Interview with Julie Barko Germany on Politics Online Conference: Looking back at 2008 and forward to 2009

I think one of the audience favorites was Matt Bai's lunch address on Wednesday, March 5. Bai outlined some of the ways he discussing technology changing politics in his book, The Argument. People really liked the Q&A at the end -- who wouldn't like to ask a NY Times Sunday Magazine editor a few questions or make a few comments?
Many of the breakout sessions also got rave reviews, and I don't think it is a coincidence that most of the popular panels had the word "social" in their titles. The breakout sessions are always my favorite. Alan Rosenblatt led a breakout panel on the social networking/social media strategies of the 2008 presidential campaigns that generated a lot of discussion. So did the panel Charles Ellison moderated on on "Does Web 2.0 Work in Politics." Micah Sifry led a discussion on outreach in social networks.
Some of my favorite panels included a discussion led by Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins of the blog Massable. The panel was titled "Privacy in the Digital Era." Andrew Feinberg from the blog Capitol Valley was covering the panel, and his cell phone rang in the middle of the session. It was Robert Scoble, so Andrew put him on speaker phone, and Scoble (briefly) talked with the panelists about privacy on Facebook.

Not yet! The Politics Online Conference is such a good place to meet like-minded people and come up with so many ideas for future collaborations. I've been following up with as many people as possible. So far, we're developing collaborative projects that look at using design to fight corruption, projects that look at overcoming obstacles to making government more open and transparent, and a few others.

You wouldn't believe how competitive they've become. I just look at them as chunks of inscribed glass, but people put a lot of effort into their entries. We had 21 categories this year and around 110 different entries, so about 5 solid entries per category. We opened up voting online for the first time ever, and I very was pleased with the results.

I have indeed! My favorite event each year is the SXSW Interactive Festival. I also really love TED (but have never attended in person - thank goodness for the webcasts!). I've been trying to incorporate some of my favorite elements of each into the Politics Online Conference. One of our biggest changes this year was something I borrowed from SXSW: allowing the community to create and vote on panels online.
The cool thing about unconferences and camps is that they can be very effective at building strategies and training people. I think that when it comes to practical politicking, which is one of the things our Politics Online Conference covers, those strategy and training conversations occur best and most effectively in a partisan environment (conservative politicos training conservatives, progressive politicos training other progressives, etc.). Our conference is nonpartisan. So I'm struggling with how to incorporate new formats in a useful, nonpartisan way.

I thought is was such a good idea! Tim Bonneman, who came up with the idea and managed it, is a true believer in the power of technology to be used in positive way in politics. I admire that, and I'd like to see more of the same in future years. Perhaps next year IPDI can play a more helpful role in organizing the event and publicizing it.

It has already begun! Sadly, the first I think I need to do is find a conference manager for 2009 who is as fantastic as the conference manager in 2008, Sam Levenback. I think I was blessed this year to have such an incredible group of students running the conference. Unfortunately, they are almost all graduating and moving on. Some of them have been with me since the first month of their freshman year of undergrad! I'm going to weep when they graduate.
So now I must audition potential conference managers. I thought I'd do it "Apprentice" style -- narrow in on a few good ones and have them each plan a smaller event.

We have a very good history of looking at the intersections between technology and politicking -- campaigning, electioneering, etc. Over the next year, we're expanding our focus to look at technology and governance, as well as technology and civil society. Here are some of the projects we're already working on:
1. Using design to fight corruption in government.
2. The uses and abuses of technology in human trafficking.
3. Technology patents and politics.
4. The rise (and occasionally, the fall) of so-called "Tech" candidates.
5. Political leadership in the digital era.
6. Political identity online.
7. The Internet as a mobilization tool (vs. a persuasion tool) in the 2008 presidential election.
8. Research projects that look at using technology to encourage participation in elections in other countries, including Germany and Latin American countries.
9. Extremism and the radicalization process online.

Here's the thing about tech policy: it's complicated. At the State of the Net conference in January, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack said that most elected officials don't understand it and don't know the right questions to ask. Imagine what the average voter feels like. I'd like to look at discussions that attempt to demystify the process. I'd also like to bring people from the hacking, security, and privacy sectors together with people from a policy background to about mutual concerns and learn more from each other.

I don't worry too much. I outsourced the worrying to Sam Levenback, the conference manager. Of course, when you're working on a project this labor-intensive, you take it home with you. And some of us take it all the way into our dreams. Sam and I both had strange stress dreams about the conference. In my dreams, my legs felt like they were sinking into quicksand and my body felt really heavy, so I couldn't move around and talk to people or help people. At the end of the day, I want the events we hold to be places where people have a-ha moments and where people can come to together and network -- not just to exchange business cards, but also to develop future collaborations and projects.

I liked it too. I think it's really hard to have those kinds of conversations because it is so easy to demonize people on the other side of the table. Drew Clark, who chaired that panel, did a good job of bringing together well-respected, but challenging voices.
However, I probably will not put a substantive conversation right after lunch next year. People getting sleepy after eating.

During previous conferences, I've received a lot of feedback along the lines of "I can't believe her to speak. Don't you know she is out to ruin democracy?" My answer is, "sure, maybe, so why don't you ask her a really good question." I value a plurality of perspectives. Diversity makes life interesting and complex and valuable. If we can value diversity of backgrounds, then why can't we value diversity of political ideology? Some of my favorite conversations occur over the dinner table with friends and family who feel comfortable disagreeing and can really dig into the issues, stereotypes, and myths at the heart of the political process. These conversations are complex and exciting, and I wouldn't want to run a conference without them.

Allies! We're all in this together.

The first, and most important thing is passion. I can't work with someone who doesn't have passion. That's really my only requirement. Sure, developing mutual interests and having a fundraising plan are useful, but that's getting down in the weeds. I like ideas, and I like working on those ideas with other people. And you can never have enough friends or ideas, so yes, I am currently looking. Please send all ideas to me at julie@ipdi.org.

Especially if we get it on camera. But it will have to be something geeky, like "Jon Doe, you're ftl."
The cool thing about being at GW is the fact that I'm surrounded by one of the most engaging, active, political savvy student communities in the galaxy. GW students are incredible, so I'll probably end of saying "You're hired, and you're hired to do something else, and you're hired to do a third thing."

Yes. I have several unresolved questions:
1. March is conference overload month. Does the community like having the conference in March, or should we move it?
2. Is anyone interested in working with me to make the 2009 conference as green as possible, and documenting our decisions and strategy on a wiki? I can't do this myself, but I feel extreme guilt when I think about how much waste a conference this size produces, and I'd like to do something about it.
3. How do people feel about holding a breakout session the first day of the conference to determine who the closing keynote speaker will be?
4. Who wants to throw a party or camp at the next conference?
5. Who should our keynoters be? What if we had a "draft X as a keynote speaker movement?"

I'm interested in that, too. My answer is that it certainly will. Next year, all of our panels will be created and voted on my the community. I'm looking forward to seeing what people submit.

Thanks very much! I'm looking forward to it, too. I just want to give a hearty thank you to all the people involved in the conference -- staffers, volunteers, speakers, sponsors, attendees, etc. I had a lot of fun this year, but it wouldn't have been as fun -- or as rewarding -- without you.