Jamie, it's a great proposal. Any assurances that the folks who can block/promote this are reading it?

I'm reading this while thinking of my last 'encounter' with the USSF. Before the USSF began, I was trying to work on a feedback form that would be relevant to evaluation purposes. This was discussed on the tech team, and I spoke with a number of folks trying to figure out who was in charge, what the plan was, and when something might happen.

Despite these efforts, when it was time to move forward (using outside, contracted consultants) the NPC moved ahead with an evaluation that was not communicated, not transparent, and not inclusive.

I haven't heard from any individuals in the NPC take personal responsibility for mistakes or failures. The one addition I'd be sure to make, is ensure that personal responsibility does exist, with names named, power held openly, and evaluation built in from day one.

At the end of the day, those who invest their time, talents and treasure in the success of the social forum process need more than the name of a committee and the use of the passive voice to figure out what happened. This proposal is a step in the right direction, but it shows up seemingly divorced from the experiences that led to it.

Finally, looking at the proposal, I'm asking where the decision would be made regarding the 'data model.' Reading your proposal, I'm not sure where the decision would be made to switch from say, PayPal to Groundspring, or from Drupal forms to a real database. There are preferences embedded in this proposal that would make it hard to ask certain questions without prejudice. (i.e., that technical needs would be solved with programming rather than products)

Very nice though. Is there any kind of process for the WSF that we can join?

--clenchner

Thanks for the feedback Charles.

Will people who can use this information read it? Not sure. I am, however, keeping my eye on the Social Forum of the Americas. I have a feeling that the best way to move something like this forward would be to get involved in the next Social Forum that could use it :).

I would, however, like to get feedback from a broad array of social forum organizers. So far I've only posted this blog to a handful of tech/activist lists. I will start spreading it out to broader Social Forum lists next week (if anyone has suggestions or can forward it to a list you are on - please do).

On the question of evaluation - I think that question might be more effectively asked: who has the right to contact other participants? In other words, I think the frustration around evaluation was the need to rely on the NPC to do it. What if anyone could have organized the evaluation? It makes me think of the ideas of both Eric G and Ben M - both ideas were discussed but not implemented for lack of resources:

• Ben and People Who Give a Damn have been talking about a system of democratically deciding what messages are sent to broader members of a list or group.
• Eric and Tad were working on Organic Groups - which has a lot of options for people deciding what they want to opt-into.

I think both of these ideas are about removing a central authority from being the voice of who gets what communication.

On the data model discussion: I would envision all decision making to happen on one web site. For me, I think a ticket style system would be the best - one that allows tickets to be "open" or "resolved" and have a well threaded commenting system on each one.

There would be a few data model requirements: such as the use of a single, unique identifier for all participants. But - the goal would be to allow different services to make different decisions on how to implement their piece of the puzzle - based on the needs of the team as whole.

--jamie

great thought out process jamie. we need more people thinking about these things. there are a couple of things missing from this though. the first one, which is MAJOR, is a whole layer of political organizing work that needs to happen before any of the teams you outlined above can be created. who does that? where does that fit in to the organizing model you have outlined?

also, one of the amazing things about the US Social Forum was that the organizers were mostly of color and mostly basebuilding groups, i.e. the people most impacted by the current world order. where do those folks help lead the organizing efforts, in your model? i ask this because in offering up a tech-heavy top tier, you are creating the probability of an environment of people with more privilege.

i agree that in the US Social Forum the lack of integration of technology really slowed down the organizing, but middle ground and integration seem more productive. setting up teams that highlight the leadership of organizers AND technologists would seem to be more useful. your outline seems to just highlight techies.

and i know that you are an organizer too, so let some of that side out!

--josue

Hey Jamie,

Great stuff! As an event organizer, I tip my hat to such an ass-kickingly thorough writeup.

The only thing I would add is two nits on privacy:

• In the "Requirements for hosting a server" section, I would like to see statement of expectations for privacy of participant data on the server explicitly called out, including where physical backups are stored etc.

• By extension, ownership and privacy of data post-event, and associated accountability, is worth addressing IMO.

you rock! peace, gunner

--gunner

Jamie,

This is really a wonderful write up, and a bunch of great ideas. It's making me wonder - how generalizeable is this to more than just mass forums - I love the idea of breaking the technology down/up and distributing it - and having teams focused on specific functions/issues rather than giving it all to the techies.

How can we adopt this kind of thinking to other nonprofit/activist settings?

--mmurrain