Hi Ben,
Two general points before I go into detailed responses below. Last point first.
- “Maybe I’m being overly sensitive but there seems to be no acknowledgement of this recent comment, combined with the fact that last month you completely cut me out of a potential collaboration which Annemarie put on the table via email on the grounds of ‘diversity’. What gives?”
- I asked to have a separate call with Annemarie to explore potential for building two upcoming EU funding calls. Before we even get into any discussions about content, we need to figure out if we can build the conditions to be able to participate (lots of EU requirements, need to find leading partner with specific administrative capacity and experiences etc) as a partner organisation. I really have a hard time following her especially when other UK based people are in the “room”: there will be a lot of implicit assumptions, references to things that are new/foreign to others, etc so in order to really understand what is going on I prefer one on one conversations (see forwarded email). We are still looking for possible lead partner, so I’ve been exploring how to step up efforts to find them.
- This concept note was produced after a conversation with a person called Stefano Maffei at Politechnico in Milan in which he explained that in order to engage prospective lead partners we ought to present a couple of themes that the community is exploring. If they see a match with their current areas of interest then it is more likely that the people we reach out to will make an effort to get their organisations on board.
- “I’m saying this now because I think it’s important to be clear about this - and because I have observed this as a worrying trend in EdgeRyders (i.e Case Study Adventures going into other contracts/offers is awkward, given that I and others designed and ran that project with my/our own funds, time and since then have received zero remuneration from the LOTE4 budget).”
- This is important to me. Please specify exactly what you mean here, can you give examples? To the best of my knowledge the Case Study Adventures have been referenced (although a conversation is still ongoing about how, if at all to make use of them) within the context of the same Rockefeller Grant that made funding travel, accommodations, food etc for LOTE4 available of which you were well aware that I was pursuing.
-
The Rockefeller grant is for developing the Open Ethnographer free software and even this is going back into the community in the form of paid tasks that anyone can claim and submit (more info here). Only a small chunk of it was for LOTE4, but this is what we could get (they weren’t up for funding an event, only parts of it as part of the work of developing the software).
-
Lauren Lapidge, Maria Byck and yourself have been offered reimbursement for travel costs incurred during the case study adventures from the money left once all the invoices agreed on in advance were paid. To be clear, no one else except for I think Natalia (she moved to Matera and worked full time for two months) has been renumerated for the time put into building a great event. That we would all be working on volunteer basis was explicit from the beginning, or am I missing something?
- “Nadia, the HackCare manifesto, HackCare the phrase and the concept of Hacker Care homes, these are all things that I have been working on for the past 6 months to a year, with a diverse group of people (that happen not to be on the ER platform), I decided to run a session on this at LOTE4 with Remy because I thought it would be interesting and that there would be a lot of overlap with conversations that we’ve had in the community in the past years. I didn’t do this because I wanted this to instantly become an EdgeRyders project. Especially given that in the UK I have been in discussion with possible partners and funders over the past few months.”
- Yes. This is also a conversation many others have been having for years and in many different fora. Almost two years ago Susanne and I made this visualisation that was used for discussions during #31C3, my own home is a prototype in response to the need for inter-generational living spaces and I am currently looking for a space to scale up the prototype in Brussels. Your reaction gives rise to some questions for me: How do you relate to everyone who contributes to the work on open platforms- are they not “co-authors”? Do they not have shared ownership of the ideas and concepts they participate in developing? How about those who help create conditions/setting for those discussions to happen? Even if people have in our/your opinion contributed nothing to a context or conversation, I don’t know how you would go about enforcing ownership of names etc without breaking community and open collaboration.
- “Whilst I generally don’t take issue or make claims of ownership, I find this post, and re-appropriation of the research material that comes from a very considerable amount of work, with zero interaction with myself (putting it mildly) quite offensive.”
- Help me understand what it is you find offensive? The explicit purpose of LOTE4 on Stewardship that we worked on together was to generate more opportunities for more people to work on things that matter. You would explore options in your directions and contexts, others explore them elsewhere. This is how the event was built, it is how resources were surfaced for unMonastery, for LOTE4 and many future things to happen: which in themselves are the result of very considerable work put in over a couple of years now. The purpose of a closed group is that we can post strategies, ideas, proposals and documents etc to be discussed before they go public, and you are in this closed group, so I am a bit confused about the zero interaction part…