I read Ping's description of the action.module last night and I agree with
Zephyr it has to be a high priority. Here's my entre into it's creation.

I think that project.module could be modified to do this. Since I'm the
one that just played with it to create helpdesk.module I'm volunteering to
take on action.module since media is stalled.

I am unsure what "linking to the Get Local tools" means. Does this mean
Get Local tools are going to continute to exist on DFA but that they want
them integrated with DeanSpace or just that we want Get Local
functionality? The ultimate goal I think, needs to be people *using* the
tools. I have a Meetup listed in the Get Local tools and I know it's an
undercount simple because people won't go there to sign up.

Also, action.module will be able to do more than what get local does.
Plus, I'm not sure action.module could replace get local without every
county immediately establishing a site... So I've answered my own question
- in technical terms, right now at least, action.module isn't going to
replace Get Local.

Though we do need a way to interact with Get Local. (Note to people
working on profile modifications - make zip code mandatory.)

So here's a question, now that I've shared my though process with you and
this is mostly directed towards Zephyr: do we need an action module (that
can do more than get local but can't replace it) or a get local
interaction module first? I hazard a guess that Get Local is most
important, but it is also going to require that get local somehow
syndicates or makes publically available its information, which is
something I don't have any control over...


> Hey all!
> From DFA's perspective, we're interested in getting this kit out as soon
> as possible -- and for a bunch of reasons, we don't think we can push
> DMT. (Most of them, but not all, are legal, fwiw, but as such critical
> to our lawyer's ok and getting this out the door.) If anyone has any
> questions about this, feel free to get in touch with me offline.
> So for the kits that we push, at least, whether or not we suggest a link
> to DMT, we've got to do a distributed system for the modules.
> Finally, I'd love to push the vanilla version as soon as possible - I
> don't want to push you guys, but I believe that the usability of the kit
> depends on people using it, experimenting, telling us what works, and
> then improving it. Much more important than the media part is the
> section linking to the Get Local tools. It should be a simple module,
> but its critical to us that people use these tools to reach out in their
> community.
> What's your collective sense of time frame?
> Thanks so much.
> Z
> The work DMT has done is fantastic, but, in brief, centralized nervous
> systems create a different set of responsibilities for the campaign. In
> fact, just a few issues with the video production related to a
> centralized system can throw off our ability to connect to it at all. We
> have to be cautious here -- I'm sorry if its tough.
> Zephyr Teachout
> Internet Organizing & Outreach
> Dean for America
> Meetup at http://www.deanforamerica.com/meetup
> Get local at http://action.deanforamerica.com
> Contribute at http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Ka-Ping Yee
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 2:40 AM
> To: Zack Rosen
> Cc: 'Jon Lebkowsky'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [hackers] Edge-to-Edge Principle / Reed's Law
> Zack & Jon -- i'm not sure it's a good idea to copy David Reed and Larry
> Lessig on these huge e-mail messages.  It might be impolite to ask their
> opinion Without giving them the context of the discussion.
> (And for God's sake i finally had to fix the spelling in the subject. I
> couldn't take it any more...)
> Anyway, i just wanted to address one thing for now --
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Zack Rosen wrote:
>> 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.
> A few times now you've talked about "having to get permission from DMT"
> or being "controlled by DMT", and now the "DMT mother-ship".  It's clear
> that you don't like the idea of someone else telling us what to do. But
> it's unfair to describe DMT so adversarially, as though they were some
> sort of independent controlling entity.
> There is no "us" and "them".  We are all on the same team.
> We're in this together.  Would you feel different if we were talking
> about america.fordean.net as the search hub instead?  Why does it
> matter?
> Slashdot has a reasonably open moderation system, where they hand out
> moderator access to lots of people.  The end result of the moderation is
> a pretty good consensus on which comments are informative and which ones
> are pointless flames.  And i don't have a sense that the discussion
> there is being stifled or censored by single-minded moderation.  (The
> discussions may be biased because of the user population, but that's a
> different thing).
> Would you be so unhappy with a system that worked as well as Slashdot?
> It would probably be better, since (a) we wouldn't be relying on a
> couple of dictators to select all the articles, and (b) our user
> population would probably be better-behaved.
> -- ?!ng

"...somebody came along and said liberal means soft on crime, soft on
drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense. And we're going to tax you back
to the stone age because people shouldn't have to work if they don't want
to. And instead of saying 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing reactionary,
xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun Leave it to
Beaver trip back to the '50s'. We cowered in the corner and say, 'Please
don't hurt me'. . . . Let's have two parties. . . ." The West Wing: "Gone

Reply via email to