I say it’s because of personality politics … the A-list only allows advances that add value to their own stock. In case case the fact is that most of what’s being discussed as “new” I recall from the early 80s, even the late 70s. (I carried around my copy of “Netweavers” for years!) And the software that’s coming out? I saw designs that were almost identicial (if not superior) in the last 90s … a decade and more ago.
My point is simply this: my communalism dates back to “the bus” in ’68 … where dozens showed up to help hang new drapes but when it came time to change the engine it was just the.same.old 6 or 7 of us. And I’ve watched the dynamic mature: the clique that was oh.so.willing to “partake” but not actually “take part” have been treated well by the passing years and a good number of them are now well-positioned if not wealthy. And their thing is this: stand back and watch til there’s something they like and then take / steal / copy it … your basic Bill Gates manoever. Actual collaboration? Horse.shit … “collaboration” is the pretext they use to stick their nose in it.
So anyhow, it’s still good stuff … however couched in self-serving cant.
Here’s some material from the blog at delib.co.uk (File under “They sure do have the theory!”)
- Building Britain’s Digital Future: ‘a chance to reinvent deliberative democracy for the modern age’
- Delib’s “technology not policy” Parliament Debate round-up
- How to make open government sustainable – SXSW round-up #1
- Governance 2020 roundtable – thoughts on the future of participative policy-making
Here’s an item that shows the end effect: March, 2010, a lovely blog post celebrating a brilliant new method (“Notes v. Maps: Trading Quantity for Quality“) when actually the method was “cutting edge” late-90s. How am I so sure? Because that’s when I abandoned for the fact of being retro- and inherently dead-ended. But it suits the twits in suits so … so that’s that. Period. “Innovation”?! C’mon, get real …