Changes between Version 10 and Version 11 of projects/membership-meeting/2013/mesas/infrastructure

Oct 23, 2013, 9:13:23 AM (7 years ago)
Jamie McClelland



  • projects/membership-meeting/2013/mesas/infrastructure

    v10 v11  
    23= Infrastructure, Resources and Security in Communications =
    167168(Meeting ends at ~ 20:15 US/Eastern)
    170 == Interpreter Signup ==
    172  * Interpreter one: Analía
    173  * Interpreter two:
    174  * Interpreter three:
    176 Submit your own [ proposal].
     170== Notes from face to face meeting ==
     172Daniel: Questions regarding Alfredo's proposals.  It enhances the techie/non-techie dichotomy.  I wish we could work to blur that distinction, if we want people to take ownership to their technology.  I don't like that techies don't have political things to contribute and non-techies don't have technical things to contribute.  It also encourages the increase of the work group, how will that be populated.  Third it tries to influnence the priorities of the group as part of the formation of the group.  It seems that the raising of priorities for the group is distinct from the formation of the group.  Stating that this group should focus on the USSF, seems a little bit limiting as I don't have any interest in telling people what to do.
     174Jay: I'm sitting in because we do use mf/pl support and in some ways, mf/pl is at a crux in that the involvement of individuals and organizations in a democratic open source use of the internet and at the same time, many of those individuals and groups have their own priorities using some of the services of mf/pl but they do not see themeselves interacting with the world in cojunction with may first.  The need for democratic oss involvement is important in opposition to the state, but I don't see it as a collition point.  As a bystander, maybe what the LC develops as priorities different people might be asked to participate, while at the same time supporting the services of members must happen.  Raising members of member organizations may not be the needs of other organizations.  I disagree with some of the people in May First, I'm going to use proprietary tools if they work.  If there are things that work that are non-proprietary, then I'd use them.  I'm totally unfamiliar with how the support team works.  When a ticket is created, I don't know when they get reviewed, viewed, who gets assigned to them.  What's interesting to me, I don't know what other members pay for their dues, but we are 4-5% of the total dues of mf/pl.  That's a question for the organization.  Do new members make more initial demands than older members?
     176Daniel:  I think it would be interesting to make certain things more visible to the members, how much time is used by support team members.  And maybe offer members a greater sense of what other members are using.  It also seems that members who actively participate will set the priorities of the organization.  If members say they have a set of priorities.
     178Jay: I see it as a vehicle for saying to new members, "Hey, see we have a vehicle for your participation."  Other than the selling point, it seems like it's pretty difficult.  TWU at some point decide to go with something like may first, rather than a going with a capitalist ip.  So many organizations have gone the route of being a member of May First.  Other than that belief they still must provide a reliable service to their organization.  Of all the 500+ member organizations, to have one organization to have input in the support team.  I don't think it accomplishes that.  The needs of that one organization might be in conflict with the needs and priorities of other organizations.  So it gets back to why this proposal, how do you tell new organizations that you can have some input and say so that you can have a vehical.
     180Jay: Who has power, it is not in mayfirst core beliefs, we have access to it on a daily basis. This is valid for any organization that uses mayfirst as a server..... Mayfirst could offer, how to automate backup, to have contol over your lists and database.
     182Daniel: There are 2 different types of control you wnat to have....If there are things that you want to be private, backups are not going to help with that.
     184Jay: out experience ??? with yahoo, google groups, they give you no warning, they just lock you out. Now you are paying for something it works much better. Anybody running a listserv have this concern, anybody with a membership list...that would be something with the controls of the state, how can mayfirst help them to maintain access to their own lists. That might also be a way of retracting on why you would want to join or affiliate with mayfirst as it is provided as a service to you
     186Daniel: So what you're saying is that mf/pl should express to members that we protect your internet sovereignty.
     188Jay: somebody puts in, i have read some of the support pages, forgot how to do something, right? In the scope of things they need responses, but that is low energy, I forgot how to do something. Not sure what the realm of democracy or movement is, but obvisously participation in movements and utilize mayfirst. Utilize the infrastructure, to make it attractive to ??????. We want to help and respond to attacks on 1st amendment rights. Those are the allocations of the resources of mayfirst. They are not the allocation of the technical resource of members of mayfirst. The 2 are not competing, but yo cannot work on them both at the same time. That is what Alfredo is trying to address in his proposal.
     190?????? cant hear clearly
     191How to take on the tech work that we do, that we are already thinking about the politics of the tech work to be done (might not be correct).??? (muffled)
     193Jay: Our experience is that Alfredo was doing the support for us, Jamie was doing support, and they were part of the leadership structure. How they survived by being able to be more involved in the support-team. There was the political leadership involvement of the, not just the LC, but the top leadership of mfpl, was involved in the support team. That does not seem to be the case today. Therefore, how is, yes the support-team works, based on their experience and involvment of things yes has political leadership, but it is not the same as the way it was before. Not sure if this proposal gets to that.
     195Daniel: We are supposed to come out of this with a set of titles with 3-4 descriptions. Is this one, one of the ones we want to put forward.
     197Jay: I think the question....(muffled)
     199????: Can treat this as 3 totally different proposals. I think, I would like us to, in the spirit of this proposal, to some how address infrastructure to approach politics. Knowing Alfredo's argument is the real racial divide of the support-team and membership. Mostly men except for Dana.
     201Jay: so when the support team has the f2f meetings, I suspect we have both remote and f2f?
     203Daniel: Yes, we have different ways of connecting.
     205Jay: From the leadership committee in the past was there any requirement of participation?
     207Daniel: No there has not been any enforcement of participation.
     209Jay: Is there any political decision making or organizational resource allocation in terms of the assignments of support tickets?  Do organizations feel that their requirements are adequately met?  Do they feel comfortable requesting the organization meet their needs?
     211Ross: I think it would be interesting to have the LC take responsibility for the technological politics of the organization.
     213Daniel: There are sub-committees of the LC that meet periodically.
     215Jay: Would it work to have technology as a compohownent of the LC that there would be a quarterly report to the LC? 
     217Daniel: I think we could have a stand alone proposal for a Quartly Support Team Report to the LC.  I think we could do an alternate one that states that the LC needs to send a delegate to the support team.
     219Jay: As someone who has been on the LC, you and jamie have been there.  Have you ever raised the questions to the LC saying we have had these tech problems?
     221Daniel: Yes, but I don't usually go into technicial details.  Some things have been brought to the LC.
     223Jay: Would organizations make more demands if there was a structured outreach to them.  Are they aware of other services mf/pl could provide?  Are they aware of what could be done if they did make more demands?
     225Daniel: If we don't ask the membership what they want, how can we know what they want?
     227(v1, of infrastructure) There should be a sub-committee of the LC responsible for addressing the infrastructural needs of the membership and the political relationship between the support team and the membership.
     229=== Proposals ===
     2310. Infrastructure LC Sub-committee
     233In order to improve the political relationship between the support team and the membership, the LC shall form a working group responsible for articulating membership infrastructure needs through direct outreach. This group will produce a quarterly report to the LC and the support team detailing progress.
     2351. Support Team - Member Invites
     237The support team should invite certain members to the support-team monthly meetings to lead a co-facilitated discussion of how the member uses (and wants to use) technology.
     2392. Support Team - Quarterly Report
     241Each quarter the support team will provide a report back to the LC and the Tech Sub-committee covering work done and upcoming plans.
     2433. Funded Infrastructure Outreach Position
     245Fund a part-time position to bridge the membership development and infrastructure development work.  The person working in this position would help facilitate the other infrastructure proposals.