Simon Fenton - Jones
Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:34:58 -0700
Thanks Matti, Eloquently put. Replied below.
-----Original Message----- From: heikkuri...@gmail.com [mailto:heikkuri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Matti Heikkurinen Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2010 3:50 PM To: Simon Fenton - Jones Cc: Peter Szegedi; Leif Laaksonen; tf-me...@terena.org; john.d...@planet.nl; d...@terena.org Subject: Re: I don't know if there is a single organisation that could tackle all........ Dear Simon, All, Simon, thank you for directing this to a forum that might be more productive than the under-the-radar one! Regarding the "trinity" of technology-policy-sociology: the reason I have emphasised the policy is mainly because that's the area where I have (quite minimal) resources to look into issues that might be relevant for the e-IRG. Policies are indeed fairly weak catalysts for new action, they're perhaps better viewed as an insurance against disruptive forces that might negate gains in the other two areas. Without some policy awareness, I'd imagine a VC-backed "walled garden" business model (online conferencing system that is compatible only with itself) might disrupt both technical interoperability and split existing communities into "islands" based on the operating systems, network vendors and hardware solutions they happen to use. >I think we might be able to progress if we admit this is where we are, from the start. This is exactly where we are. >My experience in the Australia was with State funding in this area, where NSW state schools could VC to one another but not across their borders. It's >much the same throughout Europe. If we wanted proof we only have to consider that the association of European NRENs must use a proprietary solution to >bring their walled gardens (virtually) together. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thinking about concrete actions that could be taken (and where I could play a role): For "insurance purposes" it probably would be useful to try to ensure that the e-IRG is aware of existing body of knowledge. Ensuring that relevant projects, organsiations and data sources are referred to by the e-IRG Knowledge Base (http://knowledgebase.e-irg.eu/) could be one easy step where I could help establishing a contact with the Knowledge Base maintainers. >I'm sure you meant to say "existing bodies of knowledge" where the IRG domain is one reference repository (to use a librarian's terminology). It's a >laudable thought although it fights against the new media paradigm. Let me give a concrete example by flagging the compilation of terena's Compendium. >After all the questions have been answered we end up with a snapshot in time. It's then buried on a small secretariat's domain, which is outdated on its >publication. If an inquirer wanted a place to start (looking for an "NREN" aggregation) they would google and find it, so long as the metadata was good, >and enough walled gardens had contributed and checked it in situ. (you'll understand the google algorithm). Otherwise they'll get this page (perhaps in >their own language if they're really lucky). http://www.google.com/search?q=NREN >Establishing contact with "Knowledge Base maintainers" is the first step. The next step is aggregating the "knowledge base" in a place where it might be >recognised as the euro communities hub (in all its diverse languages). Just look at Europeana, as an example of how National librarian's think. Excuse >my arrogance here, but so our community can better understand the new media model, let me point you here. http://wikieducator.org/Practice:Towards_a_new_Institution_of_Learning#Impro ving_collaboration_and_content_interoperability_between_mainstream_OER_proje cts >If you believe in this model as I do, a few questions must be answered: 1. Who can contribute? (who has access to the tools) 2. What (combination of media) tools do they prefer? 3. Where do we put the domain so it can be found (regardless of language) 4. The "Why?" I'll leave to each of the three professions = CPR, TF media, TF storage (in this domain's terminology). >The problem we have at the moment is that we don't have the "where?" discussed first. I'm having a nice discussion about "findability" with Alan over at >the Wikieducator community. I'm sure the opencast guys, like every OER manufacturer, must be having (have had) the same questions. It's hard for people >who are paid to think within the walls of a National institution to conceive a Euro-wide perspective of their communities, much less a Global one. But >we are getting there, even though it must seem like walking through treacle or herding cats to Peter. Just his response - the virtual get together on >the 27th - shows he is trying so hard with the tools he has at hand. All I can say is "Peter, you're not alone". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- On the European level broadening the contact points between e-IRG and tf-media would probably have more impact. If as many national delegates as possible are aware of the state-of-the-art and potential policy issues, it might reduce fragmentation and duplication of effort. Unfortunately in that domain I can't help much - except of course by referring to the list of delegates (http://www.e-irg.eu/about-e-irg/members.html). >Broadening the contact points (and deepening the understanding) between members of walled gardens is really all we are trying to do. If I take a >librarian's (or curator's) perspective to this discussion I would be talking about classifying "a shelf which can be shared", not "a book which might be >found". And the techs around here would be questioning my sanity (not a silly thing to do:). So I'll duck and leave it to them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- As for the somewhat less concrete actions: The "technology and sociology of online collaboration" would be extremely interesting questions, but they are also broad enough that - in the absence of a client or a project - a small SME like ours can't except to even create a visible scratch on the surface. But we would love to have an opportunity to look into the question (also e.g. in a collaborative project)! >Goodoh! I think you'll find things start to firm up as the three communities get used to the "smell" of one another. I'm afraid i like to keep the talk >a bit vague (thankfully your cement compensates for my wateriness) because there are more creative and knowledgeable minds than mine around here, and >elsewhere). I hate to put limitations on quiet brilliance. So I'll leave you with this one from the guys at OCW, who came up with a line of inquiry that >appeals to this noisy vessel. http://wiki.ocwconsortium.org/index.php?title=A_Call_for_Papers:_OCWC_Global _2009_-_Content%2C_Infrastructure%2C_and_Creativity Best regards, Matti Ps. "CERN" is a bit like "Europe": both may look like a single entity from the outside, whereas once inside they both are very heterogeneous, so rules for borrowing the toys tend to be on case-by-case basis. In general nothing is impossible, anything can get a bit complicated. This of course based just on the small part of the cluster of organisations I saw... >Thanks. This gnat from the antipodes is learning this constantly. But I never get into the clusters, especially at a time where the (social) media wheels are being reconstructed. I just saw Joao whose title is "VC architecture, Research and Integration". My next mail is to him. P.S. You'll notice I've included a forum of digital curators on this message. It's where i met Alan. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ On 29 April 2010 12:31, Simon Fenton - Jones <simo...@cols.com.au> wrote: > Matti, > > I had to give this one some thought because you've hit the nail on the head, > although I'm not one who can agree that a policy statement encourages people > to change their habits (and tools) and share a domain. NB. Please notice our > discussion has only been below the radar (off the terena list) because your > mail of the 22nd was sent to me directly. I included peter because he's our > host (there's another title for you peter:). Have changed our thread's name > to focus on your most important comment & replied below. > > -----Original Message----- > From: heikkuri...@gmail.com [mailto:heikkuri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Matti Heikkurinen > Sent: Monday, 26 April 2010 6:43 PM > To: Simon Fenton - Jones; Peter Szegedi > Cc: Leif Laaksonen > Subject: Re: [tf-media] Vulcanic Activity, Flights Grounded, big oportunity > to Videoconference > > Dear Simon, Peter, > > I saw that you'd taken the discussion to the radar, so let's hope we > can continue there! I hope you don't mind me including Leif in the > loop! > > To wrap up the below the radar discussion: > > I think the interplay between the > -Technical: what solutions work as a collaborative environment and how > the "interoperability matrix" between them looks like, > -Policy: what solutions get picked - and most importantly how the > numerous funding agencies make sure they are not funding the > re-inventing of commercial commodity solutions (the facebooks and > googles you mention) and > -Social ("where" - in terms of technologies, service providers and > user interfaces - communities are rooted in and what kind of > discussions require face-to-face meetings) is quite interesting one. > > I don't know if there is a single organisation that could tackle all > of them. I probably shouldn't speculate on the role e-IRG would like > to taking in this, but I'd imagine that maintaining the > "interoperability matrix" sounds like something that e-IRG shouldn't > do itself (requires resources beyond the secretariat support > mechanism), nor do I think e-IRG itself has level and kind of > resources needed to tackle the sociological side. > >> This is the most important point all us must accept if we want to move > forward. Maintaining an "interoperability index" is where our old ideas > about >media spin off into a talk fest. All our old ideas about 'publish and > be damned' insist we talk in terms of our organisation's web sites. It's > 'e-IRG' >for you and Leif, 'terena' for peter and carrie, Geant for paul and > an 'NREN' for most everyone else. And each domain, at some point(s) where > their >communities communicate, duplicates the other. > >>Meantime, as perceptive members from our 'next door' CPR community will > point out, we are drowning in (e)lists and "social media can help NRENs to >>achieve their goals". (Carrie's and Gyongyi's presentations at this event. > http://www.terena.org/activities/tf-cpr/pastmeetings/vienna2009/agenda.html >>Media Paradigms and their differences have to become so obvious before the > habits of antiquated institutions become comparatively useless, as the are >>now. (I'm using the Wikipedia definition of institution here i.e. > architecture and routines. Quite a few discussions have gone on (over there) > around >that one). > >>While I'm talking about CPR. Let me just point out to john that his link to > Wikipedia blows his belief in "clearly defined boundaries" away. It works >>for the physical 'stuf'. But shared knowledge ain't physical. (Hey don't > blame me. You're the one who felt "entitled" to put the link in:) >>http://www.john-dyer.eu/stuf/ > >>An example. We'll have a meeting on the 27th to talk (amongst other things) > about a "liaison statement" with the guys who buzz around the opencast >>domain. Is it just me who thinks the formalities are outdated? A streamed > chat between Andy and Olaf (and their opencast contacts) about why it seems >>like a good idea, after an invitation to the opencast guys to watch the > stream and give their feedback at the stream's forum, might allow an aweful > lot >of ground to be covered quickly, especially if we suggest the same of > the SAE and Europeana communities. And the paradigm would shift. > >>I can see the blood rushing from a few old heads. But that only due to lack > of new media experiences, and architecture. But here's the key. It's called >>sharing a domain. http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showgroups.php >>And if you want to know how these guys sustain their related communities, > do a look up on Alexa. If you want to consider what they lack in the way of >>tools. They only have Skype. > > But results from both "technical and social sides" probably can have > policy implications. Perhaps (hypothetically) they could allow > building up a case for a policy recomendation that any face-to-face > meeting organised using public funds would need publish the reasons > why it couldn't been organised using online tools? > >> Nice thought. And not just the F2F but also the online events. But we've > just seen that happen haven't we? Thanks to Peter's patience and > hospitality. >Theory follows practice. But it sure would be nice to ask the > CERN guys if they want to lend us some of their tools. I mean, adobe > connect? And no >streaming page? > http://it-multimedia.web.cern.ch/it-multimedia/contact.php > > > Best regards, > > Matti > > Ps. Has there been any work related to the issue of confidentiality of > online collaboration? I'd imagine that a face-to-face meeting is > attractive in many cases because discussing issues over dinner the > night before it is possible to change one's opinion without losing > face. A formal meeting - even with the formal process of making > comments off the record and possibility of agreeing how the decisions > are presented in the minutes - already stifles the discussion; once > online it is technically impossible to prevent someone from making a > recording and thus putting everything "on record". > > On the policy-level this would mean establishing ethical guidelines > for someone maintaining online forums, technically this might require > an approach of "watermark everything with id used to access > data/stream" and sociologically there would be a lot of work related > to trust on online identities (both individuals and organisations). > >> Well we've been below the radar for the past week, so we know what's going > on most of the time. >>All I'll say here is that trust takes time, and in my reporting days I had > a lot of privy information which I would never attribute. >>Samo, samo. > >> And for those of you who, with good reason, have complained about my > ineptitude with a elist, I apologise. I've obviously been playing with too > many of >the children who are coming after you. > >>Now I'm going back to my bottle. >>Thanks Matti. Regards, simon > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > On 23 April 2010 12:30, Simon Fenton - Jones <simo...@cols.com.au> wrote: >> Thanks Matti, >> >> I'll make this the last one 'below the radar'. >> I doubt if you'll find anything like what I'm after in the academic > domain. >> Most of it is being driven by the Google and Facebook types, although in > the >> Web design area I always point to sitepoint (as an example of an {English >> only} online environment for web designers). >> >> There are few other examples, which use a different business case. One > that >> springs to mind in Au. is http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/, where a bunch > of >> reps from various telcos share a 'commons' and also have their 'own' > areas. >> No real time tools of course. We're coming down to this now at terena as >> ingrid has put her hand up to look after the teleconferencing end of >> tf-media. Now all we have to do is figure out how we can bring the other 2 >> TF's - CPR and Storage (and other communities like opencast, etc) to a > share >> space/domain. >> >> I don't think is very hard,,,,,,, technically. But it does require a >> different culture; one where people share a bit more, above the radar. >> >> All the best, and to you too Peter. >> simon >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: heikkuri...@gmail.com [mailto:heikkuri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of >> Matti Heikkurinen >> Sent: Thursday, 22 April 2010 3:55 PM >> To: Simon Fenton - Jones >> Cc: Peter Szegedi >> Subject: Re: [tf-media] Vulcanic Activity, Flights Grounded, big > oportunity >> to Videoconference >> >> Hi Simon, >> >> Thank you for your very interesting message! To be honest, I'd need to >> mull this over a bit to see what is feasible in the e-IRG context and >> what other things I'm involved in would be relevant. >> >> I think the question of "what is the community" is a very important >> one, and I ended up spending quite a lot of time looking into various >> "sociology of the Grid" kind of initiatives. So one of the >> associations I had was that it could be quite interesting if there was >> a "do it"-type project that would allow us to re-activate contacts in >> that community. >> >> I will need to take a proper look at the discussions on the tf-media >> once I return from a short trip over the (long) weekend, this just a >> very quick acknowledgement of reception and appreciation of your >> message! >> >> Best regards, >> >> Matti >> >> On 22 April 2010 13:29, Simon Fenton - Jones <simo...@cols.com.au> wrote: >>> Hi Matti, >>> >>> I keep going through the doc and thinking it though. (the brain only > works >>> in slow motion these days). >>> I'll say basically the same thing I'll be saying, in brief, to leif on > the >>> terena thread. >>> (and you will take for granted I think it's a very good doc). >>> >>> Straight off? Paradigm Shift. I think you could be explicit and talk > about >>> "the change" being from 'National (.edu) institutions' to Global >> Communities >>> of Practice (COP). "Commodity Community Domains" and "cycle scavenging >>> systems" is a bit scary, and quite meaningless unless you define who "the >>> communities" are. E.g. Astronomers want fatter pipes than psychologists. >>> (psychologists just want longer ones:) >>> >>> We've got to the point where everything the roadmap scopes has been said, >>> not so well, on various docs for many years. >>> Now we have to actually assemble and use the ICT stuff in a way that we >> can >>> build a number of global communities, not keep on with the old "my >> national >>> institution". In the draft I've already written to Leif's terena >> invitation >>> I'm saying (basically) "no policy can inspire innovation". >>> We need to actually start using this stuff, in different ways, so others >> can >>> see it's benefits, and start to change. >>> >>> In the e-gov space the big 'policy' is "be inclusive". Check out Obama's >>> approach. I've know some very progressive media persons (for an > Australian >>> Senators) who switched me on here a few years ago. From your perspective >>> this can be translated into " innovative funding for a wide range of >>> infrastructure projects". i.e. GLOBAL or EURO infrastructure projects. >>> You're not going to do this until you use the technology to get the >> funders >>> together, more broadly and more regularly. If you see what's being >> attempted >>> between the UK cabinet office and their "COP. >>> >> > http://blogs.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/digitalengagement/post/2009/10/23/Internat >>> ional-links.aspx >>> >>> >>> The hard part in the academic space is coming up with an approach which >> gets >>> 3 communities (from my perspective) working together. >>> 1. The content capturers = People like Peter Szegedi who are attempting > to >>> bring the 3 communities together; content people with an AV/Web >> engineering >>> bent. Maybe 'community moderator' is a better title. >>> 2. The network guys; the techs who could put an online environment >> together, >>> and back it into a (virtual) network, which provides real time comms. > Juan >>> Quemeda at Madrid is good example, with his ideas about the global plaza. >>> 3. The storage/archiving guys; both techs who think about "the > containers" >>> and librarian types who must curate the containers' contents on behalf of >> a >>> global (or euro) community. >>> >>> It terena's language the communities/'taskforces' are called TF- CPR, TF- >>> Media, TF-Storage, where we now seeing the 'terms of reference' decided. >>> (read Andy's last mail). >>> >>> Perhaps you might put something in the doc. which talks about the main >>> difference in professional mindsets and language - between content > people, >>> who don't think about the what happens below the surface of a web page, >> and >>> geeks who just want a spec (and don't 'surface' very often). In librarian >>> speak they talk about "containers" and "content". >>> >>> But I'm more inclined to believe we just need to "do it". And I'm just >>> working through how "it" might be communicated so the three communities, >>> together, can do exactly that. >>> >>> Enough. Keep up the good stuff; preferably on a blog on the irg site so >> you >>> can start aggregating and storing these kind of conversations, above the >>> radar. Regards, >>> simon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: heikkuri...@gmail.com [mailto:heikkuri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of >>> Matti Heikkurinen >>> Sent: Thursday, 22 April 2010 8:28 AM >>> To: simo...@cols.com.au >>> Subject: Re: [tf-media] Vulcanic Activity, Flights Grounded, big >> oportunity >>> to Videoconference >>> >>> Dear Simon, >>> >>> First off, having been involved in the e-IRG roadmap development from >>> the start, I'm naturally interested in everything related to the >>> document. So if you would happen to have some king of "Top thing to >>> improve in the document" in your mind, I'd be very interested to hear >>> your thoughts on the document! >>> >>> Then somewhat related to Leif's message below: immediately after the >>> decision to cancel the e-IRG events, I raised the question whether >>> e-IRG should address online collaboration/conferencing somehow in one >>> of the future publications. As Leif, I'd thus be interested to hear if >>> there were policy-related issues in the domain that could benefit from >>> being addressed by a more general policy organisation such as e-IRG? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Matti >>> >>> On 21 April 2010 13:46, Leif Laaksonen <leif.laakso...@csc.fi> wrote: >>>> Hello guys, >>>> >>>> I'm now stepping in from the back seat (you know back seat heckler...) >>>> >>>> Do you see there are any policy related things e-IRG could contribute >> with >>> to promote the usage of collaborative computing and video conferencing? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> -- leif >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ingrid Melve [mailto:ingrid.me...@uninett.no] >>>> Sent: 21. huhtikuuta 2010 14:40 >>>> To: Sally Hanford >>>> Cc: Simon Fenton - Jones; Rui Ribeiro; tf-me...@terena.org; Lars >>> Fuglevaag; Leif Laaksonen >>>> Subject: Re: [tf-media] Vulcanic Activity, Flights Grounded, big >>> oportunity to Videoconference >>>> >>>> On 20.04.2010 23:53, Sally Hanford wrote: >>>>> Hello Ingrid >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for a very interesting and informative document. Here at the >>> University of Nottingham we are currently investigating solutions for web >>> conferencing, so it is very timely for us. I am not sure if any work on >> this >>> is being undertaken at NREN level (The UK NREN is JANET). >>>>> >>>>> I have one query though: >>>>> Under 4.2 "Assumptions" >>>>> 5. Solutions need to support various platforms: >>>>> a. MS Windows (MUST) >>>>> b. Mac (MUST) >>>>> c. Linux (nice to have) >>>>> d. Mobile platforms (nice to have) >>>>> >>>>> I wonder why linux is only a 'nice to have'? >>>> >>>> It depends on your user community. Linux should probably be a SHOULD, >>>> but we ended up with only two categories in that first draft, and then >>>> Linux was not a MUST for all user categories. For the staff users in >>>> the meeting scenario where you control the hardware and software, you >>>> could exclude all but one platform. This is partly religion, and the >>>> maxim "Be liberal in what you receive and conservative in what you send" >>>> argues for including as many platforms as possible, given that we do not >>>> control hardware and software for students. >>>> >>>> There has been a discussion on this, and we'll make some changes based >>>> on the input coming in this week. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ingrid >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matti Heikkurinen - Geneva, Switzerland >>> ma...@emergence-tech.co.uk - http://www.emergence-tech.co.uk/ >>> matti.heikkuri...@iki.fi (personal) >>> +41 79 703 7347 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matti Heikkurinen - Geneva, Switzerland >> ma...@emergence-tech.co.uk - http://www.emergence-tech.co.uk/ >> matti.heikkuri...@iki.fi (personal) >> +41 79 703 7347 >> >> > > > > -- > Matti Heikkurinen - Geneva, Switzerland > ma...@emergence-tech.co.uk - http://www.emergence-tech.co.uk/ > matti.heikkuri...@iki.fi (personal) > +41 79 703 7347 > > -- Matti Heikkurinen - Geneva, Switzerland ma...@emergence-tech.co.uk - http://www.emergence-tech.co.uk/ matti.heikkuri...@iki.fi (personal) +41 79 703 7347