Okay, after a couple of hours of thinking and trying to map this out and bouncing said thoughts off Zack, here's the thinking: there is no reason for a distinct get local module. Get local is events.
So, when we say "get local implementation module" that's just event.module with the ability to import/export a feed to get local. That way people don't have to look in 2 places, either will have all information. Event.module is seperate from action.module but they should be able to link to each other. That is, the event record should be able to have a field to link to the "project" node (that has tasks for that event) and the "project" node should be able to have a field that links to the event. I think what muddied the thinking water was that events are an action in real life, but in terms of technical DeanSpace stuff, events shouldn't be under action. Since Neil is already working on event, I am going to start work on action. Does that make sense? ~Alison > 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. > >>>>GREAT! > > 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. > >>>>YEAH! Yes, we do want to continue to use GET LOCAL--and our focus in > the next months is making it work as well as possible. We're hiring > someone just to focus on the GET LOCAL improvements. Right now we're > working on fixing about 20 things about it to make it more usable (and > right now over 400 events/mo are on Get Local, so they are getting > used--just not for Meetup). > > 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. > >>>>Right > > Though we do need a way to interact with Get Local. (Note to people > working on profile modifications - make zip code mandatory.) > >>>> here's where we're going to get a feed from the Get Local tools to a > boz that the modules can pull from, by zip or other criteria. > > 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... > >>>I think I answered this now -- does it make sense? We need a Get Local > interaction module. We will make it public -- it's the top priority for > us when we finalize a contract to make modifications. > > Thanks so much! > > ~Alison > >> 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 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Meetup at http://www.deanforamerica.com/meetup >> Get local at http://action.deanforamerica.com >> Contribute at http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 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 > Quiet" -- "...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 Quiet"