How much control do you think we have?
Oh, Jérôme grumbles when certain topics come up, but what are you gonna do?
Sure, we control the infrastructure, but that runs mostly on inertia. Unfortunately it's more or less necessary to have it controlled by a small group in the end of the day, though I have plans which would reduce the need for control if I can ever find the space and energy to implement them.
Rorschach or something more serious, Doc?
Wearing the inkblot-like mask he considers his true face, Rorschach has continued his one-man battle against crime long after superheroes became both detested and illegal. Rorschach's actions and journal writings display a belief in moral absolutism and objectivism, where good and evil are clearly defined and evil must be violently punished. He has alienated himself from the rest of society to achieve these aims.
I suppose I see the FP role as more of a leadership role - even though it often devolves down to a lot of time consuming admin tasks. Perhaps there simply aren't enough FP's to do the job - manage the site, write diaries, lead opinion, set the tone, provide editorial direction, encourage newcomers, massage hurt feelings, e-market the site, run campaigns, represent Eurotrib in the real world in various countries and on a wide range of topics. I think it may be a case of two few people trying to do too much and there being insufficient differentiation/specialisation and delegation of tasks to enable anything to be done in a very sustained way without burn-out for the few.
Much of my interest in this derives from the problems faced by small organisations when they grow bigger and when the founders can no longer take on all the prime responsibilities themselves. Also I am more used to operating in a business environment with a very defined structure for getting things done. We are very good at the brainstorming/discussion/ideas stage of projects but we don't seems to have processes in place which can refine these to a few actionable and prioritised decisions and implementation plans once those decisions have been taken.
I know Jerome feels the answer to this is to have some paid staff, but I'm not at all sure about this. Firstly having some paid staff would alter the dynamics of a community site profoundly - "why is he paid to do some bits when I do loads without pay etc...." Secondly, I don't see the contradiction between voluntarism and organisation which many here seem to feel exists. I prefer to work in an environment where I have few very clear and limited responsibilities rather than many vague and diverse ones. So what's wrong with having one FPer dedicated to design changes, another dedicated to just coding, a third defining editorial policy/writing position papers on energy, a fourth as Finland editor, a fifth responsible for e-marketing the site, a sixth responsible for welcoming/supporting/encouraging new members etc.
Obviously having such a structure doesn't prevent others writing on e.g. energy, welcoming newcomers or running a campaign on a topic dear to their heart. Sometimes there may be no volunteer to do a particular necessary piece of work - e.g coding or server admin - in which case there may be no option but to pay someone - but let cross that bridge if we come up against that problem. Provided the task is well defined/limited in scope I rarely have a problem finding a volunteer in the real world. But what is lacking for me is enough overall coordination to make such differentiation/specialisation possible - and without that I doubt ET can ever become much more than a relatively small, fun, but essentially anarchistic community which has some spasmodic successes but also a lot of confusion and wasted energy.
And this is partly why I constantly seem to be asking myself - what am I doing here? - because I can never seem to see this leading anywhere in terms political effectiveness or "mass movement" impact on public discourse in a consistent way.
Getting bigger unfortunately also means greater complexity/need for structure and coordination - where purely anarchistic (and I mean that in a positive sense) and spontaneous organisational forms work less well. People feel burn-out if they have to great a range of responsibilities to attend to, but that also means they have to learn to let go and let some other people take responsibility for some things - and perhaps do them in a different way to how you would have done them had it been your responsibility.
afew:
The second point concerns ET as a broader influence: you seem to assume that this necessarily means a discussion site open to many and opposing opinions. How, in your view, will that help to disseminate what is currently a minority standpoint?
I suppose I don't see ET as having any one very fixed and defined minority standpoint, merely an evolving consensus which changes in dialogue with opposing views - so it isn't a propaganda site, or a political party's site with defined policies - but rather a much more loosely defined site where a range of view are constantly in dialogue. It is the quality of this dialogue which, to my mind, is a measure of ET's value, not its "correctness" on a range of pre-defined policy positions. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
I suppose I don't see ET as having any one very fixed and defined minority standpoint, merely an evolving consensus which changes in dialogue with opposing views - so it isn't a propaganda site, or a political party's site with defined policies - but rather a much more loosely defined site where a range of view are constantly in dialogue. It is the quality of this dialogue which, to my mind, is a measure of ET's value, not its "correctness" on a range of pre-defined policy positions.
The other day, I wrote a comment on the subject of public protests and other vehicles for social change that was, to put it mildly, warmly received. I suggested that Eurotrib filled an important function because it existed to challenge the convention "wisdom" on an important intellectual level and cited Jerome's crusade to call Neoliberalism by it's more accurate name--Anglo Disease. I suggested that if we had 20 ideas just as good, we would change the world.
Now there is NOTHING wrong with street action. I don't even believe it saps energy. If that is what you think your calling to be, make puppets and march in the streets with my blessing. However, I don't think street action is what the folks who come to Eurotribune should be doing. Let me explain. ... See, that is OUR job. Not to fill our leaders heads with more bullshit, but giving them good, sound, ideas that allow them to at least ask meaningful questions. It is why I think our Jerome is bucking for sainthood with his crusade to relabel neoliberalism as "Anglo Disease." Let others march in the streets and organize "grassroots" campaigns. We have other fish to fry. If we could come up with 20 ideas as effective as "Anglo Disease" we WILL change the world. Ideas ARE important and the time has come to ridicule the right-wing crazies out of the debate. There is NO way to meaningfully address the big problems like peak oil and climate change without changing the operating economic assumptions. This is OUR battle and Eurotrib is a damn good place to figure out how to fight it. We MUST create the new "conventional wisdom." It is a HUGE problem but there are some seriously smart people who come here.
However, I don't think street action is what the folks who come to Eurotribune should be doing. Let me explain.
...
See, that is OUR job. Not to fill our leaders heads with more bullshit, but giving them good, sound, ideas that allow them to at least ask meaningful questions. It is why I think our Jerome is bucking for sainthood with his crusade to relabel neoliberalism as "Anglo Disease."
Let others march in the streets and organize "grassroots" campaigns. We have other fish to fry. If we could come up with 20 ideas as effective as "Anglo Disease" we WILL change the world. Ideas ARE important and the time has come to ridicule the right-wing crazies out of the debate. There is NO way to meaningfully address the big problems like peak oil and climate change without changing the operating economic assumptions.
This is OUR battle and Eurotrib is a damn good place to figure out how to fight it. We MUST create the new "conventional wisdom." It is a HUGE problem but there are some seriously smart people who come here.
Do we have to be at the centre of a "mass movement" in order to do our part? Maybe not.
No we don't, but if we don't engage with a bigger readership our impact cannot be but marginal - unless you have a very elitist approach to political change or believe in the power of prayer.... "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Perhaps there simply aren't enough FP's to do the job - manage the site, write diaries, lead opinion, set the tone, provide editorial direction, encourage newcomers, massage hurt feelings, e-market the site, run campaigns, represent Eurotrib in the real world in various countries and on a wide range of topics. I think it may be a case of two few people trying to do too much and there being insufficient differentiation/specialisation and delegation of tasks to enable anything to be done in a very sustained way without burn-out for the few.
says in a nutshell exactly what I think. (With no pun on "the few").
However, you may have misunderstood my question about the wide-ranging discussion site. I'm not defending a "propaganda" vision (though Ford knows we are inundated by propaganda and have a right to reply in kind), but asking you how you see the function and influence of the kind of site you envisage.
but asking you how you see the function and influence of the kind of site you envisage.
I would like to see ET getting to the stage where, like DKos, Huffington post and a number of other US sites, it is widely known and read, and a standard reference point for anyone (including, but not exclusively journalists, parliamentarians and policymakers) writing about a topic or wishing to be informed about it - with particular reference to EU and supranational issues - a sort of mini emergent Demos for a polity which lacks a direct popular base (other than an election every 4 years). "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Perhaps there simply aren't enough FP's to do the job - manage the site, write diaries, lead opinion, set the tone, provide editorial direction, encourage newcomers, massage hurt feelings, e-market the site, run campaigns, represent Eurotrib in the real world in various countries and on a wide range of topics.
That's a pretty gooddescription of all the task we try to do, and you're right that we're not enough for the job. some of these can be (and are) done by other community members, but they bump against the same limitations.
I know Jerome feels the answer to this is to have some paid staff, but I'm not at all sure about this. Firstly having some paid staff would alter the dynamics of a community site profoundly - "why is he paid to do some bits when I do loads without pay etc...." Secondly, I don't see the contradiction between voluntarism and organisation which many here seem to feel exists.
The reason why I'm pushing for some tasks to be paid for is that they require so much time and focus from people that they are, in effect, not compatible with any other work. So, unless you are alreadyon a pension, or lucky to live off a trust fund or equivalent, people would have to give up their income to do these tasks properly. Thus the suggestion that those that would do this be given an income to live on. I'd hardly think that it would be luxurious, and big enough to be seen as unfair if it provided a service to other site members.
As I said, some of the tasks could be remunerated on an ad hoc basis - preparing a summary of discussions on a topic like food or the anglo disease would be a full time job for an a academic and it deservedly should be paid the same kind of money (say, 1,000-2,000 euros per summary paper).
I prefer to work in an environment where I have few very clear and limited responsibilities rather than many vague and diverse ones. So what's wrong with having one FPer dedicated to design changes, another dedicated to just coding, a third defining editorial policy/writing position papers on energy, a fourth as Finland editor, a fifth responsible for e-marketing the site, a sixth responsible for welcoming/supporting/encouraging new members etc.
The flip side of having volunteers is that they may be tireless, but when they can't be around, there's suddenly none anymore. If we want to have a thinktank like presence, we'll need a consistent capacity to reply and do the various tasks expected of such a body. Such presence and consistency is also what would be purchased - and again that's fair.
The other issue with volunteers is that they brign the competencies they have, not those you need. Sometimes, it's good enough, but sometimes it isn't. Again, if we want serious visibility, we'll need to see what we need to do, and set about doing it on a consistent basis.
More generally, I think that people deserve to be remunerated for all the time and effort that they put on the site or its ofshoots; the goal would certainly not be to reward some and let the others continue for free, but find a way that all talent be harnessed and brought forward.
But we bump again agaisnt the limitations of avaialble money.
It is the quality of this dialogue which, to my mind, is a measure of ET's value, not its "correctness" on a range of pre-defined policy positions.
Yes - and I see our overall intellectual honesty as what we would sell, and it is also why I'd want to hire talent mostly from the community, becuase they know our values, how we function, and how we work, and would be in the best position to reflect thatto the outside.
:: ::
All your points are well made and raise legitimate issues. I do think we have answers, and that we can have answers - I agree that the diffciculty is to turn the potential into a reality, and these discussions will help in finding the way to do it. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The reason why I'm pushing for some tasks to be paid for is that they require so much time and focus from people that they are, in effect, not compatible with any other work.
That's ok provided we are talking about ring-fenced financing for particular projects - the sort of work we could apply for funding from the EU or other public sources. Otherwise I don't know where we would get the money to pay €1000 per position paper etc..
It has to be part of the EU PR agenda to promote informed debate on key EU policies/concerns - so why not apply for a grant to research - e.g. reducing the EU food/energy footprint in global markets - or some much more specific topics which require elucidation - e.g. Options and role models for defining the role of the new EU President of the Council...
If we get funding for specific projects, no one will have a problem with people being paid to do the work. Otherwise you will run into the problems faced by all amateur sporting bodies, where some players/officials get paid to do their work whereas the organisation basically depends on voluntary effort to survive. What happens, after a while, is that the people doing all the voluntary work get pissed off after a while and the organisation shrivels.
ET is almost uniquely placed to apply for such funding, because of our pan European, and indeed global membership, and because we are disseminating and informing debate as well as doing some research. PR agencies get big contracts for doing much less. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Man. You should outsource that. My monthly stipend is less than what's in that bracket.
I'd like to apply when I'm done with the PhD, sick and tired of geology and want to stick around in Africa some more. :)
For what's it worth, I'm behind the strategy you propose 100%. As community, the thinktank scheme has been hashed out over the years. The core members can almost dream it - it needs to be tested.
A reason why I've begun feeling money has to come in at some point is that the tasks required to get the basic structures off the ground are simply not interesting enough to do in spare time based solely on volunteer capacity. In my spare time, I'd want to read, discover and write when online - not continue what I'm doing for 8-10 hours a day already.
A thinktank needs to have a certain "baseload", coupled with some nice surges, which can be volunteer based.
I'd even be keen to keep that site separate from the ETwiki, which would the store of our "collective wisdom", ie a easy reference to our earlier discussions, ie a way to go through all our "unfinished" discussions.
I don't wnat to change the site so much as build on what exists, and put it in a form which is more accessible/palatable/understandable/interesting to outsiders who don't have the benefit of spending day in and day out over here. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Maybe it needs to be a separate project seeded with ETers, but not under the same "brand". When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I think that is what the distinction between the front page and dairy sections should be about. The Diary section is for everyone to publish their thoughts - amateur or otherwise. The front page should be for the more seriously researched and perhaps peer reviewed papers that are our platform for greater influence in the outside world.
So following that, much of Einstein's major work wouldn't have been worthy of the front page. but his later, less important work would ave? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Then to the outside world we wouldn't look like a community blog at all any longer. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I'm afraid it would only create detached policy that would be more of the same. At least to me, the personal is political and viceversa, because it is intertwined. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
Any philosophical or technical reason why the number couldn't be...say...doubled?
Well, with apologies to the many able people who don't immediately spring to mind, I've always supposed it was limited numbers that meant DoDo wasn't an FP. And TBG's contributions are of a consistently high standard, though, in the interests of transparency and clique-avoidance, I need to say that I've known him for some time through another site.
Anyone else any nominations?
As I was saying before I messed up-any more?
maybe the problem is we're not being patient enough. i don't think ET has to grow, for example, as much as most here seems to want, or even to have an effect on policy. it's fun to think about, but i believe, were it ever to happen, it would be serendipitous as much as structured, and would happen when the 'masses' are ready, not just when a bunch of us thought we were.
what this place works well for is to inform, educate and prepare us for change, and a more active thinking role than we are accustomed to, perhaps, a higher intellectual standard to aspire to.
as a world of ideas, the blogosphere rules, when it comes to rubber meeting the road, it's barely beginning. i enjoy seeing people here wanting to propagate better thinking to more people, especially bigger wheels, but ithink we just need to keep on keeping on, getting sharper and wiser from just showing up here. the very challenging issue of blogging with all the different nationalities represented here is being navigated effortlessly, without special planning.
we are at a natural disadvantage compared with the usa, if what we are after is growth, because of the sheer numbers on the same linguistic page. the quality of english here would be high even if all were native english speakers, for example, and yet it's anything but that way... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
It's the way self-organizing stuff works.
One suggestion I have though, is, let's get ourselves an agent. Media Planet for instance.
Or maybe not. Media Planet has a business model that uses a lot of good freelancers to create editorial content as a context for related targeted advertising. Now this sounds like an immediate switch off. But it doesn't seem to work quite as one would imagine. Their range of subjects is broad, and includes some of the issues we talk about here. I know people writing for them on business issues, and their view is that alternative views are fine - the point is to make the editorial content interesting.
What an agent does is to use their connections to the media to place stories. You can't be me, I'm taken
As you say, there is no reason why ET has to grow, and many might well prefer it as it is. Most diaries quickly get lost in the Maelstrom that is a bigger site like DKos.
However if we DO want to become a bigger and more influential site, that won't simply happen -it will require a lot of focussed effort to make it happen. And it won't necessarily happen to us - but perhaps to one of many other sites out there, or one driven by a much more business like model. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
sez you!
i would have put the word IF in caps.
no-one here would mind if ET grew to be the FT of the new millennium, probably, but i wonder if polled, whether size matters that much to ET'ers.
i don't think its the size of the stone david threw, as much as the accuracy... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
I agree that the accuracy was vital, however the stone did kill Goliath and i doubt that many stones much smaller than, say, 2cm would have accomplished the task. ET may have the requisite size but lack the visibility. Or it may require both more size and visibility. I don't know.
In any case, melo, I enjoy your posts. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
i don't worry about ET growing, hasn't it grown well so far?
i'm concerned about over-reach, if anything, not because we wouldnìt do some good, but because it would be depressing if it didn't.
wu-wei..letting it be what it without reshaping it seems the wisest course to me. of course if people feel differently, that makes it more, not less interesting.
there's a lot of smarts here, and the agenda seems right on track for a better world. whether the world id listening deoendes more on where peoples' heads are at, rather than how persuasive we can make our model, image, whatever.
i guess i believe more in pull than push, i dunno. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Wisdom does build up over time, it cannot happen in one discussion. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
this place is one long refined counter-argument to the CW that liberals are fuzzy thinking, disorganised, utopian bla bla.
we tear into each others' weak arguments and stop each other falling into traps of illogic, this works to keep the intellect freer from denial and cog-diss.
then we take that out into the world, info ready at our mental fingertips, toughened up by endless shoe-blogs, we can take down goliath.... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Maybe people will react better to [ET Pretty Policing™ Technology] than they do to [ET Moderation Technology™] . When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
