43 people, really? Those are some seriously big meetings. Maybe not big by Obama-campaign standards, but as federated group meetings go, that’s really very impressive.

I’m a little surprised to hear that you’ve got new people joining the organization that weren’t involved in the campaign. I’d be curious to explore whether that’s happening with a lot of OFA groups or if you just happen to be doing something particularly right. My impression of DFA was that, for the most part, it’s membership was based among people who bonded during the primary campaign and then asked “what’s next.” The strongest groups eventually brought new people in, but that took awhile. If community OFA groups are already attracting new people, that’s just another sign that this is something for the rest of us in the interest group community (and those of us who study it) need to be paying close attention.

thanks for stopping by!

I think you’re right about the importance of “authentic connections,” but my instinct is that the answer is probably “tons.” Have you read Zack Exley’s piece, “The New Organizers?” These folks took the same model that we were training RI Sierra on last year (literally the same model — Marshall Ganz was behind both training projects) and ran with it. They have thousands of *teams* spread across the country who worked hard, feel a sense of connection and responsibility for this campaign, and want to help Obama get the country moving forward again. You’re right that it’s a question of how strong their *local* connections to *each other* are, but I think the answer is probably “crazy-strong.” How they answer the “episodic work” question outside of the electoral campaign question is another issue entirely. I don’t have any idea what they’ll come up with, but I’ll be watching closely for sure…

The dissertation is in the revision-stage now, btw. I’ll have some more stuff to show you pretty soon, all of it more refined than that chapter I sent your way last spring.

Part of the grassroots “tug of war” is whether or not folks will unite under a banner that is part grass tops, part grass roots, and all about maintaining campaign base.

I’m frankly a bit pessimistic about the campaign base sustaining a movement, but we’ll see.

One of the elements that the Obama campaign did very well, from my limited perspective, is provide for episodic work, along the lines of Marty Kearns provocative question “What would your organization do if you had 10,000 people who wanted to give you 10 minutes of your time?”

I think that’s part of the challenge of online organizing in general.

While Clay Shirky is right on in talking about all the connections that are made when the numbers increase, there is still the complex question about what those connections are about.

One of the anecdotal phenomenon I’m witnessing through Facebook and our use of Basecamp, for example, is that these tools help me organize communications with people I’m connected to online through some shared experience offline.

The question that interests me is how many authentic connecting experiences people have had through working on the Obama campaign.

I posit that if the connection was to the campaign (the intimacy of Plouffe’s video addresses may keep that personal), the “movement” will dissolve.

If grassroots groups can follow examples from the campaign, looking to cultivate participation with the participants as clients, rather than the inward focus most of us have, I think we’ll have a chance of picking up some involvement through the fragmentation, the big bang forming universes and solar systems of shared values.

I’m still using your important work on online organizing in my own thinking and implementation, and I find more and more truth in your hypothesis.

That hypothesis also helps explain the intimacy possible on the longer side of the long tail.

I’m changing my twitter, by the way, to update my device so I can see when and where you’re posting.