
>> >> understood why my particular concern about open
>> data -- that
>> >> is, "better decision-making" -- was not
>> >> michael's interest in the issue. I never quite
>> got what
>> >> his interest was ... answered in his last post: a
>> question
>> >> of justice: ie, all citizens should have access to
>> the same
>> >> benefits from the government, not just corporates
>> who can
>> >> afford to pay high feeds for government data.
>> >>
>> >> that makes for a very different take on things, as
>> does a
>> >> desire for more efficiency, better tax/spending
>> >> accountability etc.
>> >>
>> >> they are all different reasons for being
>> interested in
>> >> civic access issues ...
>> >>
>> >> so not to put words in michael's mouth,
>> i'll
>> >> instead say what I think about all this: the issue
>> of civic
>> >> access is important enough that a broad coalition
>> of
>> >> people/groups can support it, without having to
>> agree on the
>> >> reason for *why* they want civic access to
>> happen...but we
>> >> should also remember that the group here spans the
>> political
>> >> and philosophical spectrum.
>> >
>
>
>      __________________________________________________________________
> Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>