Monday, October 08, 2007

I don't have time not to have time.

I've realize that there are two options for those of us who like to spin a lot of plates on the end of a stick . . . Limit sleep or work faster. I've yet to determine which will work best in the long run, but I have a new mantra . . . I don't have time not to have time.

All the plans, projects, and visions in the world cannot slow down progress, so we have to pick what we get involved in. Sometimes I pick too many, and they seem to self-prioritize. Infrequently I pick too few, and I go stir-crazy for up to ten minutes.

In any case, we have our networks to depend on (and to support). Wouldn't it be great of we could share the load with them?

The Cop Connection Intro Video

In a prior post, I outlined my thoughts on network(ing) terminology. I've yet to receive any serious confrontations, so apparently there's a consensus.

John Dierckx recently revisited Michael Pokocky's essay on The Collaborative Concentric Networking Model where it was noted that no one really knows what networking really is. It means different things to different people, and the constant is that people are desperate to belong to something larger than themselves and willingly join network after network until the idea finally sets in that they really don't want their lives to be so complicated. Interestingly, Fred Thompson's wife, Jeri noted in a recent interview that she learned growing up that 'There are things in life bigger than yourself: God, government and the greater sense of community are three of them.' See the Tennessean article.

Our networks cannot replace any of those, but they may try to take time away from them. Pokocky noted that Collaborative Concentric Networking supports those of us who feel the need to connect without the need to connect in each location. He noted that it encourages multi-community networking for the purpose of building one's own Collaborative Concentric Network, which is unique to the individual, and effective in building relationships between friends, colleagues, business associates, etc., to build one's own center of influence while reducing the time wasted now by not using one's communities effectively.

See Michael Pokocky's essay on The Collaborative Concentric Networking Model, reprinted here.

Will Reader of Sheffield Hallam University in Britain observed: "Although the numbers of friends people have on these sites can be massive, the actual number of close friends is approximately the same in the face to face real world." He noted that most people have five close friends, and this was no different among users of social networks. If we could all stop there, what would be the point of having technology that helps us track everyone? I appreciate and agree with Reader's observations, but I am confident there's something missing in the analysis . . .

Meanwhile, in the David and Goliath like face-off (Facebook vs. MySpace), it appears spammers and Microsoft may be increasing the odds. Wee and Levy pointed out what I think seems to be the deciding factor . . . Facebook won users because the site may be more private. It is designed to encourage people to use true identities, whereas MySpace has more anonymity and has been forced to confront reports of sexual predators on its site. Facebook also started a $10-million (U.S.) fund to encourage software developers to create customized games and videos. See the Globe and Mail.

I'm still working out the kinks on the Cop Connection, and currently focusing on adding new friends (with whom I am, admittedly, building not-so-deep relationships) so when we see where opportunity and preparedness meet we will be able to focus. We've got a Facebook group, a MySpace Group, a LinkedIn group, and a Google group, and there's the main site, as well, at In the coming week we'll be in several discussions on how best to implement the mix of overlapping groups in need of security and privacy, while mixing in content and connectivity and interaction . . .

So we proceed while the larger social networking battle continues, and the results will be interesting. One thing's for sure, though . . .I don't have time not to have time.

No comments: