[Dialogue] Can I get arrested for doing an art form conversation?

[jlepps at pc.jaring.my]

Whether OCR'd or just scanned, the documents for 
Bending History required a LOT of hands-on 
editing! I agree with Marshall that getting 
archive material into acceptable 
public-accessible form will take more than simply scanning -- MUCH more!

John Epps

At 09:31 PM 5/20/2010, you wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0058_01CAF874.8DDEE3D0"
>Content-Language: en-us
>
>Yes, scanning to PDF first puts the pages in 
>order without having to stitch later. Then 
>anyone wanting OCR for research and publication 
>purposes can OCR the PDF. This is how we did all 
>the documents for Bending History and some for Brother Joe.
>
>With kindest regards.
>
>M. George Walters
>Resurgence Publishing Corporation
>4240 Sandy Shores Dr
>Lutz, FL 33558
>USA
>Tel: +1 (813) 948-7267
>Fax: +1 (813) 333-1787
>Mob: +1 (813) 505-9041
>
>URL: www.ResurgencePublishing.com
>Professional Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mgwalters
>
>
>
>
>From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net 
>[mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of W. J.
>Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 19:37
>To: Colleague Dialogue
>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Can I get arrested for doing an art form conversation?
>
>Douglas, the pages scanned in the Olden Pathways 
>(which was a Beta release) were OCR'd and the 
>result was a LOT of errors, including typo's, 
>plus we found some errors that were incurred in 
>the original transcription process. I worked on 
>editing some documents, enough to sense how 
>overwhelming it would be to tackle the editing 
>of the whole frigging archive after 
>digitization. Since I'm not totally up to date 
>here in Kansas City, so to speak, does your 
>current process simply 'freeze' an image of the 
>paper page as a .pdf? Or is OCR part of the process?
>Marshall
>
>
>From: Doug Druckenmiller <dpat23 at msn.com>
>To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
>Sent: Thu, May 20, 2010 12:56:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Can I get arrested for doing an art form conversation?
>Yes Jack, you are correct.
>
>The math was based on a page at a time process 
>and based on 8 hours a day.  Part of the problem 
>is that the paper we printed things on in 1972 
>is thin and tends to catch in the document 
>feeder when you scan both sides.  It’s 
>possible that this could be solved with a roller 
>adjustment. Or scan one side of the document and 
>then the other to avoid having the machine turn 
>each page to scan the other side.  I haven’t 
>tried but I think we can use adobe professional 
>software to automatically stitch the pages back 
>together the from the two scans.  Renting high 
>quality document scanners could also be a solution.
>
>Once we have a complete inventory of what’s in 
>the archives we can also prioritize what to scan 
>first.  We don’t need to redo stuff that’s 
>in the Golden pathways CD for example.  Some 
>things may be quite low priority and only scanned as requested.
>
>Doug
>
>From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net 
>[mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Jack Gilles
>Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:06 PM
>To: Colleague Dialogue
>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Can I get arrested for doing an art form conversation?
>
>Doug,
>
>What a great context.  But I've got a question 
>about your math.  If it takes 150 years to scan 
>everything, but you have reduced the scanning 
>rate from 20 minutes to 1 minute then we only 
>need 7 1/2 years of work!  Now what we might 
>need is some of those 24 hour marathons of duty 
>like we used to do at the Summer program.  I 
>believe it was Summer 70 when we occupied the 
>office downtown during the night to produce the 
>documents.  Hmm, seems a bunch of us need to put 
>Chicago on our "to visit" list this summer and fall.
>
>Thanks for sharing!
>
>Jack
>On May 20, 2010, at 12:17 PM, M. George Walters wrote:
>
>Wow Doug.
>Thanks!
>
>With kindest regards.
>
>M. George Walters
>Resurgence Publishing Corporation
>4240 Sandy Shores Dr
>Lutz, FL 33558
>USA
>Tel: +1 (813) 948-7267
>Fax: +1 (813) 333-1787
>Mob: +1 (813) 505-9041
>
>URL: <http://www.ResurgencePublishing.com>www.ResurgencePublishing.com
>Professional Profile: 
><http://www.linkedin.com/in/mgwalters>http://www.linkedin.com/in/mgwalters
>
>
>
>
>From: 
><mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net>dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net 
>[<mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net>mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] 
>On Behalf Of Doug Druckenmiller
>Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:42
>To: <mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net>dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>Subject: [Dialogue] Can I get arrested for doing an artform conversation?
>
>I’ve read with interest the discussion about 
>the archives and the related comments on 
>intellectual property rights, copyright and 
>licensing.  I think it is important to clearly 
>separate the issues so that clear discussion can 
>be made and we can see where our consensus 
>lies.  I think a bit of context is necessary for 
>my comments, so I apologize for what will likely 
>be a longer post than is recommended for email 
>listserves, but my personal story and experience 
>in this is maybe not well known and potentially useful to the discussion.
>
>I got reengaged with ICA in the spring of 2007 
>(having been separated since 1982, a 25 year 
>long journey!) when I attended  an ICA-USA think 
>tank in Chicago.  I was interested in getting 
>access to archival material for my university 
>research into collaboration engineering.  I am 
>an Associate Professor at Western Illinois 
>University with a PhD in Business 
>Administration.  My major interest is in 
>Strategic Information Systems, especially 
>knowledge management and collaborative 
>systems.  Collaboration engineering is a newly 
>emerging field that seeks to understand the 
>basic patterns of group interaction: 
>Brainstorming, organizing (gestalt), evaluating, 
>consensus building, convergence etc.  The field 
>has evolved from a focus on electronic meeting 
>systems to a broader focus on facilitation 
>methods, facilitation design, and how 
>facilitation systems can be embedded in 
>organizations.  Most recently I’ve been 
>working with Jon Jenkins on redesigning the IAF 
>methods database for easier access.  The Town 
>Meeting 76 documents represent a research 
>treasure in my field as it is an example of 
>large scale collaboration engineering.  We (ICA) 
>designed a collaboration event and then trained 
>practitioners to deliver it.  The TM76 documents 
>are empirical evidence of successful 
>collaboration engineering on a large scale.
>
>This was just after the now-famous firing of all 
>the staff by the board of ICA-USA.  I proposed 
>to then board chair, Carolyn Antenen, that we 
>digitize the archive to improve its 
>accessibility, not just mine, but others 
>interested in utilizing the archives as a 
>resource. Digitization is an obvious solution 
>with the necessity of moving the archive to a 
>physical location where they can be catalogued 
>and digitized.  Funding would be needed to 
>accomplish this, and there are issues of storage 
>and quality control in the digitization 
>process.  At the time I saw several possibilities for doing this:
>
>1.       If the ICA is willing to give up 
>copyright to the archival data (here I am not 
>talking about the JWM files that I understand 
>his family has control over) and donate the 
>collection to the University (WIU), the 
>University would store it, digitize it and make 
>it electronically available online.
>
>2.       The ICA funds the digitization on its 
>own using the University's digitization capability and services.
>
>3.       The ICA does the digitization on its own with its own resources.
>
>In any case, quality control of the process 
>would require that someone familiar with the data monitor results.
>
>The ICA was mainly pursuing housing the archives 
>at a university, as there was no internal 
>capability for true care and maintenance of 
>archival material.  The first option was not 
>realistic because ICA was not interested in 
>giving up its copyright, although it would only 
>be on the digital copy not the original 
>material.  The second is quite expensive, 
>$100,000+ and the third is also expensive and 
>nearly impossible given limited staff resources 
>and time.  As we subsequently began to see, 
>option 2 can’t be done without doing option 
>3.  University partnership is still an ongoing 
>discussion.  Our emerging partnership with 
>Oklahoma City University is an example.
>
>Discussions with the Mathews family were 
>underway at this time, resulting in the eventual 
>move of the JWM files to Wesleyan Seminary in 
>Washington DC.  Digitization and open access 
>were part of the reason that educational 
>institutions interested in the content of the 
>archives were involved.  Based on the reception 
>this past December and the establishment of the 
>JWM archive at Wesleyan, this is an excellent 
>partnership and collaboration toward that 
>end.  Betty Pesak and Marge Philbrook prepared 
>the material for transfer to Wesleyan to insure 
>that wherever there were multiple copies of 
>documents, they were retained in the archive in Chicago.
>
>In October of that year I attended the Living 
>Legacy event and began discussing with Board 
>Member Judy Lindblad an archive digitization 
>project.  Several alarming conversations with 
>people at the event made me wonder what had 
>happened to the ICA in the 25 years since I was 
>involved.  Several people insisted that if you 
>used any ICA methods that you had to pay a 
>royalty to the ICA.  It seemed that a simple 
>artform conversation was “private property” 
>and especially if you called what you were doing 
>“ORID.”  This seemed exceedingly strange to 
>me, and I remain curious as to where this idea 
>had come from.  I wondered if the ICA police 
>would arrest me for having ignorantly been using 
>the artform conversation for the past 25 years 
>in my teaching.  At least I didn’t call it 
>ORID, so maybe I would be forgiven. But what 
>about charting?  I was in deep trouble.
>
>I then did a stupid thing, I volunteered to join 
>the board of directors, since it was the only 
>way I could see to insure access to the 
>archives, and maybe I could get time off for 
>good behavior and service rendered.  The 
>archives were at that point under lock and key 
>in the basement and not accessible in any real 
>sense.  They also were at risk of flood and the 
>environment was not conducive to work or long 
>term preservation.  I was elected to the BOD in 
>November and began a three year term in January 
>of 2008.  As a board member I continued to push 
>for a focus on the archives, but it was not a 
>concern and discussions about intellectual 
>property were not encouraged.  “We’ve 
>already talked about that.”  In January 2009 I 
>became board chair and remain currently in that 
>position. Work on the Global Archives remains 
>for me a key objective.  Obviously I’ve not completed my sentence yet.
>
>Enough context, fast forward to May 2010.  Last 
>week Pat and I attended the archive sojourn 
>event.  What a wonderful time we had digging 
>deep into the spirit resources of the archive 
>and continuing the work begun the week before on 
>processing the archive for eventual 
>digitization.  Slowly the file cabinets are 
>coming out of the basement to bright available 
>space on the 6th floor.   In order to digitize 
>the archive (make a digital copy) we must have a 
>“gold” set of unduplicated material.  As 
>Marge Philbrook has pointed out many times, the 
>files in the basement contain lots of 
>copies.  By way of example, Pat and I processed 
>a stack of files about 15” high containing 
>constructs for “fast, feast and 
>watch.”  This was mainly material from summer 
>‘72 research assembly.  I remember the 7 day 
>fast, the wonderful feast and the watch that we 
>did that summer.  Anyway, after removing all the 
>duplicated material and keeping 2 copies of 
>everything where possible, we reduced the stack 
>by about 2/3.  So 5” of material remain, quite 
>a bit of that is file folders, and if you figure 
>half of what is left is what would need to be 
>digitized, you are left with about 2 inches of 
>paper that represents the “gold” set.  This 
>is what is going on in Chicago this month.  We 
>will have a fairly good picture by the end of 
>May of the size of the mountain, but we will not have climbed it.
>
>In the midst of this event I had a revelation of 
>sorts about the process we are now engaged 
>in.  95% of the work to digitize the archive is 
>this kind of manual sorting and sifting of the 
>material.  Without doing this, we cannot 
>digitize anything.  It also requires people 
>familiar with the material.  It is not something 
>that can be “outsourced” to someone 
>else.  The smallest part (and least expensive) 
>is the actual making of a digital copy.  This 
>involves scanning the documents into a PDF 
>format and can be time consuming if you are 
>thinking of your own personal scanner which is a 
>one page at a time process.  For example, two of 
>us scanned the 110 page summer 72 spirit methods 
>manual in about 20 minutes.  At that rate it 
>would take 150 years to scan the archive!  What 
>we really need is a scanner that has a copy 
>machine-like document feeder.  This could do the 
>same job in less than a minute.  I then realized 
>that most copy machines made these days are 
>document servers.  This means they are connected 
>to your computer network and you can print to 
>them from your PC, and you can also use them as 
>a scanner.  Mon Dieu! We have a copier! I wonder 
>if it is also a document scanner?  Turns out we 
>have two in the building.  They can be set to 
>scan documents at high speed to our server and 
>made available.  We tested this system last week 
>and while there are some problems with old paper 
>feeding properly, we have everything we need to 
>do digitization. Option 3 increasingly looks like the way to go.
>
>The only thing we are missing is you!  We need 
>more people to volunteer their time to do the 
>sorting and reducing work that prepares the 
>material for scanning.  And then we will need 
>people to do the scanning and to quality check 
>the results.  We have 25 nicely furnished rooms 
>on the 8th floor so you can live onsite, work on 
>the archives and visit the beautiful city of 
>Chicago.  The increasing numbers of people and 
>reunion atmosphere have been a real joy to all 
>who have attended the sojourn.  I really think 
>that with a steady stream of volunteers, we 
>could accomplish the digitization goal much 
>quicker than we think.  Terry is planning 
>another official Archives sojourn in the fall, 
>but I am sure that Marge Philbrook is willing to 
>put anyone to work who wants to volunteer at any 
>time.  Once the archive is fully digital, 
>another task can begin, which is the 
>“tagging” of the content. This essentially 
>is having a collaboratively built rich index to 
>the material that allows for easy access of its 
>contents and can be done from anywhere in the 
>world as long as you have internet access. 
>(Think of the way you use Google to find 
>information – a word or phrase is all you need.)
>
>Now about copyright.  The ICA-USA will have 
>copyright to the digital form of the archive 
>based on the “Cairo protocol” described in 
>Wayne’s post.  This will likely be about 2 
>terabytes of data.  You can purchase a 2 
>terabyte drive from your local office products 
>store for about $300.  Last week Bob Hansen 
>asked me, “Will we have to pay for access to 
>the digitized archive?”  Definitely not!  We 
>intend to put the whole archive and the index to 
>it on our server and make it available at no 
>cost for download over the web. If you want a 
>backup copy, go buy a 2 terabyte drive at 
>OfficeMax, come to Chicago and make your own 
>copy.   Of course, you’ll have to wait until 
>its finished.  You could help with that.
>
>I would say that there is a broad consensus that 
>both the original material in the archives and a 
>digital copy should be freely accessed.  (I’m 
>not really aware of anyone who holds the 
>contrary position).  The cost of digital 
>distribution is very small, as we have existing 
>resources to do this, once things are in digital 
>form.  In Creative Commons terms, this is the 
>“Attribution license .”  This license lets 
>others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon 
>our work, even commercially, as long as they 
>credit EI/ICA for the original creation. This is 
>the most accommodating of licenses offered, in 
>terms of what others can do with your works 
>licensed under Attribution.   I believe this was 
>the original intent for access to this material 
>and should be applied to both the physical and 
>digital versions.Please spend some time at 
><http://www.creativecommons.org/choose>www.creativecommons.org/choose. 
>Answers to two simple questions determine the 
>License:  “Allow commercial uses of the 
>work?” and “Allow modifications of the work?”
>
>I hope this settles the IP question about our 
>common memory and heritage.  I will request that 
>the board of ICA-USA pass a resolution to this effect at our next meeting.
>
>The more interesting question, though, is what 
>about copyright for works derived from the 
>archive?  (Those works that are owned by the 
>national ICAs or created by individuals, for 
>example PJD, Top Training manuals, etc.)  The 
>“Attribution license lets others distribute, 
>remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even 
>commercially, as long as they credit EI/ICA for 
>the original creation.”  PJD is a creation of 
>John Cock and his team; they hold the copyright 
>and clearly attribute the work to EI/ICA.  I 
>think this meets the standard of an attribution 
>license.   It is not a product of ICA-USA or 
>even one of our programs.  It is a tweaked remix 
>built on RS-1.  The license for PJD is a 
>decision to be made by that team.  While the 
>product is under development and testing, a 
>limited distribution seems appropriate.  In the 
>long run, though, I think either “attribution 
>share alike” or “attribution non-commercial 
>share alike” would be appropriate with other 
>national ICAs.  If the product is distributed 
>outside the ICA, say to a church denomination or 
>a business organization, a tighter licensing 
>arrangement might be in order for quality 
>control.  Top Training Manuals are an example of 
>this type of licensed control and protected 
>content.  But this applies only to the training 
>manuals published by ICA-USA, the logo, and 
>trade name.  The reasoning behind this is based 
>in quality control of training and branding for 
>commercial purposes of the training 
>network.  This does not mean that the methods 
>themselves are copyrighted.  Anyone is free to 
>develop any training program they want based on 
>the open source archival material; they would 
>need to attribute the EI/ICA in their copyright, 
>but they could decide how to license their own material.
>
>You can’t get arrested for doing an art-form 
>conversation even if you call it ORID.
>
>
>Doug
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
><mailto:Dialogue at wedgeblade.net>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20100522/4328dc29/attachment.html>