I appreciate the concerns from Omdesign and you raise many good points that are an important part of the dialog. I think think the important thing to remember is these are not binary decisions.

A critical impetus to CrisisCommons and related efforts is delivering technology capability directly to the community in need. The Web provides many opportunities to do this and the efforts around Haiti demonstrates it can make a difference.

The problem is we shackle the impact we can make if we cut off dialog with the traditional disaster response stakeholders. Too often those most in need don’t have access to the Web and intermediaries are critical to deliver innovation to those on the ground in disasters. We may not always agree with how they operate but it is the reality of how disaster response happens to day.

I believe we have an opportunity and a voice to change this in the future, but that means having a seat at the table to be included in the discussions. If there is anything I’ve learned in the process of trying to spin innovations out of academia to the real world is that compromise is necessary evil if you want to see your ideas have a meaningful impact. The traditional stakeholders have seen the difference bottoms up volunteerism can make and there is a window to change the status quo. This will require coming to meet in the middle though with open minds about how the best solutions can be put together. My ideas could definitely be wrong but it is critical we have the dialog.

One program that I am aware of that approximates this concept is the European IST program.
http://cordis.europa.eu/ist/about/about.htm

It includes a broad range of private companies linked to industry for numerous goals. The net impact being to raise the level of innovation. But this leads to another idea.

We often here people talk about ‘services’ within a data or information context. The value measured in terms of technological value alone.

What if the measurement value included the amount of reduced environmental pollution, the number of people employed, the downstream value to other research or perhaps usefulness for raising awareness.

The point here is to quanitify value in different ways – through value created across impacts. Under this scenario perhaps funding by constellation of values could lead to strategic growth and funding.

Keep up the good work.

I thought that Government was supposed to seek and support most efficient solutions. They progressively became coopted through a flawed political process that rewards special interests (Business) at the expense of the general well being.

Haiti is a classic case in point. 24 Years of World Bank influence and general disgust with ‘Business’ produced a whole lot of people who make it their mission now to circumvent the destructive advice of “those who know better”.

I find it incredibly ironic that the diaspora of DIY hackers is left without any real support from any coordinating ‘agency’ or department in government yet is capable of producing what it has literally taken millions of dollars and years for government contracted Business to ‘not’ produce.

Then, as usual, the Business realm makes all this puffery about free market ideals while literally destroying nations for profit in tightly coordinated, taxpayer funded, multinational, often illegal, shenanigans.

Why are they allowed to be obstructors? Once determined to be so, why is it so important to appease these corporate entities who benefit from ‘human’ status and provide so little real worth to an injured hungry Haitian Nation?

Our educational and media systems deliberately omit information about the actual events, our government makes excuses for why they intervene on behalf of corporate interests, the corporations accept public funds as contracts and yowlps about how the ‘market should decide’ who lives and dies.

Now you here suggest that these people who were all part and parcel of literally preventing humans on the ground from having any sort of free will should be leading an autonomous, bottom up, citizen-action and volunteer-driven ‘force’ that has so clearly demonstrated that most of these calcified structures couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag.

The facts on the ground show clearly that most of the agencies are so entrenched in a way of doing business that has nothing to do with the mission statement hanging on the wall, that when a crisis does actually occur you can see them scurrying around looking for the instruction book.

I’m beside myself. Frustrated to the point of confusion. NO I say. Compromise, for a change, would be for Business and Government to reevaluate the kinds of activities they have engaged in, ask US for some guidance and advice and create supportive environments based upon who is providing value for the taxpayer.

What I find striking about Crisis Commons and the Camps is that the entire focus was on the NEED. There has been very little coordinating work for the various projects to join up together but with a focus on the need.

It can be difficult, but to take the generosity of effort and allow anyone to profit from it is actually against the motive that brought us together in the first place. Most people donate funds hoping that they will be spent on behalf of the need.

The truth is actually pretty ugly. Redundant waste, excessive salaries, anti-common sense activities by untrained military staff and lack of access to resources by people who are actually capable of making change.

We need to step it up a notch and put forward our own solutions for making an entity that can support development and ‘perhaps’ include Business if they can prove a capability to function with ideals that befit the need of people on the ground. If your idea goes forward and we get coopted as a movement, I will quit and become part of another independent movement that is not constrained by criminal malfeasance.

I’m wondering about the visibility of these applications and projects as well. Beyond trying to find funding, which remains a crucial part, could a best case scenario of funds for each project out there create just a series of well-made crisis response tools scattered among websites and github repositories?

Perhaps another avenue than “Big G” could be for some of the more established development teams out there — CrisisCommons, Development Seed, or Ushahidi, to put a few on the spot — adopt these tools through some form of a mentorship program. Through the visibility of their existing work, they can steer more volunteers toward contributing their skills to re-developing and furthering what has been built in the past couple of weeks, with even more an eye toward that critical piece: systems integration. That work could help both teams combine forces to larger grants and funding opportunities, keep teams working alongside each other, and consolidate efforts for a faster response the next time it is needed.

My feeling right now is that the community, having demonstrated it’s effectiveness, needs to actively promote it’s grounded in reality vision of what’s possible, and pursue all matter of funding strategies. Otherwise institutional inertia is going to kick in, and the spirit of what we’re doing is lost.

Once it’s in a bit more of a draft, I’ll share this with you and wider, and look forward to hearing your input.