Community

Hi Cody
I joined Rhizome three years or so ago after chasing a
reference to it in Peter Lunenfeld's excellent book
"Snap to Grid".
Hereafter I'm mostly talking about Rhizome Raw because
intersting and commendable as the rest of the
operation is, Raw is what is key for me.
My experience of it has been almost wholly positive.
I've learnt a good deal from it, seen lots of very
interesting work and made some friends and new
collaborators though it.
Its a place that requires you to keep your wits about
you but this seems to me to be no bad thing -in fact
in terms of scariness the contemporary opera list I
also subscribe to is a much fiercer place.
I think the recent groundswell of support for Joy
Garnett through the list and outside has shown one of
it's really positive characteristics at work, that it
proved a way of organising support and solidarity for
a fellow artist under attack.
There are some negative things - I think it would be
nice if there were a wider circle of people willing to
take a deep breath and post, sometimes one might
slightly wistfully hanker for a moderator, although
I'm actually opposed to this, occasionally it can feel
a little New York centric, not that that bothers me
enormously as an Americanophile, at least where
culture is concerned, and on occasion there is a bit
of a feeling of the existence of a 'charmed inner
circle' but I think that's almost inevitable and in
fairness I think steps have been taken to make the
thing more open.
In short: the benefits and pleasures for me far
outweigh the negatives and its made a real difference
to my life as an artist.
I hope after you've completed your research you'll
stick around and contribute- it would be interesting
if you posted your results at least.
best
michael

— cody <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey everyone, I just joined this site because I'm
> writing a paper for a college course. Basically,
> the topic of my paper is how digital art can develop
> a community. I was wondering if anyone could help
> me out, either by posting a reply, e-mail me or
> IMing me (AIM:sellout002). Essentially, I would
> like to hear from people who have been on the site
> for a while and have a deeper knowledge of how it
> works. Basically, have you made friends through the
> site (either online or off), have you obtained any
> jobs through the site, learned anything from
> discussions, etc. Really, any information would be
> a big help. Hopefully someone will take the time to
> help me out. Thanks.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

Perhaps the original digital art communities–the old ANSI scene back in
the 80's. iCE and ACiD were/are the two largest and most well know –
read some about them here, but I'd imagine most of the original members
have moved on :)

http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/04/01/15/0241216.shtml?tid6&tid8

Once you get into it–fascinating pre-internet online communities–the
ANSI scene was global, linked to the original of software piracy
distribution networks–and all sorts of other adolescent things… It
would make for an awesome research project–I think in time it will be
more celebrated as I'd imagine this was the first large-scale global
digital art/music/programming community/distribution network, maybe after
the cool stuff you can read about in the book Hackers (not really focused
on Art–unless you count the game-of-life and Frogger heh)… Ansi
artists worked with very rudimentary tools–had only 16 colors to work
with and only 80 columns and 25 rows… but the pictures are
amazing–using high-ascii characters in very creative combinations.
TheDraw was the tool of choice and most of the drawing was done using a
few shading characters and two block characters–with these basic
characters you could draw curves and angles and create depth with shadow.
You could only mix the first 8 colors because of the way DOS was
configured. I could talk more about the nuances of it–I made some ANSI's
myself, but that's another chapter in another book :)

Also celebrated still somewhat is/was the "loader" scene–these were TINY
programs usually used to introduce the various hacking groups (inside the
.ZIP or .LZH or .ARC) after a download… I'm not really an expert in
this area but the analogy might be how a graffiti artist might tag his
territory–a hacking group would pride itself on the fastest global
distribution (hence the origin of the "0-day" bragging terminology) and
teaming up with a top art group would be an integral part of this hacking
culture… Most of the art was influenced by comicbook characters and I'd
imagine most of the artists (hidden behind aliases) were young. They
still have programming/art competitions I think where coders have only 17
kilobytes? of code to work within but they are still able to do 3D
graphics, sound, etc. FutureCrew was probably the most well-known group.

I'm starting an artist community myself based on Wiki's and mirrored
forums–collectsart.com

–Peter James

cody wrote:

> Hey everyone, I just joined this site because I'm writing a paper for
> a college course. Basically, the topic of my paper is how digital art
> can develop a community. I was wondering if anyone could help me out,
> either by posting a reply, e-mail me or IMing me (AIM:sellout002).
> Essentially, I would like to hear from people who have been on the
> site for a while and have a deeper knowledge of how it works.
> Basically, have you made friends through the site (either online or
> off), have you obtained any jobs through the site, learned anything
> from discussions, etc. Really, any information would be a big help.
> Hopefully someone will take the time to help me out. Thanks.

this is an interesting example of an online community
http://www.worldchanging.com/

This is sort of a reply to Alexis, but it seems pertinent to other threads as well.
Why not make the Rhizome commisions contribute to the Rhizome community?
In other words, rather than spending money on individuals individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
It would go something like this:
"Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works that enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise get involved in the online community."
That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for the service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would create a really interesting and creative environment.
Eric

Eric Dymond wrote:

> This is sort of a reply to Alexis, but it seems pertinent to other
> threads as well.
> Why not make the Rhizome commisions contribute to the Rhizome
> community?
> In other words, rather than spending money on individuals
> individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome
> Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
> It would go something like this:
> "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works that
> enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise
> get involved in the online community."
> That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
> I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for the
> service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would create a
> really interesting and creative environment.
> Eric
But maybe the rest of the world is right. With the onslaught of new media works, unattended and unfiltered, on the Rhizome front page, coming 5 or 6 times a day, maybe great art is now unnatainable. Only the noisy will survive. Or maybe noone survives.. we just keep smiling.
So many new works, so little to say, so much to announce.
" It will be a gay world. There will be lights everywhere except in the mind of man, and the fall of the last civilization will not be heard above the incessant din".
Herbert Read "The World in 1984" edited by Nigel Calder.

Ehhhhhh….I often wonder why we fetishize community so much right now. Perhaps
because, at least in the states, there is so little of it. I wish it would
stop, frankly.

That said, it really is just that - a fetishization. Are we really so divorced
from it, is it such a fascinating otherness/exotic that we have so little idea?
We try to force community by offering things and trinkets, "interactivity."
But, really, can community be created by -lowering- the bar? No. That is
exactly the problem the Rhizome list has right now - any dipshit can send in an
announcement. Hell, even a spider can send in an announcemnet. But real
engagement takes effort, which by definition requires work on the part of
participants. Making it *easier* to participate, giving one more thing to
simply be consumed by visitors, will destroy the community that
much further. You allude to this re: noise.

Consider the nostalgic days (yes, I know they had their problems, but if all
community-drum-bangers cite this as an example, I might as well do it too) way
back when when we were all stuck with BBSes. The thing that created a community
was precisely the exclusionary factor - there were distinct silos (message
boards) within the larger BBS, and users could choose to participate in the silo
of their interest. It created much smaller, but more effective, microclimates.
-Alexis


On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Eric Dymond wrote:

::Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:35:17 -0700
::From: Eric Dymond <[email protected]>
::To: [email protected]
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Community
::
::Eric Dymond wrote:
::
::> This is sort of a reply to Alexis, but it seems pertinent to other
::> threads as well.
::> Why not make the Rhizome commisions contribute to the Rhizome
::> community?
::> In other words, rather than spending money on individuals
::> individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome
::> Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
::> It would go something like this:
::> "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works that
::> enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise
::> get involved in the online community."
::> That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
::> I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for the
::> service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would create a
::> really interesting and creative environment.
::> Eric
::But maybe the rest of the world is right. With the onslaught of new media works, unattended and unfiltered, on the Rhizome front page, coming 5 or 6 times a day, maybe great art is now unnatainable. Only the noisy will survive. Or maybe noone survives.. we just keep smiling.
::So many new works, so little to say, so much to announce.
::" It will be a gay world. There will be lights everywhere except in the mind of man, and the fall of the last civilization will not be heard above the incessant din".
::Herbert Read "The World in 1984" edited by Nigel Calder.
::+
::-> post: [email protected]
::-> questions: [email protected]
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::

Eric,

To improve the community aspect of the Rhizome Commissions program, I
think we need to keep in mind that most of our community will not win
a commission. Most of our community will spend time doing these
actions:

+ proposing a commission
+ voting on proposals
+ discussing proposals

If we can make these activities more rewarding in and of themselves,
I think we will see a more spirited community result from the next
round of Rhizome Commissions.

In the last round of Rhizome Commissions , a prevailing comment was
that proposal pages received very few visits – as low as 6-7 hits
over the entire voting period. While the votes were evenly spread
over the proposals, multiple participants were dissatisfied that few
voters read the proposals. I think this can be addressed with
changes to the design of the voting process.

We might be able to create HTML code for a Rhizome Commissions
toolbar, somewhat like what Blogger.com puts on their blogs. All
proposals would be required to insert this code (a javascript
include) onto their proposal page. Using this toolbar, we could
steer voting traffic through the project proposal pages. Also, we
could facilitate discussion by adding comment links onto the toolbar.

We appreciate feedback on this issue.

Cheers,

Patrick

–
Patrick May
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
AIM: cyclochew
+ + +


On Sep 30, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Eric Dymond wrote:

> This is sort of a reply to Alexis, but it seems pertinent to other
> threads as well.
> Why not make the Rhizome commisions contribute to the Rhizome
> community?
> In other words, rather than spending money on individuals
> individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome
> Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
> It would go something like this:
> "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works
> that enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and
> otherwise get involved in the online community."
> That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
> I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for
> the service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would
> create a really interesting and creative environment.
> Eric
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php

Eric, I'm copying this to the list. It seems relevant.

My previous comments about community, and lack thereof, reflect my belief that
people must communicate about a shared interest in order to maintain a community
(shiiiit…they even use the same root in the words, so I can't be too far off
base here). Communication implies a give and take, as well as a level of
understanding and/or dialogue. It also implies a common ground (holy shit,
there's that root again), or, in other words, a targeted, (self)selected group.
Above all, it requires engagement and active participation.

As a newcomer, I am agreeing with your assessment that Rhizome currently
seems to have little community. I can't speak for the good old days, because
I wasn't here for them, but I -can- tell you that if you want the good old days,
marching forward with the new things that have fucked Rhizome since then seems
like a rather ironic choice. Those things would include anything that makes it
easier for non-interested or half-assed participants to take part, or anything
that does not encourage participation. I'm not figuring out where nepotism and
self-reference fit in that scheme.

There is one other thing you're right about, too - I'm not planning on paying
for membership next year. I'm not even planning on participating anymore. Life is
too short to delete 80 piece of shit e-mails a day in the hopes that once
every 3 months something interesting might come along. So far, it's been a year
and a half and I still am waiting for something, anything, interesting. There
were a couple of exchanges about 8 months back (thanks Curt - in spite of the
ocassional snide remark it was quite fruitful), but that feels a little dry for
what'll end up being two years.

So that's the background that informs the naive little newcomer statements I
keep making. To be honest, it seems for this discussion there's only thing we
don't agree on: that the thing Rhizome is lacking is a brain, not another (albeit
touchier-feelier) way for people to pimp their work and "get their money's
worth." The signal to noise ratio here is simply too fucked already, and I
don't see how having one more gimmick will correct that. Bigger, splashier,
and more is a way to fake community, not create it. Strip away the bullshit
and put in a couple of targeted, moderated forums, a few well chosen links, and
nothing else. Separate the wheat from the chaff. Stop trying to be all things
to all people. Retain the elements who actually give a fuck and participate.
And stop seeing Rhizome as a "PROVIDER" - providers are businesses, not communities.

Then we'll talk.
-Alexis


On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 [email protected] wrote:

::Alexis for all yoour bluster you display a newcomers view of Rhizome.
::It was not that long ago that Rhizome offered unique opportunities to
::paying members and engaged a community. […]
::
::I doubt that Rhizome will be able to continue on a membership paid
::business model if the current distance between audience and provider
::continues.
::Would you pay for membership next year?
::Eric
::

Uh oh, it’s turning into a rhizome bashing party!

I have only been around here for about 2 years. I have watched the 'community' feeling dwindle. I can't bitch too much because I'm sort of a loner and not usually one to jump into communities in general. But what has caused this reduction besides the commission stuff, and is disappointing, is the end of the 'art base'. I don't know if the reason is because of manpower funding or because of regime change strategy decisions, but about a year ago they stopped accepting things into the art base. The rhizome front page used to be mostly MEMBER art projects that were newly added into the art base. It was member content. And it was exciting to see all the new member art coming in and to see it discussed here. That is gone. Decisions were made to change to a reblog system of mostly external NON-MEMBER content. I voiced my opinion about that decision when it was made. I was slapped down, and for one reason or another was asked to resign as a 'superuser' helper. (Apparently I wasn't posting often enough to be useful as a FREE volunteer resource) Now the site its mostly digested information from other blogs and sources. I don't need that, I have a free bloglines account already thank you.

The art base claims to still be in operation. But how many pieces have been added to it this year? About 5. It used to be at least 10-20 pieces per week. Now it’s pretty much gone. And there has been little to no explanation. And I am quite sure the members were submitting hundreds and hundreds of pieces to the art base this year. They appear to have been completely ignored.

Then they do an anniversary festival, all in NYC it seemed. Suffice to say I didn't feel at all any sense of 'community' involvement with this festival. I could have missed something with that, but it seemed to me to be conceived and implemented in a vacuum.

I would like to renew my membership when the time comes, but the reasons are disappearing. I feel my money is not going to help any 'community', but instead to help a select few NYC insiders, which I am not 'lucky' enough to be one of. They don't seem to want our community, or they simply can't afford it anymore.

Steve OR Steven Read wrote:

> Uh oh, it’s turning into a rhizome bashing party!
>
> I have only been around here for about 2 years. I have watched the
> 'community' feeling dwindle. I can't bitch too much because I'm sort
> of a loner and not usually one to jump into communities in general.
> But what has caused this reduction besides the commission stuff, and
> is disappointing, is the end of the 'art base'. I don't know if the
> reason is because of manpower funding or because of regime change
> strategy decisions, but about a year ago they stopped accepting things
> into the art base. The rhizome front page used to be mostly MEMBER art
> projects that were newly added into the art base. It was member
> content. And it was exciting to see all the new member art coming in
> and to see it discussed here. That is gone. Decisions were made to
> change to a reblog system of mostly external NON-MEMBER content. I
> voiced my opinion about that decision when it was made. I was slapped
> down, and for one reason or another was asked to resign as a
> 'superuser' helper. (Apparently I wasn't posting often enough to be
> useful as a FREE volunteer resource) Now the site its mostly digested
> information from other blogs and sources. I don't need that, I have a
> free bloglines account already thank you.
>
> The art base claims to still be in operation. But how many pieces have
> been added to it this year? About 5. It used to be at least 10-20
> pieces per week. Now it’s pretty much gone. And there has been
> little to no explanation. And I am quite sure the members were
> submitting hundreds and hundreds of pieces to the art base this year.
> They appear to have been completely ignored.
>
> Then they do an anniversary festival, all in NYC it seemed. Suffice to
> say I didn't feel at all any sense of 'community' involvement with
> this festival. I could have missed something with that, but it seemed
> to me to be conceived and implemented in a vacuum.
>
> I would like to renew my membership when the time comes, but the
> reasons are disappearing. I feel my money is not going to help any
> 'community', but instead to help a select few NYC insiders, which I am
> not 'lucky' enough to be one of. They don't seem to want our
> community, or they simply can't afford it anymore.

Thank you Steve, you echo my opinions and had the nerve at an earlier date to express your opinion.
My concern has grown greatly over the past summer, and at this point I am reluctant to rejoin a project that now simply echos the interests of the managers and those with vested interests.
I liked the new format, but I am sadly disappointed by the debasement of Alex's original intent.
I have been a member since inception, but won't be next year.
It's not abut Rhizome bashing, it's about editorial integrity.
And that doesn't exists anymore.
Good luck with your future endeavours,

This synthesis of performance art (http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=Eric+Dymond&type=1) is signing off.
Eric

By the way, if Lauren, Marisa et al, have purposely changed the nature and mission statement of Rhizome, then their re-engineering has proved quite successful.
Eric

No Patrick, it goes much deeper than than the commissions.
It goes to the heart of Rhizome, which has a barely audible pulse right now.
Eric

Dear RAW,

Thanks for the feedback. We don

On the anniversary festival…
I saw no advance call for entries, call for involvment, call for help, call for jury, call for community, none. I don't think I missed the posts, as I just searched your archives, they don't exist. All the posts were after the festival had been planned and the participants set. Just look at all those events. Sure would have been nice to know they were coming and to know that maybe we could get involved. All privately invited participants. Not even one was an open community call of any kind. The Keylines…seeded again by privately invited participants. I wonder why only about 5 posts have been made in total? The Time Shares, again all privately invited curators. There were little to NO community calls for participation. This 'community' participation you speak of is totally manufactured. It's the classic 'art mafia' scenario. And now, this is the part where the loud-mouthed dissident (me) is taken to the back alley and shot in the head.

On the art base…
I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been broken for a year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to remedy it.

::Ideas on how to make Rhizome more communal are valuable, and I look forward
::to having conversations about different possibilities. One of our main
::questions relates to Rhizome discussion and how this should be maintained
::and enhanced (this is a question that has long been at the heart of
::Rhizome). Do people think lists remain an appropriate form of discussion? Or
::are there are other ways you'd like to converse with members on the site?
::One idea is enabling comments on the reblog, another is integrating blogs or
::linking to blogs on member pages.
::
::Are there thoughts on this?

How about splitting RAW into a minimum of two lists - one for discussion and one
for notices (announcements, events, openings, calls for submissions, etc.)
-Alexis

Alexis,

Yes, actually that

I think RAW should remain the way it is. A new branch could be made
for announcements but RAW should be the "raw" collection of all posts
that then are filtered to the various other, more limited lists.

Pall

On 6.10.2006, at 14:16, Lauren Cornell wrote:

> Alexis,
>
> Yes, actually that's an idea we've been debating in the office, as
> well.
> Francis, the previous Director of Technology, had suggested
> creating a kind
> of channel for announcements so they would be branched off RAW,
> therefore
> opening the list up for discussion (only). This is the same as what
> you are
> suggesting, as I understand. However, the premise of RAW has always
> been
> that its completely unfiltered, but perhaps this would allow for more
> conversation to flower and that's worth making a change for. I'd
> like to
> see additional areas for discussion on Rhizome as well, as I
> mentioned.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Thanks, Lauren
>
> On 10/6/06 1:44 PM, "Alexis Turner"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> ::Ideas on how to make Rhizome more communal are valuable, and I
>> look forward
>> ::to having conversations about different possibilities. One of
>> our main
>> ::questions relates to Rhizome discussion and how this should be
>> maintained
>> ::and enhanced (this is a question that has long been at the heart of
>> ::Rhizome). Do people think lists remain an appropriate form of
>> discussion? Or
>> ::are there are other ways you'd like to converse with members on
>> the site?
>> ::One idea is enabling comments on the reblog, another is
>> integrating blogs or
>> ::linking to blogs on member pages.
>> ::
>> ::Are there thoughts on this?
>>
>> How about splitting RAW into a minimum of two lists - one for
>> discussion and
>> one
>> for notices (announcements, events, openings, calls for
>> submissions, etc.)
>> -Alexis
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>



–
Pall Thayer
p\[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

Steve OR Steven Read wrote:

> On the art base…
> I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been broken for a year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to remedy it.

Can anyone from the community help fixing the art base?

Don't ask what Rhizome can do for you, ask what you can do for Rhizome.

We make the community. If the community isn't what it could be then we
know who to blame.

- Rob.

Lauren Cornell wrote:

> What do others think?

As a suggestion, create two lists:

rhizome-discuss

rhizome-announce

Combine them read-only as rhizome-raw. Or queue submissions to raw for
moderation and distribution to the correct list. Which will then be
combined back into raw. :-)

- Rob.

Perhaps it would be an easy fix to just crank out an RSS feed of the
artbase additions and let the super users post as normal from the
reblog section of the site?

On 10/6/06, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
>
> > On the art base…
> > I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been broken for a year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to remedy it.
>
> Can anyone from the community help fixing the art base?
>
> Don't ask what Rhizome can do for you, ask what you can do for Rhizome.
>
> We make the community. If the community isn't what it could be then we
> know who to blame.
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>


–
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

The question of fixing the ArtBase is interesting. I honestly think the time
it would take to explain what needs to get fixed, could be just as easily be
spent fixing, so maybe this isn't the right area for support. But your
larger point, as I understand it, of collaborating with the community is
well-taken.

A related possibility I'd like to (re) raise is the idea of opening up the
ArtBase so that all submissions are accepted, and ones selected by Rhizome
are tiered. This has been considered on this list before and I return to it
now as it seems relevant in Iight of this conversation. An open/tiered
system would seem to combine what artists want from the ArtBase, as well as
enabling it to grow faster. But its also a change to a system that hundreds
of people have submitted to as is – these things are complicated to change.

First, of course, we want to make sure the ArtBase is working smoothly as
is, but I just raise this to see if RAW subscribers generally have any
opinions on it.

Other suggested – and more minor changes – to the ArtBase in its current
iteration could include posting all submissions to RAW so the community gets
to see them even if they are not approved, and perhaps to see if site
editors would also like to be artbase curators.

Thoughts?

On 10/6/06 4:05 PM, "Rob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
>
>> On the art base…
>> I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been broken for a
>> year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to remedy it.
>
> Can anyone from the community help fixing the art base?
>
> Don't ask what Rhizome can do for you, ask what you can do for Rhizome.
>
> We make the community. If the community isn't what it could be then we
> know who to blame.
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

Regardless of what I said in my previous post, I really don't think
we need any new lists. We have RAW and RARE. If people don't like the
way RAW works, subscribe to RARE. Simple. Keep it simple.

Pall

On 6.10.2006, at 16:27, Rob Myers wrote:

> Lauren Cornell wrote:
>
>> What do others think?
>
> As a suggestion, create two lists:
>
> rhizome-discuss
>
> rhizome-announce
>
> Combine them read-only as rhizome-raw. Or queue submissions to raw
> for moderation and distribution to the correct list. Which will
> then be combined back into raw. :-)
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

Am 06.10.2006 um 22:27 schrieb Rob Myers:

Lauren Cornell wrote:

> What do others think?

As a suggestion, create two lists:

rhizome-dessouss



, pleaze


| interlinking of media
| practice with gender related issues
http://zurwehme.org/
http://www.myspace.com/beatezurwehme
http://www.spreadshirt.net/shop.php?sid9500

Regardless of what I said in my previous post, I really don't think
we need any new lists. We have RAW and RARE. If people don't like the
way RAW works, subscribe to RARE. Simple. Keep it simple.

Pall

On 6.10.2006, at 16:27, Rob Myers wrote:

> Lauren Cornell wrote:
>
>> What do others think?
>
> As a suggestion, create two lists:
>
> rhizome-discuss
>
> rhizome-announce
>
> Combine them read-only as rhizome-raw. Or queue submissions to raw
> for moderation and distribution to the correct list. Which will
> then be combined back into raw. :-)
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

Rob Myers wrote:

> Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
>
> > On the art base…
> > I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been
> broken for a year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to
> remedy it.
>
> Can anyone from the community help fixing the art base?
>
> Don't ask what Rhizome can do for you, ask what you can do for
> Rhizome.
>
> We make the community. If the community isn't what it could be then
> we
> know who to blame.
>
> - Rob.

Rob, you are quite right here. In fact, I would love to help rhizome and the art base. But, a couple years ago I did offer to volunteer and was helping out some as superuser. Then, when new staff came on board, I was asked to step down. I was going through a busy period and creating lots of work and shows, and my volunteer 'performance' had slowed down. I wanted to keep volunteering in general, which I mentioned, but to be honest I was rather rudely and quickly shoved off the system. I also tried to put in a comment or two about the changes to the site, that info didn't seem welcome either. So does the rhizome really want volunteer help? They sure didn't seem to want it then. I'm getting mixed messages.

Good suggestions on artbase. The way I remember it, was that many, perhaps most, artbase submissions were accepted in a moderated manner. The difficult question is how and how much to filter the submissions. My 2 cents is to moderate at various levels, but in general leaning towards accepting most things into the system.
1. moderate most (light filter) into artbase
2. moderate a few (heavy filter) to other levels (reBlog and ?)
3. no moderation of artbase submissions into raw

Most importantly - just keep art moving through the system, and not just reBlog. Let members contribute art to the system! Otherwise they'll post it elsewhere and rhizome may only eventually get it via reBlog and even then its not necessarily member-oriented content.

Steven Read

> A related possibility I'd like to (re) raise is the idea of opening up
> the
> ArtBase so that all submissions are accepted, and ones selected by
> Rhizome
> are tiered. This has been considered on this list before and I return
> to it
> now as it seems relevant in Iight of this conversation. An open/tiered
> system would seem to combine what artists want from the ArtBase, as
> well as
> enabling it to grow faster. But its also a change to a system that
> hundreds
> of people have submitted to as is – these things are complicated to
> change.
>
> First, of course, we want to make sure the ArtBase is working smoothly
> as
> is, but I just raise this to see if RAW subscribers generally have any
> opinions on it.
>
> Other suggested – and more minor changes – to the ArtBase in its
> current
> iteration could include posting all submissions to RAW so the
> community gets
> to see them even if they are not approved, and perhaps to see if site
> editors would also like to be artbase curators.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On 10/6/06 4:05 PM, "Rob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
> >
> >> On the art base…
> >> I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been
> broken for a
> >> year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to remedy it.
> >
> > Can anyone from the community help fixing the art base?
> >
> > Don't ask what Rhizome can do for you, ask what you can do for
> Rhizome.
> >
> > We make the community. If the community isn't what it could be then
> we
> > know who to blame.
> >
> > - Rob.
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

I do agree with Pall Thayer who wanted all artbase proposals posted to
raw. I would even like to be able to "vote" for the proposals I like.
Be able to put them on the front page without being a superuser. (I
cannot find information about the superusers on the front page any
more (maybe it's me because sometimes I seem to be blind), do they
still exist? who are they? Shouldn't we all be superusers? )

When I connect I see a lot of anonymous visitors and very few real
names. It is amazing to see Rhizome has a lot of visitors and still
being so little lively, en vie (french). But maybe it's the same
phenomenon as I see in my site that has a lot more visitors a day
nowadays, but not much more real attention than a few years ago. It's
a consequence of the way search engines etc. work, but not a real sign
of interest. ??


>
> On 10/6/06, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think RAW should remain the way it is. A new branch could be made
> > for announcements but RAW should be the "raw" collection of all posts
> > that then are filtered to the various other, more limited lists.
> >
> > Pall
> >
> > On 6.10.2006, at 14:16, Lauren Cornell wrote:
> >
> > > Alexis,
> > >
> > > Yes, actually that's an idea we've been debating in the office, as
> > > well.
> > > Francis, the previous Director of Technology, had suggested
> > > creating a kind
> > > of channel for announcements so they would be branched off RAW,
> > > therefore
> > > opening the list up for discussion (only). This is the same as what
> > > you are
> > > suggesting, as I understand. However, the premise of RAW has always
> > > been
> > > that its completely unfiltered, but perhaps this would allow for more
> > > conversation to flower and that's worth making a change for. I'd
> > > like to
> > > see additional areas for discussion on Rhizome as well, as I
> > > mentioned.
> > >
> > > What do others think?
> > >
> > > Thanks, Lauren
> > >
> > > On 10/6/06 1:44 PM, "Alexis Turner"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> ::Ideas on how to make Rhizome more communal are valuable, and I
> > >> look forward
> > >> ::to having conversations about different possibilities. One of
> > >> our main
> > >> ::questions relates to Rhizome discussion and how this should be
> > >> maintained
> > >> ::and enhanced (this is a question that has long been at the heart of
> > >> ::Rhizome). Do people think lists remain an appropriate form of
> > >> discussion? Or
> > >> ::are there are other ways you'd like to converse with members on
> > >> the site?
> > >> ::One idea is enabling comments on the reblog, another is
> > >> integrating blogs or
> > >> ::linking to blogs on member pages.
> > >> ::
> > >> ::Are there thoughts on this?
> > >>
> > >> How about splitting RAW into a minimum of two lists - one for
> > >> discussion and
> > >> one
> > >> for notices (announcements, events, openings, calls for
> > >> submissions, etc.)
> > >> -Alexis
> > >
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > > subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> > > 29.php
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > –
> > Pall Thayer
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.this.is/pallit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>
> –
>
> "Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
> .news series.
>
> http://www.bram.org/press/rassur
>


–

"Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
.news series.

http://www.bram.org/press/rassur

This has quickly devolved into a Rhizome bashing discussion, which is actually
kind of cute, as it's the most life I've seen in months. Even so, I would
simply like to point out (and then feel free to continue along whatever path you all
desire) that I was not merely bashing Rhizome as a tiny handful of all
powerful evil white devil administrators that hold our ephemeral souls in their
destructive hands.

I think it is worth considering that there are faults from many directions.

1) In a desperate effort to gain acceptance, both the Rhizome users and the
administrators have made the erroneous decision that quantity = proof of
legitimacy. The more art, the more users, the more notices, the more X, the
more acceptable and legitimate what we do must be. We are drowning in a sea of
fliers right now, each proclaiming our right to exist, and each smothering that
very existence by their sheer mass.

2) Rhizome community members have the lazy and/or greedy attitude that Rhizome
"owes" us services and is somehow a "provider." Regrettably, however, we can
have one or the other. Are we part of a business, or a community? They are
usually mutually incompatible, and, when they're not, they should be. If we
want a community, then Rhizome must be viewed as a facilitator. In which case
it would be useful to suggest that they are facilitating poorly, but not that
you aren't getting what you paid for.

3) We are, all, unwilling to accept that NMA or whatever the hell you want to
call the stuff on this list is too big for a teeny, chummy, 10 house
neighborhood. We are insisting on both maintaining forums structured for a user
base 5 years past, and on consuming absolutely every single thing that this new,
much larger group produces. We want Rhizome to provide tools that make our
gorging easier, rather than admitting that there is a critical point at which we
can no longer eat everything that comes across the table and that we instead
need tools that can make our experience more selective.

3a) The administrators, also guilty of this same unwillingness, haven't admitted
that they need more people to do what they are doing. The result is that
legitimate problems never get solved.

4) Many of us seem to believe that everything that is said, written, or created
is equally as good as everything else. And that's just stupid. More noise is
not better noise. It's just more.

5) Finally, the users are filled with apologies when another user breaks the
system or puts an undue burden on the administrators, but become downright
shrill and hysterical the instant the administrators do anything too slowly, or
incorrectly.

My complaints, then, about Rhizome 'lacking' are pretty much about the whole
thing from top to bottom. Fixing a feature will not correct the absurd
dysfunctionalities that are about 1 year away from actually being -built in- to
the system.

-Alexis

hey OR,

ich denke, dass es immer problematischer wird, denn jetzt tritt das
punkt moderation auf den plan, und das entspricht nicht dem raw concept
of rhizome und umgekehrt. das klingt voll nach rohrpost und german
scene. lasst das doch so wie es ist, ich meine, es ist a. AUTPOIESIS
und b. DEMOCRACY, wenn sich dinge wie mailing lists selbsr organisiere
und iom laufe der zeit auch VERANDERN. mann kann dies beobachten, aber
es ist immer schwierig, wenn man versucht es zu reglementieren oder zu
steuern. das ist nur bush administration.

nice grretings, beate



Am 07.10.2006 um 01:00 schrieb Steve OR Steven Read:

Good suggestions on artbase. The way I remember it, was that many,
perhaps most, artbase submissions were accepted in a moderated manner.
The difficult question is how and how much to filter the submissions.
My 2 cents is to moderate at various levels, but in general leaning
towards accepting most things into the system.
1. moderate most (light filter) into artbase
2. moderate a few (heavy filter) to other levels (reBlog and ?)
3. no moderation of artbase submissions into raw

Most importantly - just keep art moving through the system, and not
just reBlog. Let members contribute art to the system! Otherwise
they'll post it elsewhere and rhizome may only eventually get it via
reBlog and even then its not necessarily member-oriented content.

Steven Read

> A related possibility I'd like to (re) raise is the idea of opening up
> the
> ArtBase so that all submissions are accepted, and ones selected by
> Rhizome
> are tiered. This has been considered on this list before and I return
> to it
> now as it seems relevant in Iight of this conversation. An open/tiered
> system would seem to combine what artists want from the ArtBase, as
> well as
> enabling it to grow faster. But its also a change to a system that
> hundreds
> of people have submitted to as is – these things are complicated to
> change.
>
> First, of course, we want to make sure the ArtBase is working smoothly
> as
> is, but I just raise this to see if RAW subscribers generally have any
> opinions on it.
>
> Other suggested – and more minor changes – to the ArtBase in its
> current
> iteration could include posting all submissions to RAW so the
> community gets
> to see them even if they are not approved, and perhaps to see if site
> editors would also like to be artbase curators.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On 10/6/06 4:05 PM, "Rob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
>>
>>> On the art base…
>>> I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been
> broken for a
>>> year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to remedy it.
>>
>> Can anyone from the community help fixing the art base?
>>
>> Don't ask what Rhizome can do for you, ask what you can do for
> Rhizome.
>>
>> We make the community. If the community isn't what it could be then
> we
>> know who to blame.
>>
>> - Rob.
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

<announcements so they would be
branched off RAW, therefore
opening the list up for discussion (only). >
Well of course I declare an interest here, posting new
work quite often as I do (although, again on a
personal note, I have contributed a reasonable amount
to discussion too), but I think this would be a
mistake.

I don't believe for a moment that announcements &c
somehow "crowd out" discussion. The idea that they
might is bad science, false logic, whatever…It isn't
like Rhizome RAW has a limited capacity..
It isn't always completely easy to see but I do think
the work that is posted has a relationship to many of
the discussions, even if it's sometimes quite an
obscure one; maybe in many cases just providing a kind
of fertile, composted soil for discussion to grow in -
I actually don't belive *anyone* really thoroughly
*understands* the rather complex dynamics of a list
like this & therefore well meaning policing/reform
could actually poison the source of what continues to
make it such a useful resource.
Maybe I'm odd, but my first port of call on matters
Rhizome related is always the RAW folder in my inbox,
rather than the site…
Don't read everything, but a pretty substantial chunk
of it..
best
michael



— Lauren Cornell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alexis,
>
> Yes, actually that

It unfortunately has become a secret society.

On 10/6/06 7:54 PM, "Annie Abrahams" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I do agree with Pall Thayer who wanted all artbase proposals posted to
> raw. I would even like to be able to "vote" for the proposals I like.
> Be able to put them on the front page without being a superuser. (I
> cannot find information about the superusers on the front page any
> more (maybe it's me because sometimes I seem to be blind), do they
> still exist? who are they? Shouldn't we all be superusers? )
>
> When I connect I see a lot of anonymous visitors and very few real
> names. It is amazing to see Rhizome has a lot of visitors and still
> being so little lively, en vie (french). But maybe it's the same
> phenomenon as I see in my site that has a lot more visitors a day
> nowadays, but not much more real attention than a few years ago. It's
> a consequence of the way search engines etc. work, but not a real sign
> of interest. ??
>
>
>>
>> On 10/6/06, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I think RAW should remain the way it is. A new branch could be made
>>> for announcements but RAW should be the "raw" collection of all posts
>>> that then are filtered to the various other, more limited lists.
>>>
>>> Pall
>>>
>>> On 6.10.2006, at 14:16, Lauren Cornell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alexis,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, actually that's an idea we've been debating in the office, as
>>>> well.
>>>> Francis, the previous Director of Technology, had suggested
>>>> creating a kind
>>>> of channel for announcements so they would be branched off RAW,
>>>> therefore
>>>> opening the list up for discussion (only). This is the same as what
>>>> you are
>>>> suggesting, as I understand. However, the premise of RAW has always
>>>> been
>>>> that its completely unfiltered, but perhaps this would allow for more
>>>> conversation to flower and that's worth making a change for. I'd
>>>> like to
>>>> see additional areas for discussion on Rhizome as well, as I
>>>> mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> What do others think?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Lauren
>>>>
>>>> On 10/6/06 1:44 PM, "Alexis Turner"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ::Ideas on how to make Rhizome more communal are valuable, and I
>>>>> look forward
>>>>> ::to having conversations about different possibilities. One of
>>>>> our main
>>>>> ::questions relates to Rhizome discussion and how this should be
>>>>> maintained
>>>>> ::and enhanced (this is a question that has long been at the heart of
>>>>> ::Rhizome). Do people think lists remain an appropriate form of
>>>>> discussion? Or
>>>>> ::are there are other ways you'd like to converse with members on
>>>>> the site?
>>>>> ::One idea is enabling comments on the reblog, another is
>>>>> integrating blogs or
>>>>> ::linking to blogs on member pages.
>>>>> ::
>>>>> ::Are there thoughts on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> How about splitting RAW into a minimum of two lists - one for
>>>>> discussion and
>>>>> one
>>>>> for notices (announcements, events, openings, calls for
>>>>> submissions, etc.)
>>>>> -Alexis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>> +
>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>>>> 29.php
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> –
>>> Pall Thayer
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>
>>
>> –
>>
>> "Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
>> .news series.
>>
>> http://www.bram.org/press/rassur
>>
>

Leave RAW alone please. Its the only thing that has remained the same over
the years. Don't ruin a good thing.


On 10/6/06 2:33 PM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think RAW should remain the way it is. A new branch could be made
> for announcements but RAW should be the "raw" collection of all posts
> that then are filtered to the various other, more limited lists.
>
> Pall
>
> On 6.10.2006, at 14:16, Lauren Cornell wrote:
>
>> Alexis,
>>
>> Yes, actually that

Regardless of what I said in my previous post, I really don't think
we need any new lists. We have RAW and RARE. If people don't like the
way RAW works, subscribe to RARE. Simple. Keep it simple.

Pall

On 7.10.2006, at 09:02, Lee Wells wrote:

> Leave RAW alone please. Its the only thing that has remained the
> same over
> the years. Don't ruin a good thing.
>
>
> On 10/6/06 2:33 PM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think RAW should remain the way it is. A new branch could be made
>> for announcements but RAW should be the "raw" collection of all posts
>> that then are filtered to the various other, more limited lists.
>>
>> Pall
>>

–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

Hi Annie,

All these ideas sound great. And actually, we do have a box on the front
page of our site, entitled Community, that highlights works in the ArtBase
as well as Member-Curated Exhibits. It would be great to have someone
devoted to more regularly updating that, if you were really interested.
We're also in support of ArtBase proposals going to Raw, but one caveat is
that I think it should be optional for the artist. Listservs can be
hostile places, and 'bashing' is a popular form of collective discussion.
I think artists should have the choice of whether they'd like their work
reviewed in this space or not.

In any case, a main point I'm taking out of this thread is that, aside
from the pending re-activation of announcements of accepted works, the
interaction between the community and the ArtBase should be increased. We
actually have already begun work on the Artbase, in terms of Metadata
changes, so this is good time for this discussion to happen and for
changes to be made.

I would also say, to Lee, that Rhizome is not like a secret society at all
:) But, an overworked staff with only one full-time member (me) – and
we're all new. But, the fact that it feels like this to you is worth
debating. It seems the recent lack of connection between the ArtBase and
Raw has been an issue and that, in general, there is a need for more
forums of collaboration to be created. This is exciting to me, as these
are all priorities Rhizome staff has for this year. Francis Hwang also
used to send monthly Director of Technology reports, which were useful for
people in understanding the changes or fixes he was making to the Rhizome
system (and in general what he was doing), and I know Patrick has been
preparing to bring these back into the picture. Patrick really used our
massive server crash in April/May to rebuild the system so that it could
be more collaborative and open, implementing wikis, etc.

In terms of communication, we do make announcements about changes to this
list regularly but it seems like they're getting missed. For instance, the
change of title from superuser to site editor was something that began as
a request from one of the superusers who felt this title didn't represent
the activity he was performing. So, we discussed with the group –
formerly known as superusers – and agreed to change the title to 'site
editors.' Then, the change was announced to Raw. The process was entirely
transparent, but we cant force people to read our boring admin emails :)

I'm looking forward to seeing where this conversation goes, bashing can be
productive, and suggestions for fixes or changes are taken seriously by us
– though the amount of feedback can be hard to synthesize :)

Thanks, Lauren

> It will be a good thing to post all the ArtBase submissions to Raw.
>
> Wouldn't it be a good idea to let Raw readers propose submissions for
> acceptation? Wouldn't that stimulate discussion?
>
> How to get more member interaction?
> A special highlight of an ArtBase work on the front page? Every week a
> different one chosen by members? Just counting votes shouldn't be too
> difficult? (I could do it and send a title and name each week to one
> of the editors)
>
> best Annie
>
> by the way I found the editors list ( we have site editors, not
> superusers! What was I doing, when all this changed? I didn't even pay
> attention! Too much information too much to follow, yes Alexis, was I
> selecting at that time? and wasn't rhizome important enough? probably)
>
> I never noticed Steve's work and I didn't have a look at it till this
> morning. That was a pity. It's good work.
> http://www.stevenread.com/8bitcontemplation Isn't that significant for
> how Rhizome works and not works?
>
> On 10/6/06, Lauren Cornell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A related possibility I'd like to (re) raise is the idea of opening up
>> the
>> ArtBase so that all submissions are accepted, and ones selected by
>> Rhizome
>> are tiered. This has been considered on this list before and I return to
>> it
>> now as it seems relevant in Iight of this conversation. An open/tiered
>> system would seem to combine what artists want from the ArtBase, as well
>> as
>> enabling it to grow faster. But its also a change to a system that
>> hundreds
>> of people have submitted to as is – these things are complicated to
>> change.
>>
>> First, of course, we want to make sure the ArtBase is working smoothly
>> as
>> is, but I just raise this to see if RAW subscribers generally have any
>> opinions on it.
>>
>> Other suggested – and more minor changes – to the ArtBase in its
>> current
>> iteration could include posting all submissions to RAW so the community
>> gets
>> to see them even if they are not approved, and perhaps to see if site
>> editors would also like to be artbase curators.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> On 10/6/06 4:05 PM, "Rob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
>> >
>> >> On the art base…
>> >> I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been broken
>> for a
>> >> year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to remedy it.
>> >
>> > Can anyone from the community help fixing the art base?
>> >
>> > Don't ask what Rhizome can do for you, ask what you can do for
>> Rhizome.
>> >
>> > We make the community. If the community isn't what it could be then we
>> > know who to blame.
>> >
>> > - Rob.
>> > +
>> > -> post: [email protected]
>> > -> questions: [email protected]
>> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> > +
>> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> > Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
>
> –
>
> "Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
> .news series.
>
> http://www.bram.org/press/rassur
>

I can't say that the proposed changes won't work, but they all address tweaking existing Rhizome functions. I think, no I'm sure it's time for something more creative.
A few individuals cannot accomplish what many can. And for the most part I think those that would get involved have some NEW ideas. I am reposting what I said, about 30 messages ago:

"Why not make the Rhizome commissions contribute to the Rhizome community?
In other words, rather than spending money on individuals individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
It would go something like this:
"Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works that enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise get involved in the online community."
That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for the service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would create a really interesting and creative environment.
Eric "

Eric Dymond wrote:

> I can't say that the proposed changes won't work, but they all address
> tweaking existing Rhizome functions. I think, no I'm sure it's time
> for something more creative.
> A few individuals cannot accomplish what many can. And for the most
> part I think those that would get involved have some NEW ideas. I am
> reposting what I said, about 30 messages ago:
>
> "Why not make the Rhizome commissions contribute to the Rhizome
> community?
> In other words, rather than spending money on individuals
> individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome
> Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
> It would go something like this:
> "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works that
> enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise
> get involved in the online community."
> That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
> I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for the
> service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would create a
> really interesting and creative environment.
> Eric "
of course this wouldn't work if the commissions had already been promised to other applicants working under the previous years parameters.
But seriousely, give the commissions community parameters. Sit back and watch the world unfold in new and interesting directions. This isn't incendiary, its about the evolution of the media.
Eric

Hi Lauren,

Yes I am really interested
I saw the community box. I think it's to much at the bottom of the
page, it would need an image. More presence! The ""project of the
week" should be mentioned in the digest.
To be clear, I am not interested in presenting ArtBase works myself, I
am only interested in functioning as a go between the members and the
site. I can imagine a system in which members send a mail with the
name and the url (a small text would be great too, but not nescessary)
of the project they would like to see on the front page for a week. I
make a list, select the one with the most votes and send you every
week an image and a small text to publish. (I or someone else, would
have some influence, because if votes are equal, I could put in a vote
myself and so make the balance go in the direction of a specific
project.) If no one is participating there will be no project on the
front page.

Yours Annie
ps
I didn't want all ArtBase proposals on the raw list to review them,
but to be able to see them and to be able to propose them for
acception. Again if no one proposes a work for acception, it won't
even be considered by the "staff".
I want a direct role for the members in the process, not only a
secondary one. (even if I think a intelligent review is worth more
than ten ArtBase acceptations)




On 10/7/06, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Annie,
>
> All these ideas sound great. And actually, we do have a box on the front
> page of our site, entitled Community, that highlights works in the ArtBase
> as well as Member-Curated Exhibits. It would be great to have someone
> devoted to more regularly updating that, if you were really interested.
> We're also in support of ArtBase proposals going to Raw, but one caveat is
> that I think it should be optional for the artist. Listservs can be
> hostile places, and 'bashing' is a popular form of collective discussion.
> I think artists should have the choice of whether they'd like their work
> reviewed in this space or not.
>
> In any case, a main point I'm taking out of this thread is that, aside
> from the pending re-activation of announcements of accepted works, the
> interaction between the community and the ArtBase should be increased. We
> actually have already begun work on the Artbase, in terms of Metadata
> changes, so this is good time for this discussion to happen and for
> changes to be made.
>
> I would also say, to Lee, that Rhizome is not like a secret society at all
> :) But, an overworked staff with only one full-time member (me) – and
> we're all new. But, the fact that it feels like this to you is worth
> debating. It seems the recent lack of connection between the ArtBase and
> Raw has been an issue and that, in general, there is a need for more
> forums of collaboration to be created. This is exciting to me, as these
> are all priorities Rhizome staff has for this year. Francis Hwang also
> used to send monthly Director of Technology reports, which were useful for
> people in understanding the changes or fixes he was making to the Rhizome
> system (and in general what he was doing), and I know Patrick has been
> preparing to bring these back into the picture. Patrick really used our
> massive server crash in April/May to rebuild the system so that it could
> be more collaborative and open, implementing wikis, etc.
>
> In terms of communication, we do make announcements about changes to this
> list regularly but it seems like they're getting missed. For instance, the
> change of title from superuser to site editor was something that began as
> a request from one of the superusers who felt this title didn't represent
> the activity he was performing. So, we discussed with the group –
> formerly known as superusers – and agreed to change the title to 'site
> editors.' Then, the change was announced to Raw. The process was entirely
> transparent, but we cant force people to read our boring admin emails :)
>
> I'm looking forward to seeing where this conversation goes, bashing can be
> productive, and suggestions for fixes or changes are taken seriously by us
> – though the amount of feedback can be hard to synthesize :)
>
> Thanks, Lauren
>
> > It will be a good thing to post all the ArtBase submissions to Raw.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be a good idea to let Raw readers propose submissions for
> > acceptation? Wouldn't that stimulate discussion?
> >
> > How to get more member interaction?
> > A special highlight of an ArtBase work on the front page? Every week a
> > different one chosen by members? Just counting votes shouldn't be too
> > difficult? (I could do it and send a title and name each week to one
> > of the editors)
> >
> > best Annie
> >
> > by the way I found the editors list ( we have site editors, not
> > superusers! What was I doing, when all this changed? I didn't even pay
> > attention! Too much information too much to follow, yes Alexis, was I
> > selecting at that time? and wasn't rhizome important enough? probably)
> >
> > I never noticed Steve's work and I didn't have a look at it till this
> > morning. That was a pity. It's good work.
> > http://www.stevenread.com/8bitcontemplation Isn't that significant for
> > how Rhizome works and not works?
> >
> > On 10/6/06, Lauren Cornell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> A related possibility I'd like to (re) raise is the idea of opening up
> >> the
> >> ArtBase so that all submissions are accepted, and ones selected by
> >> Rhizome
> >> are tiered. This has been considered on this list before and I return to
> >> it
> >> now as it seems relevant in Iight of this conversation. An open/tiered
> >> system would seem to combine what artists want from the ArtBase, as well
> >> as
> >> enabling it to grow faster. But its also a change to a system that
> >> hundreds
> >> of people have submitted to as is – these things are complicated to
> >> change.
> >>
> >> First, of course, we want to make sure the ArtBase is working smoothly
> >> as
> >> is, but I just raise this to see if RAW subscribers generally have any
> >> opinions on it.
> >>
> >> Other suggested – and more minor changes – to the ArtBase in its
> >> current
> >> iteration could include posting all submissions to RAW so the community
> >> gets
> >> to see them even if they are not approved, and perhaps to see if site
> >> editors would also like to be artbase curators.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> On 10/6/06 4:05 PM, "Rob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On the art base…
> >> >> I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been broken
> >> for a
> >> >> year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to remedy it.
> >> >
> >> > Can anyone from the community help fixing the art base?
> >> >
> >> > Don't ask what Rhizome can do for you, ask what you can do for
> >> Rhizome.
> >> >
> >> > We make the community. If the community isn't what it could be then we
> >> > know who to blame.
> >> >
> >> > - Rob.
> >>

Thanks for supporting the idea, it would help solve the limited resources
of the staff, but I am guessing an undestandable inertia is also at work
here.
Eric
> Hi Eric,
>
> This is a super idea and I would love to see this given a chance, at
> least once.
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com
>
> On Oct 7, 2006, at 11:47 PM, Eric Dymond wrote:
>
>> Eric Dymond wrote:
>>
>>> I can't say that the proposed changes won't work, but they all
>>> address
>>> tweaking existing Rhizome functions. I think, no I'm sure it's time
>>> for something more creative.
>>> A few individuals cannot accomplish what many can. And for the most
>>> part I think those that would get involved have some NEW ideas. I am
>>> reposting what I said, about 30 messages ago:
>>>
>>> "Why not make the Rhizome commissions contribute to the Rhizome
>>> community?
>>> In other words, rather than spending money on individuals
>>> individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome
>>> Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
>>> It would go something like this:
>>> "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works that
>>> enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise
>>> get involved in the online community."
>>> That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
>>> I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for the
>>> service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would create a
>>> really interesting and creative environment.
>>> Eric "
>> of course this wouldn't work if the commissions had already been
>> promised to other applicants working under the previous years
>> parameters.
>> But seriousely, give the commissions community parameters. Sit back
>> and watch the world unfold in new and interesting directions. This
>> isn't incendiary, its about the evolution of the media.
>> Eric
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>> subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>> 29.php
>
>

As a quick example of change, why couldn't Rhizome adopt a Slashdot approach to project development, where members from various disciplines could sign on to projects that the community could watch evolve?
It would bring the practice of New Media in from the cold and make Rhizome an incubator rather than just a reblogger.
Eric

Eric Dymond wrote:

> Thanks for supporting the idea, it would help solve the limited
> resources
> of the staff, but I am guessing an undestandable inertia is also at
> work
> here.
> Eric
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > This is a super idea and I would love to see this given a chance, at
> > least once.
> >
> > Jason Van Anden
> > www.smileproject.com
> >
> > On Oct 7, 2006, at 11:47 PM, Eric Dymond wrote:
> >
> >> Eric Dymond wrote:
> >>
> >>> I can't say that the proposed changes won't work, but they all
> >>> address
> >>> tweaking existing Rhizome functions. I think, no I'm sure it's
> time
> >>> for something more creative.
> >>> A few individuals cannot accomplish what many can. And for the
> most
> >>> part I think those that would get involved have some NEW ideas. I
> am
> >>> reposting what I said, about 30 messages ago:
> >>>
> >>> "Why not make the Rhizome commissions contribute to the Rhizome
> >>> community?
> >>> In other words, rather than spending money on individuals
> >>> individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome
> >>> Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
> >>> It would go something like this:
> >>> "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works
> that
> >>> enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and
> otherwise
> >>> get involved in the online community."
> >>> That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
> >>> I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for
> the
> >>> service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would create
> a
> >>> really interesting and creative environment.
> >>> Eric "
> >> of course this wouldn't work if the commissions had already been
> >> promised to other applicants working under the previous years
> >> parameters.
> >> But seriousely, give the commissions community parameters. Sit back
> >> and watch the world unfold in new and interesting directions. This
> >> isn't incendiary, its about the evolution of the media.
> >> Eric
> >> +
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> >> subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> >> 29.php
> >
> >
>

Eric,

A couple emails back I mentioned that we were interested in exploring this
idea:

> "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works that
> enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise
> get involved in the online community."

It seems like it could be a productive way for people to shape, or
suggest ways to shape, the Rhizome community. However, given the resources
for this program and for Rhizome in general, it should be offered as one
commission – not all eleven. It could also make sense that this is the
commission that receives the member vote – and Rhizome, like a
commissioned artist, has a year to execute it…

Thanks.

Lauren

> Eric Dymond wrote:
>
>> I can't say that the proposed changes won't work, but they all address
>> tweaking existing Rhizome functions. I think, no I'm sure it's time
>> for something more creative.
>> A few individuals cannot accomplish what many can. And for the most
>> part I think those that would get involved have some NEW ideas. I am
>> reposting what I said, about 30 messages ago:
>>
>> "Why not make the Rhizome commissions contribute to the Rhizome
>> community?
>> In other words, rather than spending money on individuals
>> individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome
>> Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
>> It would go something like this:
>> "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works that
>> enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise
>> get involved in the online community."
>> That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
>> I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for the
>> service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would create a
>> really interesting and creative environment.
>> Eric "
> of course this wouldn't work if the commissions had already been promised
> to other applicants working under the previous years parameters.
> But seriousely, give the commissions community parameters. Sit back and
> watch the world unfold in new and interesting directions. This isn't
> incendiary, its about the evolution of the media.
> Eric
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Good ideas! There is alot of new coding needed here, so I feel rhizome would need to open its arms and delegate some of these tasks to the community coders out here. Otherwise this stuff will never happen.
Steve

I do think this is a great idea. But I also feel that in addition to that possibility, people out here are calling for something a little more aggressive. Adding a new feature to the commissions cycle, means the final product won't be available until the end of 2007. Right? That's a step, but perhaps some other projects can be accomplished in parallel. The Art Base modules/fixes for instance…
Steven Read

Lauren Cornell wrote:

> Eric,
>
> A couple emails back I mentioned that we were interested in exploring
> this
> idea:
>
> > "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works
> that
> > enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise
> > get involved in the online community."
>
> It seems like it could be a productive way for people to shape, or
> suggest ways to shape, the Rhizome community. However, given the
> resources
> for this program and for Rhizome in general, it should be offered as
> one
> commission – not all eleven. It could also make sense that this is
> the
> commission that receives the member vote – and Rhizome, like a
> commissioned artist, has a year to execute it…
>
> Thanks.
>
> Lauren
>

Hi Steven,

I agree with you – and, at the sake of repeating myself, enhancing
participation on the site is a goal of ours for this year. We are focusing
on the ArtBase now – fixes and also development, so suggestions in this
area are timely. We're also interested in exploring discussion, like I
mentioned. There've been various suggestions in terms of changing Raw in
this thread, and also requests not to change it all… What I think would
be worthwhile is to explore other forms of discussion that might exist
across the site. Not everyone feels comfortable exchanging their ideas on
a listserv, and we'd like to explore platforms for discussion that
encourage other kinds of voices.

One larger point is that, while all these ideas are productive and will
lead to changes in the system, this is an ongoing process of community
formation and transformation. Rhizome's mission is to support the global
new media art community, and the ways we do this are always going to
change because the community is always going to require different things.
And, by community, I mean those on RAW, readers of our publications, our
organizational subscribers, artists in the ArtBase and the many different
groups that engage with Rhizome. I say this because I dont want to set up
an expectation that we're going to solve everything through this
conversation, but I do think we're making progress. And, the Rhizome staff
is dedicated to supporting all different branches and manifestations of
the Rhizome community, in an angoing way.

best, Lauren


> I do think this is a great idea. But I also feel that in addition to
that
> possibility, people out here are calling for something a little more
aggressive. Adding a new feature to the commissions cycle, means the
final
> product won't be available until the end of 2007. Right? That's a step,
but perhaps some other projects can be accomplished in parallel. The Art
Base modules/fixes for instance…
> Steven Read
>
> Lauren Cornell wrote:
>
>> Eric,
>> A couple emails back I mentioned that we were interested in exploring this
>> idea:
>> > "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works
>> that
>> > enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise
get involved in the online community."
>> It seems like it could be a productive way for people to shape, or
suggest ways to shape, the Rhizome community. However, given the
resources
>> for this program and for Rhizome in general, it should be offered as one
>> commission – not all eleven. It could also make sense that this is the
>> commission that receives the member vote – and Rhizome, like a
commissioned artist, has a year to execute it…
>> Thanks.
>> Lauren
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

HI MANIK!

to ALL:

it's great that the "community" is having this discussion. overdue imo.
two points:



1.
it's always the same old names on this list:
> by Steven Read, Eric Dymond, Lee Wells, Annie Abrahams, Jason Van Anden,
> Lauren Cornell, alexis turner, MANIK, Pall Thayer, Rob Myers, T.Whid,
> beate zurwehme, M. River, Michael Szpakowski, Rob Myers & salvatore
> iaconesi

there MUST be more people than just this subscribing? where are they? if
we want to discuss teh community, the _COMMUNITY should be involved, not
just the _DEFAULT_CONTRIBUTORS. i hardly ever post to this because as
'just some guy' i expect not to be taken [as] seriously. all the other
subscribers must also have their reasons for remaining silent too. this
does not a community make. speak, even if you sound like a fool: learn by
mistakes instead.



2.
steven and eric's posts lead the way i think. imo open-source projects are
a fine way to create community. as a rough outline:

A. 'somewhere' on rhizome users post new projects/proposals. this is like
starting any new [net.art] project except that it's publicly listed as a
project that ANYONE can get involved with AT ANY TIME
B. if its a proposal, all involved get together (how? who cares, msg or
whatever) and work out what's to be done
C. or if it's in-progress other users get involved along the way, if they
want
D. project then owned and developed by a collective instead of an
individual, because even if just one person is building a project, anyone
could come along at any time and help out

the net[.art] result being :

1. less artworks; but
2. more community-minded, multi-faceted and robust ones

r.





> HI LAUREN!
> MANIK
>
>
> Hi Steven,
>
> I agree with you – and, at the sake of repeating myself, enhancing
> participation on the site is a goal of ours for this year. We are focusing
> on the ArtBase now – fixes and also development, so suggestions in this
> area are timely. We're also interested in exploring discussion, like I
> mentioned. There've been various suggestions in terms of changing Raw in
> this thread, and also requests not to change it all… What I think would
> be worthwhile is to explore other forms of discussion that might exist
> across the site. Not everyone feels comfortable exchanging their ideas on
> a listserv, and we'd like to explore platforms for discussion that
> encourage other kinds of voices.
>
> One larger point is that, while all these ideas are productive and will
> lead to changes in the system, this is an ongoing process of community
> formation and transformation. Rhizome's mission is to support the global
> new media art community, and the ways we do this are always going to
> change because the community is always going to require different things.
> And, by community, I mean those on RAW, readers of our publications, our
> organizational subscribers, artists in the ArtBase and the many different
> groups that engage with Rhizome. I say this because I dont want to set up
> an expectation that we're going to solve everything through this
> conversation, but I do think we're making progress. And, the Rhizome staff
> is dedicated to supporting all different branches and manifestations of
> the Rhizome community, in an angoing way.
>
> best, Lauren
>
>
>> I do think this is a great idea. But I also feel that in addition to
> that
>> possibility, people out here are calling for something a little more
> aggressive. Adding a new feature to the commissions cycle, means the
> final
>> product won't be available until the end of 2007. Right? That's a step,
> but perhaps some other projects can be accomplished in parallel. The Art
> Base modules/fixes for instance…
>> Steven Read
>>
>> Lauren Cornell wrote:
>>
>>> Eric,
>>> A couple emails back I mentioned that we were interested in exploring
> this
>>> idea:
>>> > "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works
>>> that
>>> > enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise
> get involved in the online community."
>>> It seems like it could be a productive way for people to shape, or
> suggest ways to shape, the Rhizome community. However, given the
> resources
>>> for this program and for Rhizome in general, it should be offered as
>>> one
>>> commission – not all eleven. It could also make sense that this is the
>>> commission that receives the member vote – and Rhizome, like a
> commissioned artist, has a year to execute it…
>>> Thanks.
>>> Lauren
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

::1.
::it's always the same old names on this list:
::> by Steven Read, Eric Dymond, Lee Wells, Annie Abrahams, Jason Van Anden,
::> Lauren Cornell, alexis turner, MANIK, Pall Thayer, Rob Myers, T.Whid,
::> beate zurwehme, M. River, Michael Szpakowski, Rob Myers & salvatore
::> iaconesi
::
::there MUST be more people than just this subscribing? where are they? if
::we want to discuss teh community, the _COMMUNITY should be involved, not
::just the _DEFAULT_CONTRIBUTORS. i hardly ever post to this because as
::'just some guy' i expect not to be taken [as] seriously. all the other
::subscribers must also have their reasons for remaining silent too. this
::does not a community make. speak, even if you sound like a fool: learn by
::mistakes instead.

Hear, hear! I sound like a fool 95% of the time (the other 5% is, of course,
unadulterated genius), but when do I let that stop me?
-A.

hey alexis

'glad you agree. strangely tho, having suggesting that more people get
involved in the debate, the debate seems to have… stopped.

r.


> Hear, hear! I sound like a fool 95% of the time (the other 5% is, of
> course,
> unadulterated genius), but when do I let that stop me?
> -A.

Eric,

To improve the community aspect of the Rhizome Commissions program, I
think we need to keep in mind that most of our community will not win
a commission. Most of our community will spend time doing these
actions:

+ proposing a commission
+ voting on proposals
+ discussing proposals

If we can make these activities more rewarding in and of themselves,
I think we will see a more spirited community result from the next
round of Rhizome Commissions.

In the last round of Rhizome Commissions , a prevailing comment was
that proposal pages received very few visits – as low as 6-7 hits
over the entire voting period. While the votes were evenly spread
over the proposals, multiple participants were dissatisfied that few
voters read the proposals. I think this can be addressed with
changes to the design of the voting process.

We might be able to create HTML code for a Rhizome Commissions
toolbar, somewhat like what Blogger.com puts on their blogs. All
proposals would be required to insert this code (a javascript
include) onto their proposal page. Using this toolbar, we could
steer voting traffic through the project proposal pages. Also, we
could facilitate discussion by adding comment links onto the toolbar.

We appreciate feedback on this issue.

Cheers,

Patrick

–
Patrick May
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
AIM: cyclochew
+ + +


On Sep 30, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Eric Dymond wrote:

> This is sort of a reply to Alexis, but it seems pertinent to other
> threads as well.
> Why not make the Rhizome commisions contribute to the Rhizome
> community?
> In other words, rather than spending money on individuals
> individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome
> Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
> It would go something like this:
> "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works
> that enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and
> otherwise get involved in the online community."
> That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
> I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for
> the service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would
> create a really interesting and creative environment.
> Eric
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php

Alexis Turner wrote:

> ::1.
> ::it's always the same old names on this list:
> ::> by Steven Read, Eric Dymond, Lee Wells, Annie Abrahams, Jason Van
> Anden,
> ::> Lauren Cornell, alexis turner, MANIK, Pall Thayer, Rob Myers,
> T.Whid,
> ::> beate zurwehme, M. River, Michael Szpakowski, Rob Myers &
> salvatore
> ::> iaconesi
> ::
> ::there MUST be more people than just this subscribing? where are
> they? if
> ::we want to discuss teh community, the _COMMUNITY should be involved,
> not
> ::just the _DEFAULT_CONTRIBUTORS. i hardly ever post to this because
> as
> ::'just some guy' i expect not to be taken [as] seriously. all the
> other
> ::subscribers must also have their reasons for remaining silent too.
> this
> ::does not a community make. speak, even if you sound like a fool:
> learn by
> ::mistakes instead.
>
> Hear, hear! I sound like a fool 95% of the time (the other 5% is, of
> course,
> unadulterated genius), but when do I let that stop me?
> -A.
Nope, that 5% belongs to Max Herman, you can't have it.
Eric

rtf wrote:

> HI MANIK!
>
> to ALL:
>
> it's great that the "community" is having this discussion. overdue
> imo.
> two points:
>
>
>
> 1.
> it's always the same old names on this list:
> > by Steven Read, Eric Dymond, Lee Wells, Annie Abrahams, Jason Van
> Anden,
> > Lauren Cornell, alexis turner, MANIK, Pall Thayer, Rob Myers,
> T.Whid,
> > beate zurwehme, M. River, Michael Szpakowski, Rob Myers & salvatore
> > iaconesi
>
> there MUST be more people than just this subscribing? where are they?
> if
> we want to discuss teh community, the _COMMUNITY should be involved,
> not
> just the _DEFAULT_CONTRIBUTORS. i hardly ever post to this because as
> 'just some guy' i expect not to be taken [as] seriously. all the other
> subscribers must also have their reasons for remaining silent too.
> this
> does not a community make. speak, even if you sound like a fool: learn
> by
> mistakes instead.
>
>
>
> 2.
> steven and eric's posts lead the way i think. imo open-source projects
> are
> a fine way to create community. as a rough outline:
>
> A. 'somewhere' on rhizome users post new projects/proposals. this is
> like
> starting any new [net.art] project except that it's publicly listed as
> a
> project that ANYONE can get involved with AT ANY TIME
> B. if its a proposal, all involved get together (how? who cares, msg
> or
> whatever) and work out what's to be done
> C. or if it's in-progress other users get involved along the way, if
> they
> want
> D. project then owned and developed by a collective instead of an
> individual, because even if just one person is building a project,
> anyone
> could come along at any time and help out
>
> the net[.art] result being :
>
> 1. less artworks; but
> 2. more community-minded, multi-faceted and robust ones
>
> r.

Thats a great post. It sums up what Steven and I have been trying to get Rhizmome involved with for awhile (thanks for the lead on this Steve).
The sourceforge/slashdot approach is a natural fit for Rhizome. I also believe that given the taxed and overburdened tech staff that this be a
future Rhizome Commission ( no voting or jury on this one)
Eric

ok, I am one of those invisible not responding member. No, I am not
afraid to make a fool out myself. BUT….

For me the community of Rhizome goes beyond what I see on the list. The
list is the visible. I want to acknowledge the invisible ; the
conversations I have with friends about what's 'up' on the list; the
time I refer students to the art-base; or going through rhizome raw
while I drink a morning coffee. I think these examples are important
for a virtual community. They are little or big local nodes on the
rhizomatic web. Community is not only about what is there but also
what is not there. The problem is how can this translate to a list on
the web? Occasionally, like now, some one will make contact, this
contact does not have to be through the written word, maybe it's a link
to a video or a sound file.

I don't respond much because writing is for me a slow process- like a
retired turtle I type away. Once I have thought of a response, the
discussion on the list has taken a different course and, not to forget,
for some of us 'flies on the cyberwall' english might be an
uncertainty. ( it is for me) How can others on the web hear or see the
fly on the wall? I do have to admit I often forget to log-in but that
does not feel like a real solution.


The regular participants are connected to the people I see every
morning in the coffee shop, I drink a cappuccino and read the postings
on the raw list. I sometimes map names of list participants on to faces
in the coffee-shop. It's fun!

Or has all what I have written been said in previous postings? Sorry
for repeating. Have a good day or night!
oh ja, I am Jacky




http://www.jackysawatzky.net
On 11-Oct-06, at 4:16 PM, Eric Dymond wrote:

> Alexis Turner wrote:
>
>> ::1.
>> ::it's always the same old names on this list:
>> ::> by Steven Read, Eric Dymond, Lee Wells, Annie Abrahams, Jason Van
>> Anden,
>> ::> Lauren Cornell, alexis turner, MANIK, Pall Thayer, Rob Myers,
>> T.Whid,
>> ::> beate zurwehme, M. River, Michael Szpakowski, Rob Myers &
>> salvatore
>> ::> iaconesi
>> ::
>> ::there MUST be more people than just this subscribing? where are
>> they? if
>> ::we want to discuss teh community, the _COMMUNITY should be involved,
>> not
>> ::just the _DEFAULT_CONTRIBUTORS. i hardly ever post to this because
>> as
>> ::'just some guy' i expect not to be taken [as] seriously. all the
>> other
>> ::subscribers must also have their reasons for remaining silent too.
>> this
>> ::does not a community make. speak, even if you sound like a fool:
>> learn by
>> ::mistakes instead.
>>
>> Hear, hear! I sound like a fool 95% of the time (the other 5% is, of
>> course,
>> unadulterated genius), but when do I let that stop me?
>> -A.
> Nope, that 5% belongs to Max Herman, you can't have it.
> Eric
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

jacky Sawatzky wrote:

> ok, I am one of those invisible not responding member. No, I am not
> afraid to make a fool out myself. BUT….
>
> For me the community of Rhizome goes beyond what I see on the list.
> The
> list is the visible. I want to acknowledge the invisible ; the
> conversations I have with friends about what's 'up' on the list; the
> time I refer students to the art-base; or going through rhizome raw
> while I drink a morning coffee. I think these examples are important
> for a virtual community. They are little or big local nodes on the
> rhizomatic web. Community is not only about what is there but also
> what is not there. The problem is how can this translate to a list on
> the web? Occasionally, like now, some one will make contact, this
> contact does not have to be through the written word, maybe it's a
> link
> to a video or a sound file.
>
> I don't respond much because writing is for me a slow process- like a
> retired turtle I type away. Once I have thought of a response, the
> discussion on the list has taken a different course and, not to
> forget,
> for some of us 'flies on the cyberwall' english might be an
> uncertainty. ( it is for me) How can others on the web hear or see
> the
> fly on the wall? I do have to admit I often forget to log-in but
> that
> does not feel like a real solution.
>
>
> The regular participants are connected to the people I see every
> morning in the coffee shop, I drink a cappuccino and read the
> postings
> on the raw list. I sometimes map names of list participants on to
> faces
> in the coffee-shop. It's fun!
>
> Or has all what I have written been said in previous postings? Sorry
> for repeating. Have a good day or night!
> oh ja, I am Jacky
>
>
>
>
> http://www.jackysawatzky.net
> On 11-Oct-06, at 4:16 PM, Eric Dymond wrote:
>
> > Alexis Turner wrote:
> >
> >> ::1.
> >> ::it's always the same old names on this list:
> >> ::> by Steven Read, Eric Dymond, Lee Wells, Annie Abrahams, Jason
> Van
> >> Anden,
> >> ::> Lauren Cornell, alexis turner, MANIK, Pall Thayer, Rob Myers,
> >> T.Whid,
> >> ::> beate zurwehme, M. River, Michael Szpakowski, Rob Myers &
> >> salvatore
> >> ::> iaconesi
> >> ::
> >> ::there MUST be more people than just this subscribing? where are
> >> they? if
> >> ::we want to discuss teh community, the _COMMUNITY should be
> involved,
> >> not
> >> ::just the _DEFAULT_CONTRIBUTORS. i hardly ever post to this
> because
> >> as
> >> ::'just some guy' i expect not to be taken [as] seriously. all the
> >> other
> >> ::subscribers must also have their reasons for remaining silent
> too.
> >> this
> >> ::does not a community make. speak, even if you sound like a fool:
> >> learn by
> >> ::mistakes instead.
> >>
> >> Hear, hear! I sound like a fool 95% of the time (the other 5% is,
> of
> >> course,
> >> unadulterated genius), but when do I let that stop me?
> >> -A.
> > Nope, that 5% belongs to Max Herman, you can't have it.
> > Eric
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>

Yes but Jacky no one was saying break the current Rhizome features. But to sit back and smile over a morning coffee , as lovely as that experience is, doesn't mean Rhizome can't evolve and develop other community interfaces that build new memberships and create new ways of interacting while still allowing you to enjoy your pleasures.
One doesn't negate the other, the idea is to build on the current model.
I hope Lauren follows through on her proposals, and Patricks idea of a community/commission navigation bar will help us move to web 3.0, which is fast falling upon this kind of community.
Eric

Whether fool or genius, bring it on! Now is a good time to get community suggestions in. Although there have already been some good ones. Is the plate full yet?

Didn't this thread start from someone who is doing a paper about online 'community'? How is that research going? :)

Steve Read
http://www.stevenread.com

Steve OR Steven Read wrote:

> Whether fool or genius, bring it on! Now is a good time to get
> community suggestions in. Although there have already been some good
> ones. Is the plate full yet?
>
> Didn't this thread start from someone who is doing a paper about
> online 'community'? How is that research going? :)
>
> Steve Read
> http://www.stevenread.com
53 messages later and someone finally broke the code. This thread is a thesis for future online communities.
;-)

hey eric

great idea to make it a commission. internal/proprietary tech teams have
too much to do and not enough time to do it and rhizome is, i assume,
awash with talented, enthused developers who could help out. excluding
people who want to help just makes no sense.

i don't know much about slashdot but my day job is as a flash developer
and i utilise a lot of the open source projects aral balkan hosts at
osflash.org in my work. he's smart enough not to manage the projects
though, he just provides the space (its a wiki) and leaves that to the
community, who are perfectly able and mature enough to do that themselves.

i agree eric: a natural fit. really, rhizome.org should be able to run
itself in the same way that osflash.org does.

r.



> Thats a great post. It sums up what Steven and I have been trying to get
> Rhizmome involved with for awhile (thanks for the lead on this Steve).
> The sourceforge/slashdot approach is a natural fit for Rhizome. I also
> believe that given the that this be a
> future Rhizome Commission ( no voting or jury on this one)
> Eric
> +