Submitted by Thomas Czermak on April 1, 2009 - 8:45am.
The contents of this post have been retracted by it's author.
LondonCommons is changing again, but this time in a rather huge way. My company, Figure and Ground New Media, is undergoing the construction of a new LondonCommons. LondonCommons.ca will be an entirely new site not unlike but not related to LondonCommons.net except in name. Everything from site design, structure and policy will be different. The current site, LondonCommons.net, and all its contents, will be phased out of existence in roughly two weeks from now as we undergo closed beta-testing of LondonCommons.ca. I urge you to copy any content you wish to have access to now. If you'd like to be apart of the closed beta please email me at londoncommonsbeta@gmail.com.
(4 votes)
- Thomas Czermak's blog
- Login or register to post comments
User login
Upcoming events
- The Living Matrix(Event)(6 days)
- What is the Secret of Japanese Green Teas?(Event)(7 days)
- Attracting Peace(Event)(12 days)
- The De-Stress Effect: Restore Your Physiological Zen(Event)(14 days)
- Youth and Marijuana: is it as harmless as we like to think?(Event)(20 days)
- Plant Power & Plentitude. Fall Detox Using Local Herbs.(Event)(21 days)
- Plant Power & Plentitude: Fall Detox Using Local Herbs(Event)(21 days)
Search
Recent Images
Recent Blogs
Aug 16 2010 - 12:16am
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 16 guests online.
Recent comments
- Check Out PASAN
3 weeks 3 days ago - Also, August 10 was Prisoners' Justice Day
3 weeks 3 days ago - Made me think of this piece
3 weeks 3 days ago - "no violence baiting" is disrespectful to non-violent activists
5 weeks 2 days ago - The Black Bloc is never violent. EVER. Understand?
7 weeks 2 days ago - Some other places where this discussion is playing out
7 weeks 4 days ago - All of the revisions
8 weeks 1 day ago - Revisions
8 weeks 3 days ago - Not embedded
8 weeks 5 days ago - Quick excerpt from a Star editorial
9 weeks 3 days ago
Random image
Poll
Should the Canadian government be sending a delegation to the World People's Conference on Climate Change?
Yes
67%
No
33%
Undecided
0%
Total votes: 3
- Login or register to post comments
- Older polls
Old content and policy changes...
1st question is how do we port the old content we wish to keep over to the new site...
and the second question is, when you say that "policy will be diffrent" what exactally do you mean? Because there are a lot of folks that worked on the site's policies, and I'd be willing to bet that some of them would expect some say in any upcoming changes.
-30-
Mike.
"Born helpless, nude and unable to provide for himself, Michael C. McGregor overcame these handicaps to supplant the old Morse Code with the new Doris Code. "
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Please consult with me about
Please consult with me about the new site at londoncommonsbeta@gmail.com.
or here
On the site where it's out in the open is a good place to discuss it too.
I think it might also be a good idea to update the blog post with a clarification that no drastic changes are happening right away without further opportunities for the community to voice opinoins.
ummm... april fools?
is this a joke? i am having a flashback?
didn't a similar post a few years ago by jeremy start an internerd fight?
do do do do do ...... twilight zone.....
L
it's coming.
not-withstanding the date, this is actually happening.
-30-
Mike.
"Born helpless, nude and unable to provide for himself, Michael C. McGregor overcame these handicaps to invent the ice-grill"
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
That's right. I waited
That's right. I waited until April morning for a laugh because of how similar what I'm saying is to Jeremy's post a few years back.
To explain: I've assumed direction over the future of londoncommons since no one has shown up to the last few meetings, and since I'm both the host and only maintainer of the site. I can't afford, nor do I have the interest, to continue hosting this site the way it is. I'm going to open up the new .CA site to a larger group of Londoners. The new site will share some of the policies and values that have grown out of the LC community, and a few of the features of this site; but the new site will focus more on event promotion, editorialized content, and social networking, albiet in a much better way. All content produced by site users will belong to them, and we will continue to support creative commons licensing. We will ensure the privacy of the groups on the new site as well. It will still be free to acquire an account and post blogs/events, however content will be promoted differently, and editorialized content will take precedence.
For more info or to help influence the new site's direction please contact me at londoncommonsbeta@gmail.com
Also, just to mention, the
Also, just to mention, the old site content could be retained as "legacy" or "archived"
content if enough people express interest here. This would mean that
you could view the old content the way it is now but without the
ability to add content or change it. I simply don't have the time to
port old content to the new site. Also, I don't have the wish to host
the site the way it is. Too many people have baggage tied to the old
content and I'm motivated to create a new site that's a little more
open and inclusive to all citizens of London. So, if you choose to be
apart of the closed beta I'm sure you'll be pleased with how easy it is
to use the new site and add whatever content, new or old, yourself.
I have almost nothing to do with this, but I largely disagree
To clarify, I have had almost nothing to do with these decisions. In fact it was news to me yesterday that all the content would be lost under Thomas' plan. I also won't be involved directly. As far as the LC is concerned I've quit, turned in the keys etc. I still have my user account (with no moderator privileges) but beside that my only involvement with the site is that I happen to administer the server that hosts it.
Just to drill it in, I'm going to continue to abstain from the decision. But there are a few points that I want to add to the discussion here.
Keeping the old content makes much more sense than simply throwing it away. The LC is a sort of public record, and people who posted content did so under the impression that it would be stored here indefinitely. It is also an important source of documentation about the community.
I am concerned about the lack of consensus behind this move. Say what you will about the LC consensus process during my tenure, but there appears to be a complete lack of consensus involved here. In my opinion it's not enough to say that nobody has come to meetings as justification for unilateral decisions. There really should be at least one meeting, well publicized in advance, where consensus is made by at least 5 people (that's quorom for the LC) before such radical changes are made. Post another meeting, solicit people to come out, do what you have to do but it's important that an organization follows its own rules even when new leadership takes over.
The body of content stored on the LC represents a lot of work done by contributors. That's a lot hours from many people over more than three years. I understand that Thomas may not have time right now to do this migration properly. But it's important to note that the time required to save existing content is trivial compared to the hours invested in the content on this site. Basically, if you don't have time to do it right, then do it later.
I don't mean to trivialize Thomas' work. But honestly, it's not that difficult or time consuming to keep all of the old content and still accomplish all of the new changes. Especially compared to how much time the LC's users have devoted to posting content and comments. Sure, there are some flame wars in the old content. It is an public internet site after all. But there's also loads positive, informative and insightful content.
Another perspective on this question is the disappearance of culture. Take the events calendar for example. It represents one of the primary records of what the communities who use the site have been up to for the past three years. Presumably there will still be a calendar on the new site, why not keep using the old calendar instead of starting with a blank slate?
Archivists have been warning about the perils of digital media for years. The stone records of the Egyptians have survived for millenia, and paper records can survive for centuries. But how many of us can open documents made on computers from only 20 years ago? The point here is that we should be doing our best to preserve digital records. For ourselves and for the future, so that when we look back on these days we can see more than a black hole.
The London Free Press certainly doesn't help us figure out what was happening in London in even the very recent past. Articles more than a week old cost $15 to view. While the London Commons isn't a very comprehensive archive of what's happened in London in the last three years, it's something. And it's a real shame to just throw that away.
So to wrap it up, it might take more time to get a proper consensus decision, and it's more work to keep the old content. But what's the rush, really? It's better to do it right than to do it fast. I honestly don't even see the point of keeping the name London Commons if all the content (and process and policies) are being removed. If it's going to be something else completely, maybe it should also be called something else, no?
Just my two cents.
supplementary points
Here are some supplementary points. I'll try and keep this a little more concise:
1. As the administrator of the server that hosts the London Commons, the site itself cannot be deleted and replaced with a new site without me. My mind isn't completely made up, but there a 90% chance that I will refuse to implement the changes without a proper consensus decision backing them. This is partly because I still believe in consensus, and partly because I will not be a part of unilaterally making changes to the site without following the process. Please recall how many times some people accused me of running this site like a tyrant before asking me to make major changes without consensus.
2. Even if the community decides to go ahead with dropping all of the old content, I will keep a back up and make it available somewhere. The content on the LC is all under Creative Commons licenses, meaning that reuse and redistribution is permitted. To do this I would strip out all profile and personal information (except for the names attached to content because CC requires attribution) and make the content available in a couple of different formats. This would likely include a static archive and perhaps an installable Drupal package (that would let anyone who wants to start an LC-like site complete with all of the content... we'll have to see about that though).
3. Trevor and I are willing to help Thomas do the work necessary so that the older content can be maintained on the site itself. We can't promise that it'll be all that quick, but as I stated in my post above I think doing things right is more important than doing them quickly.
As I said to you yesterday,
As I said to you yesterday, I'm sympathetic to the idea of retaining the old site content however I don't have the time to port it. If you and Trev actually have time to help me port it than I will consider it. I still want to see an effort from LC community members to call a meeting to support this motion otherwise I will finish the new site without the old content and like I said we can implement it as archival content. They also need to call a meeting if they want to retain any of the old policies for operating the new site. Otherwise, I will assume the role of director of the new site and will simply implement the policies I see fit.
I've said all that I will say for this for now. I expect a meeting to be called to decide the future of this site's content.
sounds backwards
Sorry, but that sounds backwards to me.
If you want to make substantial changes to the LC as an organization and a site, then it's you who needs to seek consensus. It's not the community's responsibility to seek consensus to stop you.
That's how consensus works. And if it takes more time or effort than you have right now then your hands are tied.
If you want to have a new site with new content and policies, then it sounds like you need to call it something else. New site, new name, no need for consensus.
I'm perfectly willing to implement any server side changes, as long as there is a clear, fair consensus decision backing them.
Look. No one showed up to
Look. No one showed up to meetings. I've continued to pay for the cost for hosting this site, and the acquisition of a new domain name. Almost everyone seemed to have abandoned this site and then all a sudden a few people want to hold onto all this content that so many have scorned. I just thought I had acquired the necessary agreement/permission from the three people that managed to show up to the last meeting several months ago from recent personal conversations after no one showed up to the meetings that I had called. If I did not acquire the permission from everyone I need to than I will give one more chance for people to put together a meeting to resolve this.
meeting
How about next wednesday (the 8th) at EVAC? say 8ish? looking at the calender, the co-op's free that night.
which other meetings are you referring to that were un-attneded? because the last one I can find is the Nov. 30 general meeting.
-30-
Mike.
"Born helpless, nude and unable to provide for himself, Michael C. McGregor overcame these handicaps to... "
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
I can make it at 9pm. I
I can make it at 9pm. I scheduled two meetings. one general meeting and one development meeting. No one showed up to either of them.
There was a meeting
Here's the link. http://londoncommons.net/node/6807
You were the only one that signed up for showed up if I recall correctly Mike. :)
I think Thomas clearly did try to seek the approval of people and my impression from the outcomes of his attempts was that people were fine with making changes or showed no interest in the issue.
it's always been difficult to get people to show up to meetings
Unfortunately the difficulty of getting people out to meetings is not new. It's also far from unique in grassroots community organizations.
I went to every single London Commons meeting since the beginning, except for the last one or two. There were quite a few times when we needed to reschedule because not enough people showed up. It wasn't uncommon for us to barely have quorum, and we'd often have to wait 30 or 45 minutes for a fifth person to show up.
But the London Commons, like many other organizations, has a quorum for a reason. And personally, I think that the changes Thomas is proposing are so massive that even a single meeting with only five people is not really enough for the true spirit of consensus.
It could be argued that the proposed changes will make the London Commons the exact opposite of what it has been until now.
Check the information on the About this site link under the Help menu. It includes a document that I originally published on a web server on Jeff's computer using our DSL connection before the actual site went live in 2005. It describes a community owned and operated site that lets Londoners publish whatever they want. It puts control of the front page under the control of all users (and explicitly not an editorial committee). Advertising is also banned except for music and art announcements and a few other exceptions favourable to working people and non profits.
I'm not saying that Thomas or anyone can't change those ideals, goals and policies. What I am saying is that simply calling a meeting or two and not having anyone show up is not really enough under the consensus policies of the London Commons as an organization. Ideally the proposed changed would first be published in detail for
discussion and feedback at least a few weeks before the meeting so that
all users have the chance to think them over. I might have missed that
if it's already up. Please point them out if that already happened.
It's not a big deal. Thomas might get consensus for most or even all of the changes he wants to make. It just needs to get talked about more. Getting people meeting together in person to run the site (and many other things) was also part of the original goals of the organization. The more people the better. I did the best I could, and now I can't really handle a very central role. Hopefully the site's new leadership will do a better job at getting people involved than I ever did. But even as a regular user who's been on hiatus, I'd like to see a little slower transistion from one extreme to another.
I'd like to attend the next meeting. April 8th after 9 is good for me, but I think two or three weeks notice is more fair for people who need to plan in advance. A weekend late afternoon meeting would also be good for me.
To respond to Jeremy: I
To respond to Jeremy:
I see no organization here. This is a website, with a small handful of regular users, that has barely been maintained and is now outdated. There once was an organizing body of users that have disappeared. Mike McGregor along with a few others have been gracious to help moderate content over the past several months in the absence of said organization and we are grateful to them.
I'm not waiting for anyone but whomever will show up at the next meeting to decide whether or not I will use the domain LondonCommons.ca for the new site I'm building. I will however post the single motion I will introduce at the meeting and what the conditions under which I put it forward.
The motion:
That means:
So, in summary, I'm open to suggestions about new policies and I'm excited to know what features/functionality users like or want out of the new site. That's if I get the go ahead. Otherwise I will continue to develop the new site but simply under a new domain name.
Oh, and I forgot to mention
Oh, and I forgot to mention that I will be open to the integration of the old content into the new site so that it be accessible in an archival fashion as I've discussed with Jeremy and Trevor - those who've said they'd be willing to help in this process.
thoughts from an outsider
I know I'm new here, and don't fully understand the history of this group, but I felt I should speak up as someone who advocates for user generated content focused sites.
If I'm reading this correctly, you wish to take an existing website, one with a long history in this city, assume complete control over it, and then make money from it?
This is sure to sound harsh, and thats exactly how it reads, once all the long winded business doublespeak is sorted out. You plan to take an organization, which it is despite the lack of involvement, and completely revamp its policy's, bylaws, and funding, if a meeting is called and quorum is not met. To make drastic changes that you suggest, in most cases, would need to be addressed at an Annual General Meeting. This is traditionally where by-laws and organizational policies are debated and changed. Not by assuming lack of interest and lack on input. As someone said earlier, silence does NOT mean consent.
In the business world, this is unethical, and very possibly illegal. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. The very least, its a shady business move, one which would cause community uproar in another situation.
I like this site because it subscribes to the idea of user generated content. Away from the corporate powers and limiting ideals of cyber giants like MSN, and Facebook. This is a site for community content to be published and enjoyed. I see this proposed take over as something that greatly hinders this movement, and could damage individual trust towards projects like this.
The world is changing, intellectual property is being fought over in the biggest courts in the United States. Projects like this one stand up to the old mentality on culture and media, and force change from the old ways. It puts pressure on society to accept that ideas and media have to be shared and remixed.
By creating an edititorial body for submissions, along side a two tiered content creation system (one payed, one free?) goes against the goals of this movement.
I urge you to reconsider this action. At the very least, start a new project away from the long standing reputation the LondonCommons has. I wish I could be a larger part of this community, but I'm only in London a short time longer, and the time I have is devoted to other projects I have been apart of outside the province.
Tim R
:creative commons supporter:
Hi Tim, Thanks for you
Hi Tim,
Thanks for you response. I've been apart of the LC organization for a few years now and I've put many hours into advancing and maintaining this site. I pay the bills for this site's hosting, and I recently acquired the new domain name for it. I've tried to respect the rules of the group that founded the website awhile back now. As of several months ago the group organizing the policies of the website fell out. I tried to reach out so that I could help advance the site by acquiring consensus. No one responded. I talked in private conversation with the remaining members that seemed to have some sort of interest in the existence of this website. From what I could tell I seemed to have acquired the permission to make the changes I saw fit to this site. I've only found out now several months into the process of building a new site that I was wrong. It appears that I did not, and that certain people who apparently absolved their role awhile back have now come back to make a stand what they feel is important to maintain about this site. I will fully respect their wishes.
So let me repeat myself: I will put forward a motion at the next meeting to take ownership of a site that no one else has taken the responsibility to maintain or advance. If a single person rejects that motion I will leave the site in someone else's hands and continue to work on my own site (which is currently compeletly free of any LC content) under a different name.
That first bullet point...
"Figure and Ground will oversee site maintenance and changes, moderation
of the website and its contents, as well as the development of policy.
I will be open to the influence of the dedicated people who have worked
on this project for some time, but I will assume role as director of
the site. To be clear: there will be no group consensus sought for any
decision made to alter the site, its contents and policy. That being
said, the new site will remain a local community portal with the aim of
drawing in an even larger group of Londoners to use its services, all
of which will remain free."
I don't think I could agree to that.
I understand that you've done a lot of work on new architecture for the current site as well as the proposed upgrade, and that's very much appreciated. But if the cost of that is to give up community control over the site... As far as I'm concerned: thanks, but no-thanks.
We can make due with what we have. Hell, if this is the alternative, we could make due with Ye Olde BBS if we had to.
All this dev work and all the dev work you've done in the past, though very much appreciated, did not create the content, did not build the community did not create the reputation attached to the LC name. It helped, no doubt, but it is not solely responsible.
You mentioned above that Jeremy handed you the "Keys" when he withdrew from admining the site. Consider perhaps that what you were actually handed was a 'mop and bucket'. You became care taker, not owner. When you put so much of your effort into the last upgrade, and now into this proposed upgrade, you made yourself a vested contributor, but still not the owner.
As to the other points below the first, I think there is room for compromise. Perhaps we could find a way to pay figure and ground for hosting the site, perhaps we could compensate you for developing the upgrade. But, if the cost for this is handing over the community and sacrificing all the content and effort rest the of us have put into it, I'd encourage you to go ahead with a new site, without the London Common's name, and best of luck to you.
-30-
Mike.
"Born helpless, nude and unable to provide for himself, Michael C. McGregor overcame these handicaps to own the night"
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Mike,
Mike,
I'm the only one legally responsible for this site, and the actions taken on it, since there is no legally recognized entity other than me tied to it. Londoncommons never incorporated. I also own both domain names. By both Canadian and US law I am the legal owner and guardian of the site.
That said, this dispute has made me realize that I should immediately hand over the site to someone else. I thought I had consensus to salvage a site that no one used and that had been abandoned. Seriously, the web stats are quite depressing - google hits the site more than actual people. I've tried my best to try and post content, promote the site at events and keep the site alive, not to mention spend countless hours day and night to build a new version of this site for the community of London. Anyway, I thought people would be appreciative that I helped keep the site alive in some way. But I was obviously mistaken. I've retracted my original post and will be negotiating with Jeremy how much longer we will host this site. We will post a notice to the users pertaining to this soon. If you have anything more to say to me about this issue you can call me.
I don't regret my involvement with this site as I've learned a lot from being apart of the group that once organized its policies and operation. I will also continue to build the new site I'm working on under a new title.
If the existing users still would like to host a meeting I will gladly drop by to notify everyone Jeremy and I's decision there as well.
Peace,
Thomas
costs?
what kind of cost are we looking at to keep the site up and running? how much are we talking for the domane and the hosting?
Also, I absolutely do appreciate your efforts in keeping the site alive and viable. Don't ever doubt that. I'd hazard that most of the people currently using the site do too.
-30-
Mike.
"Born helpless, nude and unable to provide for himself, Michael C. McGregor overcame these handicaps to blame it on the rain."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
meeting up.
i am also interested in coming to a meeting and have been since i got my moderator powers... (evil laugh)...
but i have missed them all. mostly because i was out of the country for almost the last two months.
i have to be out of town on the 8th. but i could do the 7th and mostly likely the 9th. can we have the meeting at the coffee shop instead if the co-op is booked?
i also agree with jeremy that holding a meeting entitled "end of the commons as you know it" and just a regular meeting are two different things. i am sure more folks will show up once word gets out on the importance of this issue.:)
more folks meaning maybe five.
silence is not consent ~ they say. :)
ps. the storm outside right now is amazing!!!
LM
How about we try Thursday,
How about we try Thursday, 9pm?
meeting
Thursday works, but 9pm is kinda late.
Could we make it a little earlier? like 6-7pm?
Evac or old east coffee shop or library?
thursday at 9.
that would work for me too. earlier, not so much.
-30-
Mike.
"Born helpless, nude and unable to provide for himself, Michael C. McGregor overcame these handicaps to be the face that launched a thousand ships."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
I can't make it before 9
I can't make it before 9 myself. I'm fairly available Sunday.
meeting time proposal
I'm working sunday, so that's a no-go for me.
according to the calendar, the coop is free thursday as well, so I propose 9pm, thursday the 9th at the co-op
Does that work? Should we put this off a week?
Can someone from the co-op give us a yay or nay on the room for 9pm thursday.
Could all moderators who currently are not in Amsterdam commit to attending?
-30-
Mike.
"Born helpless, nude and unable to provide for himself, Michael C. McGregor overcame these handicaps to close the circle. "
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
old content
I would like the old content to be kept. It's been a good few years and lots of interesting discussion has taken place here, ideas and information has been shared and it would be great to maintain access to it. Like Jeremy mentioned, it is a wonderful window into the community 'history', -- not to make us feel old or anything.
Melissa
http://www.melissaparrott.com