edna.edu.au

IRG meeting

Last Thursday I attended a meeting put together by the IRG in Madrid. Interesting Agenda.

For those of you in media who look to find the big European picture, it seems to revolve around this project. 

For those of you interested in media & how its archive of recordings might look, it's here.  OK, GP needs more work. (any decent interface designers out there?)

I should point out that IRG is a pow wow for reps from most European countries and/or Ministeries. Read their Roadmap 2010 to get an idea of their ideas of where the pennies should be spent on e-infrastructure. If you're in media, then right down the back of the roadmap is a little paragraph which might speak to you (as much as it did for me). 

3.8 New User Communities

e-IRG recommends that the members states, European Comission and the sustainable e-infrastructre initiatives propose and provide mechanisms that will;

*Identify partners and colaborative processes to support the organisational development of new user communities.

Lastly, in the very last paragraph of 3.9 International Collaboration it says;

The empowering of European experts should be matched with policy-level actions to align procedures, to maximise information exchange, and to strengthen cooperation in international matters.

Considering what we've been through with "helping" TF-Media members to align with the Opencast guys, we an only hope the management of terena, internet2, apan and their intercontinental peers might get into the swing of things. i.e. Helping their global peer groups find one another, at the right time and providing the e-infrastructure in which they can attract their communities of interest.

Tags: media
Posted at 06:12PM Jun 22, 2010 by simon fenton - jones  |  Comments[0]

NBN. What's wrong with this diagram?

The Comms Alliance has released the first draft of their Options for the NBN (National Broadband Network) Architecture (in pdf), just in case you wanted to give them some feedback. Not a bad doc, especially when you consider that the options are endless. But it would have been nice to have seen it done in html, and some attempt made at running a forum, especially as we Aussies are now at the beginnings of taking down the silo walls.

The other diagrams in the doc are about right, when you consider that it's primary focus is linking from a (National) aggregation/transport domain to an end user via fibre. But it would have been nice to see this one taking both a content and global perspective, especially as there are some asp's like Moodle sitting around the global traps (and talking about bringing together their communities in "hubs"). Might even give Telsta some idea of what happens when they stop thinking content is just something pumped out to end users. (i.e. Foxtel)

Tags: nbn
Posted at 09:07AM Oct 24, 2009 by simon fenton - jones  |  Comments[0]

Putting the C before I (as in T).

We've all heard the acronym. 'ICT', Information and Communications Technology, they say. What they mean is I cT. And never, ever, ever, do 'they' mean real time communications (RTC), unless it's something to do with their new iphone, and something like twittering with it. I know i shouldn't be critical. My comment is more about me becoming a grumpy old man who learnt that technology is a fashion accessory a few decades ago. Would someone tell me when flairs come in again, so i can get back to being cool. (Forget the long hair; that's over). 

I promised Pia that i'd put something together because we were going to catch up with Jonathan from NICTA and Nick from aarnet, and have a quiet discussion about collaborating. Yeah, there's that word again. So first step first; let me go through what is happening in the grown up world of Real Time Comms. This is not (just) to prove that my pipes are bigger than edna's elluminating dim dims. It's so NICTA and aarnet can see about putting together an open standard for RTC social networks in Oz that any group can be use to be inclusive, while making it easy to build an archive of common conferences.

Let's begin at the backend, where the archive of conferences might be stored. This might as well be held at the online address where the streams - there might be a number of feeds from different conference sites a la publicsphere3 - can be mixed, switched, streamed and recorded. I won't go into the social dynamics here - about whether you'll be thinking Eurovision or a distributed qanda. This rave is just to cover the stage of technical evolution (acceptance) we're up to when running a series of conferences, editing and archiving the proceedings on a social site, and perhaps providing a stream to a playout room (for broadcast). What we are after is a way for the process to be systemized, simplified and provided cheaply.

So, straightup, let's consider this a shared resource, which can be shared between subject specific groups, one in each country. This is so that, should a publicsphere be run in one state, the group could use the same tools as another (state). We need a way to classify the archive, firstly so it can be found (by any librarian). So that stupid idea I've been banging on about - i.e. using a dewey number instead of a meaningless domain name - comes into its own especially if we have a country full of different languages  (like we do). So, as an e.g., questnet.edu.au becomes, according to me mate at the national library, 607.940.edu.au.

OK, so the asynchronous tools that can be loaded on this domain are what the groups in each state agree upon. = blog, wiki, forum, twitter feed, etc. The RTC stuff could be, in time, as complex as opencast in the future (if they ever reach their matterhorn), or mediasite like the questnet organisers used. But the main consideration that we need to have is that our domain is for the librarians who must also support the community's tool builders. It's a destination as well as a channel. I'm really confused about explaining this idea as EVO is in the back of my mind; accessgrid is another fairly mature toolset which could be downloaded to an IP address, and IMS seems so attractive because it accepts one of my main precepts = A function is not a node (hardware box) .

That enough about the technical considerations. Let's bring it down to "who's the customer?" At least who is the customer that is going to change the cultural iceburgs fairly quickly. Remember Disreali's "we must educate our leaders"? Well these days our primary learning groups are in aph.gov.au, and are called committees. We need to get them the best tools possible so they can share their learning, and include a few others. The one whose role it is to try new stuff out is called the Procedures committee in the House of Reps. Although, knowing how switched on Kate is, we should include this committee from the Senate.

If parliamentarians don't want to use this stuff, then we'll just have to accept that all the money spent to connect classrooms is just $158M down the tube. Giving these guys more pennies to run a CRC is an attempt at having parliamentarians outsource their learning. Much better that the money was spent helping the PEO to share an education.

"Role-play is our principal teaching strategy", they say. Perhaps we should try to pretend that including people in the proceedings is a bit more real.

Tags: comms
Posted at 02:36PM Oct 17, 2009 by simon fenton - jones  |  Comments[0]

Open Culture. Closed Culture.

 After finishing a submission to the Procedures Committee I thought it was time to do a comparison in Cultures. I should explain that I use this committee as a barometer of Innovation in this country. This comparison is between a closed Australian culture and a more open Dutch one. One primary comparison in social conventions, I use when talking to women, is comparing a country with the highest home birth rate with one that has the (near) highest interventions in birthing.

The beauty is that it is very easy to point to the habits and thoughts of the closed Australian conventions. Technically, Aussies are the best. For those few people that I've actually spoken to, you'll know I use govdex and edna as examples of an industrial mindset. i.e produce and deliver a service being the primary language of an outmoded paradigm.

In government, our friends at AGIMO have created a place where producers can feel comfortable in their profession. It is an attempt to bring similar groups = committees buried in three levels of government = to an online environment where they can talk though how to coordinate their activities; their programmes. It's perfectly obvious, if you look to the bottom of this page, where citizens are meant to stand.

In education, it's a bit more open. Bureaucrats even let this lifelong learner into this govdex.edu.au space (about 8 years ago now); under false pretences I'll admit. Just backtrack to me.edu.au and you'll see that this space is for educators. it's never made completely clear what qualifications one requires to be admitted, although one is encouraged to create a professional profile and "connect with educators with similar interests". The implication being that students needn't apply.

My problem has always been that I just want to learn, and I'm not bad at it. So far as being a teacher; in my limited experience, pretty poor. I'm also arrogant enough, due to my experience of teachers, to know that very few can learn as easily as they teach. Perception is not a skill which is included in their teaching toolkit. Spoonfeeding is the primary skillset.

That's why i find myself at home in a Dutch culture far more than an Australian. Their progressives talk about things like Open Education Resources and Lifelong Learning. Australia's talk about "building a curriculum" and edna sectors, of which I'm taught their are five. i.e. three for ages of life, one vocational and one professional. The top of the tree, as most people see it, is inhabited by professional writers of white papers (with letters after their name to provide credibility). 

So it's hardly surprising, when people in Australian government (or education) issue papers talking about Innovation, that one comment remain a constant. It's usually something like "data appears to indicate that, while most employees are keen to be innovative and act on new ideas, more than half do not clearly perceive an innovation culture in their agency." "If only other people would change, so could I", is the one I get the most.

But to my relief, I see that a thing called AGOSP is soon to "be delivered". It so much the same as me.edu.au that with my open (and reasonably technical) mindset, I just can't tell the difference. Damn it. I better go back to school. But in which sector?

Tags: culture
Posted at 07:22AM Sep 25, 2009 by simon fenton - jones  |  Comments[0]

The Public' s sphere

I've been watching/participating in a new form (combination) of media work it's way out of the usual boring space beween ads.

Some people might call it government, as it's being organised by the media advisor to Senator Kate Lundy. But regardless, the main thing which is different is that Pia use the technology, as best she can, to be inclusive, rather than talking about it. The other one is by Nic at gov2.

You'd have to attended Publicsphere 3 - for the creative industries - to really get an idea of what I'm talking about. The jist of it was to run a distributed conference between Wollongong, Melboure and Brisbane; getting presentations and feedback back to Kate's web site, from the three sites at the same time,  rather touring and duplicating around the country. The aim is a bit like educationau were trying to do with their last report to deewr; Kate's is to Minister Carr shortly. But the means were a bit closer to a modern world. Sure the technology was strapped together and fell over a few times, and the tools and process is still messy. But at least we are begining to see some real imagination and originality work its way out of the institutional .gov.au swamps.

I always thought that change might come from the .edu space and then infect the .gov domains. It's the reason i thought edna might be a place for innovation. But it seems I was very wrong here. I can see now that .edu's are just like every other industry these days. They'll stick with doing with what they've always done, until the money no longer comes in from the public purse; at which point they might notice that the habit of presenting reports to a bureaucrat or representative doesn't really have any influence. What these guys want is a way to implement reform. That means, these days, doing like Pia is doing, and running a distributed conference in a workshop like atmosphere, with people from different professions, and sharing a learning with different agencies. This means that this new format and media combination also takes the place, or includes, the handover of a report to (say) a Minister; primarily so different professions can share an understanding of how they adapt to one another. And when I say adapt, I mean Innovate (it is the original meaning).

I suppose this is the way things have always changed, especially when new forms of media are tearing down the beliefs in old institutions. First it's the old habits of governance that change, then the educational institutions adapt to support and professionalize the new habits. God I'm a slow learner.

Tags: learning
Posted at 07:38AM Sep 21, 2009 by simon fenton - jones  |  Comments[0]

What goes up ...................

I was catching up with reaction to GLAMwiki. One of the really energetic attendees is GLUM. Not surprising considering how far up we were taken by her and others = "a unique opportunity to consider new partnerships which on the face of it seem to the mutual benefit of all." It's always a tricky thing, looking at tommorrow and having to rearrange old conceptions. First the hope outside the box of routines, and then,,,, back to institutional reality.

These glamerous people are quick. It took (i think it is the writer) three entries to follow her intuition and one more to have confirmed that the WIKI+ GLAM thing is about just offering institutional stuff to a global community as a resource, not a programme. I guess she might not know how many pennies have been spent on OER's or the two models that the OER approach throws up.

It's not suprising there's some hesitation because the institutions have to take the first step first, and do like Seb has been intuitive enough to do = get the resources out there. It's pretty hard to see of what will happen after that until an institution gives up control of "their" goodies; that is, unless you understand what drives a wikimedian to donate their time and efforts.

Funny part is, with a little looking around, she offered me something which makes the new learning model clearer. It's sitting on para 4 and 5 below Michael's question, How can we open up scientific culture?

Let me describe two strategies that have been successful in the past, and that offer a template for future success.

The first is a top-down strategy that has been successfully used by the open access (OA) movement [3]. The goal of the OA movement is to make scientific research freely available online to everyone in the world. It’s an inspiring goal, and the OA movement has achieved some amazing successes. Perhaps most notably, in April 2008 the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandated that every paper written with the support of their grants must eventually be made open access. The NIH is the world’s largest grant agency; this decision is the scientific equivalent of successfully storming the Bastille.

The second strategy is bottom-up. It is for the people building the new online tools to also develop and boldly evangelize ways of measuring the contributions made with the tools. To understand what this means, imagine you’re a scientist sitting on a hiring committee that’s deciding whether or not to hire some scientist. Their curriculum vitae reports that they’ve helped build an open science wiki, and also write a blog. Unfortunately, the committee has no easy way of understanding the significance of these contributions, since as yet there are no broadly accepted metrics for assessing such contributions. The natural consequence is that such contributions are typically undervalued.

 It's pretty easy to see that GLAM's are just going through the top down decisions, just like the journals glamerous people must write for because, as she says, " Writing for anything other than a refereed journal/conference is simply not recognised".

As these old mastheads, these old aggregations of subsidized peer reviewing reduce in value = cost, there is an aggregation in the other direction. It's still embrionic. As Michael says, "as yet there are no broadly accepted metrics for assessing such contributions" (writing for on a wiki, blog, etc). But this sytmization will become clearer as peers who share spaces like our GLUM lady find ways to share bigger spaces with their national and global peers, and drive a stake into some cybernetic point, outside their institutions.

But first step first, we need open access for every GLAM's 'resources'.

Tags: wmf
Posted at 10:22AM Aug 24, 2009 by simon fenton - jones  |  Comments[0]

GLAMERous

Well, the GLAMwiki conference has come and gone.The most comfortable get together I've ever been to.

It's fascinating to watch an old institution meet a new one. All the old arrogance and hubris (in the GLAMs) everporated at the site of a small group of Wikimedians, who represented a huge diversity of Australian society, talking about what they do and how, with a little cooperation, they could help the old professions remain relevant to a new generation. N.B When I talk about institution I'm not talking about the US definition = architecture and process. I'm talking about culture.

The reports are coming in. This email thread helps to make sense of the usual swim in sewerage. Just a little background to the first reporter. Tim is my idea of an computing engineer; quiet, perceptive, rational and brilliant, which IS the new culture wikimedians seem to share. No institutionalists can resist it, from what I saw.

There still are quite a few obstacles in giving old thinkers in places like the learning federation and curriculum corporation get over the concept that they can deliver a meaningful education by producing curriculum content = using The Le@rning Federation digital curriculum resources to enhance the education = but as their pennies run out and they get folded into education.au even their hubis might be overcome.

At least their imagination bypass will become more obvious to inhabitants of GLAMs = Galleries, Libraries, Archives AND Museums.

Tags: wmf
Posted at 07:08AM Aug 21, 2009 by simon fenton - jones  |  Comments[0]

Network Awareness? I think not.

It never ceases to amaze me; how people who are "professional educators" can be such lousy learners. We can blame it on their education of course, where almost any imaginative mind will have their intuitions beaten out of them by a socialization process, which prepares them for yesterday's world, and industries. Here's your degree; it entitles you to deliver the same to the next generation.

I blame it on the lack of a philosophic education, where one can learn to step up Jacob's ladder from the practical world to Plato's temple of ideas, and then retrace their steps at will. In a mechanically minded (industrial) world, this lacking is so dangerous. Everything becomes a production. In the case of education, progress (these days) becomes "the production of open content". In government, it's open government. In network design, it's open standards, and so on.

In a philosophic world it would just mean monitoring the change in industries called media. It's pretty impossible to learn about anything until you see it for the first time. Progress would be about understanding what the various professions have to learn from one another, and how one could complement the other, and what forms of media would develop to reflect the learning.

One of my more progressive barometers here is in NZ, where Leigh is revisiting his intuitions about IT infrastructure, again.. Hopefully this won't be a mere flash as it has been in the past. It might mean a sustained focus on the obvious fact that the web is just the surface layer to a suite of protocols which sit on top of copper or fibre, and it needs to conform to (their) National and Global Communities of Practice. Let's face it, telcos only build for old institutions and individuals, so they won't help (until there's a buck to be made).

Hopefully, it might even mean that the knitting circles can distract the boys from comparing the size of their pipes, and coming up with ways that, when we read a thing on the silent web, we might push a button and speak (to one or a hundred), in "real time" as an network engineer would say.

Tags: knitting circles
Posted at 07:50AM Aug 04, 2009 by simon fenton - jones  |  Comments[0]

A Letter to Kate

I like anyone who inquisitive, and Kate is, especially about ICT things. 

Thank God she didn't go to uni, so she hasn't had her imagination damaged too much.

But we do have a chasm, as one of my network operator correspondents has described it, between "the creatives" and the engineers who make the ICT (networks) interoperate, regardless of which sector or industry they consider themselves in. This conference theme from MIT posits the prob. If you were a network manager, you just consider the web to be "the top layer" of four (usually) layers. The surface dwellers of course, have no interest in trolls.

Kate. Can i make one point, especially if we are to include lots of people in a dialog (or an enquiry). I can point you at my blog, or wiki, or pod, or video just as you can. But this media doesn't abide by the old broadcast rules, where, if I've got more bandwidth and make more noise, you get educated.

One thing the main network operators for education in this country learned at Questnet a few weeks ago is that, if you set up a conference site and capture rather than produce the (separate) conversations, presentations, etc, then you can create a community hub around  a Community of Practice very easily, and give it an archive.

Tags: governance
Posted at 10:31AM Jul 26, 2009 by simon fenton - jones  |  Comments[0]

A Global search for new organisation - Wikimedia style

A quote from Mike Snow, chair of the WikimediaFoundation.

 "The basic question is, what can or should we do to encourage

grassroots groups that want to support our mission, but may not fit into

the chapters framework?

There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups

that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite

the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to

organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian

situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better

sometimes..."

What Snowy calls "interest groups", Mike Foley from the world bank calls Community of Practice.

They're taking such a long time to form up between users and GLAMs as they are called around Wikimedia.

But when you see National librarians put up their wish lists, you know it can't be too far off.

Tags: institution
Posted at 06:39AM Jul 20, 2009 by simon fenton - jones  |  Comments[0]