12 Jul
2018
12 Jul
'18
10:19 a.m.
Dear CNSIG,
Please see below the membership request and info from the Kenyian CN
Tunapanda. Kindly share your vote for or against.
Thanks, Sol
Brief Description
I am the project manager for TunapandaNET community network, championed by
Tunapanda Institute in Kibera Nairobi. The goal of the network is to
promote use and adoption of ICTs by the community through affordable access
and capacity building. We are currently looking to connect schools and
community centers and provide them learning resources and skills to utilise
ICTs. Additionally, I focus on promoting gender equity in technology
through mentorship and training for women and girls. Topics vary from
careers in technology to ICTs and governance for women.
Community Networks SIG
Country where you operate:
Kenya
Brief description:
TunapandaNET is a community network located in Kibera, Nairobi
Kenya.TunapandaNET is a community network championed by Tunapanda Institute
in Kibera Nairobi. The goal of the network is to promote use and adoption
of ICTs by the community through affordable access and capacity building.
We are currently looking to connect schools and community centers and
provide them learning resources and skills to utilise ICTs.
Areas of interest:
Education, Affordable access, Connecting underserved communities, Policy &
regulation
Representatives (up to 3):
Josephine Miliza - josephine(a)tunapanda.org
Nelson Mandela - mandela(a)tunapanda.org
Renice Owuor - renice(a)tunapanda.org
--
Sol Luca de Tena
e: sol(a)zenzeleni.net
c: (+27/0) 839 47 4946
w: zenzeleni.net
Skype: sol.lucadetena
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxTPSWMX26M
*Zenzeleni Networks NPC*
- Winner of Best Innovation with Social Impact Award, Innovation Bridge 2017
- Finalist of Mozilla Equal Rating Innovation Challenge, 2017
12 Jul
12 Jul
2:23 p.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] [CNSIG-Counsil] [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
Hi Council (and Sol),
I have personally met Josephine and her team, and the work their are
doing in Kibera is amazing.
For those that don't know about the project, you can check this article
by ISOC:
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2018/06/tunapandanet-paves-the-way-for…
My only concern is that Tunapanda (as many Networks in Africa) are more
a Network 4 Communities projects, than community engaged Community Networks.
I give my +1 to accepting here, and would encourage the council to add a
question like:
how is the community that this network serves involved in the network
activities?
do you have plans of increasing community ownership, and how?
That would give the collective more awareness of the direction the
network is taking, and by doing so having allies that are walking the
same path (or being aware which path each are walking :) ).
Mailing lists end up being spaces where we do not end up sharing much,
so it is good to know each other better from the beginning.
Regards,
On 2018-07-12 04:19 AM, Sol Luca de Tena wrote:
Dear CNSIG,
Please see below the membership request and info from the Kenyian CN
Tunapanda. Kindly share your vote for or against.
Thanks, Sol
Brief Description
I am the project manager for TunapandaNET community network, championed
by Tunapanda Institute in Kibera Nairobi. The goal of the network is to
promote use and adoption of ICTs by the community through affordable
access and capacity building. We are currently looking to connect
schools and community centers and provide them learning resources and
skills to utilise ICTs. Additionally, I focus on promoting gender equity
in technology through mentorship and training for women and girls.
Topics vary from careers in technology to ICTs and governance for women.
Community Networks SIG
Country where you operate:
Kenya
Brief description:
TunapandaNET is a community network located in Kibera, Nairobi
Kenya.TunapandaNET is a community network championed by Tunapanda
Institute in Kibera Nairobi. The goal of the network is to promote use
and adoption of ICTs by the community through affordable access and
capacity building. We are currently looking to connect schools and
community centers and provide them learning resources and skills to
utilise ICTs.
Areas of interest:
Education, Affordable access, Connecting underserved communities,
Policy & regulation
Representatives (up to 3):
Josephine Miliza - josephine(a)tunapanda.org <mailto:josephine@tunapanda.org>
Nelson Mandela - mandela(a)tunapanda.org <mailto:mandela@tunapanda.org>
Renice Owuor - renice(a)tunapanda.org <mailto:renice@tunapanda.org>
--
Sol Luca de Tena
e: sol(a)zenzeleni.net <mailto:sol@zenzeleni.net>
c: (+27/0) 839 47 4946
w: zenzeleni.net <http://zenzeleni.net>
Skype: sol.lucadetena
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxTPSWMX26M
*Zenzeleni Networks NPC*
- Winner of Best Innovation with Social Impact Award, Innovation Bridge 2017
- Finalist of Mozilla Equal Rating Innovation Challenge, 2017
_______________________________________________
Council mailing list
Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council
16 Jul
16 Jul
10:23 p.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] [CNSIG-Counsil] [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
I vote YES
(since CNSIG is "comprised of members of Community Networks and
organizations whose purpose is directly related to the development of
Community Networks" I think that the concern of Nico is not really
blocking, otherwise NetHood wouldn't be also eligible)
(perhaps we should separate the discussion of the applications from the
actual voting?)
On 12.07.2018 17:23, Nicolas Pace wrote:
Hi Council (and Sol),
I have personally met Josephine and her team, and the work their are
doing in Kibera is amazing.
For those that don't know about the project, you can check this article
by ISOC:
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2018/06/tunapandanet-paves-the-way-for…
My only concern is that Tunapanda (as many Networks in Africa) are more
a Network 4 Communities projects, than community engaged Community Networks.
I give my +1 to accepting here, and would encourage the council to add a
question like:
how is the community that this network serves involved in the network
activities?
do you have plans of increasing community ownership, and how?
That would give the collective more awareness of the direction the
network is taking, and by doing so having allies that are walking the
same path (or being aware which path each are walking :) ).
Mailing lists end up being spaces where we do not end up sharing much,
so it is good to know each other better from the beginning.
Regards,
On 2018-07-12 04:19 AM, Sol Luca de Tena wrote:
Dear CNSIG,
Please see below the membership request and info from the Kenyian CN
Tunapanda. Kindly share your vote for or against.
Thanks, Sol
Brief Description
I am the project manager for TunapandaNET community network, championed
by Tunapanda Institute in Kibera Nairobi. The goal of the network is to
promote use and adoption of ICTs by the community through affordable
access and capacity building. We are currently looking to connect
schools and community centers and provide them learning resources and
skills to utilise ICTs. Additionally, I focus on promoting gender equity
in technology through mentorship and training for women and girls.
Topics vary from careers in technology to ICTs and governance for women.
Community Networks SIG
Country where you operate:
Kenya
Brief description:
TunapandaNET is a community network located in Kibera, Nairobi
Kenya.TunapandaNET is a community network championed by Tunapanda
Institute in Kibera Nairobi. The goal of the network is to promote use
and adoption of ICTs by the community through affordable access and
capacity building. We are currently looking to connect schools and
community centers and provide them learning resources and skills to
utilise ICTs.
Areas of interest:
Education, Affordable access, Connecting underserved communities,
Policy & regulation
Representatives (up to 3):
Josephine Miliza - josephine(a)tunapanda.org <mailto:josephine@tunapanda.org>
Nelson Mandela - mandela(a)tunapanda.org <mailto:mandela@tunapanda.org>
Renice Owuor - renice(a)tunapanda.org <mailto:renice@tunapanda.org>
--
Sol Luca de Tena
e: sol(a)zenzeleni.net <mailto:sol@zenzeleni.net>
c: (+27/0) 839 47 4946
w: zenzeleni.net <http://zenzeleni.net>
Skype: sol.lucadetena
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxTPSWMX26M
*Zenzeleni Networks NPC*
- Winner of Best Innovation with Social Impact Award, Innovation Bridge 2017
- Finalist of Mozilla Equal Rating Innovation Challenge, 2017
_______________________________________________
Council mailing list
Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________
Council mailing list
Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council 
18 Jul
18 Jul
11:25 p.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] [CNSIG-Counsil] [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
Sol, should we extend this vote call for another 5 days or do you prefer
to open the discussion so we can better understand why there were so few
interventions?
Nothing prevents us from voting on this matter again once we clarify any
doubts that members may be having.
Un abrazo,
Nico
On 07/12/2018 07:19 AM, Sol Luca de Tena wrote:
Dear CNSIG,
Please see below the membership request and info from the Kenyian CN
Tunapanda. Kindly share your vote for or against.
Thanks, Sol
Brief Description
I am the project manager for TunapandaNET community network, championed
by Tunapanda Institute in Kibera Nairobi. The goal of the network is to
promote use and adoption of ICTs by the community through affordable
access and capacity building. We are currently looking to connect
schools and community centers and provide them learning resources and
skills to utilise ICTs. Additionally, I focus on promoting gender equity
in technology through mentorship and training for women and girls.
Topics vary from careers in technology to ICTs and governance for women.
Community Networks SIG
Country where you operate:
Kenya
Brief description:
TunapandaNET is a community network located in Kibera, Nairobi
Kenya.TunapandaNET is a community network championed by Tunapanda
Institute in Kibera Nairobi. The goal of the network is to promote use
and adoption of ICTs by the community through affordable access and
capacity building. We are currently looking to connect schools and
community centers and provide them learning resources and skills to
utilise ICTs.
Areas of interest:
Education, Affordable access, Connecting underserved communities,
Policy & regulation
Representatives (up to 3):
Josephine Miliza - josephine(a)tunapanda.org <mailto:josephine@tunapanda.org>
Nelson Mandela - mandela(a)tunapanda.org <mailto:mandela@tunapanda.org>
Renice Owuor - renice(a)tunapanda.org <mailto:renice@tunapanda.org>
--
Sol Luca de Tena
e: sol(a)zenzeleni.net <mailto:sol@zenzeleni.net>
c: (+27/0) 839 47 4946
w: zenzeleni.net <http://zenzeleni.net>
Skype: sol.lucadetena
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxTPSWMX26M
*Zenzeleni Networks NPC*
- Winner of Best Innovation with Social Impact Award, Innovation Bridge 2017
- Finalist of Mozilla Equal Rating Innovation Challenge, 2017
_______________________________________________
Council mailing list
Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council
8 Aug
8 Aug
3:30 p.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] Community Network Defnition - Re: [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
On 07/18/2018 08:25 PM, Nicolás Echániz wrote:
Sol, should we extend this vote call for another 5
days or do you prefer
to open the discussion so we can better understand why there were so few
interventions?
Nothing prevents us from voting on this matter again once we clarify any
doubts that members may be having.
Hi all,
I'd want to ask this collective if you think the lack of participation
in this important decission was due to lack of clarity, on their end or
on ours.
On ours, I suspect that it maybe a good time to bring up again the
discussion around the definition of Community Networks.
AFAIK, the document where there has been more progress in this direction
is this one:
https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration
... discussed in the context of the DC3 (Dynamic Coalition on Community
Connectivity)
Are you all aware of this document? Would it be interesting to take this
as a starting point for a discussion within the CNSIG?
Cheers,
Nico
3:36 p.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] Community Network Defnition - Re: [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
Hi Nico,
My impression was that the lack of participation might be caused by the
fact that there were concerns raised during the actual voting procedure.
I proposed in a previous e-mail to separate the discussion on an
"application" from the actual voting process because someone might feel
reluctant to vote when there are "open issues" subject to more discussion.
Independent from this, I think that the discussion on the definition of
a CN would be very useful and I think that the linked document is a good
starting point.
Perhaps something to discuss in our next meeting?
Best,
Panos.
On 08.08.2018 17:30, Nicolás Echániz wrote:
On 07/18/2018 08:25 PM, Nicolás Echániz wrote:
Sol, should we extend this vote call for another
5 days or do you prefer
to open the discussion so we can better understand why there were so few
interventions?
Nothing prevents us from voting on this matter again once we clarify any
doubts that members may be having.
Hi all,
I'd want to ask this collective if you think the lack of participation
in this important decission was due to lack of clarity, on their end or
on ours.
On ours, I suspect that it maybe a good time to bring up again the
discussion around the definition of Community Networks.
AFAIK, the document where there has been more progress in this direction
is this one:
https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration
... discussed in the context of the DC3 (Dynamic Coalition on Community
Connectivity)
Are you all aware of this document? Would it be interesting to take this
as a starting point for a discussion within the CNSIG?
Cheers,
Nico
_______________________________________________
Council mailing list
Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council 
9 Aug
9 Aug
9:05 a.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] Community Network Defnition - Re: [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
1) lack of participation: my general position/recommendation is that
one should put the efforts on what he/she considers more attractive,
keeping the participation open, but without worrying to much about if
others join or not.
Diversity is positive. I like to see people pushing CNsig. Many times
I've relied on the existence of CNsig to support our arguments. The
same way, I think the local initiatives are food for CNsig.
In this specific case, you have you have followed the established
procedures, which can be considered open, so nothing to object. If
people stays quiet is not your fault (probably not theirs either
because they are probably busy in other matters). But this does not
mean that we do not appreciate what you are doing CNsig.
2) CNs definition: I would love to have one to because I think the
term is being overused and might be even more in the future. But given
the previous attempts and the diversity of approaches I'm afraid we
won't be able to reach a common understanding.
I dare say I particularly have a rather clear idea on the criteria for
classifying initiatives the categories of "clearly yes", "maybe
yes/maybe not" and "definitely not". But this is for my particular use
and I would dare not impose these criteria to anybody.
Main question: given the previous attempts, is worth to retake the
discussion to come up with a definition?
kind regards.
On 8/8/18 17:36, panayotis antoniadis wrote:
Hi Nico,
My impression was that the lack of participation might be caused by
the fact that there were concerns raised during the actual voting
procedure.
I proposed in a previous e-mail to separate the discussion on an
"application" from the actual voting process because someone might
feel reluctant to vote when there are "open issues" subject to more
discussion.
Independent from this, I think that the discussion on the
definition of a CN would be very useful and I think that the linked
document is a good starting point.
Perhaps something to discuss in our next meeting?
Best,
Panos.
On 08.08.2018 17:30, Nicolás Echániz wrote:
- --
Roger Baig Viñas
Fundació Privada per a la Xarxa Oberta, Lliure i Neutral guifi.net
On 07/18/2018 08:25 PM, Nicolás Echániz wrote:
_______________________________________________ Council mailing
list Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council
Sol, should we extend this vote call for another
5 days or do
you prefer to open the discussion so we can better understand
why there were so few interventions?
Nothing prevents us from voting on this matter again once we
clarify any doubts that members may be having.
Hi all,
I'd want to ask this collective if you think the lack of
participation in this important decission was due to lack of
clarity, on their end or on ours.
On ours, I suspect that it maybe a good time to bring up again
the discussion around the definition of Community Networks.
AFAIK, the document where there has been more progress in this
direction is this one:
https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration
... discussed in the context of the DC3 (Dynamic Coalition on
Community Connectivity)
Are you all aware of this document? Would it be interesting to
take this as a starting point for a discussion within the CNSIG?
Cheers, Nico
_______________________________________________ Council mailing
list Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=jkTv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12 Aug
12 Aug
9:16 p.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] Community Network Defnition - Re: [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
On 08/09/2018 06:05 AM, Roger Baig Viñas wrote:
2) CNs definition: I would love to have one to because
I think the
term is being overused and might be even more in the future. But given
the previous attempts and the diversity of approaches I'm afraid we
won't be able to reach a common understanding.
Maybe we can all agree on some initial parameters, taking the DC3
declaration and some other input documents.
I dare say I particularly have a rather clear idea on
the criteria for
classifying initiatives the categories of "clearly yes", "maybe
yes/maybe not" and "definitely not". But this is for my particular use
and I would dare not impose these criteria to anybody.
Do you have this criteria written down somewhere?
I believe this can be an interesting point to discuss.
In the CNSIG case, I think we actually want to define our "limits", so
we can be inclusive without loosing focus. There are many groups that
work with "local access", which is a much broader concept.
Main question: given the previous attempts, is worth
to retake the
discussion to come up with a definition?
I believe it actually needs to be done, even though I agree that it can
be a pain ...
Cheers,
Nico
13 Aug
13 Aug
5:28 a.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] Community Network Defnition - Re: [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
I really like this definition and believe it would resonate with Sudo
Mesh's understanding of what CNs are - I can bring it up at our next
meeting.. however -
Perhaps this is the kind of decision-based discussion that would best take
place on a Loomio instance? If you're seeking a majority/consensus of CNsig
representatives...
How is decision-making structured in this group, by the way? Is there a
formal governance model?
Cheers,
Jenny Ryan
People's Open Network <https://peoplesopen.net>
*Building a community-owned and -operated wireless network in Oakland,
California!*
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 2:16 PM Nicolás Echániz <nicoechaniz(a)altermundi.net>
wrote:
On 08/09/2018 06:05 AM, Roger Baig Viñas wrote:
Sent via Migadu.com, world's easiest email hosting
2) CNs definition: I would love to have one to
because I think the
term is being overused and might be even more in the future. But given
the previous attempts and the diversity of approaches I'm afraid we
won't be able to reach a common understanding.
Maybe we can all agree on some initial parameters, taking the DC3
declaration and some other input documents.
I dare say I particularly have a rather clear
idea on the criteria for
classifying initiatives the categories of "clearly yes", "maybe
yes/maybe not" and "definitely not". But this is for my particular use
and I would dare not impose these criteria to anybody.
Do you have this criteria written down somewhere?
I believe this can be an interesting point to discuss.
In the CNSIG case, I think we actually want to define our "limits", so
we can be inclusive without loosing focus. There are many groups that
work with "local access", which is a much broader concept.
Main question: given the previous attempts, is
worth to retake the
discussion to come up with a definition?
I believe it actually needs to be done, even though I agree that it can
be a pain ...
Cheers,
Nico
_______________________________________________
Council mailing list
Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council
16 Aug
16 Aug
7:48 p.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] Community Network Defnition - Re: [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
I second the idea of using Loomio as a decision making tool.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:29 AM Jenny Ryan <jenny(a)peoplesopen.net> wrote:
I really like this definition and believe it would
resonate with Sudo
Mesh's understanding of what CNs are - I can bring it up at our next
meeting.. however -
Perhaps this is the kind of decision-based discussion that would best take
place on a Loomio instance? If you're seeking a majority/consensus of CNsig
representatives...
How is decision-making structured in this group, by the way? Is there a
formal governance model?
Cheers,
Jenny Ryan
People's Open Network <https://peoplesopen.net>
*Building a community-owned and -operated wireless network in Oakland,
California!*
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 2:16 PM Nicolás Echániz <
nicoechaniz(a)altermundi.net> wrote:
--
bruno(a)pobox.com ▀─█▄██▄▀▄
http://brunovianna.net ─█▄██▄▀█▀█▄
skype: randomico▀─█▄██▄▀█▀█▄▌██─█▌█▌
On 08/09/2018 06:05 AM, Roger Baig Viñas wrote:
Sent via *Migadu.com*, world's easiest email hosting
<https://migadu.com?s=sent_via>
_______________________________________________
Council mailing list
Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council
2) CNs definition: I would love to have one to
because I think the
term is being overused and might be even more in the future. But given
the previous attempts and the diversity of approaches I'm afraid we
won't be able to reach a common understanding.
Maybe we can all agree on some initial parameters, taking the DC3
declaration and some other input documents.
I dare say I particularly have a rather clear
idea on the criteria for
classifying initiatives the categories of "clearly yes", "maybe
yes/maybe not" and "definitely not". But this is for my particular use
and I would dare not impose these criteria to anybody.
Do you have this criteria written down somewhere?
I believe this can be an interesting point to discuss.
In the CNSIG case, I think we actually want to define our "limits", so
we can be inclusive without loosing focus. There are many groups that
work with "local access", which is a much broader concept.
Main question: given the previous attempts, is
worth to retake the
discussion to come up with a definition?
I believe it actually needs to be done, even though I agree that it can
be a pain ...
Cheers,
Nico
_______________________________________________
Council mailing list
Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council
23 Aug
23 Aug
6:46 p.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] Community Network Defnition - Re: [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
( I had sent this reply to Jenny only. Re-sending to the group)
On 08/13/2018 02:28 AM, Jenny Ryan wrote:> I really like this definition
and believe it would resonate with Sudo
Mesh's understanding of what CNs are - I can
bring it up at our next
meeting.. however -
Great, let us know what's the feedback from the meeting.
Perhaps this is the kind of decision-based discussion
that would
best take place on a Loomio instance? If you're seeking a
majority/consensus of CNsig representatives...
In my opinion, using the list has been OK so far... but we could explore
Loomio if we believe that the tool (e-mail) has been an impediment to
our decision making process.
How is decision-making structured in this group, by
the way? Is there
a formal governance model?
During our first meeting, we agreed on this procedure:
2.1. Operative decisions that can be retracted do not require prior
voting, just informing.
2.2. Procedure for decisions that need voting:
2.2.1. Decisions can be made over e-mail threads. E-mails must be marked
with [Decision]
2.2.2. Default timeframe for decisions is 5 days. It can be extended by
5 additional days upon request of council members.
2.2.3. If there are not enough votes (51% of organizations represented)
the decision cannot be made.
2.2.4. After 5 days, a Council officer will share the result of the
vote, what is the quorum, and other relevant details. The e-mail will be
marked with the tag [Decision reached]
2.2.5. Prioritized backlog with pending identified definitions will be
public and kept updated by Council officers.
Cheers,
Nico
16 Aug
16 Aug
7:50 p.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] Community Network Defnition - Re: [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
Hi Roger, all,
On 09.08.2018 11:05, Roger Baig Viñas wrote:
I dare say I particularly have a rather clear idea on
the criteria for
classifying initiatives the categories of "clearly yes", "maybe
yes/maybe not" and "definitely not". But this is for my particular use
and I would dare not impose these criteria to anybody.
From my point of view, sharing our personal views (without imposing
them) on what is and what is not a Community Network is a very valuable
exercise.
And now I think that perhaps this is a better starting point (the
diverse views) than the "single" definition provided in
https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration.
And perhaps this is a nice way to share our views. Put various examples
of CNs in these three different boxes:
green (clearly yes), gray (maybe), and red (no) and add a few words on
why this is so.
While doing this exercise myself I would like to add an important
dimension in putting CNs into this boxes (values vs. practice):
There are many CNs that follow in principle certain values, but in
practice is difficult for them to follow. The most common example is
free software. And to take the example of Sarantaporo.gr, while its
members fully support free software, in practice the network is running
on proprietary software (Ubiquiti). I think that this fact shouldn't
exclude Sarantaporo.gr from being characterized a CN in a definition
that puts priority on free software, because Sarantaporo.gr is actually
ready to fight for this cause and would put its name under a related
open letter, for example.
Of course, values are easy to declare and the practice should also play
an important role. But just saying, that the conditions are different in
different contexts and CNs should not only be judged by their current
practice but also by their intentions.
My 2 cents.
Panos.
P.S. Are we going to have this chat after all?? I think it is better now
than later in September when everyone will return from vacations :-)
17 Aug
17 Aug
7:30 a.m.
New subject: [CNSIG-Council] Community Network Defnition - Re: [Decision] Tunapanda membership request
Maybe better than grey areas, what might be useful for a constructive
self assessment / introspective of the communities would be to come up
with a three set of specific attributes (but not mixed) that that might
help on positioning themselves and take decisions.
1. A first set could be the core characteristics related to the primary
subject, which IMHO is very much 2nd point of the Guadalajara
Declaration. That also helps in distinguishing fundamental things
like a community oriented initiative from a corporate business just
looking for customers by appearing as a community or running a
platform (ex: uber, etc...). Not to say what's right or not, but to
know what's really about.
2. Secondly could came another set which might help in evaluating the
robustness, sustainability, things like if is running on just a
declaration of intentions, or already having a written by laws, if
there is a governance in place, and it's properties. That would be
very much similar to Ostrom principles, etc. That might help CN to
build their own roadmap to develop themselves.
3. Last set might be collateral attributes, that might be nice to know
or perspectives that can help, but not directly related to the
previous main subject. The support for free software/hardware you
mention comes here, I mean, could be the case of orgs. who don't
care on that, and others who do their best effort (like the example
you mention).
If some of this last set of attributes becomes mandatory or has to
be prioritized from the above, it will shows you that although in
some cases it might still be considered as a CN, it is not their
main objective but another.
my 1.5 cents ;)
r.
A second might help in evaluating
El 16/8/18 a les 21:50, panayotis antoniadis ha escrit:
Hi Roger, all,
On 09.08.2018 11:05, Roger Baig Viñas wrote:
I dare say I particularly have a rather clear
idea on the criteria for
classifying initiatives the categories of "clearly yes", "maybe
yes/maybe not" and "definitely not". But this is for my particular use
and I would dare not impose these criteria to anybody.
From my point of view,
sharing our personal views (without imposing
them) on what is and what is not a Community Network is a very valuable
exercise.
And now I think that perhaps this is a better starting point (the
diverse views) than the "single" definition provided in
https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration.
And perhaps this is a nice way to share our views. Put various examples
of CNs in these three different boxes:
green (clearly yes), gray (maybe), and red (no) and add a few words on
why this is so.
While doing this exercise myself I would like to add an important
dimension in putting CNs into this boxes (values vs. practice):
There are many CNs that follow in principle certain values, but in
practice is difficult for them to follow. The most common example is
free software. And to take the example of Sarantaporo.gr, while its
members fully support free software, in practice the network is running
on proprietary software (Ubiquiti). I think that this fact shouldn't
exclude Sarantaporo.gr from being characterized a CN in a definition
that puts priority on free software, because Sarantaporo.gr is actually
ready to fight for this cause and would put its name under a related
open letter, for example.
Of course, values are easy to declare and the practice should also play
an important role. But just saying, that the conditions are different in
different contexts and CNs should not only be judged by their current
practice but also by their intentions.
My 2 cents.
Panos.
P.S. Are we going to have this chat after all?? I think it is better now
than later in September when everyone will return from vacations :-)
_______________________________________________
Council mailing list
Council(a)lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council
2312
days inactive
2354
days old
12 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
bruno vianna -
Jenny Ryan -
Nicolas Pace -
Nicolás Echániz -
panayotis antoniadis -
Ramon Roca -
Roger Baig Viñas -
Sol Luca de Tena