For Netroots Platforms

by: netrootsplatform

Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 19:23


(The Right To Respond is one of Open Left's policies when we are critical of progressive groups - promoted by Chris Bowers)

Last week, Chris Bowers wrote a essay, Against Progressive Platforms, arguing that Platforms in general and the Netroots Platform in particular, were pointless.  

This response was created by 16 members of The Netroots Community using the democratic, collaborative writing tools at MixedInk.com. For more about how it was created, see here. It can be republished only if accompanied by this note.

Chris, thanks for your post. There's a few things in it that we'd like to address - and we appreciate that your "right of response" policy allows us to do that directly at Open Left.

You object to platforms in general as an outmoded 20th century construct, with no legal standing, that no one pays attention to and that government will not follow. Those are valid points - for the old 20th century style of platform building. It has, indeed, traditionally been a top-down process, conducted in smoky rooms, behind closed doors, by a select group of anointed party leaders.

But the impetus for this platform was anything but totalitarian. The Netroots Platform is not a manifesto, not something we pledge allegiance to, and definitely not the last word. Just a democratically achieved document that provides those who read it some idea of what a few score participatory democrats who thought hard about the subject and debated it among themselves think the Democratic Party ought to stand for. It embodies the potential of so many of the netroots positives you cited. It was creative, innovative, pluralistic, elastic, decentralized, and completely organic. We're not carrying cattle prods to keep anyone in line. We are hardly armband-wearers portrayed in your post.

netrootsplatform :: For Netroots Platforms
We do see the value in having a progressive platform, if it's crafted in the right way. While true that "progressives" are just a loosely connected group of people with different perspectives, passions, and ideas, there is clearly a unifying theme. Having a "platform" is like an organization having a mission statement; to the extent possible, it puts everyone on the same page. It doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with every issue, of course. But by having a unified voice and a clearly articulated position on a number of issues, we are better able to advocate a shared vision and hold our representatives accountable to it.

What was exciting about this process was that it depended on real participation and tapped the wisdom of a disperse crowd. Anyone was able to submit a plank from scratch, edit existing planks, remix the best ideas from different planks, and then rate them up or down. While some planks were weak, or even missing--we agree completely that the final output would have been better with more time and broader participation--the problem was not in the idea of having a platform at all. There is no doubt this would have been better and stronger with more participation--and with YOUR participation! If there's something you or anyone else didn't like, you had the power to come on in and fix it. If the community agreed with you, your version would have been chosen. The system is grassroots and 100% community driven.

We're disappointed that you missed the big picture. 165 people sat down after work and on weekends for the thankless task of writing policy from scratch. This is exactly what democracy can and should look like. We would have hoped you could highlight the enormous potential for citizen involvement in policy making that this demonstrated, rather than emphasizing a single line from a huge, multi-pronged policy document that you didn't agree with 100%.

Many people have said they were sorry they did not participate at the time, or that they, like you, would have added or edited further. Rather than nipping a promising collaborative endeavor in its tender bud, we are open to continuing the project, perhaps in a slightly different shape. We welcome the opportunity to hear from you and your readers about how to improve this process next time, and will pay close attention to the comments. We hope you'll join us on our next adventure in people powered governance!

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
For Netroots Platforms | 55 comments
If you have questions or comments (4.00 / 2)
people involved in the project will be here and checking on it, so feel free to post your thoughts and questions, and we'll gladly response.  
I didn't read too much of it (0.00 / 0)
But to me it seemed like it was a mass of bland rehashed text.

I'd be much more interested in a program that allowed you to submit planks and people voted on those planks to see their relative popularity.  That would tell me something new and interesting.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

[ Parent ]
Read the whole thing. (4.00 / 3)
I'm not sure I'd call the follow 'bland rehashed text':

Studies show that we can drastically reduce E. coli in beef by changing the cows' diet from grain to alfalfa 3 days before slaughter. Americans die from E. coli 0157:H7 in ground beef; there is no reason we should not be taking this crucial step to save American lives.

I dunno. I agreed with Chris when he posted, but on second thought, this is wonderful. It's not trying to end the conversation; it's just one more bit of dialog.  

[ Parent ]
submitting planks and voting is what it was all about! (4.00 / 1)
The process worked like this: anybody could submit a plank, edit someone else's plank, remix parts of different versions, and vote them up or down.  The final version was simply the highest rated plank for each topic.  That's exactly what was exciting about the process!
[ Parent ]
Sixteen (4.00 / 1)
Sixteen people is nice. How do you plan on scaling this so that your netroots platform can actually include the group for whom you presume to speak?
From the text above: (4.00 / 2)
The Netroots Platform is ... [j]ust a democratically achieved document that provides those who read it some idea of what a few score participatory democrats who thought hard about the subject and debated it among themselves think the Democratic Party ought to stand for.

I'm not sure they're presuming to speak for the whole 'netroots' any more than OpenLeft is presuming to speak for the whole Open Left.

[ Parent ]
Disclaimers (4.00 / 1)
They have that nice disclaimer, but the title of it is still the title. I wouldn't call my beer league baseball team The New York Yankees and then have a little 5 by 8 card next to the bench which says "Team is not the actual New York Yankees" That would just be stupid.
[ Parent ]
OpenLeft? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
whats "the whole Open Left" (0.00 / 0)
Googling "Netroots" returns many top results referring to the broader concept of what we all take Netroots to generally mean - online political activism, particularly left/progressive activism

http://www.google.com/search?q...

Googling "Open Left" returns results of which nearly all point or refer to this website.

http://www.google.com/search?q...

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Interesting point (4.00 / 2)
I think the title was chosen as a tie in to Netroots Nation at which this project was launched.

I really think there are a few levels of debate here though and they are worth unpacking

First, the whole notion of "Netroots" and if there is a cohesive whole--that is a very debatable point. I think the validity of that brand is itself part of the debate we are having, quite apart from the question of the platform writing.

I have to say that I might rather see this labelled "open-source platform" or "open-source democracy". But I think there's value in connecting it to the nascent but already familiar positioning of netroots.

Regarding the numbers: As I understand it the software is designed to work better at scale. But the issue of how to make sure there are enough representative voices and invitations are appropriately broad and encompassing to capture the plurality of ideas going forward is a good one. Needless to say, more time and promotion (and of course, this whole round of dialogue is helping to further that) should make broader representation more achievable. I suspect next time the planks are opened for editing we will see a much different base of participation--awareness makes the difference. Think of your favorite large popular viral site (myspace, facebook, linkedin, wikipedia)--how long was it before there was enough "presence" to make it interesting. And before that--didn't you say, well this is nice, but not worth my time (I know I did). Yet somehow a critical mass was reached. We're still on the upswing here.

One other thought--in democracy we have this problem all over--only a small percentage of people vote, and of those, an even smaller percentage know what they are voting for, and so on. So if it is difficult to get broad participation online, that is very much a reflection of the  world at large as well. That said, I have a lot of confidence that as this becomes discoverable, it will become more and more successful.

[ Parent ]
hehehe! (0.00 / 0)


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
They say "Just a democratically achieved document that provides those who read it some idea of what a few score participatory democrats who thought hard about the subject and debated it among themselves think the Democratic Party ought to stand for." but to anyone new or just glancing over will automatically assume that they somehow speak for all the netroots.

At least with the actual party platform, in some sense it's done moreso by people elected to actually represent the organization.  Here it's just people assuming that they do.

[ Parent ]
Sixteen people wrote the above post (4.00 / 2)
165 people contributed to the Platform.  
165 people sat down after work and on weekends for the thankless task of writing policy from scratch.
Of course, it would have been better to have more people contributing.
[ Parent ]
Sure (0.00 / 0)
But my question isn't if it would be better to have more people contributing. My question is: how exactly would you plan on organizing such a feat?
[ Parent ]
The system is designed (4.00 / 2)
to handle a large number of people.  I'll have to let someone who actually was involved in developing the mixed ink system speak to it in more detail, but the only reason we were limited to the 164 is because ONLY 164 people signed up.  If more people had signed up, the system would've worked just fine.  

In short, we didn't choose the limit.  The invitation was open ended, and had we had more time, and better advertising (and what we had wasn't terrible) we still got the 164 people to get involved.  

Had we had more time, and 300 people had registered, or 500, or even 10,000, the system as is would've worked.

[ Parent ]
Exactly, the system is built to accommodate any # of participants (4.00 / 2)
Anyone interested in participating can submit, edit, remix, and/or rate.  Of course, with a lot of participants, everyone can't read, edit, and rate every single version.  Instead the system works by exposing enough people to a subset of the planks that the final version is representative.  With a lot of participants, we truly benefit from the wisdom of our diverse community.

As Ferris Valyn says, the biggest hurdle is not technical -- it is reaching out to a representative sample of your community... and then being lucky enough to be part of a community that wants to take an active role in impacting government policy.  

[ Parent ]
Which Design Are You Talking About? (0.00 / 0)
The amount of technical computer server load it can handle, or how people will actually interact on it. Just because the Website can handle a bajillion hits doesn't mean the system is prepared to scale.

Basically, the way I see this working out is like Wikipedia. Initially a bunch of idealistic and well meaning people get involved, but in the end, it's the people who have the most spare time and who have learned how to manipulate the system the best who end up defining the result, and it ends up representing the most manipulative cadre of insiders, not the democratic reality which was hoped for.

[ Parent ]
This was designed to avoid exactly that. (4.00 / 3)
Ferris Valyn and Wisecrackin were not talking about the server load, but about the scalability of the social, collaborative writing process.

I agree with your depiction of Wikipedia as insider-dominated.  In the end, the great thing about Wikipedia is not how democratic it is, but the fact that it's an encyclopedia that's totally free, about as accurate as, and a lot more extensive than, any other encyclopedia out there.  The innovative and interesting way it's generated is just icing on the cake.

The fact that wikis can be manipulated rather easily makes them inappropriate for the democratic expression of opinion.  Indeed, this is exactly the problem MixedInk addresses and was meant to solve from the start.  

It takes the wiki and explicitly adds rating to make the process more democratic.  One person's ratings are worth exactly as much as the next, no matter how involved each individual is.  With a decent sized group - say, a few dozen or more - it is very difficult for a small group of insiders to manipulate.  With hundreds, it would be nearly impossible without an army of freepers (that's another issue we're thinking about).  

While it's still in need of fine-tuning, the tool is already far more democratic than a wiki.  And as we continue with new iterations of the site, maintaining and reinforcing the integrity of the democratic process is a top priority...

[ Parent ]
Freep Freep Freep (0.00 / 0)
What's to stop an army of freepers or an army of sockpuppets then?
[ Parent ]
The short answer (0.00 / 0)
Why don't the recommended lists on community blogs like this one - powered by Soapbox and Scoop - get overwhelmed by freepers?  Because freepers are ADD and most don't have the patience to register and recommend as a cohesive group, and those that do can be identified and removed from the community.  This makes it impossible to mobilize enough freepers to democratically overwhelm the vast majority of non-freepers.

Same idea with MixedInk.

[ Parent ]
I'm Not Convinced (0.00 / 0)
It also might be because these blogs are low-profile enough that nobody really cares.

If somebody wanted to build an automated system to register accounts on openleft or dailykos which operate in concert to manipulate the outcome, it could be done.

Basically, it sounds to me like your argument is security through obscurity, which is no security at all.

[ Parent ]
Skepticism is only a virtue up to a point... (0.00 / 0)
First you suggest that DailyKos is low profile - I think that's a pretty absurd notion given the number of political and media powerhouses that contribute and/or read at DKos regularly (John Kerry, Keith Olberman, etc.).  There's plenty of incentive to manipulate DKos already.

Then you theorize about an automated system to register new accounts.  There are many ways to identify and avoid such abuse which are commonly used throughout the interwebs - a captcha system, for one.  They're not all in place yet, but we can implement pretty quickly as needed.

[ Parent ]
Your better to respond to wisecrackin (0.00 / 0)
as I said, I wasn't involved in the technical side.  

And I don't think that Wikipedia has inherently been a bad system - its not perfect, but in a number of instances, it can provide accurate data.  

And consider how successful self-policing systems, like those at dkos are.  

[ Parent ]
Depends On Where You Look (0.00 / 0)
For uncontroversial issues with a broad base of sources such as the atomic weight of Nobelium, Wikipedia is as good as any source. But for anything even related to real world power structures, from Wal-Mart to politicians to McDonalds, Wikipedia is corrupt.
[ Parent ]
I was one of the participants in the Netroots Platform (4.00 / 2)
who didn't take part in the defense of the platform, largely because my one and only issue didn't make it to the platform.  But I did participate, and vote on some planks that I disagreed with, attempt to edit some parts that I didn't, etc.

Unsurprisingly, because I'm not particularly "left" in my thinking, nothing I proposed was all that popular.  I still was glad to participate, because experimenting with ways of expanding the voice of the grassroots is a good thing.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Queen Tiye, (4.00 / 2)
I don't know what other planks you worked on, but at least one of your contributions was included in the final platform.  Your 'Broadband Infrastructure' contribution is in the final 'Science and Technology' plank.  
[ Parent ]
Wow! (4.00 / 2)
I looked and looked and didn't see it anywhere!  (That wasn't the main issue I was looking for, but still - I'm glad that made it! :))

Thanks for pointing that out.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Found more - (4.00 / 1)
Your contributions also made it into the National Security & Foreign Policy Plank
[ Parent ]
When Chris posted his criticism... (4.00 / 2)
...he was quick to point out the plank recomending a national primary election. This elicited a gut reaction in me and I immediatley wanted to know who these people were and why they were speaking for a group - the netroots - that is more of a demographic than a political organization. The idea of a national primary is so anti-progressive that I think it was understandable to be offended at glance.

After reading a few good comments I was easily convinced that I judged too soon and this project was interesting, innovative and harmless.

But seriously, a national primary? Are you kidding me? You don't think American politics is already enough of a name-recognition game? You only want polticians capable of running a national campaign to be able to participate? (not yelling at you, the author of this post, but whatever "yous" decided this was a good and progressive idea).  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

Re: (4.00 / 4)
As one of the organizers of the netroots platform - the reason that this was chosen was because that is what got rated the highest - There were 16 different suggestions, in terms of what should be on the electoral reform plank, and out of the 246 people, 16 people choose to actually propose language, and 28 people rated these various proposals, and the proposal that you see was rated the highest.  The people involved in this were people who decided to read the proposals, and then either suggest new ones, or rated the existing proposals.

There is talk of re-opening some of the planks - if we did would you be interested in taking part in discussing and working on the electoral reform plank?  And letting any of you friends who might be interested know, and work on it as well?  Because the great thing is you choose your own level of involvement.

I'll be upfront - I don't find it perfect either - I spent most of my time working on the Science & Technology plank, and although I personally actually do like the national primary, I don't like the idea of IRV, and would rather have something like approval voting.  

Anyway, the main point here is, if we were to open the process up again, would you be willing to be involved, and let everyone you might know about it, so they can get involved as well?  Undoubtedly your friends probably would agree with you, and would help to steer the platform in a direction you like

[ Parent ]
but what is the point? (0.00 / 0)
the only reason one gets involved in "re-opening" points for debate and consensus building is if you are actually negotiating for something. What are you negotiating for in haggling over these plank points? Are you going to take this plank and go to candidates and withhold votes, or deliver campaign money based on how well they perform against these points? if someone is to get involved in arguing over a plank point - what are they getting out of it? and what would someone who disagrees with them getting out of it if they concede? What is the point to bother?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Ultimately, I would say that (0.00 / 0)
the point is to make the party platform more representative of what all of us want.  And this is a tool that could be used to do that.  To get to the point where we are actually owning and a part of what actually gets put in the platform.  FWIW, the resulting platform was given to the DNC, and resulted in a very interesting discussion with Mr. David Yaki, about the usefulness of this tool, and how it might result in a better party platform.  One of the suggestions he had (and actually, I thin it was quite good) that we try and get a state party to utilize the system, to see how it works on a bigger scale.  

You can read more about it the phone call by clicking here

Honest question her for you Will - do you believe that platform parties that Obama called for were a waste of time?

[ Parent ]
On the value of a good, representative progressive platform... (0.00 / 0)
Quoting from the post:

We do see the value in having a progressive platform, if it's crafted in the right way. While true that "progressives" are just a loosely connected group of people with different perspectives, passions, and ideas, there is clearly a unifying theme. Having a "platform" is like an organization having a mission statement; to the extent possible, it puts everyone on the same page. It doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with every issue, of course. But by having a unified voice and a clearly articulated position on a number of issues, we are better able to advocate a shared vision and hold our representatives accountable to it.

I think that we take it for granted that we (i.e. progressives/the netroots) have a set of shared values.  But it's not obvious where we generally agree and what specific policies we collectively want to support.  

So yes, first we make the tough decision to figure out where we agree and what we want to accomplish.  And then we make it happen!  Withholding votes and raising money are great tools - but we can only harness them when we have a critical mass with a shared vision.

[ Parent ]
This is where wankers come from (0.00 / 0)
who do these 165 people think they represent? 165 people sat down and burned some otherwise good hours to come up with some mostly redundant points that progressives generally agree upon - but allegiance to all these can't be guaranteed - and even if they could - none of these 165 are in any power where accountability matters. this is basically a tiny group of people hanging out on a website practicing mini-democracy. wow - you got 165 people to agree that they like what a few pages of text say. blog posts in the cesspool of dailykos diaries get more votes of approval every day.

ultimately who cares?! you have yet to show why this is important (or ever worth ranting in a comment over) other than you're really proud of yourselves for learning how wiki works.

y'all are talking to yourselves is what you're doing.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

you're right (4.00 / 2)
time is obviously much better spent making snarky belittling comments about a group of people you have never met and probably mostly agree with.

well done sir.

[ Parent ]
this is the second time this nonsense is on the front page (0.00 / 0)
and the group is running around promoting itself as speaking for the "netroots". a term I already hate, but given that it means presumably some 100,000+ people or more (anyone who uses email it seems some days) to a lot of people, then its awfully presumptuous of them, all 165 of them to act like they speak for everyone (given their self selected title and all, plus promotional push) and then defend their claim to legitimacy by saying we all could have participated if we wanted to. whatever.

if people are going to be so presumptuous as to speak for at least thousands of others, or co-opt a nationally recognized reference to thousands of people, I'm pretty sure they are deserving of the snark.

im not sure you can make my waste of time worth less then their waste of time, since their waste of time so far seems pointless. you can't get lower than 0, and they had 165 of them blowing their time. So far I'm only down 15 minutes.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
if you cant do... hate. (0.00 / 0)
any argument that ends with "whatever" must be valid.  
[ Parent ]
this seems a misrepresentation (4.00 / 3)
of what people are actually saying.

As I comb through the various threads on this project, I don't see anyone in the group working on this project (myself included) saying we speak for the Netroots (capital N). Indeed we've made every effort to make it clear that that is not in fact what this is about, but rather an early foray into the use of an inclusive, participatory tool.

And we're not saying "you all could have participated" --we know time was short and we couldn't reach everybody, much as we'd like to. We've been saying we welcome and seek more participation. We are listening to critiques and thinking about how to improve the process (including  better outreach and promotion so more people can participate more broadly), plus focus perhaps on an issue or two at a time going forward.

As ferrisvalyn points out elsewhere in the thread we have some good suggestions from Michael Yaki, who is one of the leaders of the Obama Platform Committee, on other places to apply the process (a state platform eg, where the timeframe is more luxurious and we can reach out to people through other means).

Remember, as with so much on the blogosphere, a small number of people saw a good idea and did their best to get it out in the open.  It's a first foray, and for that it seems pretty good. Is there room for improvement? You bet. And we'll keep working toward that goal.

[ Parent ]
what if (4.00 / 3)
by running this experiment we got some attention for the idea of using tools and principles for participatory governance, and what if a (hopefully) Obama administration and others in a democratic government actually adopted them. Then the kind of open, contributive democracy progressives seem to like could be a step or two closer.

Would that be of value? In other words, the platform could be just a step along the way. By showing how this could work, we may be getting attention for the kind of transparent open-source democratic dialogue I think many of us would like to achieve.  

[ Parent ]
legitimacy (4.00 / 1)
Every few years, or even every year, some well-meaning group of people or person comes out with a book or set of proposals and self=proclaims it what progressives believe in.  There's a reason it never ever works.  Platform statements do not come from random groups making statements about stuff they think, they come from a large group of influential people deeming some set of statements important.  For instance, the Democratic party platform, which is hardly a democratically chosen platform, is legitimate because elected people (delegates) speak presumably for Democrats when crafting it, and it contains clues to the next President.  The ideas in Crashing the gates are legitimate even though it was written by two people, because it has been read and praised and reflected on by thousands.  Markos and Jerome won their argument.

What you have done here is an innovative house party.  And then you named it something that presumes to a large group of people you never bothered to consult that it speaks for them.  Your reaction to criticism is that they should have gotten involved.  Maybe, but they didn't.  So go back to the drawing board and recognize you had a nice little experiment that is misnamed.

right (0.00 / 0)
in other words, you don't represent me just because I didn't bother (definitely wasn't interested) to join in your tea party.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I am very curious Will (4.00 / 1)
did you attend any of the Obama platform events, and what were your thoughts about both the idea, and execution, regardless whether you attended or not
[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Yup. That's basically it.
[ Parent ]
Matt (4.00 / 2)
About the naming--I think you may be right about that. It probably wasn't that carefully thought through. It wasn't meant to coopt anything really.

The people who launched this of course want to consult with everybody but getting recognition and exposure takes time--a bit more than we had in the three weeks from Netroots Nation (where it was launched, and thus so named) and the closing of the Obama Platform process, which seemed the logical deadline.

I don't think people are saying "you should have gotten involved" (with the kind of nyah-nyahing I think that implies). It is more that we want you involved.  We'd be happy to have you involved. The more involvement the better.

This was not 165 people thumbing their noses at others and setting themselves up against the rest. It was a few people setting this in motion and being able to draw in those 165 people during the time alloted and wanting to draw more to the process--still do. It;s the beginning of something which we hope to continue and make broader and bigger. But the people who did participate are drawn from the constituency you are actually talking about.

[ Parent ]
reread your post this am and had a few more thoughts (4.00 / 1)
I think there is a lot of interesting insight here. I want to also share a couple of thoughts that popped up from what you said.

You say

Platform statements do not come from random groups making statements about stuff they think, they come from a large group of influential people deeming some set of statements important

This is something I think we all agree on--But wouldn't it be great if that large group of influential people included the many intelligent thoughtful voices we've found out here on the blogosphere and elsewhere? Knowledge and expertise is everywhere. It doesn't have to come from self-designated experts or those who happen to have become "professionals" on the subject. I think our own experience watching people with strong voices emerge here on the blogosphere bears that out.

Further (if a bit tangential) on this subject consider Innocentive and other orgs that "outsource" scitech problems to the whole world and often find solutions coming from people outside the expert field (in many cases the solution comes most easily from someone who never has been in the area of expertise). As one proj. mgr puts it "If it were going to be solved from within the field, it would have been." If science can do it, why not politics? Or education? (I also have seen many creative processes where someone in an uncreative role  provided a key story element that ended up in a final product, say in a film, eg. So "ideas come from everywhere and anywhere" is very ingrained in my thinking personally and something I have a lot of faith in.)

then...


For instance, the Democratic party platform, which is hardly a democratically chosen platform, is legitimate because elected people (delegates) speak presumably for Democrats when crafting it, and it contains clues to the next President.

Yes this is the traditional path to crafting a platform. Intriguingly it's not the path (or at least not the entire path) that was used for this year's platform, which also includes statements gathered from 30,000 people meeting in 1600 parties across the country as you know (It was fascinating to hear Dem Platform director Michael Yaki describe the elaborate process required to collect, sort, vet, read and determine from all those, what and how things got in. He seemed interested in the potential for a tool much like this one...where the community helps to make the choice and find the good stuff. ) There is still selection and nuance added at the end of the process, with very good reason, and that is important. But a process like this one could play a role in the final exercise.

and finally...

What you have done here is an innovative house party.  And then you named it something that presumes to a large group of people you never bothered to consult that it speaks for them.  Your reaction to criticism is that they should have gotten involved.  Maybe, but they didn't.  So go back to the drawing board and recognize you had a nice little experiment that is misnamed.

I'd be willing to say that there is some truth in the idea of an "innovative house party" as part of how this works. One way I've described this to people is as an online "Listening Session/Platform Meeting" --one unbounded by time and space. That's actually a pretty powerful idea.

In my particular case for example,  I couldn't attend any local platform meetings because I was called away to handle some family matters. I was grateful there was still a way to participate. I was also aware that in NYC the larger platform meetings were structured as pre-planned "testimony" with people listening--while the online platform allowed everyone to participate either by posting, editing, remixing or rating (so varied levels of participation as well, in case you don't want to write something unique). The potential to include people in processes who otherwise would be unable to participate due to time constraints, geographical location or other limitations is something I think we might welcome. Since I live in NYC, I also noted that this potentially allowed me to interact with a broader base of constituencies.

Re the naming--it's been discussed several times. I think we can see that the branding is tricky (esp as I don't think everyone out there is even 100% comfortable with the concept of capital N Netroots in the first place). On the other side, if you leave the blogosphere and talk to well informed people who don't happen to spend so much time online, the question is still pretty much "What on earth is a netroot(in other words, it's still pretty much inside baseball...). To me that's an even more important issue to address because we'd like the idea of participatory governance to be recognizable to as large a group as possible.

I like Open-source platform and Open-source democracy, but I think the naming of it as Netroots Platform is a worthy debate with merit on multiple sides.

Last bit, and now I think I am practically spamming, since I've said this multiple times to different people. As I say in the previous comment we don't mean to imply "you should have gotten involved". We are saying, we'd like you involved. And we did make many many attempts to consult with people and raise awareness of the project in multiple venues. We'd like as many people as possible involved in creating transparent, open, democratic, grassroots two-way dialogue with government. And we're getting the sense that our next administration would really like to engage with that. That, to my thinking, is a very good thing.

[ Parent ]
Matt, the tone in your comment (4.00 / 1)
reminds me of how beltway types used to refer to bloggers.  The blogosphere was once a "nice little experiment" as well.

The point regarding naming and legitimacy is well taken, and we would probably handle it differently next time.  As democracylover has noted, it was not a deliberate ploy to exploit the Netroots name as some here have implied.  We simply didn't have a name for the project at the start and, in our initial conversations with Jerome Armstrong and Netroots Nation organizers, using "Netroots" just seemed to be the default option.

While we're debating word choice, I have to disagree with your statement that we never bothered to consult the Netroots.  While we never succeeded in mobilizing a huge group of people, we did spend a good chunk of the last month extending invitations to join - through numerous diaries at DailyKos, a couple of front-page posts at MyDD, Netroots Nation workshops, an email to the Netroots Nation list, the Get FISA Right organizers, net neutrality listservs, Facebook groups, and several other channels.  

We weren't able to mobilize a constituency large enough to lay firm claim to the name "Netroots," so we'll have to organize this a bit better next time around, which will be possible with more advance planning.  But we certainly did "bother."

[ Parent ]
You say: (4.00 / 1)
Platform statements do not come from random groups making statements about stuff they think, they come from a large group of influential people deeming some set of statements important.  For instance, the Democratic party platform, which is hardly a democratically chosen platform, is legitimate because elected people (delegates) speak presumably for Democrats when crafting it, and it contains clues to the next President.

I think we just have an honest disagreement here.  It seems you'd prefer to have party leaders speaking on our behalf, whereas we'd like to identify ways for us to speak for ourselves.  While it's certainly easier to only get involved on Election Day and then leave it to "elected people" to speak for us the rest of the time, we are inspired by the opportunity to have a continuing dialogue and play a bigger role in government.  

We never have claimed that this experiment went perfectly, but your cynicism about the potential for this kind of process is pretty surprising.  Maybe because you can easily get thousands of people to read anything you say, you have forgotten how important it is for the rest of us to have avenues to voice our opinions and actually be heard.  There are a lot of smart people out there who don't have time to be "pre-legitimized" like you, Markos and Jerome.  What is nice about our process is that everyone (be they famous, elected, expert, or just regular citizens with a vision) has their ideas evaluated on their own merits.  By listening only to "legitimate" sources and dismissing the value of collective wisdom, you lose an incredible opportunity to build stronger policy and a better, more active country.

[ Parent ]
Speaking For Ourselves (0.00 / 0)
Speaking for ourselves is great, but is that what the outcome of this project is going to be? Or is it just going to be like every other wiki-style project where an organized minority with too much free time figures out how to manipulate the system?

I mean, what you're trying to do here is to come up with a way for there to be one, short, easy to read document which accurately sums up the ideas of the "netroots." Frankly, I don't think that's possible, or even necessary.

[ Parent ]
ergotist (0.00 / 0)
I mean, what you're trying to do here is to come up with a way for there to be one, short, easy to read document which accurately sums up the ideas of the "netroots." Frankly, I don't think that's possible, or even necessary.

I;ve never thought that was what this was about. If I did I would certainly agree with your statement 100%. I don't think a short easy to read document which sums up ideas of the netroots is possible or necessary either. (It's always odd and disconcerting in a dialogue when one person states his/her opinion of what the other person is trying to do as fact, btw) I think perhaps there is a lot of misunderstanding going around, maybe because of the name.

I always thought this was a chance for people to try writing planks, work collaboratively, see what emerges collectively, create an avenue for 2-way dialogue.

I actually see this platform exercise as mostly a pilot (though making it a living document, one that can be changed and altered and so remains "activated" (unlike a standard platform) can also be valuable). I see the value in the use of the collaborative tools for further progressive statements, letters, and other exercises as well.

That said, your questions about preventing organized minorities from taking over are also ones we are asking ourselves--to make sure there is validity in future results.  

[ Parent ]
You Named It, Not Me (0.00 / 0)
"(It's always odd and disconcerting in a dialogue when one person states his/her opinion of what the other person is trying to do as fact, btw)"

I drew my conclusion from the fact that you called it the Netroots Platform. If you call it that, people will think that's what it is.

[ Parent ]
actually (0.00 / 0)
I didn't name it. I came on board as a volunteer after it was named. I think the naming issue is amply addressed throughout this thread.

What I am referencing is the complete package of assumptions about what you say the parties involved are trying to do that is contained in the blockquote above. Having that sort of "tell" approach (let me tell you what you are doing, thinking, feeling) rarely works in communication whether in personal or professional relationships. I certainly cannot say I have any idea what you are thinking, doing or feeling at any given point. At this point I hope to continue to engage in a civil and engaging dialogue with you. I will continue to try if you will.

[ Parent ]
No Responsibility (0.00 / 0)
And herein lies a major problem with these sorts of community-internet-creations. Everybody made it, so no one is responsible.

I pointed out that the name of the thing carries meaning. You pointed out that you're not responsible for the name of it, and that I can't really know what you're thinking.

Sorry, but the conversation was never about you. It was about this media creation for which you simultaneously want to claim credit, but no responsibility.

This is getting dumb.

[ Parent ]
well I agree we seem to be at cross purposes (0.00 / 0)
but I'm really confused now. You said "you named it" directly addressing me and I just wanted to make clear my personal relationship to the situation. The name existed before I became involved (which is all I was trying to address in my post above). I probably would have advised something different if I had a chance and I've definitely been influential (and those I know working on the committee have been) in making sure this was not positioned in the blogosphere, in media and other places as somehow representative of cap N netroots that probably cannot be represented. We've been very careful and responsible about that and I would like you to know that.

Naming does carry meaning--and as noted it was done quickly, since the idea was floated, accepted and launched within just a few weeks. (The original was Netroots Nation platform, for the place it was launched). All this has been amply and openly recorded in these posts. Reacting to the naming is tough--because I can see it is making it hard for you and others to see beyond that to the potential value and that is unfortunate.  

So , in sum, I'm actually saying I agree with you that I don't think it's an ideal name. Personally, I think the issue is just as critical, if not more so, from a different perspective. Outside of our little blogosphere, no one knows what a "netroot" is so it's not actually an ideal position to take if you want to draw in broad constituencies.

I think if you really read here, you'll see people involved are taking the critique you and others have offered on the name to heart. I think in a conversation between people of good will ( I would hope) that is  something that would have meaning to each party.

You have labelled this a "media creation" but that certainly wasn't the intent of those who made it. It is a sincere attempt to create something that has value, something you and others certainly have a right to take exception to. That said, a number of people have been energized and inspired by the process and the opportunity to participate. The underlying aim is to give many more people a voice in the process. At this point the execution is imperfect (as many early stage executions are) and we are soliciting and welcoming the feedback. But that doesn't mean it isn't an idea worth pursuing.

I appreciate your strong critique. What you are pointing out is the importance of brand and positioning--something a lot of people when they start up an idea don't necessarily think as hard about as they probably should.

[ Parent ]
FWIW (0.00 / 0)
"You" is both singular and plural. If you're claiming group membership with the platform authors, then a plural "you" is warranted.
[ Parent ]
thanks (0.00 / 0)
that helps clarify things. I hope my comments in return have also.

I enjoyed our exchange.

Now on to other issues I think..? We all have a lot to do in the days ahead.

[ Parent ]
For Netroots Platforms | 55 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox