Tag: openprocess

The Activist History of the Web: Lessons we can learn

Over the last few decades, the web’s evolution has been shaped by competing ideals. Early on, we witnessed the shift from the “better” #closedweb corporate controlled paths to an #openweb #DIY explosion—a time when collaborative, decentralized approaches thrived. #Mainstreaming efforts to recapture this spirit failed for years, but eventually, corporate-driven dot-coms platforms captured the majority of people. Activist voices were muffled as #dotcons pushed mainstream interests, pulling away the community-driven power the web once enabled. This phase was a bait-and-switch operation, leading to surveillance capitalism and making it harder to stand up for collective, public-first internet paths.

A key aspect here is that this decline wasn’t caused by isolated figures but by broader, recurring social forces, like #fahernistas and the #geekproblem, who fell into patterns of adopting dominant narratives by failing to recognize the alt values of “native” open tech paths. As this happened, the #NGO world came in with “nice funding,” which subtly aligned activist tech initiatives with liberal, watered-down approaches. This pushed and promoted co-option over the power of change. The result was tech stagnation, with communities gradually losing their voice and control, the mess we were in 5 years ago.

The current openweb revival is due to protocols like #ActivityPub, coinciding with the rise of #web03, which was about re-implements #closedweb paths. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity, especially as the rotting of dotcons reveals the hollowness of centralization. While this #reboot has potential, it’s often bogged down by the same forces that hindered past movements. The #fahernistas focus on transient tech trends and individualistic coding projects that ignore the power of collective working, and the #web03 uncritical push of #encryption as a solution without a broader social strategy results in mountains of #techshit.

What works? Building from simple foundations: As digital activists and #DIY tech communities try to reboot the web, it’s essential to start with simplicity: #KISS principles (Keep It Simple, Stupid) offer a practical foundation. Instead of complex, flashy approaches, this mindset prioritizes clarity, accessibility, and collective agency. Each simple, intentional step creates a more durable basis to counter #mainstreaming forces.

What do we need: Self-organization tools within community are needed to reshape the path. Hashtags, for instance, have devolved into self-branding tools (fashernista), whereas they originally provided decentralized organizing power. Reclaiming these tools for grassroots purposes helps bring DIY activism to the forefront and build cohesive networks across digital paths.

What needs balance: The #VC poison of “nice funding” and #NGO co-option, are the big challenges facing the #openweb movement. Often, well-intentioned tech initiatives accept NGO money to sustain themselves, but this financial support is not neutral. The NGO world, embedded in liberal agendas, steers projects toward safe, palatable solutions that appeal to funders rather than fostering the radical shifts needed for real change. This sugar-coated poison draws tech initiatives away from their roots and into a cycle of compromise, weakening the collective power that grassroots projects depend on.

What can we do? As we look at ways to reignite a meaningful openweb, these lessons from history are crucial. Without seeing these patterns, we are repeating the same mistakes and allowing corporate and liberal to dictate the paths we take to build our shared digital commons. How we actually make this work is not obverse, but the current #fedivers reboot is a seed that is in the ground and growing.

I use the as a tool to do this as it’s simply #foss development with #openprocess added on, a useful tool to get past what people say their projects are about. And what they are actually about https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens we need tools like this to compost the piles of #techshit people keep creating, if we are to have soil to grow tech seeds of hope, like #Activertypub

The path is simple, who is coming down it with me and meany others?

Is Mastodon a #4opens project

The are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project.

Open data – is the basic part of a project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data without this open they cannot work.

You can get your data out with RSS and AP and vie user export, so TICK

Open source – as in “free software” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software this keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and bringing in serendipity. The Open licences are the “lock” that keep the first two in place, what we have isn’t perfect, but they do expand the area of “trust” that a project needs to work, creative commons is a start here.

It has a #FOSS licence TICK

Open “industrial” standards – this is a little understood but core open, it’s what the open internet and WWW are built from. Here is an outline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

Here it’s problematic, it supports atom/RSS good, but is AP support is pushing broken HALF TICK

Open process – this is the most “nebulous” part, examples of the work flow would be wikis and activity streams. Projects are built on linking trust networks, so open process is the “glue” that binds the links together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process

It uses #github a #dotcons platform, which kinda has open process but is in meany ways unresponsive to this #openprocess HALF TICK

Solidarity

It’s easy to become a project and join the #openweb family. Just show that your project fulfils 2 or more of the above “opens”.

2 opens - Bronze badge
3 opens - Silver badge
4 opens - Gold badge

This makes 3 opens, so Mastodon is a silver project, to become gold it needs to improve its standards competence and/or work at better open process.

Where do you see the opportunity for these dialogues

The current path in “governance” of the #Fediverse is a few people and money, where other people live and create the value of our native #openweb path. This is oligarchy at best, if you think about this, is this what we won’t? How can we, actuary, tell what we won’t, if not what can we do about this?

A critical issue with #SocialWebFoundation is that they’re avoiding real change and challenge, which by default leads to a “safe path” of the commercialization of the #Fediverse. This #NGO path is about keeping a seat at the table, but history tells us it is always unproductive without engaging in deeper structural shifts.

The current lack of user and admin representation on the SWF board clearly signals elitism, which diminishes the collaborative, grassroots potential for native decentralized networks of “governance”. Which without this, we move to a corporate entrenchment rather than fostering the liberating potential of the #openweb we have spent the last 5 years building.

One potential solution is embracing #openprocess, backed by activism, as a way forward. While it may be an uncomfortable path for the wannabe establishment, this path is necessary to preserve the integrity of decentralized platforms and our reboot in the openweb space. Open governance and participatory, maintain transparency and avoid the top-down elitist structures currently being reinforced by the “common sense” #NGO default being imposed.

To start this conversation, we could actively push for deeper community engagement, cultivating dialogues around representation, and organizing inclusive spaces where server admins, users, and activists can voice concerns and meaningfully influence decision-making processes. However, a key challenge lies in whether it’s even worth pushing this path, as many within the establishment will block any understanding or discussion about the need for such structural shifts.

It’s worth reflecting on how many early #dotcons initially tried to be #openweb native, but found it impossible to reconcile with the profit-driven structures of dotcons. The same is happening now, and it’s important to ask: Can we forge a better path this time around? Clearly, the NGO-driven model isn’t the answer. Exploring frameworks like the #OGB (Open Governance Body) would provide a more transparent, accountable, and community-driven alternative, avoiding the pitfalls we’ve seen before.

You can find more details about the OGB here: Open Governance Body (OGB).

Question, where do you see the best opportunity to initiate these dialogues and get past the resistance to real change to walk the path we acturly are walking.

We need to compost, meany of the replies to these subjects as they often exemplify the #stupidindividualism that plagues conversations. Instead of engaging in collective, systemic thinking, people fall back on dismissive, reactionary attitudes: “I’ll wait and see,” or “If they mess up, I’ll just ignore them.” This approach sidesteps the responsibility we have to shape the #Fediverse and #openweb decentralized networks. It’s not about waiting for corporations like #Meta to make a move or some #NGO driven entity to fail, it’s about organizing from the ground up and mediating these incursions before they can set deep roots.

I use the hashtag #stupidindividualism as it illustrates what the “ignoring” means, that damage has already been done. Once corporate influence is in place, it’s harder to reclaim grassroots paths, which is why we need collective action now, not after bad decisions have been made. The “I’ll just ignore them if I don’t like it” mindset is dangerously passive, and has a very bad history. It’s not good to hope the right decisions will be made by those in power while reserving judgment until it’s too late.

The #fediverse was never meant to bow unquestioned to the corporate agenda or chase explosive growth at the expense of native paths. The focus needs to be on building a diverse, sustainable, and resilient ecosystem from the bottom up. In this we can’t afford to stand by, waiting for others to decide our fate, if we do, we’ll end up entangled in the same corporate mess the #openweb was originally meant to avoid. If you have any thought, the time to act on this was yesterday, not keeping watching from the sidelines.

Please try not to be a prat about this, thanks.

We need to reclaim focus and energy wasted on current failing systems

Many years ago, I stopped going to most tech events and supporting “ethical” business. the #NGO tech events are mere talking shops, spaces filled with endless discussions but no outcomes. They suck up time, energy, and focus, acting as gatekeepers that reinforce the status quo while masquerading as spaces of change. These events are part of a semi-hidden #deathcult, worshiping, the failing structures of the present rather than imagining and building of alternatives. Next time you see one of these events pop up in your feed, ask yourself: Is this contributing to actual change, or just taking up space?

Then we have the same problem with the way people, too often, set up “soft green alt businesses” that can’t “pay their way” within the current capitalist system. If you can’t challenge capitalism’s rules, why not consider working to overthrow them first? Only then will we have the non “pay-to-play” spaces where real alternative projects can grow.

We got into this mess by accommodating these structures rather than challenging them. As Marx said:

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honoured disguise and borrowed language.” Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonapart

In simple words, we must be realistic about the conditions we face but also bold in our strategies to change them. To take this path, we need to navigate past the blocks of power politics, the stupidity, fear, control freakery, cowardice, and overwork that consistently stymie technological and social change. It’s past time to move aside from this mess. We need to reclaim the focus and energy wasted on maintaining the current failing systems and redirect/balances this to building #openweb and resilient #community spaces for change and challenge.

A #KISS step is compost the #techshit to create space to build networks based on #4opens—#OpenData, #OpenSource, #OpenProcess, and #OpenStandards. In the current #fediverse the pathways are there; it’s up to us to walk them.

You likely need a shovel #OMN

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a set of tools to empower communities
A project we need to build together as a path”native” to the #openweb

let’s recap, as you likely missed half the story the first time round. This speaks directly to the core of why meaningful change is so hard to achieve within the current mess of tech and “ethical” business. Most #NGO tech events, which claim to be about fostering change and innovation, have become places of inertia. They are “talking shops” paths where people discuss endlessly with no concrete action or achieving “real “native” outcomes. These spaces take up limited time, energy, and focus, which could be directed toward building real alternatives. They are gatekeepers, reinforcing the status quo while pretending to be progressive and transformative.

These paths only “exist” if they play by the rules of capitalism, rules that are designed to extract value rather than support meaningful, sustainable alternatives. So, instead of challenging these rules, people waste time trying to work within them, missing the bigger picture. If we want to create real change, we need to challenge the foundations of the system itself, not simply try to adapt to it.

Marx’s quote emphasizes that while people make their own history, they do so within the constraints of circumstances handed down from the past. In other words, we carry the weight of outdated structures and ideologies that continue to stifle transformation. The history of failed strategies and the perpetuation of ineffective methods weigh us down, preventing us from taking different paths to different possibilities.

The power dynamics within these spaces—be it #NGO tech events and “ethical” businesses are filled with control, fear, overwork, and cowardice, which block progress. Real change is movement beyond this mess, to reclaim energy wasted propping up failing systems, to redirect it toward building #openweb and resilient communities to use this freed up space for change and challenge. The #fediverse and other decentralized networks already provide pathways; we just need to be brave enough to walk them.

In short, this matters, for a radical shift in focus from superficial actions to systemic change to compost the #techshit and build truly transformative from the ground up. And yes, we need a shovel #OMN.

Yes, we are in a mess, we need a path

ActivityPub and Mastodon from a #closedweb prospective

A #closedweb Critique

  1. Design for Abuse: The #AP protocol is vulnerable to abuse, particularly in terms of Distributed Denial of Service (#DDOS) attacks.
  2. Push-Based Model: The push-based notification model leads to overloading servers, especially when a popular account generates a large amount of activity.
  3. Harassment Concerns: There is a perceived inadequacy in control issues to address the worry of harassment, with issues like the inability to disable replies not being implemented.
  4. Need for Defensive Model: A #geekproblem call for abandoning the working “native” #openweb path and push a “native” #closedweb path, with a complete overhaul of the protocol to incorporate defensive measures from the outset.

The Critique

From an #openweb and perspective, the critique highlights a different mindset that is clearly incompatible with the current path. But yes, there are questions about the balance between openness and security. Let’s not get lost in the #geekproblem and look at them:

Design for Abuse

Critique: The assertion that the protocol is designed for abuse is an overstatement, but it highlights genuine vulnerabilities. The open “trust” based nature of #ActivityPub and the #Fediverse, promotes decentralization and federation, but can indeed be exploited by malicious actors, people do brake “trust”. Transparency in code is crucial. Vulnerabilities should be openly discussed and addressed through community collaboration, most can be fixed by social norms rather than hardcoding. Data sharing is core, there should be as little as possible “private data” to abuse. Protocols should work with slow revisions to improved community feedback. Decision-making processes around security, should be based on social rather than coding, #openprocess is a core part of this.

Push-Based Model

Critique : The push-based model can indeed lead to server overloads. Popular accounts generating a lot of traffic can unintentionally cause DDOS-like situations. This is a normal lossy part of the “native” #openweb, we should work on this. Implementing caching strategies and lossy notification systems should be developed and tested within the community. Efficient data handling techniques should balance ease of hosting and speed of application, with ease of hosting first. Exploring hybrid models (push/pull) with RSS backup can lead to more resilient protocols use. Real time is less important than the app keeps working. Part of this is about ensuring that changes to the protocol are hard and slow, with debate and consensus.

Harassment Concerns

Critique : The constant talking about harassment tools and features such as disabling replies is a concern. Yes open networks are just that open, it’s the social norms of federation that make them a safe space, we need to build up our communes of trust. Developing robust moderation tools and anti-harassment features should balance with building strong social instances, who in the end do the work, be very careful of #closedweb paths in coding these features. Socialise data on harassment patterns helps to improve trust based moderation tools. The stories we tell and the way we work for moderation and anti-abuse measures should be developed collaboratively. Including diverse voices in the social decision-making process for instances is crucial.

Need for Defensive Model

Critique: Starting with a defensive model is the wrong path. Many security and abuse issues can be mitigated with a trust-first approach. A good culture should be built into the core from the beginning, with active community involvement. Developing norms of behaver through community consensus helps build a more resilient system.

Conclusion

The #closedweb path tries to raise points about vulnerabilities and shortcomings of the current #ActivityPub and #Mastodon implementations. From an #openweb and perspective, the solution lies not in suggesting we abandon the native path and implemented protocol but in addressing these issues through open, collaborative, and transparent social processes. By leveraging the strengths of the framework, the community can work to create resilient, and user-friendly networks that are already on the successful native #openweb path.

Building trust in the #openweb

The #openweb is a framework for human-centric, decentralized technologies built on transparency and collaboration. Its success hinges on trust, and as a slogan suggests, “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place.” This concept is woven into the #OMN and #OGB initiatives, which emphasize community-driven decision-making and adherence to the principles.

#OGB and consensus, decisions are valid when a wide group of engaged participants achieves consensus. This safeguards against the normal invisible authoritarian control, single individual find it hard to dominate because the collective create and validate the decisions. Trust groups, not individuals, are the seat of power, ensuring better decision-making and accountability.

The role of , open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—acts as “gatekeepers” for technological decisions. #Openprocess ensures inclusivity and transparency, blocking decisions that don’t involve public participation. #Opendata guarantees that shared information is accessible, reducing the potential for siloed control. #Openlicenses prevent restrictive ownership that could undermine collaboration. #Openstandards resist fragmentation and force adherence to balance collaborative practices and individual paths. This “soft, swishy” approach avoids rigid authoritarian structures while maintaining #KISS robust, “enforceable” values.

let’s look at challenges and strategies for #OMN combatting #mainstreaming “common sense” practices that erode grassroots values. By build strong defaults into projects and hardcode the principles to keep them central. To make this happen, let’s try and stay polite and inclusive during outreach, avoiding burnout and adding mess through conflict.

Dealing with #fahernistas and trust issues, a significant challenge arises from people and groups who appear trustworthy due to their #mainstreaming tactics but ultimately undermine the values of the #openweb. Coders and contributors need to align with #KISS social change goals, ensuring a grassroots and horizontal approach to development, this is basic.

To do this, we need to work on sustainability efforts by avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features, “How does this fit into the ?”. One path is to balance “friction” as a positive filter for misguided additions, while maintaining a welcoming environment for constructive collaboration.

Building a future beyond the #geekproblem, the “problem” originates from early open-source projects that #block the social dimensions of their technologies. By integrating the and prioritizing trust networks, the #openweb can (re)evolve into a human value network rather than a technological dead-end.

The #deathcult feeding off the decay of the #openweb perpetuates centralized and exploitative systems. All our activism is about, focusing on planting seeds for a grassroots rebirth, #nothingnew is a starting point, returning focus on modernist principles—clear goals, collective action, and systemic solutions—provides a foundation to grow #somethingnew.

The #openweb vs. #closedweb debate is not new, but it remains a critical narrative. By holding technology accountable to trust and community values, we create tools that empower rather than exploit. The #OMN and #OGB projects embody this path.

For those interested in coding for change, visit the OMN wiki and join the effort to make this vision a reality, please. Or you can donate some funding here if you don’t feel confident with tech path.

Outreach text for the #4opens

The framework provides a set of principles/path for testing, evaluating and promoting progressive social and tech projects. By adhering to these principles, people and communities support initiatives that prioritize openness, collaboration, and social good. Let’s explore how each of the 4opens can be utilized.

  1. Open Data: Open data is the foundation of transparency and accountability in tech projects. By making data freely accessible and usable by anyone, projects can foster innovation, collaboration, and democratic decision-making. Progressive social and tech initiatives can leverage #opendata to empower communities, address social inequalities, and advance public interest goals. For example, open data can be used to track government spending, monitor environmental pollution, or analyze social trends.
  2. Open Source: Open source software is essential for fostering a healthy and vibrant tech ecosystem. By providing access to source code and encouraging collaborative development, #opensource projects can accelerate innovation, improve software quality, and promote digital autonomy. Progressive social and tech initiatives can utilize open source software to build tools and platforms that empower people and challenge corporate monopolies.
  3. Open “Industrial” Standards: Open industrial standards are critical for ensuring interoperability and compatibility across diverse tech systems. By adhering to #openstandards, projects can avoid vendor lock-in, promote diversity, and facilitate innovation. Progressive social and tech initiatives can advocate for and adopt open standards to build decentralized, resilient, and inclusive tech infrastructures. For example, #openstandards for communication protocols can enable peer-to-peer networks and decentralized social media platforms.
  4. Open Process: Open process refers to the transparent and participatory decision-making processes that govern tech projects. By involving stakeholders in project planning, development, and governance, open process fosters trust, accountability, and collective ownership. Progressive social and tech initiatives can embrace #openprocess by adopting democratic and inclusive decision-making structures, such as consensus-based decision-making or participatory budgeting. For example, open process can enable community-led initiatives, address social justice issues, and promote collective well-being.

In summary, the framework provides a roadmap for advancing progressive social and tech change and challenging the dominance of centralized, proprietary tech platforms. By prioritizing openness, collaboration, and social impact, people and communities support initiatives that empower a more equitable and democratic tech ecosystem.

The framework provides a set of criteria for evaluating and assessing the “Nativeness” of #openweb projects. By applying these criteria, we make informed judgments about the transparency, inclusivity, and ethical practices of a given project. The 4opens can work to assign ratings/badges to openweb projects based on the 4opens criteria, a loose evaluation process assessing each criterion against a set of loose criteria and assigning scores accordingly. Projects could then display these ratings/badges prominently on their websites or documentation, allowing people to quickly assess their openness and transparency. Additionally, a centralized registry or directory can be created to showcase and promote projects that adhere to the 4opens path, providing people with a trusted resource for discovering and supporting openweb projects.

#OGB – what is the project

The purpose and vision for our #OGB project is to address challenges and conflicts that currently existwithin grassroots organizations and assist in the management of those that arise. By creating a tool set for’Do It Yourself’ (DIY) governance. We aim to develop a ‘Keep It Simple Stupid’ (#KISS) standard frameworkand process. This will become #OGB which can be used in future solutions, organically evolving throughtime.

Human organization and governance are inherently complex and messy. Standard approaches to solving such, tend to enforce rigid structure. Software built to facilitate this reflects such rigidity – attempting to force messy processesinto being ‘cleaner’, ‘neater’ and ‘tidier’ – and thus through such forced behaviour, inevitably fail their purpose. Existing means of decision making tend to lead to ill-fitting outcomes for the actual problems at hand. Too often led by the loudest voice rather than the most suitable solution. The #OGB serves a real need by addressing these problems. Problems identified through past projects and experiences. #OGB further draws on comprehensive experience gained from greater than five years of active involvement in hands-onorganization within #Mastodon instances and the wider #Fediverse. This experience provides valuable insight into the challenges and obstacles that arise in digital grassroots governance.The #OGB project aims to create a decentralized democratic system for grassroots governance, available for any collective or community, with a focus on producers and consumers. The #Fediverse is used as a test case.This project does not seek to create a single organization that dictates protocols or standards. Rather it enables the organiccreation of synthesis, where competing arguments are broached to formulate corrective procedure and proposals for implementation.The #OGB project emphasizes voluntary collaboration. It prioritizes sortition and ‘messy consensus’ to achieve decision-making and a more equitable power distribution.

The #OGB project is a set of software tools and processes that embody a grassroots activism-based governance model. We envision both an online and offline tool suite to fully embolden accessibility. Specifically, this project has the objective of preventing polarization within online communities whilst obtaining an understanding into how such effects amount. Polarization refers to the division and fragmentation of society into opposing groups with conflicting beliefsand values. Leading to breakdowns and disruptions in communication, increases in hostility, and an eventual lack of understanding between perspectives. The #OGB project aims to counteract polarization by promoting trust-based dialogue and governance within the #openweb.The project provides a framework for open and inclusive conversations, enabling people and groups to engage in meaningful dialogue within common ground and allowing the bridging of differences to be better understood. The project enables active body members to shape their own governance structures using tools that facilitate problem-solving and decision-making.

The #OGB project brings added value and innovation. Leveraging decades of first-hand experience fromgrassroot organizations. In identifying and addressing systemic failures that often hinder social change initiatives. We highlight and recognize valuable knowledge and experiences obtained. Years of endurance should not go to waste, nor be repeated in the field of online governance and trust-based conversations, there are existing initiatives and developments that aim through formal consensus to address similar challenges. However, these initiative shave never worked beyond small expert groups online. Adversely hindering offline activist groups throughloss of inertia and ossification.What sets the #OGB project apart is our focus point. By emphazing learning from past experiences and incorporating these into the development solution, all valuable insights gained are not lost or forgotten. Scaffolding upon this knowledge, #OGB will overcome the common pitfalls and challenges that dilute effective governance and trust-based conversations.The #OGB focusses on building active trust based groups – people who get involved, solve and initiate change to go out and get things done. When a community communicates effectively and efficiently,decisions and right actions come naturally.

The #OGB project also distinguishes itself by emphasizing the importance of recognizing power dynamics within online communities. It acknowledges that the #Fediverse as a decentralized network, operates differently from traditional institutions and mainstream platforms. Instead of trying to conform to mainstreaming paths. The project seeks to embrace the unique characteristics of itself and build with focus having these differences clear in mind. The #OGB brings the #Fediverse notion of technological decentralization, moderation and horizontal scaling into the world of action, organization and governance. Results from #OGB processes may then feed backinto the #Fediverse anew.

The #OGB project aims to achieve several concrete and measurable outcomes:

1. Implementation of natural, horizontal governance: The project intends to establish agovernance structure that promotes horizontal decision-making and empowers a diverserange of voices. This can be measured by the number of participants involved in decision-making processes and the level of inclusivity achieved.

2. Prevention of polarization within groups: The #OGB project seeks to preventpolarization by facilitating constructive conversations and ensuring that decision-makingtakes into account a wide range of perspectives and values. The success of this outcomecan be measured by assessing the level of polarization within groups using the #OGB,KISS framework.

3. Ethical decision-making and progressive development: The project aims to prioritizeethical considerations and focus on the primary needs of people within the community as awhole.

The measure of success here would be the extent to which ethical principles are integrated into decision-making processes and the impact of these decisions on progressive development. The success of this outcome can be measured by the number of people and communities that actively install instances of the #OGB. The success of all of these outcomes will be measured through quantitative indicators such as the number of participants, levels of inclusiveness and adoption rates.

The #OGB project is relevant to a diverse range of people and groups who are interested in alternative technology, open governance, with the vision of creating a more equitable and just society.

Here are some examples of the people and groups that the project is relevant to:

1. Fediverse Users: The project is directly relevant to people and groups who are already part of the #Fediverse, including users of platforms like Mastodon, Pleroma, Peertube and Pixelfed. These users are likely to be interested in the project’s goals of trust-based conversations and governance within the #openweb.

2. Tech Activists: The project is relevant to tech activists who are passionate about promoting decentralized, open-source, and user-controlled technologies. These people can contribute their technical expertise, provide feedback, and help spread awareness about the project within their networks.

3. Social Justice Advocates: The project aligns with the interests of social justice advocates who are committed to creating a more equitable and just society. By involving these people, the project can benefit from their insights, experiences, and knowledge in addressing wider social issues.

To involve people and groups in the realization of the project, the #OGB project will adopt the following approaches:

1. Open Collaboration
2. Community Engagement:
3. Co-creation and Co-design

To effectively reach the target audience, the project can utilize various #openweb native networks, media,and channels.

Fediverse Platforms: The #OGB project can leverage existing platforms within the #Fediverse such as Peertube, Mastodon, Pleroma and Pixelfed. These platforms provide adecentralized and open alternative to mainstream social media, aligning with #OGB values.

Social Media: Utilizing mainstreaming social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn can help reach a wider audience beyond the #Fediverse. Sharing updates,announcements, and engaging in discussions can help raise awareness and attract individuals interested in alternative tech and governance.

Development Blog: Maintaining a dedicated blog for the #OGB project serves as a centralhub for information, updates, and resources. Futhermore through publications such as articles, case studies, and success stories to additionally aide understanding and help educate the greater public with an aim to engage a further audience.Online

Communities and Forums: Participating in relevant online communities such as #SocialHub and other forums or activist networks, to help connect with like-minded peoplewho may be interested in the project’s goals and principles.

Mailing Lists and Newsletters: Creating a mailing list or newsletter specifically for the #OGB project can allow for direct communication with interested individuals. Regular updates, project highlights, and opportunities for involvement can be shared via email.

Online Events and Webinars: Organizing online events, webinars, or live streams can provide opportunities for the project team to present their work, share and collaborate insights and engage in discussions with the target audience.

The #OGB project will actively seek ongoing funding. However, once the project reaches a stable state, it envisions a cycle of funding through donations. This funding will be distributed among the project’s foundations and further research and development projects. The project is creating a multi-tier structure where the development stages of each tier will progress sequentially. This implies that as one tier completesits development stage, the next tier will begin. This approach aligns with competent program managementcycles and indicates a plan for the project’s continued development and sustainability beyond the periodcovered by the requested grant.

The #OGB is fundamentally rooted to the open sharing of knowledge and results, including all source codedeveloped as part of it.The #OGB intends to provide valuable outcomes including innovative approaches for governance, trust-based conversations, and democratic decision-making processes within the #openweb and the greaterworld.The code base is not specific to the #Fediverse but can be applied to any community with stakeholders,both on and offline.The project is committed to the principles, which advocate for openness, transparency, andaccessibility in technology.

1. Open data : refers to the availability of data to the public, free of charge and without anyrestriction on its use. This is considered a basic requirement for a project to be consideredopen.

2. Open source : software that is free to use, modify, and distribute. This promotes healthydevelopment and increases interconnectedness, allowing for serendipity. Open licensesare used to ensure the project remains open and free to use.

3. Open standards : technical standards that are open to the public and are not controlled byany one organization. This is essential for the open internet and the World Wide Web, andallows for interoperability between different systems.

4. Open process : transparency and openness of the project’s decision-making anddevelopment process. This can include the use of #Wiki’s and activity streams, and isconsidered a ‘glue’ that binds together the trust based networks that make up a project.

The #Fediverse has developed good technology and social norms around disability and minority groups.The intention is to incorporate these principles into our code base for #OGB project. The aim is to have strong documentation that focuses on consensus building and horizontal processes, which will promoteworking diversity among people with different abilities. The project plans to prioritize the development ofcomprehensive documentation for further use within instructional design as an aide for education and training. These principles are the core process of the project. This indicates a commitment to inclusiveness and accessibility within the #OGB project. The #OGB code and documentation is to be designed with accessibility as a first-class citizen, being compatible across everything we currently utilize with existing norms. Screen readers are a perfect goal toset our mind to.

Team Founder – Hamish Campbell: Hamish has 30 years of experience in building and running grassroots socialtech projects. He has been involved with projects such as Undercurrents, Visionontv, and the #OMN. Currently he is working on multiple projects within the SocialHub community, including outreach of ActivityPub to the European Union. Hamish has a strong understanding of what works and what doesn’t inboth social and technological contexts.

Founder/Lead Programmer – Saunders: Saunders is an experienced software engineer with expertise in C++, Python, and other programming languages. He has been responsible for managing the Linux-based #OMN servers for the past 5 years. Having a foundation in permaculture design and training, his programming skills have been utilized within grassroots social aid projects across several continents.

Project Manager – Nicholas Matheson: Nicholas has more than 20 years experience in project management, initially focusing within the hotel/tourism and hospitality sector in Australia/New Zealand. Hebegan consulting in China following the Beijing Olympics. Pursuing training and development workshopsacross the sector and the creation/assistance of importation logistics following client’s recommendations.

Privacy – As stated within the ‘Security’ section the project emphasizes a clear separation between personal and public communication. Being a project with an #openprocess at its core, we will not be handling private data outside of passwords. Additionally, the project plans to support pseudo-anonymous accounts via Tor usage. These accounts will operate on a trust-based system similar to any other account within the project. This approach highlights the project’s commitment to transparency and privacy while providing options for users to engage with the platform in a way that aligns with their chosen preferences.

The #OGB project will involve activities that contribute to the intended outcome of developing improved ways for trust-based dialogue, governance, and problem-solving within the #openweb. These activities include:

1. Developing a Framework: The project aims to create a framework that demonstrates improved ways for trust-based dialogue and governance within the #openweb. This framework will provide guidelines and principles for fostering open and inclusive conversations, decision-making processes, and governance structures.

2. Building Cooperative Alliances: The project seeks to establish a true cooperative andcollaborative alliance that is native to the #Fediverse and #openweb. These alliances will bring together people and groups who share a common vision of promoting trust,openness, and decentralization within online spaces.

3. Recognizing Power Dynamics: The project emphasizes the importance of recognizing where power originates in the context of the #Fediverse and #openweb. By understanding power dynamics, the project aims to challenge and change vertical power structures,promoting more equitable and democratic forms of governance.

4. Developing Technological Tools: The project aims to develop improved technologicaltools that address problems arising from social organization within the #openweb. These tools will enable problem-solving in a native grassroots activist manner, empowering people and groups to navigate and shape their online and offline experiences.

5. Removing Hard Coded Defaults: The project seeks to remove current hard-coded defaults by providing a standardized set of KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) tools. These tools will empower active body members to utilize them deeply and instruct others on their use,enabling more flexible governance structures.

6. Permission-less Structure: The project aims to create a permission-less structure allowing the active groups to decide who is a part of their group or groups, promoting inclusivity.

Projects that need to work to help #reboot the #openweb

The #OGB is important to develop better ways of having “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb. It is built on years of on-the-ground organizing and emphasizes the need for voluntary cooperation and collaboration. The project recognizes the problems in alternative tech, starting with the to remove complexity to building governance structures that are native to the #fediverse. The #OGB address the limitations of #mainstreaming approaches.

The #OMN (Open Media Network), is a decentralized network of media sites that share content and promote independent media. It aims to provide an alternative to mainstream media by creating a network of interconnected sites that prioritize openness, collaboration, and decentralization.

The #OMN project emphasizes the importance of grassroots community-driven media, where people and groups can create and share their own content. It seeks to challenge the dominance of #mainstreaming media and promote a more equitable and just society.

The project has been running for over ten years and operates with an #openprocess. Users can become mods after being involved for a certain period of time. The modding process is based on a clear project statement and encourages a respectful and inclusive community.

The #OMN project is closely related to the #visionontv project, which is a grassroots media project that creates and distributes independent video content. The two projects share similar values and goals in promoting alternative media and challenging mainstream narratives.

The #indymediaback project is a reboot of the original #Indymedia project, which was a decentralized, grassroots media network that emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The project aims to learn from the mistakes and challenges faced by the original Indymedia, particularly the split between the #fashernitas and #geekproblem factions.

The focus of the #indymediaback reboot is to return to the path of the #fashernista, which emphasizes open media and decentralized structures, rather than control and centralization. The project aims to build an open media network (#OMN) that promotes direct democracy, open publishing, and anti-authoritarianism.

The reboot also acknowledges the risk of another split within the community, particularly if some members push for a control/encryptionist path. The challenge is to find a way to navigate this without succumbing to tribalism and power politics.

The #indymediaback project recognizes the importance of hashtags and semantic web technologies, which were not core to the original Indymedia project. Tags and metadata are being used to help organize and categorize content.

Overall, the #indymediaback project aims to revive the spirit of open media and grassroots activism, while learning from past mistakes and embracing new technologies and approaches.

NGI Zero open source funding talks about the @sovtechfund

NGI Zero open source funding
The @sovtechfund is offering grants to people who contribute to a sustainable open source ecosystem. Grants go up to €300,000 per application and cover three main topics:

1. Improve FOSS Developer Tooling
2. Securing FOSS Software Production
3. FOSS Infrastructure Documentation

With this program, the Sovereign Tech Fund seeks to stimulate an open digital infrastructure: fundamental technologies that enable the creation of other software.

https://sovereigntechfund.de/en/challenges/ #opensource
Three Challenges to Contribute Back to Open Source

UPDATE Looks like people are also arguing this point https://shared-digital.eu/statement/

We are pouring public funding down the drain agen, these criteria are feeding the #geekproblem not actually trying to take the “problem” out of our geek paths. The people who PUSH this agenda are the problem – please POINT at them and talk about this mess, thanks.

Can we get a link to the people making the agenda, thanks, will try polite conversation

I worked with the guy who used to be behind the #NGIzero account, we did good stuff with the #EU outreach.

The replacement, I have no idea who they are and getting #blocking

This is a fail.

In all these toots am talking past “people” to talk about things/social/groups and not directly to individuals, they are second in all these conversations. This is the place where social value lives. The problem is, we don’t have hardly any of this… which is the subject am talking about.

#blocking is not seeing this, addressing this, the is a lot of blocking going on 😉

Am happy to talk to “individuals” as a first step.

Pouring money down the drain, because the majority of the problems in the #Fediverse and the #openweb are social not technical – if they only fund technical parts of this culture they are feeding the “problem” and this problem is going to pour the resources down the drain.

I understand this is a hard conversation to have, we have to try.

First step is , WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE PUSHING MESS while doing “good”, step into the light please #openprocess

Ignoring this basic #openprocess is #blocking, this is why conversations are done in public

yes, I understand the fear this creates and the desire to #block, but this then makes the fail more visible if people wont to use this for the needed change and challenge if they don’t yes it’s more noise what are you signal or noise 🙂

Signal vs Nose.

I find #mainstreaming people to be actually mad and increasingly bad. When do we get more people pushing change challenge in these #openweb spaces, please?

Am increasingly seeing this #blocking as a culture of fear, or more real as a culture of fear pushed as power politics.

Am thinking meany people will be confused and likely mix signal with noise on this subject.

Who are the bad people, the powerless pushing the on the #openweb or the powerful Burocrats worshipping the #deathcult while protecting these thin careers in the #mainstreaming

If you find yourself agenst the first and defending the second, then you are the problem.

This makes your behaver noise, and what you do very likely to be more #techshit to compost.

I wonder if people understand what activism is on the #openweb any more?

You talk to people to explane why they are doing WRONG, and at the same time you push them as HARD as you can to change their wrong behaver.

This works best with the #fluffy #spiky debate as a core part of this process.

People who keep saying “why can’t we all get along”, and “wouldent it go better if we were nice to each other” and the PROBLEM blocking the activism from having the needed affect…

Activism and flaring egos go hand in hand

Working on what became known as the “resistance exhibition”

Activism and flaring egos go hand in hand

Well, that almost went well with editing the headboards for the activist project. Shame on us all for it degenerated into shit behaver for the last 45 min.

It’s understandable X wanting a say on the project – an open way to do it would have been to say, let’s make some changes to this KEY doc and discus it for a bit. Then do it.

The doc had been though at least 4 drafts and was waiting for a polish at this stage. This drafting had shaped it as an “open process” without the “you-me” that often peppers language. The definitions (subjects) were all outside on the boards rather than in the intro. This left open and inviting space to take part.

At this stage, while already over time, the way people acted was like lighting a match to a messy explosion. When Y attempt to mediate then closed the job half done, with Z coming in blind, a nasty mess was (hopefully) resolved in a nasty way. We did not need this to happen.

#Openprocess is not a solution, but it helps.