The Problem with Open and an Open Proposal. by risa
The Problem with OpenJournal and An Open Source-Inspired Proposal:
A comment that turned into a new plan for OpenJournal.
by Risa Dickens.
Part 1.
Editing Openness: Lessons from Open Source.
I’m really glad Christian drew the issue of edited openness into the comments about space and scale which followed his recent post from Yellowknife.
Personally, I think a lot about how public spaces can become healthy ecosystems, instead of slipping towards inequality or control. I am half of the team that’s spent the past month building Indyish, and some of every day for the past two years building Open. And I am the one who most often edits our Openness.
Building Open is an idea that bumps up against every one else’s ideas about what Openness is or should be. Building this site and evolving it has challenged my own thinking-through of the processes developed in the open source community (the subject of my MA thesis, still in draft form). And that was sort of the original intention.
Often, questions ethical and practical that I’ve encountered here have sent me back to open source, looking for suggestions.
Open source development has played out in as many different ways as there are different, successful open source companies. For Open Journal I have been following the templates created by Open Source leaders like Linus Torvalds- the genius coder and “benevolent dictator for life” behind Linux, the kernel of the central open source operating system. (Linux sits at the heart of most open source-enabled innovations, including the Apache servers that run most of the Internet and the small computers that coordinate the self assembly of the floating blimps in Julien’s arty robotics.)
The collaborative process that built Linux is layered and complex now, but it still boils down to this:
Anyone is welcome to submit bits that they think will work. Linus Torvalds, recognized for having built the entire first draft of the kernel on his own, and for having made a beautiful and smart thing, has final say on what goes in and what doesn’t, and what needs fixing for it to work.
Decisions are resolved pragmatically- does this work well, logically, efficiently, does it work well over time, does it scale, does it allow for and enable growth..?
If a contributor fundamentally disagrees with the decisions being made by Torvalds, they are welcome to attempt to fork the code. “Forking” is to take all the openly available material from the Linux code (which is all the Linux code) and build it in whatever new direction you like, and see if you can get people to work on it with you. Forking is an essential function in the ecosystem that is Open Source. And it’s something we’re open to as well, because our interest is always in building and being part of healthy ecosystems.
The importance of the right to fork makes sense when you think about the open source system on an extra-large scale. (And thanks again the Christian, for drawing our attention to differences in scale.)
Thinking about open source requires a kind of sliding scale- one that can see the individual creative spark alongside the enormity of the network.
Open source is bigger than any one project, (and many projects, like operating systems, are massive in size); it’s bigger than giant networks of projects like Sourceforge; bigger than the legal and business realms of open source and things like Creative Commons; bigger than it’s subtle role in enormous battles like the ones playing out in the music and motion picture industries. Open source is big, and so this question about scale is huge because it points to how hard it’s going to be to build things that will survive the size of the open source network. Not to mention how hard it can be to know which directions will prove right in the long run.
Will a choice continue to seem smart as it gets applied to increasingly various scenarios, in all kinds of chaotic and tugging contexts? Will a system stay quick and light across the infinite variations of software and hardware?
Will an idea that seems brilliant to me in my bubble of books continue to be meaningful when it’s read against knowledge from other disciplines? Or will I then hear in it what I couldn’t before: the repetition of super-sized buzz words, beneath which I have hidden my secret confusion.
Sometimes I think people do this: bury big haunting questions in fascinating twists of words.
Sometimes I think this is the result of individuals or groups believing they should build an operating-system-sized theory on their own.
Challenging this misconception is, in part, the idea behind OpenJournal.
Part 2:
Our Working Philosophy.
As I wrote in the copy for Indyish, I’m interested in editors. I think everyone needs an editor- every idea needs to get shaken up by other perspectives and also needs to get reworked a few times by its original fashioner. Good, complex things don’t get built by one person in one try. As Torvalds pointed out, it generally takes one set of eyes to see the spark of a new idea, or to correctly identify the crux of a problem that needs solving, and another set of eyes to solve it. An organized but open network is necessary to connect the eyes and minds that together can solve problems. People, I think, flip back and forth between both sides of this job all the time, but wherever they are on that road they still need those other perspectives to bounce off of.
I want Open to provide the time and space for theories to be considered, tempered, and reworked. And I want the people behind Open to get to play whatever useful role we can in that process. And if at any time someone would like to fork the theory we’re working on, or would like to post an unedited version of their writing on their own website, or would like the entire history of the edits we’ve made together to be published alongside their final version, then Open would be super into that.
Part 3:
Why Edit?
Because we are trying to bring out the best in each other’s theory and writing.
Open is not just a blog- it’s not a group diary where anything goes. If there were no spaces like that- if it were impossible to get access to your own space for publishing on the web- then we would have felt the need to provide that. But Blogger, Myspace, and the Mac version of blogging tools – not to mention free and open source systems like Wordpress- answer that need bountifully.
So instead, at Open, we’re building theory collaboratively. And a project that big needs a project manager. And that’s been me.
Part 4.
The Flaw in Systems.
I stand by my edits and by the careful and continuously evolving thought that’s gone into Open so far. And in general, people seem to find the fact that an editor will look at their work to be quite reassuring- it allows them to take chances. And we love that. But it means that there’s always more editing to be done. And so it seems there’s a flaw in the system. And it’s a flaw linux encountered eventually as well.
Linus Torvalds is fricken smart but he isn’t perfect. (nobody is, hence the title of my thesis: “no one knows everything.”) At one point in the now-nearly-mythic linux history, Torvalds made some mistakes and got tired and defensive.
But actually, maybe this wasn’t a flaw. Maybe it was just the rumblings of a system getting bigger and approaching a phase transition. And maybe we’ve reached this kind of a stage with Open as well.
Pages: 1 2
December 17th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
Well, first off, I need to apologize for my tardiness. I work full-time and following this as closely as I would like is sometimes difficult. Second, I should apologize for my utter misconstruction. You see, I always thought that Open was a site whereby you could post your thoughts–in whatever form they might emerge, and see where their inertia might take them. I honestly, and perhaps naïvely, thought that one was invited to plant a seed and see if it might sprout. However, it would appear as though this site has indeed grown, it has, as with many living things, taken a life of its own. With its manifold readers and writers, with its automatically generated (from what I remember Risa telling [maybe I'm getting this wrong]) google ads, this seedling has certainly become a beautiful and singular plant. And this is undoubtedly a marvelous thing.
However, I don’t remember it starting out this way. As one can see from my misunderstanding, I thought it to be an entirely different kind of living space. And because of that, I included that digressive comment in my response to Neil’s furtherance (Differences of Scale and Sociality). Indeed, as I had guessed this aside created a little dialogic rhizome. For as can be discerned from my original line of thought, I conceived of Open as a space that catered to our selfishly generous inclination towards expressing one’s thoughts–even in their crudest forms–seeing if they possessed any force for others, seeing if they succeeded in making an impression–leaving a mark. Of course, there was always the possibility of censor; if someone delivered a comment that trangressed certain ethical bounds, then it would likely be intercepted (and dealt with [in whatever fashion deemed necessary] by the site’s creators). I thought that however rough our expressions might have been, the true test laid in their force: was there something in that thought that warranted a response, was there something in that kernel, some kind of inertia, that might bump into someone and that might summon them to redirect it in turn? So you see when my signal of intent (Differences of Scale and Sociality) was written and submitted–it was under an (mis)understanding such as this. For I readily admit that that post is an adumbration (even though it was ‘edited’). Indeed, it constitutes a relay for the fact that, with this 9 to 5 job, I have not really been able to write or to fashion a pleasurable text for some time now. With this signal of intent, I wanted to plant a rough seed for a coming piece of writing. And of course, I wanted to see if these initial ruminations had any force–and if so, to see if that force could be harnessed and intensified. I wanted to get it out there, before returning to it and developing it further to put it out there. So when I was subjected to an editing process, I was kind of baffled. For it became very clear to me that I had been operating under false pretenses. I say ’subjected’ quite deliberately, because I found myself coming face to face with a power. A reticulated boundary of power in fact. And at this point, it might be useful to underscore (kind of a la Brian Massumi) the distinction between force and power: the former is generative and amplificatory, whereas the latter is circumscriptive. Now in the no man’s land between with my being faced with this different kind of space and with my original understanding of what this space was, I thought that there was a fascinating antinomy: edited/openness. This was a very interesting conceptual conundrum. You see, I was less concerned with the fact that someone else had a different take on my writing and work (for I have been edited, revised and obliterated many times over; some people love my writing, some loath it–and for some there’s a bit of both; and of course, there are those who wouldn’t even bother reading it); and it wasn’t because the editor didn’t point out the good bits of writing/thought (I knew there was some worth in it, otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered; I think it disrepectful of other people’s time to simply post–for public exposure–one’s feces in written form). My concern laid in this antinomy. Was my memory failing me? Had I always (mis)read this site? As I recollected, I began to grow ever more certain that there was some truth to my initial understanding of this site’s ontology. Reading, thinking and reading some more. I discovered some traces of my former understanding of this site, which was, in some sense, exclusive from the latter understanding of it. In fact, I realized that this antinomy was still present in this site–embodied even. For on some level, the very front page seemed to support my initial understanding of this site as being a space that afforded dialogic expressions, a space that welcomed and encouraged ‘a thinking through’ of different musings and interpretations. Open welcomes with:
“Basically, together we try to capture and explore some fraction of the countless complex interactions taking place around us. We bump off of each other trying to figure our own experiences and opinions out.”
But to truly allow one’s words to bump off an(other), you must let her/his words stand for what their worth. Nothing precludes a thorough riposte. In fact, I think this site (in any which way you understand it) invites such a response. But being open to one’s words and then editing her/his words are paradoxically stitched acts that lay bare a challenging ethical question; one that is not mine to answer.
But beyond this, it also seemed as though this antinomy had found a certain embodiment in the voice of the site itself. For at different times throughout, this voice was either one or many. It was almost as if the schizophrenic bent particular to this voice had served to evince this antinomy even further:
“Open Journal is based in Montreal, and we have regular contributors offering perspective from New York, Toronto and Mali. We welcome you to use the comments to offer your own extensions to our little seedlings here. I hope you’ll putter about, and enjoy yourself, and always throw your two cents in.”
“I stand by my edits and by the careful and continuously evolving thought that’s gone into Open so far. And in general, people seem to find the fact that an editor will look at their work to be quite reassuring- it allows them to take chances. And we love that.”
Nevertheless, after having read the proposal above, it became clear that the immediate direction of this site was one that moved towards the latter understanding, instead of the former one. Despite this, I still feel that there are very real vestiges of this antinomy circulating within this site. And they will probably continue to abound, because behind the copious amounts of work put into this site, there persistently remains an ethos of openness (however complicated it has been shown to be). So in some sense, I have been struggling with shift this from simply writing to think things through with others, to writing to think things through for others: edited for openness. I certainly recognize, now, that this site has developed certain commitments to others (to readers, advertisers, etc.). And participating in this proposal could be quite rewarding, however, my decision to participate will be contingent on that of others and upon the kind of volume that we are talking about (my full-time job only leaves me with so much time). So how do the others feels about this proposition? Please offer your thoughts…
December 18th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
it’s interesting, the antinomy you point out is totally grammatically faulty, but it’s also at the heart of open and indyish- it’s the contradiction that we’re torn between and that our systems are trying to negotiate: being autonomous and being connected. Being “both ‘captain of your own ship’ and member of a mutually beneficial network.” (indyish.com). Being both I and we.
anyway…
Open’s not schizophrenic, it’s just growing up. The grammar- aside from being evidence of our need for editors- might be part of Open’s awkward teenage phase. After all, it’s not a school project anymore. We have 100 to 200 unique visitors a day, every day, and we’re adjusting to the reality of that. (Imagine 150 people came over to your house everyday… it’s weird, right?)
We have no responsibility at all to the automated ads that make us no money, but we do have this opportunity to interact with all kinds of different people from all over the world. A solid team could start to do things that would make the most of that.
i’ve said a lot of what i want to say on this above and i’m sure we’ll keep talking about this more. I’ve begun to map out more ideas for Open and for our editorial process in the basecamp, and created a section specifically for the collaborative authoring of Open policies. Most editors have already said ‘yes,’ so we should be able to start working on our system, features and policies together over the next few months. that said- we’ll never stop being open to publishing drafts and sketches and attempts. It just a question, i hope, of enhancing those small sprouts chance at growth in all kinds of different ways.
there are major ethical complications here as well as major practical considerations – the current and ongoing bombardment of wikipedia in particular challenges some popular configurations of “open”. and so, as always, i appreciate your opinions and feedback.
r
December 19th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
so which of the ‘potential’ editors have said yes? (i haven’t been privy to those responses as of yet)
December 21st, 2005 at 11:44 am
hey Christian
in person, via email, or over the phone, everyone but you has said yes.
if you’re too worried about time, and/or the ethical dillemmas in editing, you can totally just remain an Open correspondent or Open friend, eh? no pressure.
if you’d like to know more about the kinds of things i’m proposing, i suggest logging in to the basecamp site. did you get the invite i sent you about a week ago? i hope it didn’t get buried in your junk mail.. Anyway, things won’t really get kicking in there until after the holidays, but Yohei, Elran and I have begun to do some work.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:30 pm
i don’t believe that i have received the invite, please send it again…
December 21st, 2005 at 3:43 pm
done and done.
happy holidays all!