Wow.
This is bolder than I had been willing to go.
But Umair Haque is some else who gets the bigger picture about what Taylor and I were trying to talk about in our piece on neo-progressives.
Big h/t to Michael Anton Dila whom it was great to meet this weekend.
Last week Paul Biondich lent me The Starfish and the Spider and I just finished reading it (I know, I didn’t put it in the sidebar). Indeed, a number of people I respect have had great things to say about it – John Lily suggested the book ages ago and I remember reading his review and wanting to pick a copy up.
Tons of exciting ideas in the book. One that excited me most related to an idea (articulated by many people) that I’ve been trying to advance – namely that Community Management is core to open source. Specifically there was this exciting piece on how Jimmy Wales, the “catalyst” behind Wikipedia, spends his time:
Jimmy focuses a great deal of attention on maintaining the health of the Wikipedia community. “I go to speaking engagements all over the world at conferences, and everywhere I go I meet Wikipedia volunteers,” he told us. “Usually we go off to dinner and talk shop about Wikipedia. The Wikipedia gossip is the same all over the world-just the characters are different. The problems that affect community are always the same problems.” When he doesn’t meet the members in person, Jimmy spends “a ton of time writing e-mails internally, to the community, touching base with people, discussing issues that come up on the mailing list.” But “as far as working with Wikipedia, I don’t write articles. Very, very little do I ever edit. But I do engage with people on policy matters and try to settle disputes. (page 112 – paperback edition)
It could be that in starfish organizations the role of managers and leaders isn’t to tell people what to do, but help settle disputes, grease the wheels and make sure that groups are working well. Is this to say other expertise are not needed? Not at all. But it is great to see another take on how soft skills such as dispute management, facilitation, negotiation and mediation may be essential for sustainable success of starfish organization (like open source communities).
I have a piece in Embassy Magazine today lamenting the fact that US-Canada relations are likely in for some significant changes over the next few years… and we’re unlikely to do much in the way of planning.
Certainly no one on the campaign trail is going to be talking about it.
Canada’s relationship with the United States has always experienced ebbs and flows. The question is not how do we prevent this cycle, but how Canadian governments choose to manage it?
And manage it we have not. Not since the Trudeau era has Canada been more marginal to debates in Washington. Even the basic elements that once kept the relationship running smoothly—such as quarterly meetings between senior Canadian and American officials—no longer occur. Consequently, when issues arise that relate directly to Canada—such as on the environment, protectionism, or energy security—our voice is frequently absent.
Today, Canada engages the United States not as a strategic partner, but as yet another country with a laundry list of complaints. Be it the border or softwood lumber, our concerns may be justified, but the tone and message is problematic: we have a concern, and you are the cause.
There are understandable reasons for this state of affairs. Over the past eight years, the United States has pursued policies, from Iraq to Kyoto, that, to understate the problem, made the vast majority of Canadians uncomfortable.
But the Bush era is coming to an end. And with elections taking place on both sides of the border, the political map of North America could look dramatically different by the end of November. A McCain or, more dramatically, an Obama administration could mark the beginning of a number of important policy shifts. Issues critical to Canada, and the Canada-U.S. relationship, will likely be reviewed. More importantly, policies that will shape the future of North America will be decided, with or without our participation.
Among the most important of these issues is energy security, something both presidential candidates have stated they will prioritize. As America’s largest energy supplier, Canada will factor significantly in these plans. In addition, at some point, a North American carbon regime will likely emerge, the environmental implications of the tar sands will need to be confronted, businesses will want to further facilitate the movement of goods and people across the border and, of course, Canadian and Americans will need to co-operate to ensure success in Afghanistan, especially as the United States refocuses its energies there. This is to say nothing of the unpredictable events and issues that will inevitably spring up.
And yet, none of the prime ministerial candidates will talk about renewing our relationship with the United States. The subject is simply too unpopular, and the outcome of the U.S. election too unpredictable. So at the very moment, when a plan and vision is most required from our leaders, when the opportunity for renewal is emerging, Canadians are least likely to receive one.
Perhaps others can begin strategizing and preparing. Canadians should hope so, for such a renewal is not only necessary but possible. In a recent Policy Options piece on renewing the Canada-U.S. relationship, Robin Sears notes: “Imagine the vision, the courage and imagination that it took in the harsh winter of European famine of 1947-48 for two powerless French statesmen to sit in a Paris café and begin to plan for a united Europe!”
Today, despite our differences, Canadians and Americans face not even a fraction of the obstacles that confronted Schuman and Monnet, nor do we want to even contemplate a vision half as grand.
Such planning will, as always, require Canadian leadership. Part of this is because of the asymmetric impact of any resolution. For Canadians the magnitude of the challenges is simply fundamental, but to America they are but a few of many pre-occupations. Their chess board is simply vastly more complex. But for domestic reasons, the Canadian public will demand their government lead, not follow, the Americans.
Somewhere in Ottawa, I hope, there is the Canadian equivalent of Schuman or Monnet, who see the opportunity and are planning a strategy to manage the next generation of Canada-U.S. relations. One thing is for certain, no one on the campaign trail will be.
David Eaves is a frequent speaker, consultant and writer on public policy and negotiation.
So it turns out that others are also concerned about the differences between the Nanos poll and the Decima poll. The Ottawa Citizen has run a story about it today.
2 differences apparently account for the gap. One, Decima prompts people with a choice of who they are supporting whereas Nanos asks an open ended question – meaning the responding has to choose. The second is more interesting:
Nanos pays more to get cellphone exchanges included in its calling list. Cell users tend to be young and more transient than those with land-lines, Mr. Nanos says.
So, Nanos sample is actually more representative. Decima is going to be skewed towards older voters. What is more interesting is that this problem isn’t a new one…
Anyone notice this? We seem to not only have a battle of political parties, but also a battle of pollsters.
According to Harris/Decima press release of September 21st the Conservatives lead is growing:
Conservatives:39%,
Liberals: 23%
NDP: 17%
Green Party: 11%
BQ: 8%.
However, a press release on the very same day by our friend Nik Nanos (who it is worth remembering predicted the last election within .2%) had the Conservatives lead shrinking:
Conservatives:36%,
Liberals: 31%
NDP: 20%
Green Party 7%
BQ 7%.
Personally, my money is on Nik, but something is going on here. These two polls are in disagreement well outside the margin of error. Liberal support is either at 23% or 31%? A lead of 5% versus 16%? These are huge differences…
When this election is over someone is going to really have egg on their face.
Once again, as Jeffrey Simpson recently pointed out, foreign policy seems to be a non-issue in the election.
It is somewhat understandable. With our soldiers in Afghanistan, the polar ice caps at a record low, our non-compliance of kyoto, the environmental implications of the tar sands, Obama and McCain’s reliance on Canadian oil in their energy security plans and the continued erosion of human rights, its not like foreign policy should be relevant to Canadians.
Well our friends over at Canada’s World are trying to change all that. Better still they have a list of questions they are encouraging people to ask candidates in their riding. Ask a few questions here and few questions there, and suddenly the main stream media might start paying attention.
For a while now I’ve noticed that something exciting is going on in Toronto. There is an energy to the place that is new and different. Social innovators abound, interesting conferences and speeches seem to occur daily, and big ideas are taking shape. Others are noticing it to (via Richard Florida).
I know that the story of this transformation is complex, but from someone whose both been a participant and observer of the transition I feel one piece of the puzzle is perhaps easily explained. More interestingly it isn’t making a lot of peoples lists, but the Centre for Social Innovation (CSI) strikes me as a central piece of Toronto’s emergence as a place with buzz.
This idea has been solidified by my reading of Steven Johnson’s Emergence (a fantastic book BTW, but then everything he writes is excellent).
Indeed, Johnson’s opening parable about the story of slime mold provides a perfect metaphor for what has happened:
“Slime mold spends much of its life as thousands of distinct single-celled units, each moving separately from the its other comrades. Under the right conditions, those myriad cells will coalesce again into a single, larger organism…”
As Stevens explains, for a long time it was not understood what caused the slime mold to shift from single-celled into a larger organism. For a long time it was presumed that certain “leader” or “pacemaker” cells caused other cells to react. Finally, two scientists, Keller and Segel asked “What if the community of slime mold cells were organizing themselves? What if there were no pacemakers?… If the slime cells pumped out enough cyclic AMP (a signaling chemical), clusters of cells would start to form. Cells would begin following trails created by other cells, creating a positive feedback loop that encouraged more cells to join the cluster.” Critically, no single overarching cell was telling everyone else what to do. Instead each cell was evaluating the nutrients available in its immediate environment and adjusting its AMP output accordingly. The result is a bottoms-up system.
Now, while some may relish in referring to Torontonians as slime mold, they should instead wish for a similar fate. I think Toronto has experienced a phase transition like that of slime mold. Like the individual cells of slime mold, a critical mass of social innovators are finally connecting. And rather than secrete a chemical, they are sharing ideas, challenges, and opportunities. These conversations have created a positive feedback loop, attracting still more social innovators, along with philanthropists, venture capitalists and consultants, helping further foster the community that has started to thrive in Toronto. A decentralized, emergent community of social innovation is growing.
CSI has played a critical role in all this by serving as a critical aggregator, by simply providing a place and some basic support, it fostered an environment in which emergent behaviour became possible. Before SCI social innovators probably abounded across Toronto, but were isolated and alone. Today they are busy created webs of complex communities and sub-communities. Toronto has had this aggregation in the finance indsutry for some time, but for social innovators and other creative class entrepreneurs, this community of support is new. As one observer who worked on Canada25 noted to me, even 5 years ago the peer support and interest was not even a fraction of what it is today.
There are lessons here. For Toronto, but also for other cities across Canada. Obviously other factors matter. This isn’t an attempt to be completely reductionist. Toronto’s decent subway system, which allows people (cell!) to easily come together from across a large geography, makes it easier to achieve critical mass. This means similar success in cities like Calgary may be more challenging. For my home town of Vancouver, the jury is still out – transit is getting better, but what about critical mass?. But I continue to have high hopes. Perhaps the Tides Renewal Centre will come to serve a similar function as SCI in Toronto.
Regardless of where you live, Canadians everywhere should take notice. There is a buzz in Toronto, the question is, can we bottle the lightening and reproduce it elsewhere? I’d love to hear of similar projects if anyone knows of any.
So last week in a post entitled “simple, online, deadly & political” I blogged about “scandalpedia” a site created to highlight the problems and failed promises of the Conservative Party. In the brief post I wondered aloud how long before a similar wiki would appear to tackle McCain and Palin.
Apparently, not long.
Today I stumbled upon McCainpedia, a site run by the democratic party that tracks and exposes the campaign trail lies of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Holding someone to account over what they are saying is not dirty politics – it’s accountability (something all the more necessary since the press has been inconsistent in holding McCain to account for his predilection for truthiness)
On a separate note I finally watch the movie “The Queen.” I’ve been eager to watch it since Andrew Potter wrote an incredibly insightful review that also made the movie even more enjoyable to watch. If you haven’t seen it, or even if you have, I highly recommend reading Potter’s comments.
Just returned Sunday evening from SVI. Interesting times and interesting conversations. One quick action item to share with everyone and anyone.
Tzeporah Berman (featured in our LRC article) has started a new organization called Power Up Canada that seeks to promote the environment as an issue around which people will make their decision at the ballot box.
If you have 30 seconds today, please join (and consider donating money to) Power Up Canada.
At a meeting I attended on Monday I was introduced to Robert Thompson, Secretary and Treasurer of a cool outfit called Operation Dialogue. Operation Dialogue seeks to “inspire and capture a lively and passionate dialogue among Canadians about what it is to be “Canadian.”
Their most interesting project? An online quiz on Canadian history. Anyone in high school who answers all 50 questions correctly is entered into a draw for numerous college scholarships (paid directly to the university). The best part? The site actively encourages “cheating” insofar as students are prompted – through hyperlinks – to research the correct answers. Indeed this is the whole point, to get kids to read about, look into and learn about the different aspects of Canadian history.
As a student of history, I’m a fan.
My humble suggestion, which Robert took to heart, was to hold a secondary contest with a small scholarship, that would reward the student who designed the coolest question – including links to resources and historical references – for the following year’s quiz. I mean, if you want kids to be turned on by history, why not have them help write it? Who is better positioned to know the history their peers will be most into? It felt like an easy way to make the quiz both more attractive and so help better satsify the organization’s mission.
I say make’em active historians, rather than just passive consumers. That’s what the net should be about.
eaves.ca 