Sender: Jed Miller
Subject: Re: Decreasing traffic on the Transpartisan list
Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2014
Msg: 101110

Hi, Transpartisan champions,

I've been a lurker til now and include a basic bio below. I've been involved in social change projects online and on the "bridge" between online and offline dialogue for many years, mostly as a digital strategist.

Two things I think the group might consider. First, I strongly agree with Phil, below. Dialogue can be an end in itself, but I saw this list as a planning and action group more than a "norming" or "defining" group. (More matter, with less art, as to-the-point Gertrude says to over-sharer Polonius.)

Second, in web and comms work, we often talk about "user-driven design." With the understanding that the "users" of transpartisanship really ought to be everyone, I think it could help the group identify concrete steps or experiments to think in terms of specific potential users (or audiences, if a more passive word doesn't risk diluting focus).

What are, say, 3 types of person that transpartisn tactics could reach? Who are some possible priority users of the work (by demographics, or by political interest, or by civic role/influence)?

There are almost infinite answers, of course, but when we prioritize, we can create specific, achievable tactics that are suited to the prioritized groups. Then, by assessing those people's uptake, we can learn, revise and reiterate.

Jed Miller jed@jedmiller.com | @jedmiller http://tech.transparency-initiative.org http://about.me/jedm

Jed Miller (@jedmiller) is an Internet strategist focused on the effective of adoption of digital and social media by NGOs. He currently consults to the Open Society Foundations, Global Witness and the Revenue Watch Institute, where he served as Internet Director from 2007 to 2012. He was previously director of Internet programs for the American Civil Liberties Union, where he oversaw strategy and publishing for ACLU.org, and helped to plan online communications, fundraising and advocacy. As interactive editor of NYTimes.com from 1996 to 2001 he managed all reader discussions, including forums for the Pulitzer-winning 2000 series on race in America. As community director at Web Lab he created online dialogues on civic and social issues, including for the 2002 "Listening to the City" citizen summit on the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan. Jed has taught digital strategy for development communications at Columbia's School for International Public Affairs (SIPA) and has written or consulted for Guardian.com, the General Services Administration, PersonalDemocracy.com, The Harwood Institute and The New York Times Company Foundation, among others. He is a native New Yorker currently living in San Francisco and is a graduate of Amherst College.

On Aug 12, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Phil Neisser wrote:

> Dear Friends of Transpartisanship > > To my mind, or from my point of view, there is a confusion in our discussion, because two laudable goals are in play at once (also it is of course very possible that it is just me who is confused).:-) To wit: We (the listserve discussion group) seem to be operating as (1) a group having a discussion about society and politics and (2) a group discussing how it is that we might best go about encouraging/fostering/creating transpartisan discussions among citizens more generally, also about society and politics. And that, by my observation, has created some confusion. > > More specifically, our pursuit of both of those goals has perhaps muddied our discussion of the the talk/action distinction. I entirely agree that transpartisan talk should be understood as form of action in itself, not merely instrumental or a "waste of time." On the other hand I am one of those who thought that the specific job at hand for us D and D talkers is not so much to engage in intrinsically valuable discussions as it is to engage in actions that create that kind of talk among the citizenry. And I only hanker for "more action" relative to that goal. And I DO find our discussions intrinsically valuable. > > I hope that's clear. > > Yours > Phil > > Dr. Phil Neisser > Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences > Chair, Department of Politics > Coordinator, Environmental Studies > Dunn 103/Satterlee 307 > SUNY Potsdam > Potsdam, NY 13676 > 315-267-2230 (o) > 315-854-3520 (c) > 315-379-9713 (h) > neissept@potsdam.edu > > On 8/10/2014 1:30 AM, Jacob Hess wrote: >> Thanks all, for such thoughtful responses this week. As Sandy, Michael and others pointed out, listserv (and vacation) traffic varies naturally for lots of reasons. Equally clear in the comments is the wide variation in expectations of a listserv (and transpartisan work itself). >> >> Although I'm excited to explore these powerful action proposals David, Mark and Tom have each raised, I'm personally still a little preoccupied by the tension between "action" and "talk" itself (or between a "practice-focus" vs. "intellectual discussion/abstraction"). >> >> I understand how a connection to "action" is often crucial to drawing citizens into discussion - and appreciate the synergy Tom described, with "conversation shaping action and action informing the next wave of action-shaping conversation." What I'm struggling to understand is why dialogue itself is so often framed as somehow alternative to action or something other than action. Is it because we're sitting still as we talk?! (: >> >> I recently started teaching mindfulness meditation to people with stress-related conditions. One of the barriers that sometimes comes up with students is that being still and silent can seem an awful lot like "doing nothing." To those who do it, of course, sitting with oneself in silence, as Jon Kabat-Zinn often points out, is just about "the hardest work in the world." >> >> And that's often how transpartisan dialogue-for-understanding feels to me - the hardest of work - and, I would argue, the most important of actions. Without it (or without the investment of time and energy to do it right), it seems to me that so many (other) actions simply may not happen. Indeed, they may not even be "thinkable." >> >> If that's true, then it might be helpful to make more explicit the various kinds of actions that constitute this transpartisan movement and relish the interplay between "collective action" and the "radical act" of dialogue itself. >> >> My two and a half cents, >> Jacob >> >> p.s. Rick, Michael, I didn't read Sandy as discouraging theoretical/intellectual exploration in our exchanges - only reminding us of our beginning intentions as a listserv to tie these kinds of discussions to the practice of transpartisan work itself. I appreciated hearing from her why some people have reported distancing themselves from the conversation. Why not take her feedback seriously and work together to make this listserv an (even more) welcoming and accessible "watering hole" for transpartisans of many stripes?...including theoretical/philosophically-inclined ones! In the spirit of Aristotle's "practical philosophy," surely thinking carefully together about various interpretations of practice will continue to be a helpful (and inescapable) part of high-quality deliberative work? >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: >> write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG >> or click the following link: >> http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1 > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: > write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > or click the following link: > http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG or click the following link: http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1