<p> 01110101 </p>

117 or 75? I don't know!

I don't know.... Maybe 75% ?

Would this be a reasonable estimate of the proportion of the eligible numbers who actually voted for the Transition Board who might then actively migrate elsewhere as The Omidyar Rump ?

Which means that, as each Board member will be representing about nine or ten Rumpees, there obviously isn't much ground left to swell in support of any campaign - even if one were wanted, needed, supported..... whatever....

Well, without CCAL30 licenses for everyone, a virtual impossibility, the site could not be moved to another organization could it? And the LLC has been clear in their intentions. I, too, would love to see the site persist, but I feel like at least getting an archive is cutting our losses. And I also have hope that what arises from this transition will end up being even better, if what works in this space is well articulated.

Rory

John, I think there are many here who don't want to save onet, to some degree or another and for different reasons perhaps. There really is, in my opinion, a tension between the support group community and the social entrepreneurs, the Africans, or the Darfur crowd or the techies. Forgive me for leaving out many people who fit within several of those or none of them--I am generalizing here.

I was leaving the community in June, and I came back just for the transition. So I had already made a decision to let go of the whole while staying in touch with those elements that worked well for me. From conversations I have had with others, I understand that there is an urge to have safer spaces for dialog or uncluttered spaces for collaboration and action. Now there are many who disagree, who loves crossing the borders of the many groups to cross-pollinate and learn and meet people they never would have encountered otherwise. And this space has had a certain filter on it that has historically attracted very bright folks. Someone called it a mensa cafe, I think. You won't find that on Facebook or Zaadz (unless you know where to look! Search on Michael Strong and FLOW for example.)

I like scrapbooks. I would like to see an archive of the place, especially because most of the content really needs to be in context to make sense. But I am not planning to advocate for a living onet for all of us elsewhere.

John Firth (CCAL30) said:

I don't know.... Maybe 75% ?

Would this be a reasonable estimate of the proportion of the eligible numbers who actually voted for the Transition Board who might then actively migrate elsewhere as The Omidyar Rump ?

Which means that, as each Board member will be representing about nine or ten Rumpees, there obviously isn't much ground left to swell in support of any campaign - even if one were wanted, needed, supported..... whatever....

I'm sorry, John. I was being a smart A$$. I couldn't figure out the reference to 01110101 in the post above mine...I converted the binary to decimal (117) and hexadecimal (75).

Regarding the election there was a bit more than 10% of the eligible voters who voted. Very disappointing considering that over 300 of them acknowledged what was going on by signing on to the CCAL30.

I don't realistically see onet migrating en mass anywhere. People had already started separating off before the announcement and they will go the ways that they have found and they are helping others that they are acquainted with to make transitions to a number of platforms. It's sad, I guess but given the circumstances not unexpected.

I am somewhat disappointed that neither Jean or Linda are sounding like open minded, listening advocates for the group they were elected to represent. They have already made up their minds as to the future of onet and onet members.

I have not made up my mind as to the future of onet.

Omidyar Networks has made up its mind as to the future of onet.

And there are a number of groups that have already decided their future. Some of those working on that move before the Omidyar Networks announcement.

The roll of the transition board is to facilitate and ease that transition for all members.

If everybody's already sitting in the lifeboats, why do we need a Transition Board ?

I repeat myself here - but surely first position for any group claiming to represent this community should be to at least ask (to put it at its weakest)the Omidyars to change their mind ?

The Board that was created is not a Board of Directors that makes decisions about whether O.net stays or goes.

As far as I can see, it is mostly like a group of tenants who are helping other tenants find new cyber places to live as the landlord has (without visibly visiting the community) decided to tear the place down regardless of the wishes of those who live here.

Am I right?

The lifeboats are in the water but their destinations are not all fixed yet.

The numbers aboard the ship were declining, perhaps to a point where the big shipping magnate decided to cut his losses ($2,300 per month for the privilege of getting irritating, bad publicity and apparently little else of value to him, since he had long since stopped going on cruises with his company's ship); he then instructs Capt. Kriese to give the order to abandon ship and scuttle it on 31st December 2007.

Many are gathering around the lifeboats but many are still aboard. If they resist orders to proceed to the lifeboats and urge the ratings to mutiny, what might be achieved? They are not the legal owners of the ship and they may simply bring about a more immediate sinking of the ship.

Given that there is no realistic chance of changing the shipping magnate's mind (is he likely to be swayed by promises by the (non-paying) passengers that they will be of good behaviour?), the only achievable object now seems to be negotiation for the non-dismantling of the ship or failing that, its non-destruction.

There appears to be a promise of cooperation in the building of a replica ship, if this can be done legally - which is doubtful. Failing all else then, the smartest passengers seem to those who want to keep the vessel intact and record its location carefully so that the possibility of salvage may still exist.

Capt. Kriese has behaved impeccably throughout, IMO, so why alienate him by threats of mutiny when we need his assistance to prevent the whole O.net venture from foundering before arrangements for possible future salvage can be negotiated into place?

Like many others, I suspect, who are still on deck and leaning over the rails, not relishing the prospect of exchanging the ship's comforts for the perils of the lifeboats, I would find it much more inspiring if the shipping magnate were here too, taking command of his ship, releasing Capt Kriese and his men from further duties, shepherding them to the safety of the lifeboats, and preparing himself instead to go down with his ship.

Could it be turned into a movie?

edited to re-arrange skipper's personal letters

Something like This Is Spinal Tap meets The Love Boat?

I didn't have an option to make up my mind about Onet Lois. I am sorry you feel like you weren't heard.

Charles, perhaps you should consider becoming a producer for your next phase? ;-) Spinal Tap/Love Boat/Onet sounds intriguing.

Thanks for the useful metaphor David. The ship is surrounded by easily reachable full floating boats of many different shapes and sizes, which will you lifeboat to along with as much of your gear and luggage as you can carry. From what I understand, the transition board is going to work to 1. keep track of the ships you swim to and help you decide (if you want help) where to go and 2. To salvage as much as we can (I think). and 3. To report on efforts toward 1 and 2.

O.NETITANIC?

Are we going over-board with the ship analogies? ;-)

I have to run. I am drowning in work and there doesn't seem to be anyone offering a life jacket! :-D

Michael Pattinson (CCAL30) said:

The Board that was created is not a Board of Directors that makes decisions about whether O.net stays or goes.

Michael, I have not suggested that the (wrongly named) 'Board' has any powers other than persuasion but they are supposed to be our representatives and I am simply saying that - armed with a simple set of suggestions for correcting the systemic failures here - they should at the very least be raising the question of saving this place in a face to face meeting

I accept that some members of the Board already seem to have a vested interest in relocation and others have simply rolled over - but as more can often be achieved when everyone is actually sitting together around a table it surely costs nothing to ask the question and tease out the real reasons for closure.

John,

There will be no face-to-face meeting. There was never a face-to-face meeting planned.

I did in fact bring up the question of if omidyar.net had any chance of survival if things changed in the community: better norms etc. I even opened the possibility of the site being taken over and becoming self supporting. A very long, open and honest discussion occurred. You understand, I am sure, how difficult it can be for even a small close-knit, personal group such as a family to overcome the problems inherent in a bad, and destructive relationship. It can be a long and difficult process even if guided by professionals.

This community has a history of dealing with conflict in unhealthy ways. Breaking those habits (for want of a better word) is more difficult and beyond a place where any of us wanted to go. We all agreed that at this point in time, it would be better to help people find new places where they feel comfortable and that have the tools that they need to continue the work they have been doing on omidyar.net.

I did not feel like anyone on the board was promoting, as you put it, their own vested interests. I certainly did not have the sense of anyone "rolling over".

Regarding the real reason for closure. I was told, the same as you, that omidyar.net was closing. I have more than enjoyed the time that Omidyar Networks had freely provided us with this space and these tools including the guidance and participation of their paid staff. They have the right to say that they don't think their continued support is where they want their organization to go. It's their dollar. I personally did not feel a need to beg. With what I have learned here, I will be able to go out and find a new place to call home. If it doesn't have the tools I feel I need, I will figure out a new way to help provide my community with the tools we need.

I hope that you feel that I represented your point of view on the board.

Linda ทรัพยากร Nowakowski (CCAL30) said:

I hope that you feel that I represented your point of view on the board.

I feel you represent your own, judgemental, point of view and nothing more..... There is more then one way to deal with conflict, though you seem to call anything other then that with which you are comfortable "unhealthy".

Up with the TEA PARTY...

Linda ทรัพยากร Nowakowski (CCAL30) said:

I did in fact bring up the question of if omidyar.net had any chance of survival if things changed in the community: better norms etc. I even opened the possibility of the site being taken over and becoming self supporting. A very long, open and honest discussion occurred. You understand, I am sure, how difficult it can be for even a small close-knit, personal group such as a family to overcome the problems inherent in a bad, and destructive relationship. It can be a long and difficult process even if guided by professionals.

This community has a history of dealing with conflict in unhealthy ways. Breaking those habits (for want of a better word) is more difficult and beyond a place where any of us wanted to go. We all agreed that at this point in time, it would be better to help people find new places where they feel comfortable and that have the tools that they need to continue the work they have been doing on omidyar.net.

Linda, I am reading this as you saying that the Board did roll over. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that if it would be 'uncomfortable' sorting the 'unhealthy' ways of dealing with conflict in this place and it is therefore better 'to help people find new places' then that is a cop out.

IMO, the unhealthy ways of dealing with conflict on O.Net arose from the systemic failure of the points system that the founders (or the management) were not prepared to rectify.

There has been no shortage of suggestions from members to improve things. Positive suggestions to improve O.Net are still being made now.

But the plain fact is that there are or were some members of this place whose presence is not positive and in a well run community there should have been a painless mechanism for steering them towards the door.

The failure of the very crude points system used to regulate this site meant that the best of this place could not be preserved because simple standards of conduct and focus could not be maintained with negative votes.

If the solutions for saving O.Net went 'beyond a place' where any of the Board wanted to go then surely the Board should have either stood down or referred back here to see what others thought ?

{A comment prompted by John's post, but not directly related.}

I think it warrants repeating that O.net was built for the internal uses of a workplace, Omidyar Network. Hence the norms of workplace conduct are in place.

By turning the tool "public" differing expectations arose.

It remains a matter of debate how far public benefit should set priority over the specific needs of the owner/intended core user.

John said:

Linda said:

I did in fact bring up the question of if omidyar.net had any chance of survival if things changed in the community: better norms etc. I even opened the possibility of the site being taken over and becoming self supporting. A very long, open and honest discussion occurred. You understand, I am sure, how difficult it can be for even a small close-knit, personal group such as a family to overcome the problems inherent in a bad, and destructive relationship. It can be a long and difficult process even if guided by professionals.

This community has a history of dealing with conflict in unhealthy ways. Breaking those habits (for want of a better word) is more difficult and beyond a place where any of us wanted to go. We all agreed that at this point in time, it would be better to help people find new places where they feel comfortable and that have the tools that they need to continue the work they have been doing on omidyar.net.

Linda, I am reading this as you saying that the Board did roll over. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that if it would be 'uncomfortable' sorting the 'unhealthy' ways of dealing with conflict in this place and it is therefore better 'to help people find new places' then that is a cop out.

IMO, the unhealthy ways of dealing with conflict on O.Net arose from the systemic failure of the points system that the founders (or the management) were not prepared to rectify.

There has been no shortage of suggestions from members to improve things. Positive suggestions to improve O.Net are still being made now.

But the plain fact is that there are or were some members of this place whose presence is not positive and in a well run community there should have been a painless mechanism for steering them towards the door.

The failure of the very crude points system used to regulate this site meant that the best of this place could not be preserved because simple standards of conduct and focus could not be maintained with negative votes.

If the solutions for saving O.Net went 'beyond a place' where any of the Board wanted to go then surely the Board should have either stood down or referred back here to see what others thought ?

John, I see two things:

• First, the board role in being elected: to advise a transition process. To wit, the fact that ON will close is assumed.
• Second, in bringing up the question of O.net remaining open, IMHO Linda did anything but roll over - it went beyond its mandate.

From our discussion, I learned that the subject of closing O.net has been a matter of internal concern for a long time. The interpersonal and community dynamics at play within O.net are not something the board has any authority to guide or shape, and do seem like a moot point, if important learning take-away for each and every participant here.

First among them it seems to me is the propensity for O.netizens to swiftly cast the motivations and actions of others in a negative light.

Lars, the 'roll over' is in your opening bullet point i.e. the fact that ON will close is assumed.

The assumption was both widespread and apparent when I returned here. I must therefore stress that I am not questioning anyone's good faith (and I agree that a troublesome minority have thrived here by questioning the motives of those who were actually doing something) but I also think that you never push the envelope unless you question assumptions.

I am therefore simply trying to question the underlying fatalistic assumptions that seem to surround the question of closure.

I actually believe that this place is still unique in many respects and I also believe that with more genuine self management it could still do good.

Peter Rees really summarises the problem. We were not given the tools to achieve here what some of the intelligent and talented people who were attracted to this place might have achieved given the right support.

I think the Omidyars failed us all in that respect but I also think that the Omidyars could gain greater kudos by helping us to turn this place around than they are likely to gain by closing us down.

Indeed, I suspect that the closure of this community in the current circumstances could leave an unsightly trail that will benefit no one.

John wrote:

The assumption was both widespread and apparent when I returned here.

Right: a statement to that effect was made, with the guidance that O.net would support a transition.

It is pretty apparent to me that ON no longer wishes to be the host of this collection of communities online. I haven't heard any great arguments that would change my mind were I in their position. Surely shrinking from a bad rap is not one of them...?

I am not convinced it is possible to turn something like O.net around. Have you seen that happen before?

Lars Hasselblad Torres said:

I am not convinced it is possible to turn something like O.net around. Have you seen that happen before?

Have I seen something like O.net turned around ? No, I have not but that is simply because O.Net is unique. There is so much here worth saving and it could be achieved with the right people and sufficient support from the Omidyars.

I fully accept that the way this place has developed has become an embarrassment to them but - to repeat myself - I also think we could have been given the tools to right the wrongs in this place and - given their original mission statement on the home page - I think the Omidyars at least owed us that !

Turning O.Net around will not be easy - and some hard decisions would have to be made - but I believe it is possible and, Lars, I must say that I would also hope that you could devote at least some of your boundless energy to that good cause.

John, ON responded to one significant community-initiated appeal to improve the way participants organize, which was to make the API available. They've also added tagging, expanded personal profiles, polls, a "track edits" feature (temporarily), and perhaps other changes I am missing. It seems to me this served to produce little in the way of community change ie the same angry voices remain those, etc.

What do you think are "the right tools" to minimize the flaming, personal attacks, carousing, poor decision-processes and who knows what else that could "turn O.net around"? Could you spell out some of the "hard decisions" and who would make them and how?

Honestly, I think a pretty elegant and breath-taking case would have to be made to ON community management to get them to even have the conversation...