CC global network strategy proposal

Can't get around the apparent contradiction between their stated (and laudable) goal of overall openness and their active rejection of open communication platforms (I've personally offered to create and host an open one for them) and preference for a demonstrably closed platform (Slack). Seems hypocritical, and at the very least undermines the sincerity of their objective.

Agree with Keitha. I think we can take the critique from an open-source-tech-advocacy perspective as read. I don't think it's hypocritical, but that's neither here nor there. There are some substantial issues here that are likely to be implemented in some form, so the best course IMO would be to give feedback as concretely as we can, without calling into question the goodwill or sincerity of the folks involved.

For the record, my direct dealings with CCHQ have left a rather bad taste, and created some serious doubts about their goodwill and sincerity.

CC HQ seem to me to want to continue to be a successful international organisation supporting openness this century. They are trying to find a way to support affiliates struggling to survive and unable to prepare and deliver the road maps etc that they committed to when there are more important local priorities. CC HQ seems to have concluded that other open groups are needed in the international CC tent. I worry that CC's clear function and role could be lost. Let's discuss these big strategic issues and put aside editing and which discussion tools to use.

I've cited the example of the discussion tool as an instance of "open washing": claiming to be open on principle, and yet being demonstrably not open despite ample opportunity to remedy the dissonance. To me that's a pretty serious thing that cannot be swept under the carpet. There's no point in discussing strategy if the commitment of the organisation to its own stated principles are in question.

Forcing someone to use a closed platform in order to participate fully in a discussion about openness is directly contrary to the stated goals of the CCGN. That, folks, is textbook hypocrisy.

I must say it makes me very cross indeed for people to excuse this tech choice as "ok" when it governs the very discussion about how CCGN can achieve its goal of being more open. I would've preferred it if you had said "yes, that decision is inconsistent with their ideals, and we'll raise concerns about that with them" and then suggest we move on... but excusing it as irrelevant? I'll bow out now, but I'm very disappointed by the lack of commitment to open principles.

I struggle with the document - on the one hand, I understand how their proposal attempts to address the struggle of some affiliates. On the other hand, I fear that in providing a mechanism to support those affiliates, there is a loss of independence, which may come at a prize with respect to finding local support. Maybe I am reading this wrong - perhaps the legal team can shed some light with respect to how, for example, the ability of CCANZ to find local funding and how to tailor their work to support the local needs may be affected. What I have loved about CCANZ was its ability to focus on local needs - and the work actually being driven by local demand. I am not sure how this fits with the document as I understand it.

I agree. But it's worth noting that the existing MoU says (I think) that CCANZ needs CCHQ approval to raise funds under the CC banner. It's a risk-management thing for the global org, rather than a 'control what local affiliates do' thing.

But yeah, @fabianakubke I have the same concerns. A charitable reading would suggest that the new 'platforms' approach—which seem to be intended to be global issues of shared importance to most regions—is mainly a way to raise and distribute funding from large corporates and global NGOs. CCANZ can still work outside of those 'platforms', but it won't be able to get grants from HQ on those non-platform issues. Which we don't, at the moment, on any issues whatsoever.

Do you have any other insights from your discussions with HQ, Keitha or Elizabeth?

Thanks, Elizabeth. Let's all continue in good faith and spend this week discussing and agreeing on what changes we will put to CC HQ and the Summit to make sure that NZ continues to lead with its CC outreach and advocacy.