Comments on: My so-called Live http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/04/22/my-so-called-live/ Same old blog, brand new place Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:29:45 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: Twitter The Next == The World Live Web « Nowstream’s Weblog http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/04/22/my-so-called-live/comment-page-1/#comment-47573 Twitter The Next == The World Live Web « Nowstream’s Weblog Mon, 05 May 2008 22:35:12 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/04/22/my-so-called-live/#comment-47573 [...] Searl’s has talked about this several times over the last several years. It’s easy to agree with someone like Doc on your own blog to try and [...] [...] Searl’s has talked about this several times over the last several years. It’s easy to agree with someone like Doc on your own blog to try and [...]

]]> By: Denise Shiffman http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/04/22/my-so-called-live/comment-page-1/#comment-43181 Denise Shiffman Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:56:49 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/04/22/my-so-called-live/#comment-43181 Thanks Doc Thanks Doc

]]> By: Doc Searls http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/04/22/my-so-called-live/comment-page-1/#comment-41879 Doc Searls Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:28:24 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/04/22/my-so-called-live/#comment-41879 Thanks, Denise. I just made a strike-out of the last line referring to your piece, with a link pointing to your comment here. Thanks, Denise.

I just made a strike-out of the last line referring to your piece, with a link pointing to your comment here.

]]> By: Denise Shiffman http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/04/22/my-so-called-live/comment-page-1/#comment-41786 Denise Shiffman Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:29:02 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/04/22/my-so-called-live/#comment-41786 Doc, The article you reference in OMMA was supposed to be an excerpt but they edited without my permission or approval. In the Age of Engage, I refer specifically to (and note in endnotes) an article you penned, "Linux for Suits -- The World Live Web." The exact comment in the book, "I agree with Doc Searls: We need to think of the Web as alive, as an ecosystem with a heartbeat that is constantly moving and changing in order to create engaging, interactive marketing, and valuable business interactions at each touchpoint." That's what I took away from what I thought was an exceptional article. Doc,
The article you reference in OMMA was supposed to be an excerpt but they edited without my permission or approval. In the Age of Engage, I refer specifically to (and note in endnotes) an article you penned, “Linux for Suits — The World Live Web.” The exact comment in the book, “I agree with Doc Searls: We need to think of the Web as alive, as an ecosystem with a heartbeat that is constantly moving and changing in order to create engaging, interactive marketing, and valuable business interactions at each touchpoint.”

That’s what I took away from what I thought was an exceptional article.

]]> By: Ed Brenegar http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/04/22/my-so-called-live/comment-page-1/#comment-41677 Ed Brenegar Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:13:48 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/04/22/my-so-called-live/#comment-41677 There are many dicotomies along the static-live divide. For example: static - dynamic abstract - concrete iconic - interactive ideal - real This is something I've been working on related to the role of values in organizations. I've now come to see a distinction between Values 1.0 and Values 2.0. Values 1.0 - idea - icon - irrelevance Values 2.0 - idea - interaction - integration - impact I wrote about this at http://edbrenegar.typepad.com/leading_questions/2008/04/social-objects.html and have created a one page diagram conversation guide at http://edbrenegar.typepad.com/Values2-0.pdf. What I'm seeing is a pathway to operationalizing values within organizations. In so doing, the values are alive, and not historic icons of the past, or static memories that have marginal value for the ongoing work of today. There are many dicotomies along the static-live divide. For example:
static – dynamic
abstract – concrete
iconic – interactive
ideal – real

This is something I’ve been working on related to the role of values in organizations. I’ve now come to see a distinction between Values 1.0 and Values 2.0.
Values 1.0 – idea – icon – irrelevance
Values 2.0 – idea – interaction – integration – impact

I wrote about this at http://edbrenegar.typepad.com/leading_questions/2008/04/social-objects.html
and have created a one page diagram conversation guide at http://edbrenegar.typepad.com/Values2-0.pdf.

What I’m seeing is a pathway to operationalizing values within organizations. In so doing, the values are alive, and not historic icons of the past, or static memories that have marginal value for the ongoing work of today.

]]>