Just to recap some of my points in my response to DemTech:

1. The article, though a lengthy 8000 words, still only provides a vignette illustrating on the RNC's approach. It doesn't consider the wider theory about Social Networking.

2. Bush-Cheney 2000 was a succesful campaign which employed social networking-- otherwise how else could you explain middle-class people voting for the plutocrat ticket?

3. The Kerry campaign has started using Social Networking techniques, but very poorly. It is a marked disappointment to anyone familiar with the Dean campaign. Why? I highly doubt the "formative years" suggestion here. I just think it's more about the fact that the campaign is still putting things together. But I defer to the campaign's CTO to answer.

Jon

To mix metaphors a little bit, I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. The structure used in changing democracy affects the structure of the changed democracy. Do we want our government to become more command and controlled? Do we want our government to be lest trusting?

Perhaps the reason the GOP is so untrusting of the grassroots is because the current administration is so untrustworthy.

The big problem that I see with many people complaining about the Kerry campaign, the DNC, the local Democratic Town Committees, is that they are falling into the same problem. They are looking for someone else to solve the problems for them.

We must act. We must get out and be the grassroots peer to peer social network we wish to see in the world.

Sure, its heirarchical -- but something I think we learned from the Dean campaign is that true feedback is difficult without lines of communication. We provided peer-to-peer opportunities, but didn't take full advantage of what all the peer-to-peer, on the ground experiences were teaching. We started, but a blog is still a clumsy feedback mechanism. The trick is building an amway-like structure of -communication- along with peer to peer innovation, so that the best innovations trickle up. I'm at ACT now, and we're struggling with this issue in a very direct way -- in the non-swing states, building volunteer organizations that can grow exponentially and that we can learn from. That takes a structure that looks like heirarchy but is meant to allow the top to learn.

I tend to agree with Zephyr that this has to be an and/both solution. I recommend Peter Senge's "The 5th Discpline" for a good read on learning organizations.

If we look at the DNC's original model for Precint & Ward orgnization, pre televison and pre-McGovern 'reforms' in 1973, we see a pretty robust pyramid. What it lacked was sustaining side to side conversations between peers in a social network.

So what I hope ACT will consider is a synergy of the old and the new. We would be wise to see that the semi moribund Democratic precinct & ward organizations have a great advantage: a vast, national, network of tens of thousands of nodes. But to be a vital asset in a participatory democracy, they need at least two things:

1] lots of energetic new blood;

2] side to side conversations between peers in a social network.

Members need to be able to find each other for ad hoc face to face meetings on a regualr basis.

The other question is this: can we afford the time,money and effort to recreate a national network with 1000s of nodes IF we want to beat Bush in November?

In any case, an and/both model will refect the best of our traditions and help establish clear and advantageous difference between Democrats and Republicans. In marketing language, it will restore value to our "brand".

Aldon wrote: "The big problem that I see with many people complaining about the Kerry campaign, the DNC, the local Democratic Town Committees, is that they are falling into the same problem. They are looking for someone else to solve the problems for them."

Who's complaining? I'm somebody who's offering solutions. My complaint is that the party/campaign leaders haven't done a very effective job of leadership-- listening to ideas, explaining the plans, marshalling the troops. That's not being done.

Jock wrote:
"The other question is this: can we afford the time, money and effort to recreate a national network with 1000s of nodes IF we want to beat Bush in November?"

Of course we can. Aren't we halfway there with the software? It's all part of beating Bush. No one has given me a better suggestion of how to spend my campaign time here in the Bay State. I'm going to work on the software.

Jon

A few additional comments.

First, it is great to see Zephyr here. I hope that the people here can all work together to come up with better models that can help Zephyr at ACT as well as people in many other groups.

I've spoken with both Zephyr and Jock about these issues in the past. I do think that Jock is right. It must be an and/both solution. We need to find ways of working both in hierarchies and in peer-to-peer networks.

While the Dean campaign didn't do this as much as it could have, in some aspects it did. There are a few areas which it did do a good job with this, in particular the way Meetups worked (in many cases). There was a hierarchy and there was good lateral peer-to-peer communications. The same applied to the House Party structure.

Of course the other issue is to get better cross communication between different efforts, such as Meetups and House Parties. It looks the DNC is recreating the same structure, and set of problems as they get their Meetup program and House Party program off the ground. Likewise, the same seems to be happening with the Kerry campaign.

As an aside to Jon, who asked 'Who's complaining?' I wasn't referring to Jon. I am refering to the discussions that are going on on many different mailing lists.

A problem with lateral peer-to-peer networking can be that people can get stuck in their griping and not move on to problem solving.

It seems as if one thing that is sorely needed are facilitators that can help with the group dynamics of lists so they can get out of their ruts.

Speaking of hierarchical, this was disappointing to read: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Illinois_For_Dean/message/4804

The punch line, "Note: Sponsors, Hosts, and VIPs will have special access to celebrities and elected officials" says to me "You can come but you won't count as much if you're not contributing as much."

That's not how we empower people and encourage innovation and investment in our vision of the future. If everyone is not included--or if some are more included than others--little will change.

It's so discouraging to see the lessons of the Dean campaign in that regard go unheeded. How do we get that message to the top of a hierarchy whose vision is blurred by the clouds that surround it?

Or do we give up trying and just work on creating our own structures while supporting a change of administrations. Where would our energies be best utilized?

More and more I'm thinking we need to be primarily focused on 2008.

Elissa-- I'm not sure what the lessons of the Dean campaign were...
But some will always have more access than others. You can't change that. If you pretend that everyone has equal access, you won't be able to sustain that forever. Nonetheless, you need a system which is fair for each level?

I was able to raise $4K through KerryCore, #2 in the March Madness contest so I got access to the Convention. Would you call that unfair? Friends who gave $100 in my name have access to me. I have a contact in among Kerry's advisors. That's how a social network works. It's not equal access, but equal opportunity.

I write about this more on Civilities.

Jon, thanks for your response.

I understand your point (I think) and I understand that your KerryCore example is about something perceived to have worked. But maybe what we need to be working toward is what WILL work in the future, not what has worked in the past. Can't get to the future facing backwards.

I don't think I'm talking about "pretending everyone has equal access." I think equal access is a goal worth working towards, and a possibility if we don't think in hierarchical terms. Perhaps it would look more like a multidimensional spiral... but I'm just playing with images.

In any case, equal access needn't have anything to do with money. Access could be through any type of contribution that has value to the whole.

Elissa-- yes I agree. I'm a technocrat, so I favor "points" systems which can acknowledge people for field volunteering, reward others for online activism. Also, perhaps a point we can agree on is when an organization mentions "Sponsors, Hosts and VIPs", they really should make sure to include the volunteers who have actually applied their time and skills. If they don't the problem, is in the message it sends.

I don't believe KerryCore really has worked, and I have been very critical that it has fallen sort of what it can do.

Jon

The original study on how this all works was written in 1996:

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR789/

The title is "The Advent of Netwar"

It draws much of its insight from the work of Luther Gerlach and Marlene Hine, who investigated movement networks in the late 1960s.

You can read about how the Netwar principle was applied by the WTO protesters in Seattle in:

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1382/MR1382.ch7.pdf

The title is "Netwar in the Emerald City"

Your tax dollars at work, use them wisely.

I'm working in the SF Bay area and I've seen three sets of groups working independantly through meet-ups Democrats, Kerry Campaign, and DFA (Dean people). We do need a way to co-ordinate with each other better. I was thinking we could start with a master calendar of activities and events. Can anyone recommend an on-line tool for this?

I agree with the need for the development of writers, spokespeople, facilitators, hosts, coordinators, and captains. I think the way to manage the volume of people who want to get involved is to give them the opportunity to take on a role that is needed and fits with the level of time and energy they want to contribute. By getting folks involved in a meaningful way, I think they'd be happy to leave the P2P communications to their captains, as long as the captains are trained to ensure people feel their voices are being heard.

Regards,

KMF
kmflores@sbcglobal.net

What army models may be used in general? And what are the disadvantages of the Roman Army model?