Citizen Powered Government? A call for a “GRM”(?) solution.
Somewhere, and I can’t recall the place, I heard the term “citizen powered internet”. It may have been “citizen powered broadband”. Doc Searls often (correctly, such as here), brings light to why the terms matter — certain companies use the term broadband to mean internet, and vice-versa. There is a distinction (a “place” versus “pipes”), but not one that I intend to cover here.
I’ve heard of citizen powered *energy* initiatives. This is where a group of people band together to explore spreading the cost and risk of alternative energy initiatives across a small community.
Maybe it is “Community Powered Internet”, that I heard? (The idea of initiatives where those who are un- and/or under- served with regard to internet access can leverage a community to distribute the costs of bringing high speed internet {aka ‘broadband’} to their neighbors and themselves..) Of course, better for private entrepreneurs (WISPs and such) to see the potential to serve/service those who are still wandering in the high-speed desert, but without any interest (big corp or small entrepreneur) — you take whatever oasis you can find
I wrote a little thing here on the whole SOPA (and without mentioning it, as many seem not to, PIPA) thing. Seriously. This is not in the past yet, so don’t assume “quick coverage” means that this particular fight is over. However, it is one of many symptoms of what is a greater problem for the Citizens of the United States, and by aggregation, the world. Doc has some good summaries here, and here. And as SOPA seems to have lost its steam (and hopefuly PIPA behind it) … I was reading some Cory Doctorow. Okay, specifically this Cory Doctorow. I think he is right. Except in a few minor ways.
- The war isn’t coming, it’s here. (SOPA isn’t end game, but it isn’t the first volley either.)
- And it is not a war on general computing. “General computing” is one of many battlegrounds.
[INTERLUDE:]
If you are reading this post on January 18, 2012 … many of the links will be sour. Many places of research and such have underwent a SOPA ‘look into the dangerous future’ blackout. I am pretty sure they are correct, though …
[/INTERLUDE]
… and even if SOPA/PIPA are gone… guess what. The bastard stepchild might slip by the radar. These challenges are not likely to stop — things kind of have a way of being resuscitated until someone falls asleep at the wheel.
In draft, from somewhere around my first few weeks writing this blog, I have an unfinished post “On this land, I plant seeds that take root … (Part II)”. It is the other shoe dropping of a discussion about the internet that I had linked to the concept of a mature garden. One of the chief arguments I stated as “Make no mistake: Food is politics.“ (As an aside, I often wonder which subjects I should lend my ideas to, and sometimes feel a bit pretentious re-stating things stated well elsewhere… the unpublished state of the post is due to one of such crises of confidence I have, at times.) The argument was about local. It was about markets and their conversations . It was about freedom. And self reliance. It was about techno solutions for techno problems, and true (literal) down to earth solutions to a feeling of groundlessness in The Cloud. It was all of these things, and in addition: unwritten {essentially}. It was shorter than this paragraph about it, but much more of a topic than I have time for here.
You see? It can be crippling: How pretentious is it to write about gardens, broadband, IP (Intellectual Property) and Patents , IP (Internet Protocol) blocking {SOPA} — all on a technologist’s blog?
Apparently, not so much as I thought. A friend writes about the New Zealand “Food Bill” being shopped around in his neck of the woods. Essentially, corporations writing legislation because corporations have found that easier than legitimate competition. I think it is a well thought out piece. His *fight* is local, as it should be. That being said, we in the US should feel good that *we* don’t have that type of thing here, right? Wrong. Here’s one in the early stages (H.R. 307: Seed Availability and Competition Act of 2011), a re-hashing of H.R. 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. (Here’s the link that came up as I was searching for the specific bill I was looking for.) And that is not all… Monsanto spent a great deal of time genetically engineering crops, but not so much time figuring out the answer to a few thorny details:
- Seed spreads by wind and water and fowl and …
- …some people do not believe in GMO .. and ..
- …patents seem to stifle innovation …
..and so, they sue the farmers whose crops are actually **contaminated** by this franken-seed. As I told my friend, when he shared his fight with me — “we’re way ahead of you” (to paraphrase: down this legislative road to hell.)
Let’s mash the preceding stuff back in with: Copyright. As I was creating this blog, back in May 2011, I was reading some stuff about the Internet and the Cloud that I had not read during my semi-sabbatical from the Web (Lessig’s Code and Free Culture and about the technology, and its possible side-effects .. etc.. ). The Internet was not a safe “wild west” for techies, geeks, innovators and outcasts– after all, the “wild west” had been tamed. And that is a trite summary of the books by Lawrence Lessig that I have had an opportunity to read. The books were predictive, scary while reading “alongside” the current events … I first heard of Lessig with regard to copyright. The “content industry” reps (RIAA, MPAA, etc..) , and their shills, have been extending copyright law in the USA ad absurdium for years and years. It was time for another challenge. Eldred was that challenge. From the jaws of defeat, Lessig spearheaded(created?) the Creative Commons license(s)… to content what the GPL is to code.
Following the money, we can tell where varied initiatives such as the above come from. And we can tell, from those drafting the legislation, where their true loyalties lie. We know it is not with us. And we feel that we are voiceless.
GRM : Citizen Powered Government
And, lest you think that this whole blog post was some sort of advanced bait-and-switch attempt to do a little blog-rolling and indulge in a self-blog-cross-reference love fest, we come to the spark that ignited this piece to begin with (…okay, one more tiny topic linkage, and then we are golden.)
From the guy that brought you “Markets are conversations”, and a whole bunch of other people whose hard work and dedication he will more than share the stage with, comes ProjectVRM (Doc is where I heard about it..) You see, the business world developed a whole suite of knowledge, software and expertise surrounding the managing of clients(|customers) — CRM {Client Relationship Management}. Taking a term and coining a new one is a pastime, I think, of Doc’s. – Or recognizing a good re-coining {I think, and hopefully.} – VRM is the idea of turning the relationship back to where we (call us clients, customers, cattle {don’t, actually. that would just piss us off}) have tools to manage our relationships with vendors.
And so, to the point. A re-re-coining in the “RM” paradigm:
GRM == Government(|Governance) Relationship Management.
And before you say — “but wait! Dave, we have that– it’s called the United States Democracy!” — bear with me the final stretch. (And since I have a Poli Sci degree, let me say, we are a republic..not a democracy. Our government is “representative democracy” {at least in theory}).
The American Citizen lacks true agency with regard to the laws that are passed in his/her name. Nominally, these laws represent our wishes. Actually, these laws have been bought and paid for by interests that do not represent a majority. The elections are often remarked as being a choice between the “lesser of two evils”. That there are only two (in my opinion) is an evil unto itself — but take that out of the equation — That it is a choice between apathies **is the evil**. The game is rigged, and the system allows politicians into it who play by the rules, and the roles, that have been etched in stone. Even “Washington outsider” is a co-opted role that is meaningless lip-service weighed against pathetic returns.
The government, the elections and the representation is suspect. We as a populace have, for the large part, distanced ourselves from the making of laws (the sausage factory), and distanced ourselves from ownership of our government. Bring your favorite conspiracy theory, or just accept that the way history as played so far has brought us here, one thing is for sure: The American government is a corporate shill. And no. Corporations AREN’T people.
In short, I think it is time for the United States of America to experiment with democracy– It is an idea whose time may have finally come. And I think we need the tools to provide democratic agency to ourselves, and our neighbors.
I do not know what each of these tools would like in the final product, but I’d like to propose my own brain-child for consideration.
Maybe we’ll call it ‘referendi’.. the first of varied ways that we as a citizenry can manage our relationship to the government institution.
Referendi : First generation GRM software
Software to provide registered and eligible voters of a specific district / electoral classification some (or all) of the following capabilities:
- Plain spoken summaries of pending legislation/initiatives
- Forum for discussion
- An up or down voting option
We live in a digital age. Greek democracy required going to the political forum. We can do better.
Take this software (or some service like it) and tie it to a representative’s vote.
That’s right… we’re looking for a candidate (or many
).. all they have to do is show up, make impassioned speeches that back the ideas of their constituents (no — not those guys — the ones who actually live in your district), and vote their majority.
I think it would have to happen semi-locally (House of Representatives, or even State House of Representatives) at first… but who knows… Either way, it could be clear where the actual constituents stand on a situation … perhaps more electoral intelligence than a fax to the Senator, and a step toward true representation. (There is evidence that the Founders feared true democracy. But we can do better)
Daily, the forces that currently own our representatives try to chip away at the freedoms and rights that we as citizens of the United States of America have fought for, and that we as citizens of this world have a right to. Somehow, this tide needs to be turned. And every battle–be it SOPA, Food Bills , PIPA or campaign finance [[26 mins later :: I forgot the war on internet radio .... just thought it deserved a nod --DSW]]– needs to be fought, no doubt.
But somehow, as we fight each incursion, we owe it to ourselves to evolve to a truly democratic society: to see the bigger picture.
IS: On the importance of an open internet [[WAS: On the importance of Open Source software]]
So… in various ways, I’ve been at the edges of the Open Source Software phenomena for awhile. I cut my teeth as a software engineer compiling linux code and drivers from source while learning about the history of “unix”, “the internet”, and all that cool stuff; this was in tandem with writing my own open source software “for fun”. My first industry trade-show was a Linux World, and I have had thoughts about intellectual property, software, the interwebs, and all that, for some time now, since before that first trade-show…since before an email I wrote to a CEO at a company I worked for changed the path of my career back towards “technologist” and away from sales…
A few weeks ago, realizing that I had been running silent, starting a new job, etc.. I came across people that actually did not “get” open source software. Not that they disagreed with the concept on principle, and not that they were non-programmer types (who are simply ‘less likely’ to get it–not a slight..people who don’t deal with computers in terms of “source code” have no frame of reference for “open source code”), but a person or two who *should* know what the conversation is actually about, and don’t. That was when I committed myself (okay, really, I didn’t, as that draft sat for another 3-4 weeks, and now this one is being written in its stead), to writing something about it. Something all of my readers could “grok” (yeah, that term came to public usage, coined by Heinlein, via the internet hacker (read: programmer) culture), despite whatever background they came from…
“On the importance of open source” was to be a writing experiment and a chance to post some new insights, were I to come up with them. Find a pulpit, and hopefully not preach to the choir. It is still an awesome topic. The gist is, the source code of a computer program can be made available to other programmers, the net result being more people (eyeballs) looking at and improving the source code (recipe) that makes the programs on our computers work. I have a lot more to say about that, but something else is in the wind.
(HR:3261) Stop Online Piracy Act:
You see, open source is an important ingredient that lead to the creation of the internet as we know it. An incredible medium for communication, speech, commerce and thought, the internet something the hackers built. With open source tools. You see .. it ties in. But as has been warned, the “free and open” internet would only be free for so long. For so long as it could defy and route around interventions that would restrict its reach and capabilities.
Since this new place that defied jurisdiction came to the scene, there have been people interested in curtailing it. “Intellectual Property” rights holders and “content manufacturers” (of all sorts) feared what this place would do to their business model. The model is based on “closed”. It is based on creating artificial scarcity, and marketing that as product. On the surface, this bill goes up against the big bad pirates, and protects the starving artists from their rapiers and steel. What it really does is give broad capabilities to “take down” websites from the internet without legal justification. You can take down a site just by *claiming* their is infringing material (material that infringes a copyright, not even sure if it has to be your own). This broad reaching censorship made law is a true strike against the open internet, and a strike from the hand of free society at the very heart of free society. For that, it is time to (call, email, show up at the office of, tweet, facebook message, google+ post, fax …) your senators and representatives– before doing any (or all) of these things is also no longer protected speech and redress
Keurig: A tale of excellent service
This is a bit of a departure from what I normally blog about. Almost a year ago, I purchased a Keurig machine for a variety of purposes.
- Quick coffee for guests
- Guest choice for coffee
- After breaking approximately 20 carafes in my lifetime thus far, I had settled into what I call ghetto coffee maker mode. This involves boiling water in a teapot, using the drip container from one of the many defunct coffee makers of my past, and a large mason jar.
- Easy water for brewing tea bags traditionally (steep method).
And here are some of the reasons why we had avoided the Keurig (or other single cup brew options):
- Waste/plastic/environment (still an issue, eco-confessionals are a regular thing now
) - Expense (the coffee costs more as compared to traditional brewing. I do drink less now, though, so perhaps that offsets in health expenses the actual per-cup cost.)
But we took the plunge, and for 8 months, all was beautiful. Then, it would stop in the middle of heating water, requiring an unplug and a 10+ minute timeout before it could heat the water again. Tried cleaning it, to no avail. And then, about 2 months ago, it just stopped turning on.
Not usually a details man, this one kind of waited until Veterans day for me to contend with. Calling up the company, and seeing what they could do for me.
The rest of the story is quite simple:
November 11th, 2011:
Called Keurig, told them my woes, gave them my serial number, and was told that they would be sending a replacement (awesome.) Given the following pieces of information on the phone:
- Took up to 2 business days to process the replacement
- Would take up to 7 additional business days to arrive.
Hey… considering that the receipt was gone, and that they were doing basically the right thing — who could complain, right?
November 12th, 2011:
Doorbell rings a little before noon. FedEx home delivery hands me a box. Inside box is my new Keurig machine.
This was just simply awesome. I think often times we share the ugly, and forget to share the great experiences that we have with a company or organization. I am very pleased, and very caffeinated, yet again.
Selling is about healthy relationships! (RE: Harvard Business Review blog on “Selling is not about relationships”)
This blog post was inspired by reading a blog post on Harvard Business Review.
Go there and read it if you’d like, first. I’ll wait
For starters… I want to frame this post with the following items of understanding:
- Little editing was done to this before draft-to-publish. I hope it stands up to my regular concept of a quality blog post
- I was in sales for the early part of my adult life. Much of it was “retail”, and a lot of the measurements and thoughts in the referenced blog are for “b2b”. That these are different selling environments is accepted as true, although, I posit that in both cases, people can be selling to other people, if they are doing it right. In both cases (retail and b2b) it is p2p that matters, or so I have always thought.
- I don’t regularly read Harvard Business Review. The link I followed was courtesy of LinkedIn.
- I have always felt that there is a sales component to every job that people do. Many people do not like salespeople. I argue that they haven’t met the right salespeople. In the best of worlds, salespeople are highly trained professionals, adept at understanding what you need, and matching those things, of the products and services that they provide, which match your need. A true sales professional, in my opinion, is one who is categorized by a quote I share from one of my sales directors (when I was managing as cellular retail phone store back in the days of analog cellular. Her name is Wendy, and as I am quoting from memory, I have paraphrased a bit, most likely.)
I define a great sales person as: ‘One who is capable of turning shoppers into buyers with sales that wear well’
In the article, the authors categorize all b2b sales people as one of 5 types (the descriptions are in the HBR blog post.)
- Relationship Builders
- Hard Workers
- Lone Wolves
- Reactive Problem Solvers
- Challengers
Typically, it is thought that the first group would outperform all others, and sales as relationship building has gotten a great deal of effort, training, recruiting, etc… associated with it. The authors posit that it is not relationship builders, but rather, the last group, Challengers that truly perform the best (There is a study to back it up. The study also suggests that those in the Relationship Builders class perform the lowest.) I will paste the descriptions of the two below, for making the rest of my blog post clear:
- Relationship Builders focus on developing strong personal and professional relationships and advocates across the customer organization. They are generous with their time, strive to meet customers’ every need, and work hard to resolve tensions in the commercial relationship.
- Challengers use their deep understanding of their customers’ business to push their thinking and take control of the sales conversation. They’re not afraid to share even potentially controversial views and are assertive — with both their customers and bosses.
I think this is a very positive thing for both types if, indeed, customers respond better to the Challengers. It is good for the people who keep trained, keep knowledgeable about all approaches, and understand their customer deeply enough to know where proposed solutions might not match desired outcomes. This involves identifying with the problems that their customers are facing, listening both to what they are saying, and what they are not saying, and suggesting alternatives that should provide better solutions. As these people are strong of mind and will, they stand up to organizational pressures from both sides of the “aisle”.
So, maybe you are asking the question: Why is it good for Relationship Builders as well?
My theory is simple:
- Challengers are not actually a distinct type of sales person. Challengers are a special type of the “Relationship Builders” category. The in-common skills and behaviors they possess are that they (are trying to) form relationships with their customers.
- Challengers are a special non-”co-dependant” subset of the Relationship Builders type. Simply put, they are not “yesmen”. They help the customer buy what they need, even if it is not precisely what they came to the table wanting.
- It is highly possible that the original models for the “relationship based selling” hubbub were actually Challengers. Not only did they understand the environment. Not only were they responsive and available to their customers, but they had such a healthy relationship with the people at these organizations, that they could effectively say “no, I don’t think we should do it that way–and I’ll tell you why.” They had a healthy enough relationship with their co-workers that they could say “I think we can do this better.”
- In the rush to hire relationship based sales people, or to refactor their existing sales organizations into being relationship based, sales organizations may have wound up with a significant number of pseudo-relationship based practices and salespeople.
Not sure if I am right, but I think I am.
And I can’t help but think that this type of pseudo-personality based selling is what has brought us to the “customer loyalty card” fiasco at local shopping stores. (How many do you have in your wallet/on your keychain?) The various keyword based ads we see online. The impersonal attempts of a computer system to sound personal while harvesting your data and delivering your eyeballs to the highest bidding purveyor of crap. Every business now wants you to “Like” them on Facebook.
There is a project that I have been aware of for awhile called Project VRM. It looks to address the issues that the world of “Client Relationship Management” (CRM) has exacerbated. Doc Searls is involved (an understatement) — It looks like its where he focuses most of his effort these days. If these things aren’t related, I’m sure Doc would tell me why
I am pretty sure that they are.
If I have to “be sold”, you probably haven’t done your job right. If you suggest something, and I want to buy it, because I get the distinct feeling that you’ve paid attention to the information I’ve shared, and done some thinking on top of it, chances are you did your job right.
I posit that you can’t just talk to people. It is about the conversation. Every time you encounter a potential customer, it is about relating. It is about understanding. It is about creating a healthy relationship with other people, where something you are selling may indeed be what they are buying.
Check your assumptions :: Science is comprised of theories that have yet to be disproved (aka “Roll your own express elevators”)
Mainly, I am a bystander in the global warming discussion. In many circles, catastrophic signals of global warming seem to be incontrovertible fact. Many pseudo-scientists weigh in on the discussion, and of course, brow-beating and other impolite forms of debate ensue. In the wake, real scientists on either side of the issue (namely: Are humans irrevocably changing the environment of this earth in ways that will make it unsuitable for human life in the relatively not-to-distant-future?) get caught in a perilous cross-fire of politics, religious fanaticism, and debate trolls.
My gut feeling is that the environment is changing, and to the detriment of humans living on the earth. This was my gut feeling before Al Gore began his crusade. It was my feeling before Al Gore invented the internet
.
I was thinking recently of how sometimes data acts to reinforce myths as fact. Information that could be analyzed in a positive light toward the theory at hand are used to bolster said theory.
Take for example, a theory that I held regarding elevators in tall buildings, specifically ones that stop, it seems, on every floor imaginable on the way to the floor you are trying to get to. These elevators lack an “express” button. The theory was simply this: if I held down simultaneously the “door close” button and the button for the floor that I was trying to get to, it would keep the elevator from stopping. (Let us disregard whether this is a polite thing to do in a building where many people need to change floors frequently, that is a different debate. Also, let us debate whether or not taking the stairs instead of the elevator might function as a low-tech “stairmaster” and improve my overall health. Again, a different debate.)
Armed with this theory of the “roll your own” express elevator, I could put it to the test. Every time I needed to get to Floor 12 from the Lobby, I performed this action. Going down? The same. For a solid week. And you know what? Evidence suggested that I was correct. Wow! I figured it out! No more waiting for various passengers, I was the master of the building’s vertical transportation! Mwu ha ha ha…
Except: the theory was wrong. One day, assuming I could express my way downstairs and head to the parking lot, it stopped on floor 10. And then 9. And then 2. What went wrong?
I had gathered evidence for my theory, but theories are never proven. They remain theories until disproven (disproved?). Science works like this. What went wrong is that, when dealing with scientific theory, it is the data that disproves that is sought, and constantly re-sought. Theories are proposed. The model environment for experimentation is one where data is cast in the role of skeptic. Theories that stand the test of time (rigorous experimentation and data gathering) are stronger theories, but they are still theories.
Climate science (and the “Climate Science” debate) lacks this perspective, by and by.
I am not saying that there are not serious scientists trying to figure out if we have irrevocably horked up our “operating environment”. The (not-actually-in-the) background chatter is noise. And I think that the issue needs serious scientific discussion to be of use.
An aside… I have not given up the idea that there is a “roll your own” express elevator — just came to realize that the “floor+close” method does not work
PS: Many times, when I author a post like this, I spend a great deal of time fashioning and re-fashioning my thought. This post kind of got drafted and written in a 5 minute window, so I hope it holds up to my normal “post-blogged review” standards. I don’t intend to edit it.
PPS: Also, when writing a blog, I generally try to incorporate links to what I read that inspired me at that time to write something about a topic. Today I tried something different. I deliberately sought out some topic to blog about today, as I have been remiss in updates to this blog. As such, these places are not my usual blog hangouts. Still, referencing (linking) is the glue that holds the internet together. So, for this blog post, they are here:
- This is a blog I saw featured on the wordpress dashboard, as a popular wordpress blog. It is a little more “the end is nigh”-ey than I normally would find myself reading.
- This is a blog post that mentions some scientists that have taken abuse and/or have chosen to dis-associate themselves with “reputable” science organizations due to the lack of science in Climate Science (it asks if Climate Science can be considered a science) (also from scouring the wordpress blog links on the dashboard)
