Nadia recently published a fantastic new essay on "Idea Machines: a network of operators, thinkers, and funders, centered around an ideology, that’s designed to turn ideas into outcomes." The main example she uses is "effective altruism". She also refers to the "tools for thought" community (which we are related to) as something that could turn into an idea machine. https://nadia.xyz/idea-machines I think our community is fairly close to being an "idea machine". We are missing some funders (though we do have some), as well as a shared agenda (though we do have some). I personally intuit that we're just a small amount of branding (I never liked the name "future of coding" all that much, and yes I came up with it) away from the status of the "tools for thought" or even the "effective altruism" communities. I feel like our community needs to be easier to "point to" in the way one can point to EA. Any suggestions on branding or other structural changes we could do as a community to become more effective?

Nice references! I'll take a look at that tonight. On the topic of renaming the community, see... this... recent... """thread"""... https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/CEXED56UR/p1632872466023400

Awesome! Very excited to hear that discussion is already underway. Curious to hear how it's been going - not sure if I have the patience to read through 151 replies haha

Curious what you’d say the agenda of this group is

Coming up with an agenda that inspires a large portion of us sounds like a really important and difficult creative work

maybe we can try adopting/adapting a term used in the past?

Im into terms from the past

Timely question @stevekrouse We first need to answer another question: who is our audience? Observing the discussions in this community, the audience is ourselves. That is, expert professional programmers scratching their own itches. Personally, I think there is much more potential for creativity and impact by working for what Steve Jobs called “the rest of us”.

Thanks! I've enjoyed hearing your takes on these community organizations questions in the past @jonathoda. You've mentioned creative circles before, and have participated and organized lots here

How about a 2-step process: 1. Agree on a set of last-names and a pronounceable initialism (premium on vowels) 2. Agree on an adjective form. My first attempt: Bush Licklider Engelbart Illich Kay Alexander Nardi => BLEIKAN Society. Advantages: • The adjective form is obvious. • It's pronounced like "bleak 'uns", which sounds kinda Lovecraftian (cf Old Ones). Cassandras doomed to be ignored/misunderstood.

Naming ourselves after an obscure computer scientist sounds a bit alienating. Nobody except other computer scientists/engineers know who Engelbart or Kay is. What's more, most computer scientists/engineers probably don't even idolise those figures like some of us here do. More generally, I think our name should look to the future, not to the past.

Shall we all nominate & vote on who to represent us in a "constitutional convention"? 😂

After actually reading OP: • It's not clear if this community is at the ideology phase or agenda phase. The line between the two seems blurry; one person's ends are another's means. • OP seems rather focused on funding. Should we really be defining "idea machines" by their funding sources? In particular, the example of Schmidt Ventures (operating initiatives without communities) seems identical to any VC firm or philanthropic org, say Bill Gates Foundation? Does anyone know more than me about it to flesh out details? Are idea machines something new, a new way to view something good, or some other lens entirely?

constitutional convention

That's not a bad idea. That's better than, say, me or @stevekrouse just picking a new name (etc) based on a bunch of nominations.

At least in my own projects I have really come to like the framing of being an archeologist of computation (most definitely inspired from @Maggie Appleton) It shifted my focus from the fashion of present commercial software culture to a methodical and deep appreciation of our history in order to push forward our understanding of computation and how it impacts ourselves, our society, and culture (although my own projects aren't that influence yet). It’s not necessarily a new name, but more a potentially useful framing. Some chat about solarpunk and terrapunk today makes me think that something like “computerpunk” or something like that could be a fun/inspirational name. I like how those genre's tend to be forward looking. (Also interesting to think of the community through the lens of a genre rather than an ideology 🤔)

Branding is difficult. If we were to approach it as a bake off, I'd want the options presented with more than a name (logo, example graphic style, &c) to capture something of the emotional impact the new brand is meant to have. Funding for things that don't promise to make money for the funders has been the hardest part of this process for me, btw. I have multiple blank check offers to do Yet Another Startup, but nobody wants to set up a foundation. 🤷🏻‍♂️ (Off topic: that Terrapunk stuff was tremendously despressing.)

Very glad the idea of computing archeology is compelling @Christopher Shank! I would maybe frame it as “anthropology of computation” only because anthro suggests more focus on analysing current cultural dynamics / lineages vs. historical objects and events (but, splitting hairs, same ethos). Also might encourage pulling on more explicitly anthropological thinkers who have a lot to offer this idea machine (Tim Ingold, Lucy Suchman, Paul Dourish, Alfred Gell) I get the sense the FoC + TFT communities are semi-well-documented in terms of raw historical facts, but we’re missing the ethnography (the writing up of culture). Documenting belief systems and dynamics from the last ~70 yrs of computing rather than repeating the facts; “Sutherland built Sketchpad in 1963.” Nadia is one of the few people doing anthropological-like writing in this space, but from the reception of it, clearly valuable. Most of the projects shared in the slack are programmes, prototypes, and demos. Rather than narratives. Maybe that’s by design? Unsure if the rebranding efforts want to help change that dynamic. Either way, +1 to some kind of re-branding and presenting more holistically/cohesively around a clear ethos and mission.

I think the core ideology, for me, is a bit narrower than the full FoC space. I find myself trying out quite a few things (mainly No Code) and thinking "Yeah... _this ain't it_". The main themes for me are; • There's a New Literacy possible that hasn't happened yet • We took a wrong turn at some point or over-narrowed our view, and lots of the ideas from 60s/70s are better (in some ways) than what we have now So the thing has a kind of deep and slow, backwards looking aesthetic that starkly contrasts with start-up culture.

Thanks for sharing @stevekrouse looking forward to read into it.

Arpapunk 😜

@Christopher Shank @Maggie Appleton I think maybe a name like “Humanist Computing” or similar would serve as a broad enough term that contains a good amount of optimism, and is inclusive with respect to non-technical viewpoints of computation.

One of my projects had the tagline, "A human-scale computer".

@jonathoda I think "the rest of us" is too vague, too abstract. Personally, I'd fit that description because I am not a professional software developer. I am computational scientist. But I am also out to scratch my own itches. Which are probably shared to a large degree by other computational scientists, but that's it. Every profession heavily using computers has needs of its own, which in turn are quite different from games enthusiasts and home automatizers.

Interesting 2x2 from @Sam Arbesman (https://twitter.com/arbesman/status/1545479565715415040)

I have a somewhat different 2x2 lens that might serve as an interesting prompt...

Mildly surprising to me that art is more competitive than research or open source..

Art is one of the most "winner take all" markets I've yet seen.

Now I'm reminded of https://imdb.com/title/tt7043012