(VERY) RAW NOTES

Group 4

Future Cultural Org.

 

10:30

Introduction

The idea is not brainstorming, yet more focused on sharing within a relaxed discussion.

Web 2.0. It is not about spitting on it or praising it.

Thinking about a new way forward, in sense a proposal/manifesto. Although this might be a little exaggerated.

 

Designing a fictional organization.

What are the PR aspects, handling the community, finding a way to implement it only using online.

Geeky, simple, web applications that already exist.

 

Ideal situation: playground, autonomous, self development – detailed map

 

Walter and Danja – Medialab in Rotterdam

Sofia – rhiz.eu

Niels Wolf – Waag - meta

 

Frank – Waag Program manager; film academy + AI. Worked in filmmaking UVA , content systems, digital university, technology and standards in learning. Since then main interest in Web 2.0.  Only for one day.

 

Maarten – NISV, archive public broadcasts, R&D, open content licence. New Media and Digital Culture Utrecht. \

 

Walter – studied fine art, works mainly as an artist. Internet for work, works mainly with mixed reality (games). Piet Zwart. Guest teacher in Enschede – public space in Twente.

 

Sofia – ECF, program officer, webmaster of a social network site, European Studies – construction of identity, content manager, interested in the hype of new age in technology (participatory culture, collaborative data sharing/creation).

 

Danja – Russia, studied art in Holland, Piet Zwart, information – experinamtal , network systems, applied on society: conflicts, new medialab – ongoing process of development, worked at V2 in Rotterdam, technical advisor, system admin – interesting look into the organization.

 

Aymeric - Math + Computer sciences. No projectmanagement. Spontaneous projects, managers alternate per project, machines are the only “stable” part of the project. Never used web apps. “are we understanding the web correctly?”

Scripted and automated communication, art work, processes. Organizations become software. 

 

Iskander Smit (strategic director at info.nl)- Internet agency. Info.nl. vision development. Corporate clients (banks, publ, housing). Virtual gated communities (talk at conference). Internal wiki. Confidential data in their projects. Backpack – collaborative software. Weblog – write and comment together. Twitter – not really active (yet is shows who ‘we’ are as an org).

 

Increasing online services, music, blog, tagging – sharing.

Personaly Aymeric only uses a few (lastFM). Self-centred: you are only producing a feedback loop – statistic.

Wiki – had to create a google account.

Google pushes new clients to use their services. Before only google account provided access, now personal mail also does.

Surprised that the conference uses google services. Because it is easy, raising the question: “how much privacy are you willing to give up for comfort?”

 

Frank: Waag has own server, autonomous. Pragmatic, outsource services. Privacy: if it is not a central thing you can keep, it is not a problem. Mainly uses for temp. Big harddrive and mailsystem are the archives of the Waag.

Uses: Googledocs. Personal: Doodle – to make a list. And wiki’s.

Googledocs are also for projectpartners.

Internal and external systems

Sharing: blog (but not many people use it)… tiring to push people to use it. Host all video material. The sharing discussion is more important.

 

Maarten: most services are internal – agenda, mail, tree with docs. External: Wiki – testserver. Don’t share that much as a cultural org. Even the website is mostly textual info , no audio visual (although the org is).

They started uploading clips to YouTube (have a channel), not the way to  go but it is a first step. Builing platform using API. Thinking about building system interlinking with new and old.

 

 

Walter – Wiki recently. There are only three people in the lab. Mainly focused on artistic production. Sharing at this time is not relevant.

Artist is system admin, it is part of your toolbox (like painter who makes his own paint).

 

Danja – is more resp for the comp, internet facilities. Preference goes to website and apps on own comp. There are still points and hubs in the decentalised system. More independent initiatives that are responsible for their online activities. Frank asks why? answ: the expertise that is needed is less and less, tech becomes basic. Emerging desktop comp and other people. Network and usage is

 

Sofia – share drive (Microsoft), online database. Contacts. Server for the website, but outsource the website they have. How to connect all those different systems in different locations. Basic Management (on website) + Youtube channel (which is not used allot). Licensed software run on a outside server (mediamatic). Q: Not only connecting gardens but also oneself, how?

11:15

If we want to comm program… how do we do that?

Internet became fast-service..

Outsourcing.

 

Walter – opensource fanatics are providing alternatives to youtube.

Danja – Firefox 3.1 – video playback. Will have solved, but not the social aspect.

Api and metatagging are those solutions?

 

Frank – changing the world for the good. Go to the audience, use their tech, their comm. Language, and then speak out,

Why is waag not doing this? 50  people, some are from a activist background. Franks personal view is to share the services but to keep backups. Own the content first (backup, walled garden) and then share it.

Danja comments: Content will be owned by ‘google’ will be therefore be capitalized. Therefor you are applauding google.

Stay contemporary, use the medium not change it. Frank says it depends of course on the project.

 

Walter: if you put your stuff on your own private site, then it will still be ripped by others and put on Web 2.0 channels.

 

Video is a big thing, a format that consumes like TV. Why?

Walter comments ecommerce projects are shown in video, which is idiotic, they should be presented in a interactive manner.

Video is documentation.

Fonds voor de Beeldende Kunsten did not allow DvD’s (only tapes, slides) 2003.

 

Maarten – quality of the videos – mono sound, low resolution. Creating a new vhs-beta. The higher quality does not get such an audience. YouTube is orientated on getting info out there as quick as possible, therefore wins. The main issue, Danja states, is social not technological. Danja: More automatisation, it is not possible to twitter/blog all the time.

 

Frank: Waag is

-          creating and moving text based docs.

-          Making and commm decisions (standpoints), prob is when a dec is made and noone knows

-          Making and testing things (software hardware products workshops), documenting

-          Working and keeping

-          Accounting

 

Frank wants to elaborate this model and orientate on the future,. Frank wants to sketch the issues. What are the impacts?

 

Danja: it is all about building filters….. (jokingly)

11:50

 

Moderator: is shocked the data is handled so old fashioned. Folders seems sooo 90’s.

Track (wiki aspect, at the same time the world map, very light, stripped down, implement your own way of working, bug/issue tracking).

Google Code. Goes beyond the services of Track (interlinking, commenting).

 

Waag uses mailing lists allot. Frank hopes to use it only as an archive (comm. Goes to waste otherwise). Skype is becoming popular (cheap). Address data is shared communal.

Project manager executes and is responsible for gathering and sharing data, therefore it is up to this persons affluence with Web 2.0 to what extend these services are used.

 

Walter. Worm – pm system for events. Make a projects with their own tools, and when it is shown to public (showcase, pr, logistic, personnel). Person creating the event also becomes manager. It is tailor made, therefore allot of budget went in there.

Code is closed….

 

Sofia – physical space is tradional house. As the org expended the buildings have been too and spread. Manual and unit(team) focused information management/sharing. More communicating in meatings (physical, once a month breakfast) – the format is more ad-hoc instead of formal (sometimes bringing in outsides to move the conversation in a different way). Goal is to co-influence the projects people are working on. The org is based on two pillars – front and backoffice. Looking for an easy and flexible system.

 

Frank: continuing question is where to store the docs: some online apps overlap in functionality therefore there is a continuous shift. Own computer is still essential.

 

Iskander: search is becoming new organizer. In mail he doesn’t filter and divide in folders but just searches mail content.

 

Danja – online documentation is more finished and there for showcase, the formation is done internal.

 

15:00

 

Danja and Walter while being media students felt like Rotterdam has room for (V2) a medialab (there are public events and there is V2 but for such a large city this is too limited)

There was a gap.

Grassroots. By the time of graduating things fell together whilst working for worm and meeting people. Starting upo the lab is bumpie. Organizing events collaborative.. are becoming more regular and structured.

Producing concrete work for the people around.

Curate a show for planetart (recently in Amsterdam – squatted several spaces, volkskrant gebouw) – dara machine… game modification.

Workshop by Martin Huizen. Experimentalist with EM. Scrying boards – seeing future.

Transmediaal.

Hacker conference in Berlin (chistmas)

Connection to the internet is important, but offline is too: conferences etc.

Seeing each other as an artist is important because the works are more physical (not software).

 

Frank: one of the places you want to be is gathering spot, but how do you get to know one another, or do you already know each other?

Anwer: from acquaintances are the starting point and generate new audiences.

Danja: simple methods so far: mailing list, wordpress – which keeps it dynamic, althought the social network aspects have been removed (conflicted their views).

Social media are noisy, danja wants to put it to use or avoid it. No Youtube hyves, facebook, etc.

Firefox is slowly also embedding all tools (delicious).

 

15:30

Moderator: External aspects of organization: do we use social network to understand audience or to market.

Danja: viral marketing is the most suitable for social networks.

Social network is also a bubble.

 

Iskander uses Twitter to communicate with his professional life. His personal (friends + family) are spread in Hyves, yet he does not have an account. Therefore his virtual comm. does not interfere/conflict with his personal.

 

Sonja: when org go on social networks then they tend not to go beyond their own page/org/ and not interact with other audiences.

 

Walter: believes creating audiences with social networks for physical locations is useless, since these people are not physical.

 

Iskander: meaningful conversations are useful for the org, just advertising is not. An org is all about the conversations and sharing of opinions leading to decisions.

-          in a way this follows Obama’s campaign.

 

Walter: there is more then just being there (starting up a channel etc). the only way it works is if there is someone commenting the whole day (creating content).

 

Frank: broadening of potential audience. However, organizations channel information. Therefore organizations have to fundamentally change. Why do the metadata when the experts are all over the world and can do it for you. Is this threatening for your organizations?

Maarten: how do you determine what is valuable. Believes the professional query data is better then the one created by participants.

It might work in some cases, but the whole participatory hype will not work adequate when it concerns mass content – this will only weaken the quality.

There are too many kinks at the time to focus on public meta data contributions.

Quality is their selling point therefore professional moderation is required.

 

Frank: Britannica vs Wikipedia. Who will still buy an encyclopedia? Therefore the information we base our knowledge on is mass gathered.

 

16:00

Danja: Wikipedia is interesting because of the discussion pages. Yet when bought on dvd this aspect gets lost. The dynamic value and it evolving character are what make wikipedia different then Britannica.

Still, Frank points out the influence of social networking affects organization: big organizations should become smaller.

 

Sofia – org made in 2006 own social network. Rhiz.eu (mediamatic)

Informal and user-controllable environment.

Minimum editing – just for spelling and grammar.

 

Frank: Social network site is just an advanced address book.

Why have an open identity?

Iskander: should be around something interesting, otherwise there is no point.

Sofia: to keep track of what is going on with your peers (without having to call them, but by reading comments they leave and those left by others).

 

Walter: invites people only locally (mailing, nettime, flyers), therefore no use of spamming or global networking.

(Frank: Marketing: to sell something the person needs to have seen it at least three times.)

 

Frank: hierarchie – TV, print, and then internet. Therefore getting noticed it is more effective to be on tv.

Maarten: they might go to the site because it is on TV, but how interested are they…. Narrowcasting on TV is silly.

16:30

 

Moderator: what web app cant you live without?

 

Frank: web based calendar (likes slideshare, but not missable)

 

Iskander: twitter a little, but can miss it. Google reader

 

Danja: Wiki software, group activity. Having your thoughts online is more important then having it on your computer. Collaborative, online, safe.

 

Walter: broken laptop… cold turkey… change? Frank asks… answer: no I don’t use needing services. Re-blog (read rss feeds) to see what posts are interesting. Sage – firefox add-on for rss.. and scrypefire.

 

Maarten: rss feeds.

 

Sofia: computer is not imaginable without internet. Danja: you don’t need hard drive, just a connection.

 

Moderator: surprised no one mentioned Google. He doesn’t type url anymore.

 

Unfortunately no manifesto has been written yet.

10:45

Renee Ridgway

Celjko Blace

Niels Wolf

Sher Doruff

 

Yesterdays conversations mainly concerned how the org where the participants work deal with Web 2.0, their communication structure and how social networks are used to understand the audience. A large part of the discussions concerned practical tools.

 

Two small discussions/presentation from Cher and Niche.who will explain online communities and mixed media.

 

Sher (and Niels) – anatomic (share)

: 2003 Waag society. Book: “Connected! LiveArt”. Interested in connected networks and self organization in an artistic and always fluctuating community.

Establish a weekly basis opening a space where people get together – Saturday. Facilitators were the facilitators – the direction the group/participants took (its content) was decided by the group members themselves.

After a few years it walled itself in disciplinary. In the beginning all disciplines were mixed. After two years it funneled to only performance artistic interest. The direction tended to live sound performance. One thing that kept the group together for two years, was the era (instable technology), the involvement with the tech ran parallel to the involvement.

Personal: she has no social network and plug and play comm tech, because the instability and the notion of resistance is still important.

Question: what makes an organization…..

Answ: it is more an event then an organization. The organization set the execution of the event, to set the conditions to emerge something.

 

Niels created Meta (making electronic thingies in Amsterdam)… after anatomic (which became a mailinglist).

 

Niels there are always two or three people needed to structure the org.

 

Funding is a big problem/constraint too

 

Niels started with no money. There were in Amsterdam many places that provided similar workshops, yet the fee was too high. They organized workshops themselves with volunteers. (Workshops stopped last year because there was no need in the group). No budget.

In the end the organizations main drive was to stay alive.

Another problem is that when you get funding you need to create a structure (hierarchy), because people that were previously were working for free out of self motivation will start claiming. Therefore you need a control system with someone making the hard decisions.

 

An enormous amount of money (funding anatomic from Waag) goes to middle management (and residence – back into Waag), bureaucracy (instead of spinning off new projects/initiatives).

 

11:35

 

Renee North East West South (NEWS) . net

Launced in july. Facilitates different agenda’s all around the world, contemporary art. A horizontally-organised, cumulative knowledge-based website for contemporary art and new media framed by curatorial contributions from around the globe, bringing together voices and images from North, East, West and South. n.e.w.s. reflects geographic diversity and facilitates a framework for collaboration, content and visions of change outside the normal parameters of the established art world networks.

 

More about people who are not necessary into new media. A new framework for these people.

 

Walter and Danja: leaching from various places… worm for one. The organizations they have worked with are relatively chaotic, therefore a serious clear cut executable structure is not priority. Worm is a venue (bar, cinema atelier) with a lot of ad hoc possibilities, there is an effective infrastructure (making a organizational structure not a necessity)… the soil is already prepared by Worm.

 

Maarten: there are possibilities for those that do their homework – big corporations provide funding as well yet require SWAT analysis and market research. There are plenty opportunities.

Moderator:  therefore there is a skill in fundraising, and manipulating results in order to get funding…. Allowing for a new job.

Walter: marketing (in Worm) is a performance

 

Both Worm and Meta are a ‘stichting’ and providing the administrative facilities.

 

Change in direction: more hands on

Mini game – define org

Smaller groups trying to implement the org only using online services.

Isolate all the functions within an org when starting from scratch.

 

Rules:

Maximize distributive means.

Physical locale is not imp

15 people in the org. producing something that will be implemented online.

Creative industry.

 

Goal:

 

Financial resources:

 

Human/machines

 

Stages… commercial comp. iskander…. Project space.. determine audience… collaborative content sharing via google/online services..

Walter would start with a Wiki…

 

Online space and development space.

PR

Communication with partners/funding/board

 

Danja: HIRE A WEB 2.0 AGENT – fulltime looking for web apps

 

 

 

15:40

Communication:

 

Think of something that both allows an audience to know we exist as well as provide internal communication.

 

Iskander: blogging tools, wiki

Walter: email, track, wiki – collaborative online working that also allows to publish; taking away the desktop isolation.

 

Moderator: what would we use to communicate internally? Use wiki tabs or mailinglist.

Iskander: mailinglist should only be a notification system

Maarten: central system is good to be notified but this could also be RSS. Track in that sense is perhaps the best.

Moderator: the notification on Track is limited

Conclusion:     configured Wiki – with mail, RSS.

                        No group conversation via mail.

 

Walter: worm has an automated system (protocols, parameters) that directs messages to particular roles in the org.

                       

Iskander: chat?

Maarten: Limited chat. Group chats don’t work

Renee: experienced skype conference that worked (6 audio, 3 chat)… for two hours.

Danja: second life? Laughter in the room

Walter and Renee agree on Teamspeak

Walter: Knowing the people you chat with is important.. semiotic confusion.

Maarten: so we need voice for getting to know one another, and text for updates.

Iskander: Holograms?

Maarten: the tool needs to incorporate multiple media forms.

Iskander: conclusion: Skype

Danja: bottom line all communication should be archived.

Sofia: We need a sufficient semantic system.. such as tagging

 

External Communication:

 

Walter: PR… print on demand partner… flyers

Danja: I propose robots

Moderator: I agree…. Use bots to automate information flow

Danja: should be on personalized level. An organization cannot be a social network, there should be a private/personal level.

Walter: if you’re going to use a social network, you should first determine what part of your product has a social value.

 

Maarten: open ID

Iskander: not only ID but also the connections to other organizations.

Maarten: in that case profile representation can be alternated towards the audience in a specific network.

 

Moderator: open standard within software is required to have all apps be accessible, or one app that combines all.

 

Partners….

Danja: you cannot be completely open towards your partners.

Iskander and Sofia: a shared space where statistics are available.

Walter: not all info can be open, some needs to be personal.

Danja: therefore robots protocols need attention; for instance if a message came by mail, a reply will follow by mail (instead of via a discussion tab on a wiki)… perhaps even to the extent the format of communication (can be scripted).

Yet we should decide on an Open Standard.

 

Financial Management:

 

Danja: Online system… like paypall although this is too limited.

Renee: Notaris is too expensive and is too old fashioned in the Web 2.0 age.

Moderator: Internet banking.. overseas payments are still a challenge.. (using telephone.. bots).

Conclusion: online banking is used for payment. But monitoring should be outsourced (Rabobank).

 

Time management:

Online-stopwatch.com (useless).

Issue tracker should be needed with a stopwatch embedded to track particular tasks.

 

Synchronisation:

Webcal.

Timetable online and offline.

Conclusion: Google calendar

 

Assigning roles:

Do we need someone to break down tasks and kick people.

Bot should send automatic notifications

Iskander: the notifications should be published publicly: public humiliation

Conclusion: Per project hatched out in the Wiki (volunteer based), with a transparent system that self regulates/organizes (and can send notifications).

 

Project Spaces:

Development space is Wiki

Final space is any online platform

 

Track is modifiable, Google is not

Mindmaps (possible to integrate in Wikis)