Note to List: I love chewing on this "vision thing"; it's the way I operate:
identifying and evaluating grand principles, assimilating them into my
personal philosophy and then seeking to practice that thru my words, actions
and affiliations (and perhaps it is the same for everyone; we just choose
different styles of worldview) <end of waaaaaaaaaay more information than
anyone wanted>

But, if for some, much of this abstraction is too esoteric for even the
project mission list, then perhaps a project "philosophy" list is in order
that can be subscribed to or not? I'm fine with the current arrangement,
just want to accommodate those who may not be. Thoughts?

Anyway, for those above mentioned of lesser enthusiasm for "brain farts"
delete this

> Centralized is simpler. Centralized is easier. Centralized works wonders
> until it doesn't and then it stands arms akimbo in the way of the
> future.

As in all things, it's a bit of both IMHO. One of the tenets of complex
adaptive system theory (and holism before that) is the idea of feedback
loops between hierarchal scales of "influence". Large/small, global/local,
central/distributed. There is always a "balance" between these poles (though
not strict "equilibrium" in the classic "gas law" sense, indeed "far from"
it - yes I use a lot of quotes, it's the relativist's curse) but that ratio
is dynamic and thus adaptive.

Point here is that centralized is good and decentralized is good. But too
much of either in a given "environment" is dangerous to the system's
survival. Too much central control and you can't adapt quickly enough to
changing conditions (turning the titanic, so to speak); too little and so
much "unfiltered", uncoordinated local innovation "bubbles up" that chaos
ensues. But how to "find' that elusive balance? (the concept of a federal as
opposed to a confederal state raises it's head here, but we won't go

Fortunately for our heroes, another aspect of above mentioned systems is
self-organization. The balance can't be found, but it may be allowed to
"find" itself (and re-find itself perpetually...) by building in robust
flexibility; again effectively "getting out of the way". And I think that is
part of the value of this "navel gazing" regarding the process; it's the
distributed feedback to the central, consensual "control". Keeping us

> So either the media-network intelligence goes in the nodes of the
> network, or it goes straight to the center of the Dean Media Team
> mother-ship.

To my mind we have successfully maintained enough flexibility and
independence, thus far, to realize or immediate goals and beyond; because
the original concept fostered that flexibility and the process sustains it.
(I especially like the idea of allowing the "nodes/indivduals" to
self-supply moderation) We will most likely continue to do so despite AND
because of our campaign partnership. We can happily be "in bed" with the
campaign, I believe, as long as we're not "married" to it, so to speak. So I
remain optimistic and excited.

While I'm waxing(waning? whining?) philosophic, I had read about half of
Duncan Watts' Six Degrees recently then put it down to attend to other
things. I'm going to pick it back up now with project context in mind and
see what useful principles might be applicable. The basic "small world"
tenet of highly connected, local networks which are minimally (but
optimally) globally connected seems to have some "legs" here; more on this


<--enter gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here-->

Reply via email to