Foss, elections, politics

I’m debating submitting an abstract to the Web 2.0 conference in New York this November. My tentative title is some version of “Community Works or How Participatory Communities Are Changing The World.” Other options were along the lines of, “Politics and Community In the Age of Web 2.0” and so on. I guess what I’m interested in pursuing is the relation of community organization and community work as seen in Foss. I don’t see that much of a difference: in each case, people work on a joint endeavour, sharing their work, their results to build something that is new and frequently remarkable. It worked for Obama, whose deserved victory has made “community organizing” a more respected term, for he clearly won in great part because of his skill in organizing communities.

But what is a community here? A participatory community, the sort I find interesting and am writing about, is approximately rhizomatic in structure, meaning that like grass, mushrooms and so on, there is no single central node; there are rather many. In the case of something like the Obama’s campaign, there was of course a specific focus, and there were certainly marching orders, agenda items that the Obama community was asked to abide by. But if I understand correctly, there was still a lot of room for local independence, provided it fell within the campaign’s general focus, to educate and to get the vote out. Thus, there were lots of local parties and though there ware guidelines for these, the actual implementation was up to the hosts.

But why did they participate at all? Why so many, too? Well, for the same reason that Foss is taking the world by storm: because the classic hierarchical and top-down systems of authority and value frustrate people. It’s easy to sit there a consumer to what is given and to grumble at most but not to effectively question, content with the idea that you have no power at all, or just the power to complain. But no one really likes that, for it’s really not fun to be told again and again that fear and uselessness and boredom are your appointed lot and that you can only look upon the doings of those who can via the glass of the tv.

And it’s quite another to be given the chance to make a difference. A real difference. Like electing a president; like changing the course of history. Like creating something new that disrupts the very way we do things, make things, distribute things. Sure, not everyone wants this; tv can be fun, and participation is not for everyone. But say that only 1 percent do find it rewarding. That’s a lot of people. And they have friends.and family. These others will be influenced, will see that this is simply not bizarre behaviour; that being a citizen doesn’t mean you can buy the best things cheapest but that you can make something with others.

I tend to believe that bling consumerism is dead or at least dying. And that participatory communities are coming to the fore, rising. I’m by no means alone. It’s the zeitgeist and one that has been gaining momentum for the last couple of years. Foss is a profoundly important node, for ultimately it is not really about software but about a way of making and distributing what you make; and of working with those near and far, connected by a technology that is changing so fast the present is dulled by the future we can hardly wait to arrive. But we have to make sure that what we get allows us the freedom of participation. Otherwise, it’ll be so very last century.

Some cool links:

Knowledge Ecology Notes » Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay submit proposal on a WIPO Treaty for Reading Disabled Persons

(in my capacity in ODF campaigns, I’m increasingly involved in Accessibility issues. Accessibility is key; more on this later.)

And,

The Free Software Pact