[CivicAccess-discuss] Invite + launch + unwants

Tue Dec 6 09:29:53 AEDT 2005

Michael Lenczner wrote:

>actually - i take it back.  i'm okay with the invites being personal /
>tweakable.  But I still think that we should send out the invites all
>in the same day.
>  
>
okay!  will have to call people before i invite them though.  So will 
need a couple days to track em down.  I'll keep you updated.  Also, just 
so i know, who will manage all that  pwords stuff and questions from the 
storm of people who join in? I guess they go to the list and we take it 
from there?  either way let me know how it works soz i can answer 
people's questions if need be.

>i guess one of the few steps left before we send out invites is to
>check over our list of co-founders.  i just looked at it and I didn't
>see many names that would be easy for me to take off (maybe 3-4). 
>Tracey - could you add your people there?  Patrick and Steph?  do you
>have any suggestions?  We definitely don't need any more people from
>Montreal and we could use women and more people from prairies and BC
>as well as out east and the territories?  I'm afraid that my networks
>only run towards geeks.  And I'm less likely to find non-geeks through
>google.
>  
>
will do, i have a few atlantic province folks and will go through my 
cards for some aboriginal friends who might be interested.

>mike
>
>On 12/5/05, Michael Lenczner <mlenczner at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>that looks awesome.  really nice job.
>>
>>my stuff shouldn't be in there.  not as an introduction.  i can bring
>>it up with people during the discussion before we open to the public.
>>
>>i'll suggest a few minor edits - but i think that it's basically perfect.
>>
>>and yeah - i was thinking that now is a bad time to send out invites
>>because it's going to be so busy until x-mas - but maybe not.  Maybe
>>we could invite people to be on the mailing list together and then
>>just open to the public after x-mas (like jan 4-5).
>>
>>But i don't think we should invite people piecemeal  (one here, a few
>>there).  I think if we want them to take it seriously as co-founders,
>>then we should invite them all at once - and maybe we should send them
>>a standard letter.  It seems more credible imho then to send out more
>>personalized.  If context is required for a specific person we could
>>contextualize above / below that standard text.
>>
>>but that's just a thought.  i'm okay with us doing it differently if
>>it's important to any of you.
>>
>>mike
>>
>>
>>On 12/5/05, Tracey P. Lauriault <tlauriau at magma.ca> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Hi gang;
>>>
>>>I had a go at the invite a bit-
>>>http://civicaccess.ca/wiki/Launch/Invitation? I'll frenchisize after
>>>your comments.
>>>
>>>When should we send this out?  Should we send to a few people we each
>>>have close relationships with really soon and get started? I would love
>>>to get my few DataInfo friends engaged while i have them hot - like the
>>>next week or so.  what so you think?
>>>
>>>also, michael started an interesting stream on what we do not want the
>>>group to be.  Did we want to explore how we want to address those issues
>>>a bit?  I left them at the bottom of the letter.
>>>
>>>I paste the let & michael's bit below.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>tracey
>>>**************
>>>
>>>I think this invitation should be tweakable and targeted as oppposed to
>>>general and impersonal. Perhaps for the public launch we can do
>>>something a little more general. my guess is each of us has a variety of
>>>relationships with the people want to invite so i am approaching this as
>>>a template with some cut and paste content. We may wanna get this out
>>>soon though!
>>>
>>>*DRAFT INVITE LETTER:*
>>>
>>>Hi There;
>>>
>>>Stephane, Patrick, Michael and Tracey (change order as required!) here
>>>and we would like to invite you to co-found a new canadian civic
>>>engagement space - Citizens for Open Access to Civic Information and
>>>Data (COACID). We are contacting you since we know that you have been
>>>thinking and talking about these issues, have been actively engaged in
>>>related activities, and also because each or you has unique expertise,
>>>knowledge and experience to contribute to this type of activity (i.e.
>>>social planning, data access, open source, mapping, technology creation,
>>>etc.).
>>>
>>>We are a group of diverse citizens, who also happen to be technologists,
>>>academics, and activists, who share a common belief that civic
>>>information and data should be made easily accessible at no cost for
>>>non-commercial purposes to citizens and civil society organizations. We
>>>are doing this because, we understand that participatory democratic
>>>processes require that citizens have access to information and data to
>>>inform their engagement and to improve the quality of the decisions they
>>>make during that process. But also because, information and data are the
>>>essential bits and bytes required to re-imagine, re-envision, visualize
>>>and critically anaylze the communities we live in.
>>>
>>>So far a COACID discussion lists has been created ([WWW]
>>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca),
>>>and a wiki ([WWW] http://civicaccess.ca/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/) has been set
>>>up with some draft content. The wiki is an open source collaborative
>>>tool that will host content discussed on the list. In short this is an
>>>emerging community of citizens across Canada like you who want to share
>>>what they know, do, their skills, information and data and these tools
>>>are there to facilitate that.
>>>
>>>Please join the list and introduce yourselves, navigate the wiki, share
>>>your ideas, interests, and add some content and discuss issues you think
>>>are important from your unique and diverse perspectives. There is no
>>>pre-determined way to do or say things, so feel free to say, modify, and
>>>do as you like in this environment. The group remains small and closed
>>>at the moment with the hope that once we have been working together a
>>>little, and have a better handle on what we are doing, the list and wiki
>>>can go public to some targeted some related communities of practice in
>>>January or February of 2006!
>>>
>>>We are looking forward to being engaged in this information and data
>>>community building activity with you!
>>>
>>>Cheers Stephane, Patrick, Michael and Tracey
>>>
>>>NOTE: so and so can help you with the wiki so and so can help you with
>>>the listserve this is what you need to do to get on the Discussion list
>>>this is what you need to do to use the wiki
>>>
>>>**************************** Michael, do we want to discuss this further
>>>on the list? I am thinking that having this in the invite would be
>>>intimidating, but think there is merit in agreeing to what we do not
>>>want along with what we do.
>>>
>>>A key thing to tell you as possible co-founders of COACID is what we
>>>don't want COACID to be. We don't want it to become it's own project. We
>>>don't want it to become an ego vehicle for a small group of people. And
>>>we don't want it to become something that's chasing after funding. We
>>>want it to be a [WWW] third place <http://user.gru.net/domz/third.htm>
>>>for people already motivated in this cause and a place for people who
>>>are curious to find out more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>>>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>
>  
>