Document Pros and Cons of Affiliating with PublicLab

[Cribstone]

Since our founding in 2012, Code for Maine has been unique amongst other Brigades in our focus on Open Source Hardware and "Civic Making". While much of this came out of the original participants' expertise in hardware over software, there is a compelling argument for civic making being especially well-suited to the small communities we're likely to work with.
While Code for America has emerged as a powerhouse in the civic hacking world, The Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science has emerged as a champion of a more hands-on, citizen-science oriented method of organizing with technology. Perhaps most significantly, they have perfected an effective means of documenting open source hardware projects for which many Code for Maine projects are already included at-http://publiclab.org/profile/ajawitz

I was recently invited to become part PublicLabs official organizer team which would entail regular conference calls, check-ins etc... and managing the state wiki at http://publiclab.org/wiki/maine. The wiki already includes a highly detailed environmental project led by the Friends of Penobscot Bay, though southern Maine has been equally active through organizations like Friends of Casco Bay and the Harpswell Coastal Academy in a project to track the impacts of aquatic invasive species.

The question is whether or not we should incorporate these activities into the existing Code for Maine framework or if it should be pursued independently? I personally believe the benefits of such a dual affiliation would outweigh the challenges. By promoting a broad spectrum of tech-oriented solutions from high level scripting on one end to aerial photography on the other, we'll be inviting people from more diverse backgrounds to participate. Furthermore it will help solidify our place as a "nexus of collaboration" by using the CfA brand to connect otherwise isolated organizations around the state (e.g "Friends of ---- Bay)...

[powellc]

My only issue with becoming a "nexus of collaboration" is the potential for mind share dilution. That doesn't mean that it would happen, or even that it would be likel. But our resources are spread so thin, and our organization so tenuous, that my concern is pushing out in too many directions at once.

@Cribstone that's awesome that your doing more to push PublicLab forward and I would love to see tons of activity in Code for Maine towards helping PublicLab grow in Maine. But these seem like two disparate organizations with two different missions.

Given our strategic plan for 2014-15, I'm not sure Code for Maine can officially support the PublicLabs mission at the moment. I encourage you to do awesome work for them, and towards their mission. For now, let's keep C4M's focus on public internet access and assistive projects in the Bangor area.

[powellc]

@Cribstone In an effort make these issues actionable, I've changed the wording of this task. Rather than pros and cons and a discussion, I'd prefer a document outlining what it would mean to integrate our activities.

To this end I've created a new branch with a draft proposal document in it. Please add actionable steps to integrating with PublicLabs so that we can make an informed decision as to whether we have the resources to accomplish them.

Completion of the document will be completion of this task and we can move on.

[powellc]

The pull request is #17

[powellc]

@Cribstone any chance you'll be able to update this doc before November ends? Otherwise we gotta slip this into December.

https://github.com/Code4Maine/code4maine-ops/blob/3-publiclabs-affiliation/iniatives/publiclab-affiliation.md

[Cribstone]

I didnt see the above comments until just now and I was about to make some edits to the strategic plan by creating a new branch but I noticed you already made a new branch for the PublicLab activities. So I'll try to "kill two birds with one stone" so to speak and add a very broad outline stating which activities we will be pursuing in collaboration with PublicLab.

[Cribstone]

Concerning whether or not we can support the PublicLabs mission as Code for Maine, I don't see any reason why there would be any major conflict other than in areas that explicitly involve taking an advocacy position.
A related aside- While I understand the importance of maintaining a focus on certain areas, I have always been of the opinion that such a focus comes about by identifying areas where contributors' individual interests and motivations can be leveraged in a complementary manner. So when speaking in our capacity as the core leadership team we should really try to make a clear avoid ever making a exclusionary value determination on whether or not we have time to focus on something. It may well turn out that way, but stating so in the outset will alienate participants who are not yet committed. On the other hand, strong critical discussions can be very valuable and should be encouraged as much as anything. Its just important that we make it clear when we say something as a matter of opinion rather than a definitive position for the organization. To be sure, I'm not just trying to make a roundabout argument for why I should have my pet project. Indeed, I agree with your point almost entirely. However, if I was a young eager volunteer who hadn't been involved since the beginning I would likely just say, "well good luck and fuck off..."

[Cribstone]

OK- Changes have been made to https://github.com/Code4Maine/code4maine-ops/blob/3-publiclabs-affiliation/iniatives/publiclab-affiliation.md It was originally intended to be a draft to add to the strategic plan but now I'm thinking the Strat. Plan needs a section on partnerships in general, in which PLOTS is included with the Harpswell Coastal Academy, Bowdoin, Colby, Bates and (fingers crossed) BDN(?) more than something dedicated solely to the PLOTS collaboration...

I suggest we mark this task as finished and create a new draft for the Strategic Plan itself.