Re: nettime report_on_NNA
Richard: No I didn't! I was - and still am - a *left* social democrat. H -- DEJA VU all over again . . . g http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9903/msg00138.html I especially like Ted Byfield's editorial about what belongs on nettime! [nettime isn't the best venue for unsubstantiated claims that this or that person or organization 'really' works for the CIA/MI6/etc, nor for propagating theories about'one world government' and suchlike. *really.* --tb] Really? Mark Stahlman New York CIty # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
Hiya, As you recall, Richard supported Tony Blair No I didn't! I was - and still am - a *left* social democrat. Like many members of the Labour party, I strongly disagree with the authoritarian and imperialist policies of its leadership... Later, Richard # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
For the sake of clarity Geert are you putting yourself forward for all the hard work involved in being part of the next stage in the 'rotation'. you are proposing or is this a prompting that others rather than yourself should put themselves forward to take up this burden ? On Jun 9, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Geert Lovink wrote: No, not at all. Did I suggest that?... Not directly but in any community/collective I know if someone 'stands up in a meeting' and makes a suggestion involving work then such an intervention carries with it the implication (and perhaps responsibility) that they are also willing to share in that work. Otherwise the intervention could be mistaken for being somewhat aristocratic. The examples you gave of larger networks of moderation implies that having been part of the early phase need not preclude being part of the new rotation in fact a blend of experience and new blood might enrich any new model under consideration. David # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
Not directly but in any community/collective I know if someone 'stands up in a meeting' and makes a suggestion involving work then such an intervention carries with it the implication (and perhaps responsibility) that they are also willing to share in that work. Otherwise the intervention could be mistaken for being somewhat aristocratic. Weeel, c'mon, he's chiming in with what seems to be a good idea, but good to do some arm-twisting before he gets too deep into academia ;-)) I am of the same opinion, and probably cannot join in on the task as I have other facilitation tasks already. BUT, see below -- it's hard to say yes OR no without a clear description of the job! The examples you gave of larger networks of moderation implies that having been part of the early phase need not preclude being part of the new rotation in fact a blend of experience and new blood might enrich any new model under consideration. excellent suggestion David, and with steady rotation and an experience-base to further stabilize things maybe nettime continues, or maybe not. a decade is a long time in this biz. change can also mean death. In this Light, I would challenge Felix and Ted (and any others feeling qualified) to write a brief task description of the (different) roles/positions necessary to run nettime as it is today. Put it out here. I certainly have some interest, but would need to know the scalability and absolute size of what tasks are necessary, and how they are (technically and socially) accomplished... Cheers John # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
For the sake of clarity Geert are you putting yourself forward for all the hard work involved in being part of the next stage in the 'rotation'. you are proposing or is this a prompting that others rather than yourself should put themselves forward to take up this burden ? No, not at all. Did I suggest that? There are, no doubt, so many competent people on nettime-l who can do this job. I did that work in 95-99 and rotation means that's it up to others to do the moderation, which Pit Schulz and I never merely understood as 'filtering' and dealing with spam, subs and unsubs but more as animating, hosting, inviting people to post, write reports, respond to postings, etc. Doing newspapers and meetings was also part of that but let's leave that aspect out for the moment. I think it is not just a burden but can be fun as well, in particular if you do it with an open group. Moderation over the past years has too much been associated with 'censorship', deciding what has to be included and what not. There is surprisingly little of that at nettime and I never accused Felix and Ted of doing such a thing. In 98-99 there was a rotating group that did the broader moderation work. Ted was one of them, so was Matthew Fuller, Katrien Jacobs, Sandra Fauconnier who did the announcements etc. etc. That's what I was suggesting. The Fibreculture group in Australia consists of 10-15 people and they do rotating moderation. One big difference there is, of course, that the Fibreculture list is still open which makes the moderation work so much easier. Because of traffic and spam nettime-l cannot be open, I hope everyone will understand this. If not, please read the nettime-bold archives. Nettime had to be closed late 1997, something that I always regretted but that's history. Geert # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
I find this all very interesting and I would like to point out that the term list lurker does nothing to encourage participation, but creates a quality of power. Is the list lurker part of a necessary culture, giving authority to those who post regularly (list dominators?)? I also wonder if a list moderator creates a tension with how the technology of a list works (seen as gate keepers mapped onto a fundamentally democratic process)? What would happen if everyone on the nettime list posted regularly? I would also note that reiterating the glory days of nettime does not encourage participation either. Who wants to be a participant of something considered past its time? The point about an exhaustion of list cultures (too many) is a good one. Perhaps moderated lists are perceived as stale and defunct technology and maybe other forms of collaborative authorship/dialog should be explored, such as a nettime wiki, nettime Second Life or nettime social software... (something new to get excited and critical about). We should consider whether nettime has outgrown a moderated list... Congratulations to those who worked and participated in the flesh nettime post. I wish I had the funding to attend : ) Ndrew # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
friends, so long as we can limit this debate to a few days, i think it is a welcome occasion to think about one of the wonders of the online world - after all, Nettime is still one of the most interesting and most active (and kicking) mailing lists with a relatively consistent topical field, after 11 years. this is partly due to a string of people who have fed, starved, swamped, dieted, stuffed and moderated the channel over the years - thanks to those, and thanks also to all the unpaid time invested by people who have to take, for my taste, too many personal attacks in some of the messages of the last 24 hours. they deserve some of this, but also a lot of praise for an immense amout of work. (please, imagine offering at least an hour every day - you, yes, you, every day, one hour! -, ploughing through spam and short comments by people, sometimes meaningful, sometimes meaningless, and having to take decisions about whether or not to post; plus a lot of background communication with unhappy subscribers, unsubscribers, posters, etc.) (i accept the subjective, good-willed choices that the team of moderators make; remember, this is not only one person.) contrary to some others, i have the feeling that those who have entered academic or other careers are posting much less than they used to. remember, nettime was started and built by a whole group of people who were the precariate (some said then: the virtual class) of the mid-90s. (the problem for moderators are often those people who have too much time on their hands and little sleep, and who spend their nights writing stuff which has a very high noise-to-signal ratio; people who insist that all of those should be made available should be condemned to 1 year of nettime-bold! ;-) finally, if you are unhappy with the list, be aware that 'the list', i.e. nettime, is what gets posted. of course, moderation plays a role in this. but the greater role is played by the things that get written and sent, or not. if certain discussions are not happening, it is because people are not writing their opinions. (and before you complain that your posts never get through, please, consider whether they have been adequate in form and tone for the list; if they have, they should have been posted; but there are so many people listening in this big 'scripto-auditorium', that the late-night babble that some people return is simply inappropriate to the forum. (i second the plea for 'less', and for selectivity.) regards, -a ps: like the demons at night, the 'stars' and the 'little people' just disappear when you stop talking about them; what remains are potentially equal, of course unequal participants in a public online forum. your name will be respected if your contributions are, and they will never be by all, but maybe by some. the community of people here is incredibly mixed, so be brave. -- -- andreas broeckmann - artistic director transmediale - festival for art and digital culture berlin klosterstr. 68-70 - d-10179 berlin - tel. +49-30-24749-761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.transmediale.de -- +++ transmediale.07 ++ unfinish! +++ 1-6 february 2007 +++ # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
Hi all, just a few comments. I enjoyed the Montreal nettime online and the tech worked out fine. It is really a shame that the announcement of this (online) event came through only hours after the event ended. The reason for this is simple. Ted and Felix should be thanked for their massive work, move on and rotate, leaving others (a bigger group, I would suggest) to moderate the central nettime-l list. To correct Ted (with whom I have not been in direct contact for many years), I left the nettime-l moderation group early 2000. I wrote down my version of the nettime history till 2000 in my book Dark Fiber. I am indeed one of the founders of nettime and take credit for that work from 95-99, yes. Besides that I am, still, a regular contributor to nettime-l and nettime-nl. We do not hear much from the other language lists in this debate, but they exist and some of them do very well. Maybe not as lively discussion channels, but the problems that nettime-l has are actually shared by many lists. Regards, Geert # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
Folks: Time(s) moves along -- especially nettime(s). Forgive me if this has already been stated but there were a number of specific conditions that made nettime possible -- the inflating of the Internet Bubble in the late 90's, the disruption in many people's lives as funding for artistic/academic work across Europe dried up and the early East-Meets-West exhilaration following the Fall of the Wall -- all of which have come and gone. None of this is relevant anymore. The ways that ALL this intersected the personal lives of Geert, Pit, Diana, Janos, Barlow, Barbrook, Kroker, Delanda, Davis, Hakim Bey and all the others (yes, including me) -- in that particular time(s) -- is what made nettime possible. Then we will have to factor in the crucial overlap/conflict between nettime with George Soros and *his* network. If you leave Soros out, nettime makes no sense at all. Particular people. Particular events. Particular conditions. Particular time(s). Not activism. Not net.art. Not community. Not theory. Not practice. Time(s) moves along -- especially nettime(s). So what about these time(s)? Best, Mark Stahlman New York City # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
One of the things I like best about nettime is the high signal-to-noise ratio, and I think it's got better over the last few years. It seems to me that a lot of thought generally goes into the postings that appear here, thanks both to the authors and the moderators. So if a day goes by without anything appearing on the list, that seems fine to me. I think nettime is a sort of middle way between an academic journal and a traditional discussion list. It's much more open than an academic journal, but its standards are higher than those of most lists. The high standards make academics want to post ideas here, but the openness means that non-academics can reply, and can post their own ideas. I think that's good, because it goes against the tendency for academic discourse to become self-referential and disconnected from discourses and practices going on elsewhere. I personally don't care where nettimers work or what their titles are; I like that we can have a dialogue here that cuts across professions. I suspect the makeup of this list reflects at least one important social reality, that of solidarity between different kinds of knowledge workers and artists whose lives and work have been profoundly affected by, and who have been participating in, global transformations in communications, media, knowledge production and politics. Tactical media has been just one manifestation of that group's appearance on the world stage. Ben # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
hi all, and thanks for (finally) some serious discussion about the list and the --more or less complicated--dynamics existing within it. I will be very short as I'm posting from a very unconfortable location in overpacked Amsterdam (by the way, if someone from there wants to meet that would be super-great). I would like to say a few words about the fear or intimidation on posting.yes, there is a discrepancy between those in academia and those who are not, so there might be a little bit of intimidation going on. however, I don't believe this is the only problem. as Alessandra says, we are all appreciating the incredibly good critical commentaries on networks, politics stc.. the problem is: I haven't found so much self-critique, and this is something that we should all learn in this list. (and b/t/w, that's probably the most difficult thing to do at this point, because after years of doing theory and practice we all tend to sit confortably on our chairs and become quite defensive). ok, if this makes sense to you, please, let me know what you think. lots of things to say, no time, no bandwidth, I'll try to collect all the good notes I took at the meeting. but for the moment, thanks Tobias for the great effort. we should organize another bigger one...maybe? roberta (an ex-lurker) # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
At 11:31 PM -0400 6/7/06, t byfield wrote: Let's say for the sake of argument that nettime is actually run by Satan himself. okay, just for the sake of argument: i read your use of religious imagery as insinuating dogmatism on the part of the other. i'll be happy to be corrected. Do his motives matter? yes, most certainly. criticality cannot stop at the surface appearance of things. we cannot, even for the sake of argument, ignore, for example, the profit-seeking motives animating neocolonial expansionism from present day wars, or our analysis would be at best incomplete and insufficient and at worst apologetic. what also matters are actions and their effects. that said, my question was directed at your intentions and actions. the effects were fairly obvious from the frenzy that's been triggered. For most subscribers' purposes I think the answer is probably no. sorry, but i can't buy this assumption. what basis do you have for such a claim on the part of the diverse collectivity that makes up nettime? my reading of posts by alssandra, caroline and roberta, among a few others, leads me to a different conclusion. The very worst I could do is a pale shadow by comparison with him, you mean by comparison with satan?! certainly our choices cannot be limited to such simplistic binarism? so it seems like my motives would be that much less noteworthy. As for the rest, it's best to let straw men rest. not at all. your motives matter as much as everybody else's. otherwise, thiis would be another one of those dreary episodes when backroom fighting among boys spills over into the party and spoils the fun for everyone. truly, there are more urgent matters to attend to. be well. gita # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
Felix: The rebels of the net.culture of the 1990s have encountered a cruel fate: they won. Alas, not on their terms. Then they didn't win -- they lost. If you insist on calling them rebels. g Many of the themes that have been explored by the old-timers are now mainstream. Which simply means that they were in the air and going to happen anyway. Hey Felix . . . by 1996 most of these things were pretty obvious -- if you were paying attention. That's what made nettime interesting. People were paying attention. My invited keynote at MetaForum III was titled Who are we: What are we becoming? 10 years later . . . how much further along are we in answering these questions -- apart from being 10 years older? Richard Barbrook wrote the seminal The Californian Ideology and I responded with the quaintly polemical The English Ideology -- where are we today on these matters? How are the Californians doing? How about the English? (As you recall, Richard supported Tony Blair and he's still in office.) Most importantly, if we were all so smart 10 years ago, then are we still so smart today? What are the implications of Google reaching to become a $100B company? Retooling the world's economic infrastructure with Service Oriented Architectures? Shifting to OPEN services development? Grids with MILLIONS computers? China and India becoming global powerhouses *because* of these new technologies? Where is the group that can see 10 years out in future . . . today? Who's paying attention . . . today? Nettime(s)? Mark Stahlman New York City P.S. Much of what was being rebelled against in the 90's was the neo-liberal (actually eschatological) excesses of the Internet Bubble. As you might recall, efforts to point out that this was a BUBBLE and that would go away -- all its own, without any of our help -- were not particularly well received at the time. Seeing this crash-in-the-making clearly -- particularly in its religious terms -- didn't quite fit in, so like most other people, many rebels went flying right off the boom-bust clift without any skidmarks. Although nettime was in many ways finished (for some of us anyway) after Ljubljana, the collapse of WIRED magazine etal really put the final kibosh on the era. Without anything so simple to rebel against, why go on? # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
On Jun 8, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Geert Lovink wrote: Ted and Felix should be thanked for their massive work, move on and rotate, leaving others (a bigger group, I would suggest) to moderate the central nettime-l list. For the sake of clarity Geert are you putting yourself forward for all the hard work involved in being part of the next stage in the 'rotation'. you are proposing or is this a prompting that others rather than yourself should put themselves forward to take up this burden ? David # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA --- NE ?
dear nettimers, Interesting that when the list turns on itself (attention-wise) it suddenly comes alive! Makes me think that maybe it would be a good idea to organise also a Nettime Europe meeting - would be fun. Of course Felix would be invited (he's based in Europe already for some time), so as not to turn it into a 'private' meeting, and the webcast could be anounced well in advance - maybe Drazen can pick it up in NYC and relay it for the NNA crowd. Must say I'm really surprised by the energy unleashed here, which clearly indicates that such meetings (if they're not held too often) make sense. Congrats to the NNA organisers, and indeed a pitty that, like so many, I was unaware of this event and the webcast - would have liked to tune in... best wishes, eric # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
dear tobias, dear nettimers, i would merely like to congratulate tobias and the team in montreal for organising the meeting! i don't really understand the bickering and, tobias, don't worry, the fact that this meeting has taken place is already a great achievement, after many years of trying to do sth like this. i'm envious for not having been able to be there, and i hope that it is going to resonate positively on the list as well. (for me the question is, whether it is possible to get out of the stale-mate that the list seems to be in; is it possible to make communication more fluid again, or is the list just too old after 11 years? vuk - whatever happened to the spirit of 1996?) besides, there was ample information about the planned meeting beforehand, and as far as i am concerned, wherever two or three of you meet in the name of nettime, it can be called a nettime meeting. (excuse the paraphrase) greetings from sunny berlin, -a # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
I'll skip the comment on European levels of funding (I mean, tobias, Canada is hardly an underfunded environment and seems rather comfortable for a lot of people in Europe), but the questions raised by tobias' remarks on events and funding as well as the intimidating atmosphere on the list deserve - I think - discussion. Some comments ...: That those who attended were not those who make their presence felt in writing, here, was interesting for us. Whether this constitutes leeching or learning, or is a factor of various intimidating atmospheres produced by this list was itself a topic of discussion during the Gathering at various points ... 4. As for the lack of posts to the list, many if not most of the people there were on Nettime but said -- on the webcast, in public -- that they never bother posting due to an intimidating atmosphere on the list, because they feel they have nothing to contribute in this atmosphere, etc. Ken Werbin discussed aspects of list cultures in detail, including the diversity/unity problem of information today, and the problem of too many lists. Many of the people, like me, have been on the list for some years, but many, unlike me, don't feel comfortable posting. Gita Hashemi spoke on this specifically in relation to gender and technology. There were many others who chimed in as well, including Abe Burmeister, on the meaning of critical practice (net.critique) in the 21C and why this term might not resonate well with newer ways of thinking. This was all publicly webcast ... Why is it that out of so many thousands of subscribers, only a handful post? Good questions. Besides the general discrepancy between active and passive participants that always seems to exist in one form or another, some other explanations might be: 1) the increasing institutionalisation of critique, which in the case of nettime tends to manifest itself in a bias towards pieces of writing published (all for free, of course...) on the list at the expense of more - I'll just use this word for lack of a better alternative - holistic options, such as the Nettime-event in Montreal (too bad I couldn't be there ... but then... being an unfunded phd-student myself, how could I have paid for the ticket from london to montreal?) 2) As I see it, this also tends to lead to a preferential treatment - unconsciously so, for sure - of more theoretical and academic issues, which are enormously exciting, but - in the end - exclusionary by definition. Nothing wrong with that, but it could mean that some people on the list feel they have nothing to contribute to such an atmosphere. After all, those who have a boring job in order to pay the rent, cannot talk the talk on the same level as those well-funded associate professors and other academics on tenure. We are the newer or 2nd/3rd generation of Nettimers, who don't have stable careers, who won't benefit from this list to advance our said careers, and who are nonetheless trying to f*cking do something anyway! So there you have it! .. are we to be blamed for throwing this in the conditions which currently exist for DiY non_institutional events..? Does anyone realize that none of us are paid and that this was entirely voluntarily organised..? That there were NO funds to speak of...? That this took several months of work, yadda yadda? Which leads to these comments by Tobias. What would interest me is the question (and I'll just formulate it bluntly): what is the effect on nettime and net.culture in general of the fact that quite a lot of the 'star names' are increasingly part of the academic system? Even those critics that have started out 'outside' this system tend to end up here. Would be an interesting micro-research for a friday night: just count the amount of net.critics that are now part of academia, but were not 5 or 10 years ago. Again, I have nothing against academia, but it does mean that maybe net.culture.representatives should reflect more extensively on the discrepancy between net.rhetoric and academic reality. best, Bas # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
Tobias - I regret I wasn't able to make it. I'm in a remote spot in Switzerland at the moment, but followed the progress of the event with interest. Glad to see that it went well! We should try something in NYC. I think that the list has been a bit flat for a while, but hey, there's always more than one way to do things, and your event seems like a step in the right direction. Best wishes, Paul aka Dj Spooky # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
On Jun 7, 2006, at 5:13 AM, Andreas Broeckmann wrote: (for me the question is, whether it is possible to get out of the stale-mate that the list seems to be in; is it possible to make communication more fluid again, or is the list just too old after 11 years? vuk - whatever happened to the spirit of 1996?) If I remember correctly, many of the same questions were being asked in 1996 when a lot of the artists on the list felt constrained by the moderation and left or stopped posting. Since The Upgrade started out as an artists' group in NYC there's probably some concern about nettime being presented as an art project in that context -- a subject that is still relevant and should be discussed on nettime! not vuk Robbin Murphy THE THING, Inc. # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wed 06/07/06 at 12:38 PM -0400): But if our absence merely ended up paving the way for a 'private' -- through commission and omission -- event, can you tell me why exactly the name nettime had or has anything to do with it? Yikes..! double-yikes, indeed! this diminution is directed at not just the organizers but also the presenters. 1) i'd like to invite TED to define, for the illumination of all of us, what exactly he means by 'private'? i have Gladly. A bit more context for that quotation may help: Sorry to be so negative but Felix and I have put in many years of work underwritten by (in my view) a model of service more modest than the 'heroic' approach of nettime's Founding Fathers. In that light, it was entirely apt that neither of us ended up being at the ~meeting. But if our absence merely ended up paving the way for a 'private' -- through commission and omission -- event, can you tell me why exactly the name nettime had or has anything to do with it? As I explained in a subsequent private mail to Tobias, 'commission' and 'ommission' are slightly ~catholic terms for 'inaction' and 'action,' respectively. In 'commission' I was referring to the fact, among other things, that Geert Lovink -- who gladly accepts credit for nettime without mentioning that he hasn't really had much to do with it for the last 8+ years -- popped in for a chat at NNA. In 'omission' I was referring to the fact that the lack of any writeup on the list had, in effect, rendered NNA 'private' (hence Tobias's remark that moderators have been bugging me to write something of a report). It's my sense that later mail with Tobias cleared up some misunderstandings about commissions-as-in-funding and so on, which wasn't at all what I meant. no 'private' relations with any of the organizers, presenters or attendees, most of whom i met and/or became aware of for the first time in montreal. 2) in my view, the strength of the gathering was precisely that it paid little heed to 'nettime' as an identity/brand - even though most people were nettime subscribers - as it became a space for discussing critical practice more broadly (what exactly makes nettime fathers think that it's the be-all, end-all in criticality?), and for making connections that the online list does not encourage nor facilitate. so i ask TED to also clarify why the name nettime is so important to him? and more, what exactly does it mean to him? Let's say for the sake of argument that nettime is actually run by Satan himself. Do his motives matter? For most subscribers' purposes I think the answer is probably no. The very worst I could do is a pale shadow by comparison with him, so it seems like my motives would be that much less noteworthy. As for the rest, it's best to let straw men rest. Cheers, T # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
Thanks Tobias for the report -- I was a bit dismayed to receive the email announcing the stream too late to tune in, as I had wanted to. Although many of the issues definitely hit home, I guess I have found that nettime front-channel is what it is. I rely on it for noisy and occasionally brilliant topical and opinion bursts along with subjective viewpoints about this messy space of networks, media, and criticality. It rarely addresses praxis which I find problematic, and rarely applies principles to its own space of action, so, in that respect I see it as another channel of academic discourse -- more about Word and less about Action (note how many early nettimers have sought shelter in academia since 1996 from the more radical fields of cultural/media activism). I use it primarily as a stimulus for backchannel 1-to-1 interactions that are personally more satisfying and more energizing. Anyway, as an 'oldtimer', I realized that I have a pretty much complete Eudora archive of nettime back to January 1997 (prior to that the archive vanished into ELM heaven). It is interesting to sort on Sender and see what/who shows up. I thought to write a script of sorts to make a table for easier analysis, but haven't the brain power for that -- I would challenge somebody out there (preferably not a moderator!) to either be allowed access to a digital copy of the full online nettime archive to massage the data to provide this info -- or if possible, give me some input on how I can do that myself relatively easily. (It could also perhaps be instructive to compare my received-mail archive to the 'official one!) Cheers John # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime report_on_NNA
Let's say for the sake of argument that nettime is actually run by Satan himself. Do his motives matter? For most subscribers' purposes I think the answer is probably no. The very worst I could do is a pale shadow by comparison with him, so it seems like my motives would be that much less noteworthy. As for the rest, it's best to let straw men rest. This is of course, an issue -- facilitating a space for creative encounters among others is a control issue no matter where you set the slider-tab on the range from NO CONTROL (one devil) to TOTAL CONTROL (another devil). It is subjective, delicate, and always open to conflict-of-interest criticism. Ideally, such facilitation should provide a discursive space that is not too large to be difusive, and not too small to disallow experimentation. A moderator has to decide this range based on the full range of posts, and select a range where he/she believes to be reasonable (to whom?). Impossible mission. In terms of possible solutions to help nettime make the next evolutionary step, while retaining the format of list (vs blog, etc) what about, for example, that moderators not be allowed to post except back channel to individual subscribers -- this would eliminate instantly the very real conflict between moderation and opinion which has generated more noise than necessary (and more noise than signal on several occasions). Moderators should have a public email address (public to subscribers) for back channel communications, and that communications content should be placed on an archive server. Easy technical solutions. I can't imagine that you can say Geert has had nothing to do with nettime for 8 years. That's total bullshit. And not that I always have the time to read his prodigious posts nor do I frequently even agree with his ideas -- anyone who reads, lurks, posts, subscribes is as much a participant as any other. If you understand networks, I don't understand how you can make such a statement. You are not acting as a moderator when you say something like that. You shouldn't be a moderator if you think things like that. As someone who has admined my share of lists over the years, it seems that nettime has had the worst time with the relation between moderation or lack thereof. In spite of this there has been a decent flow of interesting ideas. For that I am thankful. And I respect the work of adminning and moderation (and the dedication of Felix and Ted and the others who do this kind of facilitation), but maybe it's time to look for new moderators, or have a rotating moderation structure. Ted, you sound as though you are burning out, and that's no position to be in when attempting this kind of facilitation... Facilitation is not about carrying crosses. Cheers JOhn # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
