While I was at Banff, I attended a workshop were we discussed “the ethics of collaboration”. I understood the terms at face value, of course, but didn’t really realize the concept’s implications and relevance to my own work until a recent event with some former collaborators. It was this event that caused me to re-examine what it means to work together, and what the ethics of collaboration/collectives are (at least to me).

Searching the Internet for “ethics of collaboration”(!), I found an *excellent* paper, which I want to highlight because of its relevance. The paper is called, “The The Tyranny of Structurelessness” by the relatively-famous scholar Jo Freeman.

In the paper, the author writes about formal/informal organizational structures and communication channels, and asserts explicit structure is the best way to avoid hegemony by an “elite”. It seems to almost touch upon parts of Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory of social networks, particularly his idea of a “obligatory point of passage”, though she never uses those terms (they didn’t exist, I suppose–Latour wrote in the ’80s; she in 1970).

Not only does her description of outside-the-organization friends as an “elite” hit the nail right on the head, but so does her notion of looking at “whose approval is the stamp of acceptance” to understand who really has power in an organization. She also hits the mark when she says those who are on the “outside” often suffer from “paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware”. I might argue with her as to whether they are always delusions, but maybe that makes me delusional?!

Anyway, this should be required reading for all collaborators and collectives of any kind.

I’ve been really busy at work lately, feverishly working on a year-long project that is being shoe-horned into the last few weeks of my employment. We’re working with a design firm to design the interactions and visuals of the site, and I’m building it. Ugh.

One of the things the designers frequently bring up is “open source”. “There’s an open source package that does that, so it should be easy…” is often the predicate to their argument. Open source also came up during my interview with eyebeam yesterday. The director described the lab and process there as “open source”–they like to distribute information openly and freely. Sounds good!

While I agree with many of the philosophies of open source (but not the elitism), I am now starting to shudder when I hear the term. First, the designers just don’t understand how software works. They specify many rich (i.e. AJAX, confirm dialogs, visually rich UI, etc.) interactions–open source packages are usually ugly. Usually. One can *easily* spend as much time required to rewrite a piece of functionality, integrating and modifying an open source package to do the same task up to specification. Open source does not mean something’s been “done”. Open source packages are more like software libraries than finished projects–they provide handy routines/modules, but aren’t usually finished in and of themselves. Unless you are okay with the usually conservative, sometimes useless default UIs and settings they “ship” with.

Hearing the words “open source” from eyebeam made my eyes roll because it’s now also become a synonym for freely, publicly disseminated anything. And I’m not really arguing with that part of it, nor the philosophy behind it. But eyebeam doesn’t open source everything they make, as promised. Take their WaveBubble project (essentially a cellular phone jammer) for instance (here or here). I know it’s illegal, but I want to build one. Lady Ada (the author) says the project will “never be available as a kit due to FCC regulations”. Okay. But I still want to build one. Schematic, please? How about a parts list? I’m pretty technically savvy (not with electronics, granted), but I can’t get the information.

Like most “open source” projects, maybe I’m not in the “committer’s club”, but I ask, “does anybody have the ‘open source’?”

Alex sent me a link to a discussion on LinkedIn about an “infrastructure agenda” (discussion on LinkedIn) The poster asks, in summary, “what should the government do about aging infrastructure?” I’ve noticed so much discussion in the media about this issue lately, and for obvious reasons, it strikes me as interesting.

I believe this rally of sorts for the government to do something about aging infrastructure answers my question, “why should people care about infrastructure?” It really makes the purpose of my project “Critical Infrastructure” more clear in that the public policy issues surrounding these systems are really becoming apparent to everyday people.

Billions will be spent on improving these built systems–may as well chime in if you have something to say!

Alex and I visited my parents in Detroit this past weekend. When we were there, we took a ride by Ford’s Van Dyke Plant on Van Dyke Road and 18 Mile Road in Sterling Heights. The place is pretty interesting as a micro-study of industrial labor.

I think I’ve always been aware of the divisions or “caste system” of union vs. non-union laborers. I’ve seen the construction gates at Pittsburgh job sites that say “union entrance only” or heard automobile company employees talk about the “salaried workers” (usually in derogatory ways, of course–they don’t know how the plant “really works”).

The rift between the two is also apparent in the parking lot of the Ford plant, as you can see below (there is labeled “salaried” parking, but no similar “hourly” parking). It’s interesting how the way in which one gets paid can become such a defining factor of ones identity in an industrial environment such as this. I guess it also represents how the company values your work.

Yesterday, Alex and I went to go see B.I.K.E. at Pittsburgh Filmmakers. The night started out strangely–outside of Filmmakers, there was a hoarde of bikers. At least 30 to 40. We thought they would come into the show, and as it got closer and closer to show time, we were both sure the bikers would come in “fashionably late”. But they never came.

And the movie itself? It was pretty bad. I think my “favorite” part was when Conrad Carlson, who is the “vice president”(?) of the Black Label NYC group, got into his Range Rover to drive to Minneapolis in order to meet with the other members of Black Label at their national event. Honestly, I was waiting for them to explain that they rented a Range Rover to make a statement about waste and oil consumption (two of their “issues”). But it never came–Conrad actually owns a Range Rover. And his friend drove a Mercedes there.

Not only did the movie leave a lot to be technically desired (the cinematography was awful), but the plot was similarly poor. The movie follows the co-director as he strives to gain acceptance into Black Label after his junkie girlfriend breaks up with him for somebody she met at rehab. Now, I feel sorry for the guy in regards to his emotional pain, but I’m not worried about their well being. They all seem pretty well off: driving expensive cars, playing in a warehouse in New York City, flying to Amsterdam for jousting events, and using conventional emergency services when they get hurt doing stupid things.

I’m not sure who’s wasting more: “conventional” people who “drive and consume”, or those with financial support that allows them to “waste” their younger years falling off bikes, getting high and performing other stupid stunts that keep them in the emergency room (and from growing up).

Doyle asks in New York Times article, “Who else is going to go work out in the desert for cheap for six weeks?” Well, not me. I have one of those pesky middle-class things called a “job”.