After talking with Rufus Pollock of the Open Knowledge Foundation, and many other similar discussions, I've decided to jot down my thoughts on how we could/should construct a new "open knowledge" movement. The idea is to start a grassroots campaigning network across the UK that can work on issues like free software, software patents, biotech patents, Creative Commons and so on. The challenge is to avoid the mistakes of the past, avoid pissing off or stepping on the toes of existing organisations that work on these issues, and to try and build an inclusive, powerful movement based on those issues that unite us, rather than splintering into mostly ineffective, short-lived groups.

This post comes from my experience over the past five years campaigning in groups as different as Greenpeace, the Reading University Campaigns Forum (part of the People & Planet network), the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, the Campaign for Digital Rights, the Association for Free Software and probably others besides. I've studied social movements as part of my degree, and I have taken part in several training days on the social movement stuff (strategy, media, lobbying, non-violent direct action, general stuff). So I feel that I have a reasonable basis in theory and practice to talk about this stuff.

The major mistakes I think that groups in the "open knowledge" area have made (though not all groups have made all of them) are:

• Not recruiting activists, because:
• There weren't clear tasks for people to do
• There wasn't a clear, up-to-date analysis of the situation (e.g. software patent campaigning requires a good few days of intensive reading to get up to speed on)
• The issues are too abstract for a lot of people to care about, and we've not used frame alignment processes to overcome that
• Not achieving a lot, because:
• Achievable goals weren't decided upon
• There was a lack of strategic thinking about how to achieve goals
• There was little delegation, making people overworked, meaning tasks didn't get done
• There wasn't enough money to fund a full time person / there wasn't an infrastructure to provide the resources a full time person would bring
• Not getting much media attention, because:
• There weren't press officers coordinating releases and responses
• The issues aren't that interesting to a lot of the media
• Activities weren't planned with media attention in mind

Defining our priorities

I don't think any of those problems are insurmountable, though obviously some are easier to overcome than others. So, first I think we need to define our priorities. I'd say they are:

• Survival
• Recruit activists
• Requires clear strategy with tasks & delegation
• Requires resources (we can draw from CC, FSF(E), etc.)
• Requires localised groups
• Get funding
• Success
• A strategy that defines achievable goals
• Activists & resources to achieve those goals
• The ability to recognise and communicate any successes we have

Defining the structure

Then we need to think about the structure of any open knowledge campaigning network. I'd propose one based upon People & Planet, an extremely successful (in terms of the priorities listed above) student campaigning network. It would look like this:

The network consists of lots of groups, like (for example) Remix Reading and Liquid Culture. Each group is relatively autonomous, meaning that they can campaign on a few accessible issues of their choice such as pushing Creative Commons for artists, trying to open up University IP policies, etc.

Each group can delegate representatives to a legislature of sorts. This is basically a meta-group that makes democratic decisions on the behalf of the network as to what the network should be focussing on. It can operate around a mailing list, web site, real-world meetings, and any other mechanisms. This legislature provides the network with the cohesion to push the "big issue" of open knowledge generally, avoiding splintering into single-issue campaigns. It also gives the network the flexibility to, say, drop Creative Commons if the network deems it necessary.

The network also includes an executive, which ideally would be manned by paid staff (as in the case of People & Planet). However, without a lot of funding we'd have to run it with volunteers from the network. The executive basically gets things done. So if, for example, the network (through the legislature) decides to pick up the Creative Commons / free culture campaign, the executive arranges the resources with CC. Or maybe the executive puts together completely new materials, like a campaign pack on a given issue, including introductory texts, model leaflets, strategy suggestions, and so on.

I hope the benefits of this structure are obvious. The Open Knowledge Foundation can act as the basis, and we can draw upon the experience and resources of existing groups, and even bring them into the network, without stepping on their toes too much. We can start up local groups, such as campus-based student groups or town-based artists' groups.

Thinking strategically

There is one final aspect of this that I want to touch on: strategy. The network as a whole, and different campaigns we run, ought to be thought through strategically to ensure we're meeting our priorities. The process runs as follows:

1. Decide upon the general aims of the campaign
2. Decide upon specific achievable goals that we will work towards
3. Work out which people are in our "opponent", "ambivalent", "sympathy" and "activist" pools
4. Work out how to move people from opponent -> ambivalent, ambivalent -> sympathy, and sympathy -> activist pools
5. Decide upon specific targets and activities
6. Draw up a list of tasks and delegate them

Obviously this process is ongoing, but it's good to go through it all in a discussion before firing off in random directions. The strategy, once devised, is an excellent tool for keeping focus, directing action and for communicating the campaign to others.

Of course, if the network picks up, for example, the CC/free culture campaign, or a free software in education campaign (which the AFFS already does), the strategy would have to take account of this structural overlap and so the room for strategic thinking would be constrained.

Endnote

I don't mean to suggest that we should plan every minute detail of the network we intend to bootstrap, nor that we should draw people away from existing groups in a grand act of assimilation because those existing groups are failing. But I don't think we should run in blindly to "see what happens". Lots of groups have come (and gone) the past few years, and can now reflect upon the history of groups like the AFFS, FFII, UKCDR and so on to understand how best to move forward.