#EU bureaucracy in tech funding

Tackling the challenges of bureaucracy and #mainstreaming inertia. We need to try and jump the hurdles within tech communities with for example the current pouring down the drain of tech funding provided by #NGI (Next Generation Internet). It is an obvious path we need to get right soon:

Addressing bureaucratic inertia (and native corruption) in the EU tech funding:

Leverage small wins pilot projects: we need to get some funding to shift to real alternatives, Implement small-scale pilot projects that demonstrate benefits and serve as proof of concepts. These projects gradually shift perspectives and encourage larger scale initiatives. Advocate for incremental changes rather than radical shifts, which are more palatable to bureaucratic institutions.
Engage stakeholders in collaborative platforms, we need to rejuvenate the moribund https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ to build agen the collaborative space where policymakers, activists, industry experts, and community members discuss, co-create, and refine initiatives.
Storytelling and communication narrative building to craft compelling narratives, using the existing hashtag seeds to highlight the human and social benefits of proposed changes. Use storytelling to make abstract concepts tangible and relatable.

Mediate the #geekproblem in our tech communities:

Resource allocation funding initiatives: Seek funding from diverse sources, including grants, crowdfunding, alongside the #EU institutional funding. Use this to invest in skill development to bridge gaps within the community and foster the “native” #openweb path.
Encourage collaboration across different prospectives to bring fresh paths to push solutions. Knowledge sharing, use the #4opens to clear meaningful paths to move outside the current clutter. Create platforms for sharing this knowledge, run workshops, webinars, and hackathons, to facilitate “native” learning and collaboration.
Promote open practices that encourage contributions from a wide range of participants, not just the core tech-savvy individuals. Experimentation Spaces: Create spaces for experimentation where failures are seen as learning opportunities rather than setbacks.

Bridging the Gap Between EU Bureaucracy and Tech Communities:

Dialogue and advocacy: Establish regular dialogues between tech communities and EU policymakers to discuss challenges, share insights, and co-develop solutions. Use projects like the #OGB to build up tech ambassadors and liaisons who can effectively communicate this divide.
Develop joint projects where tech communities and EU bodies work together on common goals, such as digital transformation, data commons, and open internet standards. Learn from the “native” hackerspace movement to create innovation hubs that serve as collaborative spaces for tech communities and policymakers to experiment with new ideas and technologies.

In conclusion, the journey to shift meaningful initiatives within the #EU and overcome the #geekproblem in tech communities involves activism leveraging small wins, engaging wider stakeholders, using community advocacy, and fostering inclusive and collaborative #openweb environments. These are a path to shift the resources of bureaucratic institutions while overcoming internal #geekproblem challenges, ultimately driving the positive and impactful change that is so obviously needed.

#NLNET #NGIzero

A European Future

Changing the European Union (#EU) to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires concerted effort and engagement from all the stakeholders, including activists, citizens, civil society organizations (#NGO), policymakers, and Eurocrats. I outline some #fluffy strategies for driving change within the EU:

Engagement and Advocacy: Citizens and civil society organizations can engage with EU institutions through advocacy efforts, lobbying, and participation in public consultations. By pushing concerns, proposing solutions, and advocating for progressive policies, grassroots movements can exert pressure on policymakers to prioritize social and tech issues.
Policy Innovation: Grassroots and “organic” experts in the fields of social and technology policy can develop and promote “innovative “native” policy proposals that address emerging challenges and needed change. This includes regulations that protect the #4opens paths, promote community, and foster #KISS technological innovation reasonably.
Transparency and Accountability: Promoting transparency and accountability within EU institutions to ensuring that decision-making processes are open, inclusive, and accountable to the people. This involves pushing for #4opens in policymaking, access to information, and mechanisms for holding people and policymakers accountable for their actions.
Capacity Building: Investing in capacity building initiatives enhances the knowledge and expertise of policymakers, civil servants, and “grassroots” stakeholders involved in shaping EU policies. This includes shifting funding, training, resources, and support to enable all stakeholders, focusing on the grassroots, to effectively engage with complex social and tech issues and develop evidence-based policy solutions.
Coalition Building: Building coalitions and alliances among diverse spiky and fluffy stakeholders amplify voices and increase collective influence on EU. By forging partnerships across wide sectors, groups and organizations leverage their collective strengths and resources to drive the needed systemic change.
Public Awareness and Education: Raising people’s awareness and educating citizens about social and #FOSS and #dotcons tech issues is essential for building progressive policies and initiatives. This includes conducting #DIY public campaigns, organizing #4opens educational events, and leveraging grassroots media and networks to inform and mobilize the people around key issues.
Participatory Governance: Promoting participatory governance within the EU enhances peoples engagement and democratic decision-making. This includes establishing networks like the #OGB for public participation, citizen assemblies, and deliberative processes for people to contribute to policy development and decision-making.
International Collaboration: Collaborating with international partners, organizations, and networks to amplify efforts to drive change within the EU. By sharing “native” practices, knowledge, and coordinating advocacy efforts at the international level, stakeholders strengthen their collective impact and influence the needed global policy agendas.

Overall, changing the EU to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires a grassroots approach that involves activism, engagement, advocacy, policy innovation, transparency, capacity building, coalition building, public awareness, participatory governance, and international collaboration. By working together in active fluffy/spiky debate across sectors and borders, stakeholders can contribute to shaping the change and challenge needed to build an inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future within the EU and wider world in the era of #climatechaos

The European Union: A “spiky” view

#NGI #NLNET

Funding tech outside the shadow of the #deathcult

There is a complete failure of funding for the community (non #mainstreaming) side of tech, I have put in more than ten funding applications over the last few years to all the openweb funding flows.

And the answer, if the is one, is always the same, some of the replies:

” This kind of effort is very hard to seek grants for – which holds for the vast majority of
FOSS efforts, to be sure, but for things this high up in the stack even more.”

“I don’t have an obvious candidate for you to go to either”

The issue is that this is actually a LIE, the funders do fund the subjects we are applying for, just they ONLY fund the shadow of the #deathcult because they do not understand anything outside this. Or if they do understand, they are to afried of their funding flows drying up if they did fund anything outside this shadow.

“What the times are and how they are changing is different from every perspective. And so is utility. Not every project can be equally successful from everyone’s point of view. From our vantage point the process we deliver seems to work better than the vast majority of other processes (there are many tens of billions spent less frugality and with no impact at all within the same EC frameworks, I’m sure you’ll agree). Future history will have to prove the approach right or wrong,”

So good advice is nice, change challenge is better, ideas please for change challenge of this funding mess.

Or this openweb reboot is going to be absorbed by the #mainstreaming, not a bad thing, but it’s NOT the project meany of have been working on #KISS

“Obviously, we are always eager to haul in new projects – so do send projects you deem worthy our way.”

Ten funding applications latter, it’s a problem, I think we need both being nice and not being nice, and we need these together to break this LIE in funding.

On https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ we have fucked this path over the last few years – the spiky fluffy debate has not been respected. This holding the “debate” in place is the secret of all working/affective activism, hint, hint. And we are doing activism in this openweb reboot, I understand the majority of people like to deny this, but this denying makes these people prats and the problem not the solution, let’s politicly tell them this.

#KISS PS. there is the word “stupid” in this hashtag, in this am not calling any individual stupid, so please don’t take this as pointing at YOU personally I am talking about social groups, stupid #mainstreaming fearful groups.

#NLnet #NGI #ngizero #summerofprotocols #investinopen #RIPENCC

Talking about the #geekproblem in funding

Q. #nlnet – The problem we face with funding http://hamishcampbell.com/2022/06/06/the-problem-we-face-with-funding/

A. KiCAD, some warrant canary and Armbian aren’t “open internet” projects by any stretch of imagination, but the ones relating to routers and mesh networks are. They’re “open internet” at the infrastructure level – like Guifinet or Freifunk.

Q. yep and are useful for a tiny number of people so worth supporting. BUT the call-out for the funding is for a much wider social affect in the #openweb, so the is an obvious #geekproblem can you see this?

A. Whatever funding they put into the applications layer will be cautious because they probably don’t want to be dealing with Twitter-like problems. Infrastructure is more narrowly technical, and so it’s hard for that to blow up into a scandal, which could happen if they were more directly funding social networks.

Q. yep… but the #openweb needs better USER-FACING code not more backend, the backend is not helping to address the social problems we face where it is being digested by the #dotcons and then adding more mess to compost. How to communicate this problem to the geeks?

A. Really it’s the backend – the plumbing – which needs more funding, because when you peel off the layer of ultra-trendy ActivityPub apps underneath you will find tools and systems which have been neglected for years if not decades. The application layer is currently a house built on sand. Or quicksand if you include Javascript.

Q. We do see the #geekproblem here you are right, and at the same time the view is irrelevant when you step back to look at the problem.

An example, #activertypub would have been still born without the outreach social UX of #mastodon. We have the #fediverse due to the social side of the mastodon project.

Adding more backend is feeding the #dotcons not the #openweb because we need BOTH, and we need to fund both. Yes, we can play “safe” and build tools to feed the future #dotcons, or we can do both and live life with the possibility of social change challenge…

UPDATE

Talking about the problem:

Q. Am thinking the #fedivers is in a bad way, so being angry and annoyed is understandable. The #openweb momentum we had is stumbling, the people sellingout growing as funding shifts… the problems grow, am interested in ideas to mediate these? The fedivers is a CULTURE first and a standard second… ideas?

A. I agree with your observation on the state of the fediverse. And on the cultural aspect too. I envision a Peopleverse (social) that is enabled / supported by the Fediverse (technical). And much more diverse social activity taking place here, that goes well beyond microblogging. And the funding should shift accordingly. You can fund as many innovation projects as you wish, but if the adoption of the technology grinds to a halt, then there’s a high risk this money is wasted.