Freecycling

Earlier this year, I caught up with my old friend, Aaron Liepman, who’s currently a plant biology postdoc at Michigan State University. Aaron told me about this nationwide phenomenon known as Freecycle. He started two chapters in Michigan, including the first and largest in Detroit.    (1MN)

Here’s how it works:    (1MO)

  • Someone starts up a mailing list in their local community (often a Yahoo! Groups list).    (1MP)
  • People post offers on the list. Everything must be free (and legal).    (1MQ)
  • People respond to offers directly to the poster. When an item is claimed, the poster emails a notice to the list again.    (1MR)

You can also post items that you want. Aaron told me that one person posted on one of his lists asking for a DVD player. He scoffed at the post when he saw it, but sure enough, someone had a DVD player to spare and gave it to the poster.    (1MS)

I’m a reforming packrat, and I’m always trying to get rid of old stuff, so I subscribed to the Palo Alto freecycle soon thereafter. Since I recently replaced my laptop, I decided to give it a shot. This morning, I posted my offer. Literally a few seconds later, I got seven responses. This is for a seven year old laptop running Windows 95! If I hadn’t emailed a taken notice immediately thereafter, who knows how many responses I would have received?    (1MT)

What I love about Freecycle — other than the obvious environmental benefits — is that it’s a wonderful example of patterns trumping tools. First, it’s an innovative and efficient use of mailing lists. Someone could certainly design a custom tool to handle this exchange, but it’s not clear that the gains would be significant. Second, it’s easily replicable. Aaron heard about it and just did it. So did a thousand other cities. Third, it’s a community-builder, just like eBay — a way to discover folks close by with similar interests.    (1MU)

More articles about Aaron and Freecycle:    (1MV)

Identity Commons: Empowering the Individual

At last month’s Planetwork Conference, Blue Oxen Associates proudly demonstrated the first Identity Commons system for Single Sign-On. Conference attendees could access the PlaNetwork Wiki (which we hosted), Living Directory (for online profiles), Neo Society (a social networking site), and the conference site itself, all with one username and password. Although I’ve mentioned this work in passing on a few occasions, I’ve neglected to explain exactly what Identity Commons is about.    (1LG)

In short, we’re building a system where individuals have full control over their digital profiles. It’s an idea that was heavily inspired by the Augmented Social Network paper that was published last year.    (1LH)

Here’s how the system works. Individuals have one or more global identifiers — e-names — and Identity Brokers associated with their e-names.    (1LJ)

These Identity Brokers know three things about you:    (1LK)

  1. How to authenticate you (e.g. your password).    (1LL)
  2. Where your profile data is located.    (1LM)
  3. Link contracts that define who can access your data and what they’re allowed to do with it.    (1LN)

The latter two points are critical, because they differentiate this system from efforts such as Liberty Alliance and Microsoft Passport. Identity Brokers know where your data is, but they don’t necessarily store the data themselves. There is no central repository. Your data can be completely distributed across multiple sites. The only way sites can access your data is if you give them permission to do so via the link contracts.    (1LO)

There are two components to all of this: the technology and the social/legal agreements. The latter is the hard stuff. It’s not enough to build systems that can negotiate and agree on contracts; the organizations behind these systems have to respect these contracts. That’s why Identity Commons exists. Identity Commons is a member-owned Chaordic Organization founded by Owen Davis, whose primary purpose is to work out and enforce these social and legal agreements.    (1LP)

e-names and XRI    (1LQ)

I’ll have more to say about social agreements another time, most likely in response to other people’s queries and comments. In the meantime, here are a few more technical details.    (1LR)

E-names are based on an OASIS standard called XRI — eXtensible Resource Identifiers. Think of them as extended URIs. E-names are (mostly) persistent, globally unique, globally resolvable identifiers. E-names have multiple forms, but the ones most people will see are:    (1LS)

  =eekim   @blueoxen*eekim    (1LT)

The first form is part of a flat, global namespace (as specified by “=”). Sometime in August, individuals will be able to register global e-names as part of an Identity Commons fundraiser. The second form is an e-name associated with an organization (as specified by the “@”). That’s my actual, working e-name.    (1LU)

E-names are associated with e-numbers, which are persistent, numerical addresses. (Think IP addresses, except persistent.) You can associate multiple e-names with an e-number. In other words, requests for the email address of =eekim and @blueoxen*eekim would go to the same place, because they would both be associated with the same e-number.    (1LV)

You can use e-names for Single Sign-On, and you can also use them for data sharing and synchronization. For example, an e-commerce site could regularly request your latest contact information from your Identity Broker via your e-name, and it would get it — provided you give them permission. That information might be stored at another e-commerce site or at a social networking site or at a gaming community to which you belong. Neither the e-commerce site nor the Identity Broker care where that information lives.    (1LW)

Why do users need to remember yet another identifier format? Why not use email addresses? That would defeat the purpose of what this system is supposed to be about. Your email address should be your information, and you should control how it is used. If you just gave your email address out indiscriminately, that leaves you vulnerable to spam, which is the status quo. If you passed out an e-name, you couldn’t be spammed — folks would have to get your explicit permission to get your email address.    (1LX)

Why not use URIs? Two reasons: They’re not persistent, and they’re not user-friendly. One of the nice things about working with the OASIS XRI Technical Committee is that they are accomodating. None of the other TC members have had to worry about identifiers being user-friendly, because only software has seen those identifiers. However, they have already made some changes in their 1.1 spec to accomodate our desire for the identifiers to be more user-friendly.    (1LY)

Single Sign-On    (1LZ)

We’ve got the basic XRI resolution working and a Single Sign-On system working on top of that. The protocol is available on the Identity Commons Wiki. The protocol looks just like any other Single Sign-On protocol, and in fact, will most likely resemble the Liberty Alliance and SAML spec even more closely over time. Our intention is to use what’s good and available, not to reinvent the wheel.    (1M0)

I wrote the Perl implementation of the client library (XDI::SPIT), and there are currently PHP and Java versions as well. One way you can contribute immediately is to develop implementations in other languages (Python anyone?). The other way is to integrate these libraries into your tools. Note that all of this stuff is technically pre-alpha. It will change. That said, the APIs should remain fairly stable. It’s good enough for people to start using immediately.    (1M1)

Link Contracts and XDI    (1M2)

The most important pieces of all this are the data interchange protocol and the link contracts format. Fen Labalme, the chief architect of the Identity Commons project, is working hard on this right now, with help from Victor Grey, who implemented the first Identity Broker and also founded Living Directory.    (1M3)

Both of these pieces will be built on top of XDI (XRI Data Interchange), an XML application that is currently going through the standardization process. This is not something that’s being designed from scratch. XDI is based on previous work developed by One Name (now Cordance).    (1M4)

How does FOAF fit into all of this? The short answer is, “It will.” Think of what we’re doing as FOAF with authentication and link contracts. To be brutally honest, I can’t accurately assess this question until I see the XDI stuff, but I see no reason why XDI won’t be able to interoperate with FOAF, and vice versa. In fact, I’ll be gathering with Fen, Victor, and some other folks tonight to start exploring that possibility.    (1M5)

What’s Next?    (1M6)

This is without a doubt a grassroots effort, but there’s some serious technical and intellectual weight behind it. The technical specs are based on OASIS standards, with representatives from major corporations. The global registry for e-names will be operated by Neustar, which operates the .biz and .us registries among many others. Several of the people working on Identity Commons participated in Liberty Alliance.    (1M7)

Realistically, Amazon.com and Visa aren’t going to adopt this overnight. Once user demand passes a certain threshold, however, companies are going to have to start paying serious attention. Right now, users don’t have a choice. It’s give up your data or nothing. Once users realize they have a choice, I firmly believe that people will opt for privacy over the status quo.    (1M8)

Our strategy for getting to that threshold is to target civil society groups. So far, response has been outstanding, and I hope that this blog entry generates additional interest. Single Sign-On and data sharing solves an immediate technical need, and the fact that it does this while respecting individual privacy is a huge bonus.    (1M9)

What’s my role in all of this? Blue Oxen Associates is about improving collaboration for a better world. This system fits the bill perfectly. Not only does it promote tool interoperability, it does so in a way that will help improve people’s lives. I’m proud to be one of the project’s many contributors right now, and I’m proud that Blue Oxen Associates will be one of the first large-scale users of the system when our collaboratories go live next year.    (1MA)

If you want to help, more information is available at the Identity Commons Wiki.    (1MB)

New iBook G4

Folks who know me best know that, while I like to keep track of cutting-edge trends, I myself am the classic late adopter. Part of it is practicality — if it works, why replace it? Part of it is excessive sentimentality. Up until a few years ago, I was still using a wallet my parents had given to me in elementary school!    (1JC)

For the past seven years, my laptop of choice was a Toshiba Satellite Pro 425. I had upgraded the memory twice and the hard disk once, and it ran Windows 95 and Linux. About a year ago, I started having hard disk trouble. That, combined with my desire to run Compendium and to have wireless access compelled me to finally replace the machine… a year later.    (1JD)

A few weeks ago, I purchased an iBook G4. Reasons for going Mac:    (1JE)

  • I wanted a machine that ran Mac O S X. There are a lot of interesting applications that run only on Mac O S X, especially those in the collaboration space, such as SubEthaEdit. Mac O S X also is based on FreeBSD. I can run most of the UNIX applications I use regularly while also having access to Mac O S apps.    (1JF)
  • These Apple notebooks are simply beautiful. I’ve been enamored with the form factor and ergonomics of these machines ever since they first came out, and I haven’t been disappointed.    (1JG)

The alternative was an IBM Thinkpad X series notebook. I also think those are beautiful machines, and they have features that I really miss — thumbpad mouse, two (!) mouse buttons, etc. Plus, as much as I’m enjoying the Mac O S UI, there are still quirks I haven’t gotten used to. For example, Command-Tab doesn’t work exactly as I would like; I haven’t figured out how to cycle through windows as opposed to apps (although I’ve quickly learned that F9 is my friend).    (1JH)

Nevertheless, I am very, very happy with my purchase. I’m also enjoying the new mobility and flexibility that the small form factor and built-in wireless affords me.    (1JI)

Advocacy Developers Convergence in San Francisco

I enjoyed the Advocacy Developers Convergence last week, where about 40 super-passionate folks — mostly developers of advocacy tools — gathered in the Presidio to discuss ways to collaborate. Among those represented were Advo Kit, CivicSpace, IndyVoter, Groundspring, Identity Commons (one of three hats I was wearing), and many, many others. Aspiration organized and facilitated the event, and Blue Oxen Associates provided the Wiki.    (1JJ)

While the scope of projects represented — most of which were open source — impressed me, I was really taken by the collective energy in the room. These weren’t your average techies. These folks cared about improving the world, and their passion was palpable. Even the most hardened cynic would have walked away from that gathering with at least a smidgen of hope about our future.    (1JK)

I wore three hats. First, I was there to facilitate Wiki usage during the event. In this regard, I basically did nothing. Most of the people there were already highly Wiki-literate, and the rest picked it up quickly. Second, I was there to help Fen Labalme talk about the Identity Commons system and to identify other potential early adopters. Third, as always, I was there both to share what I knew about collaboration and to observe and learn from others. I was particularly interested in watching Gunner’s (Allen Gunn) facilitation technique. Gunner, who recently took over Aspiration along with Katrin Verclas, used to work for Ruckus Society, and has facilitated a number of interesting events, including several international Open Source boot camps.    (1JL)

Mapping the Space; Emergent Goals    (1JM)

One of Aspiration’s stated goals for the event was to begin mapping the space of advocacy tools. That begged the question: What exactly is an advocacy tool? It was a question most of us conveniently avoided. Some tools are clearly and specifically designed for supporting the needs of grassroots advocacy, such as email campaigns, volunteer organizing, and friend-raising. Several (most?) other tools used by advocacy organizations (such as MoveOn) have multiple applications — mailing lists, contact databases, and so forth.    (1JN)

We never reached a collective solution to this problem, but we seemed to be moving in the direction that Blue Oxen has already gone in determining how to map the collaborative tool space: Map functions (or patterns) rather than tools, and show how different tools can be used for different functions.    (1JO)

The other goal for the event was to identify and pursue opportunities for collaboration among the participants.    (1JP)

Aspiration’s stated goal for the event was to begin mapping the space of advocacy tools and to facilitate collaboration among the participants. A number of interesting projects emerged:    (1JQ)

  • Several people expressed interest in incorporating the Identity Commons protocols into their tools for Single Sign-On and Data Sharing (all with user privacy built-in).    (1JR)
  • An Open Source legislative contact database that activist groups could freely use.    (1JS)
  • Face-to-face code (and other) sprints. A small group is planning a VoIP sprint somewhere on the East Coast later this summer.    (1JT)
  • Internationalization working group, basically a support group for folks internationalizing their code. One of the great things about the attendees was that international representation was reasonably good. There were folks from Poland, Uruguay, and Canada, and people dealing with many other countries.    (1JU)
  • Technical outreach to organizations. Connecting these groups with the right tools, and explaining to them the virtues of open source. A group is planning to use a Wiki to generate a Nonprofit Open Source Almanac.    (1JV)

The challenge with events like these is sustaining the energy afterwards. Face-to-face events that go well are often victims of their own success, because they create a level of energy that is simply impossible to match online. That said, there are certain things that can help assure continued collaboration:    (1JW)

  1. Individual commitment to shared goals.    (1JX)
  2. Group memory.    (1JY)
  3. Shared workspace.    (1JZ)

This group has all of the above. People were super action-oriented. Tasks were getting accomplished on the spot. Requests for information were often followed a few seconds later by shouts of, “It’s in the Wiki” — music to my ears. In general, folks who easily acclimate to Wiki usage — as this group did — are already inclined to share knowledge and collaborate.    (1K0)

Facilitation    (1K1)

Gunner is both high-energy and easy-going. He’s got a goofy, infectious grin and is quick to drop gut-busting witticisms. It would be easy to ascribe the effectiveness of his events to his personality, but that would be largely inaccurate. A well-meaning and amiable person can easily kill the energy of a group by under- or over-facilitating. Gunner has a strong fundamental understanding of self-organizing systems and very good instincts for when to sit still and when to perturb.    (1K2)

Every good event I’ve attended with large groups of people followed MGTaylor’s Scan Focus Act model, and this was no exception. The beginning of these events are always about discovery and Shared Language. Discovery (or “scan”) is inherently messy and unsettling, but when done correctly, “action” naturally emerges. Most bad events I’ve attended are bad because they try to skip this first step.    (1K3)

Each day consisted of several breakout sessions with groups of three to five people, followed by report-outs, yet another pattern of effective face-to-face events. The agenda for the later breakouts emerged as the event unfolded.    (1K4)

The first day began with a game called A Strong Wind, which was an excellent way both to build energy and to get a sense of who was there. Following that and at the beginning of the subsequent days were In Or Out exercises, a way to get a sense of everybody’s mood and to build individual commitment to the collaboration that would follow. The first day, Gunner asked people to describe their moods in one word. The second day, he asked for colors that described their mood. The third day, he asked people to describe the most beautiful place they knew, be it a geographical location (e.g. California) or a situation (e.g. time spent with family, friends).    (1K5)

As a way to accomodate a number of demos, Gunner organized a Speed Geeking session on Tuesday morning. I’m not sure yet whether I liked it or not. On the one hand, I enjoyed the interaction and the energy. On the other hand, it was incredibly draining for the people giving demos (including me), who also missed out on the demos happening simultaneously to theirs. I think the Planetwork Forum model of eight demos — four minute presentations (PowerPoint highly discouraged) and two minutes of Q&A — followed by two hours of unstructured socializing/networking is more effective, but I’m not ready to discount Speed Geeking entirely.    (1K6)

Good Folks    (1K7)

The most important prerequisite for good events and good collaboration is having the right mix of people. I really like MGTaylor’s strategy for achieving this: The larger the group, the more likely you are of having that mix. This group was relatively small (40 people), and I suspect that Gunner and Katrin’s people instincts played a huge role in making sure we had a good group.    (1K8)

I hate to single people out, because I really liked and was very impressed by everybody there. Nevertheless, I can’t help but mention two people. First, I was glad to finally meet Kellan Elliott-McCrea, the author of Laughing Meme, in person. Time and again, I meet folks whose blogs I enjoy regularly and whose work I admire, and I constantly walk away even more impressed with their authenticity and their decency. It’s how I felt when I first met Ross Mayfield and when I met Seb Paquet, and I felt it again when I met Kellan.    (1K9)

Second, I was glad to meet Mark Surman, who’s based in Toronto. Mark founded the Commons Group several years ago, which is very similar in spirit to Blue Oxen Associates. I meet a lot of like-minded people, but it’s a rare treat to meet someone doing similar work. Mark and his group are doing great stuff. They’re an organization folks should keep their eyes on.    (1KA)

Joan Blades at PlaNetwork

Joan Blades just gave a great keynote at Planetwork. The first part covered MoveOn‘s history and accomplishments:    (1HJ)

  • Wes and Joan’s first email petition went to about 100 friends, and ended up reaching 1,000 people in a week. It eventually reached 500,000 people.    (1HK)
  • MoveOn raised $2 million for the 2000 presidential campaign. The average contribution was $35.    (1HL)
  • More than 300,000 members participated in the MoveOn primary (last summer, which Howard Dean won), more than the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries combined.    (1HM)
  • Over 1,000 people submitted commercials for the Bush in 30 Seconds contest, which were rated by 100,000 members and also field tested. (CBS refused to run the winning ad, Child’s Play.) Joan showed six of the ads; great, great stuff. The talent and creativity of the contributions were clearly evident.    (1HN)
  • Bake Back America was a nationwide bake sale that raised $750,000 dollars. Joan said, “It’s the only bake sale ever covered by the Economist.”    (1HO)

Ultimately, the MoveOn mission is about connecting people. The bake sales, for example, helped a lot of people with progressive values who felt out-of-place in small towns discover other likeminded people in the same communities. She told several great stories from MoveOn‘s recent book, MoveOn’s 50 Ways to Love Your Country, written by 50 members (selected out of 2,000 submissions).    (1HP)

More quotes and highlights:    (1HQ)

  • “Connecting takes us beyond the foolish dichotomy of right and left.”    (1HR)
  • “Politics on television is becoming indistinguishable from professional wrestling. There’s lots of posturing and a detachment from reality.”    (1HS)
  • “The public sector has been hollowed out.” It’s been replaced by idealogues (neocons) and entertainers (Bill O’Reilly). However…    (1HT)
  • The Internet is changing all of that by giving everyone a voice. “Connection puts us all on equal footing.”    (1HU)
  • Because of this change, the leaders of tomorrow need, “Strong vision, big ears.”    (1HV)
  • MoveOn did a nationwide survey, and found that there was a consistently strong message in all of the responses: a hunger for connection to core values, things like compassion, fairness, justice, opportunity, family, country, freedom, responsibility, and democracy. It reinforces Joan’s assertion that…    (1HW)
  • Progressive values are American values.    (1HX)

Joan ended her talk with three suggestions:    (1HY)

  • Lead from the heart.    (1HZ)
  • Be bold. “The way to win is to be about something.”    (1I0)
  • Call to the best in all of us.    (1I1)