What blog serves GCC best?

Cancel

@glenngaasland @samhahn I have a little spare time on this coming weekend, so I plan to look more into it, the lists you've curated, places where stuff is stored, ways how it could be organized, maybe even experimenting a little, so this potential project gets a little more concrete and we can find out what we want/need, what might be feasible, what would need to be discussed, etc., to get an idea about the whole thing.

Here's something you can listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-m5lhUjbnU - I still need to comment on it in order to describe my perspective on it, which is impossible to do in the linearity of audio in a time limit with multiple participants requesting air time as well, but I guess I'll end up being busy in that context, and whatever the progress/results will be, we hopefully can apply it to the library/archive of this group as well. I still would love to discuss those things with whomever wants to from this group, but sure, we're all busy and sometimes can't afford to engage too soon or even at all, so feel free to revisit those questions any time it fits in your schedule, and I'll see to what extend it fits into mine ;-)

@skreutzer Stephan I am behind in reading all of this, also on other discussions, but I just wanted to say thank you for how engaged you are. Perhaps thats not exactly the right wording but it is motivating to see someone else engaging with thoughtful reflections and new ideas in a group :-)

Don't worry, all the reading/listening is a pain and huge time drain of course ;-) It's just if you guys put a single word/perspective/description out, it can trigger a whole lengthly discussion, so I rather do that fast upon discovery, so more things can follow later, instead of taking the risk of forgetting about it and not have discussions and missing potentially important points or something. If you don't reply too soon, that's good for me, so I can play catch-up at other places ;-)

I wrote something about a few of the problems that come with WordPress: https://jrnl.global/2018/08/26/personal-hypertext-report-6/ - still, it might be the "best" we have when it comes to what people know to use, FTPing XHTML pages onto raw webspace would probably be even better to build applications from it.

@bridgetime On the site, it seems like you or you guys start to link/embed/list the video recordings on YouTube. Are you aware that most of them are non-listed? I wonder why, and if people are fine with the recordings becoming easier findable. Also, it seems like Sam kept the ones from last weekend private, maybe something happened, or the sharing policy changed, anyway: it should be very clear what should be shareable, because once it's made public, it's public. Do we need to come up with a list of what's available in the different places? Separate from this, what about the Facebook thing?

Oh, I see that you already have some kind of a list. What do the X at the right side mean? Is it people who attended?

We will be compiling a list in the GCC website ( www.globalchallengescollaboration.org ). If there are parts of the conversations some people attending do not want public, those videos can be removed later.

That's the one I saw, yes. At the bottom of https://globalchallengescollaboration.org/recorded-conversations/. I just discovered that there's at least one video under Creative Commons BY 3.0 on Sam's YouTube (maybe accidentially, licensed this way with permission of all participants of the call?), that's something I can work with, although not ideal because there's no copyleft, but for me as a user not an issue. Some might see it as an advantage to be permitted to publish derivative works under a proprietary license, which is bad for you guys as the creators of the original material, but that's not what I have in mind anyway.

Turns out that that particular recording is under CC BY 3.0 because it's on Tammy's channel. Still, without SA-clause (copyleft), I think I should hijack that material by putting dervied works under a copylefted license, and just use the unmodified material passively, so it's already fine for consumption at least.

So this is a thread in itself! But I wonder about the general place of property in co-creative processes.

As I see it the only thing anyone can own during this kind of work is the persons own process, the persons contribution, what they actually did ( including what they said and how they said it ) and the way this happened.

This also relates to your questions about the article shared in the other thread, where I wrote something about “full control over their own data”. This needs to be clarified, because I meant something specific here, but it didnt come out clearly and thanks for pointing this out.

How could we own our own data when the data is a by-product of our process, and where this process is the only thing we can really own?

On the one hand, there is the process itself, finding a process where there is an experience of freedom and the right conditions to really do what you want to be doing, be my best ( as I now consider to be best ) and do the most meaningful and beneficial kind of activity ( the BIG issue I would say, always, and every time it is a new and super relevant question ).

Then we have the resulting artifacts of the process, for each person, specifically how they present their identity.

There is always the possibility that someone else will use what you share, a part of your expressed identity so to say, in totally surprising ways. Some you may like, some you may not like, etc etc...

In those cases, as I see it, this willbe THAT PERSONS PROCESS ( where they quote something from you ) which they own 100%, and the same will be the case from the resulting artifact.

Here we see that this process has included within it elements from another process. We never act alone, we are inspired by ithers, and of course that will be the entire point of co-creation. Every person may have total ownership over their own life process right now, and at the same time this process is clearly influenced by the process of other people, which they “own” or are responsible for. Responsibility could replace ownership the way I use it here, and the word “freedom” also seems relevant.

This just shows that each process i fluences all other processes, making the responsibility go far beyond my own person. I am responsible for my own action, and this is increased by the fact that this action influences others. So this is another illustration of interconnectedness in action. There is no way out of it, and no wish for a way out of it, we are rather trying to figure out a way THROUGH it which can work well for the person themselves as well as for those around them ( here I think we are on to one of the essential tasks of all human co-existence and collaboration, to figure out ways of doing this well, the core purpose of a group like the GCC we could say ).

So how could this inform the case of publishing derivative works of others? If I publish the derivative work of another, I am making that choice, which is informed by the other person, and where this is made clear. Then I can build on this contribution with ideas of my own. This will then in a sense be an extension of the other contribution.

What could then happen is a long string of such contributions, based on other contributions, based on other contributions...

This is what happens already, but it is messy, so maybe what we are seeking is to make this process as transparent and easy to navigate as possible.

As intelligent, beautiful and beneficient as possible

What could be the main ingredients to make this happen as well as possible?

This seems to be among the main tasks to figure out. I find the current webpage promising. A first good step is to get all the videos into one list. Tag all the people in the videos so they can be searched later. Then tag the videos with words for common themes discussed. Figure out the best and most relevant tags to use.

From the tags will arise lists.

These lists are like their own databases of material around a certain subject.

Later as we work more on this ( and here Stephan your work so far with the videos is of great value ) we can get accurate transcripts as well as storylines and references to specific themes.

So we keep studying the material while also producing more material which can be studied and harvested for good things later.

Informed by the study of the material, and doing this study together, will give insights to what material to focus on in moving forward. The process can be very transparent if the process ACTUALLY works for the benefit of all people without exception. Then we can truly begin creating new and interesting things, which also go into the repository, and try new conversational formats as well as new kinds of written documents derived from and building further on them.

This already sounds like a real co-creative process!

It doesn't matter what opinion one might have about "ownership" of immaterial works, it's pretty clear that such a thing doesn't exist, and is completely deconstructed by cheap, universal, abundant digital technology, BUT regardless, the law has a different opinion, and the law is enforced. Now, all of you could agree to not enforce your "all rights reserved" the default inflicted by copyright, but if that's your decision, make it explicit and don't leave people at risk that you or your heirs change their mind eventually, which you do by releasing the material under a libre-free license that uses the default copyright to grant extensive permissions to everybody, and also protects those rights of everybody against attempts to take it away again.

"Ownership of your own data": if data is seen as a result of a process and only the process is owned, sure, that makes a lot of sense. For collaboration and scalability, one scheme goes like this: not everybody can re-experience all the processes him/herself, so we create records/data as destilled "results" of the process, increasing the quality of the data by filtering out what's just noise, so others can pick up the relevant things and don't need to spend the time on the process, especially if they can't for other reasons, so sometimes the data is all there is from past events you just happen to not having been there at the time. So if the process is unavailable or non-recreatable, and all there is is the data, it's great if this data isn't exclusively, restrictively owned. If the data happens to be copyrightable, then the default by law is that you aren't allowed to do anything with it, sometimes even obtaining is illegal, and if you have it, you're restricted to passively consume it, so it can only speak to your own brain, but not beyond that, it's the old book model as if there were no computers, software and networks, as if there wouldn't be infrastructure that allows much more powerful ways to work with the data.

Besides of copyright, there are other laws, like protection of personal rights, protection from misrepresentation (imagine somebody makes a video clip to mock the group or an individual), other legal obligations depending on jurisdiction, and the privacy part for personal identifying, sensitive data, which should be cut out. Not everybody is willing to let go, not everybody should, there's a big deficit in media competency, and we haven't figured out how we want to go about those things as a society, maybe never can, some people confuse those other rights with copyright or abuse copyright to serve other needs.

If I can't be in the video calls to co-create the live-stream of the video, there's no way to co-create curation for the recording, because the source material could be pulled from with-under my on-top additions or changes. Even in the live-stream itself, you can only do it by implicit social agreement that you will create a recording, publish it, and not object against somebody else publishing your image and voice of the recording. It's not explicit, the agreement is not offered to those who don't participate, so the recording is of little use for people other than you.

In other words: I have my own process, you have yours, but why do we keep talking to each other? There's certainly the anticipation that the process gets influenced from outside, and there's where social contracts and technological augmentation can come in. It's almost what Sam keeps saying for quite some time. And yes, that leads to some interconnectedness, to the extend it's technically possible and socially encouraged/permitted.

"If I publish the derivative work of another", that's the point, you can't, at least not without legal risk. You need to get the permission from the original creator, otherwise you're committing a copyright violation.

If we don't have enough time to curate enough of the material to good-enough quality, we could at least co-create the tools and processes to allow that in the future, and help similar projects/groups, etc., as a generic, universal capability.

So does this mean that the material needs to be released under a libre-free licence, if we are going to practice a frictionless co-creation process?

Not necessarily so, it depends what social policies, human tool system you want to set up, and it's your material in fact, so I advise against libre-freely licensing work if it is for the wrong reasons, because that path only leads to disappointment.

It's a first good step and very necessary to become aware of the issue, to discuss it in more detail. Sure, it's a boring and tedious topic, but it's one of those things you have to spend a few hours and then you can navigate and pick up all the different properties that you want to get from licensing and the licenses that implement them rather quickly, there are also good recommendations and good summaries. The more difficult part would be to figure out what the creators want or want to prevent, because there is surely a lot of "property"/"ownership" thinking for your time/effort investment of course, and due to the lack of a lot of existing libre-free licensed repositories and tools to actually collaborate, work is rarely done collaboratively, where we would enter other aspects of that question that have nothing to do with law/copyright.

Looking at licenses/copyright for a few hours might sound like the most dry thing, but many people have wasted their life's work because of not addressing this little detail, and it can in fact render even the best work completely useless.

Copyright was made for written novels, which are entertainment. Where it gets applied onto works of practical use or even software, it becomes a dramatic problem, because usage is forbidden per default, which defies the whole purpose of the existence of the work in the first place.