i want a nemesis... or do i?
Today I partially joked in a chat
I think at this time of my life, I would like to have a nemesis. Everyone has people they don't like and find annoying, I do too. But a nemesis? There's something you can't stand about them, but you recognize they are really good at something, and can admire some things about them too. You might piss each other off, but there is a good kind of competition between you. It has to be mutual, though. One-sided nemesis stuff is just weird.
On a more serious note, I guess it is an expression of my search for someone equally passionate to help me grow and challenge me in some topics.
We had another Country Reporter meeting organized by noyb yesterday, and this time, the presentation also featured questions we discussed in breakout rooms, something we never did before. Really loved that. Made me realize again how much I am craving and missing actually talking to professionals about data protection and privacy in a way that is more theoretical/academical or covering areas I know less about, instead of being geared towards laypeople's issues in practice.
Blogging is fine, emailing some people is fine; but it is rather solitary or with great delay, and little to no pushback with good arguments that make me dig deeper. Writing helps sort things out and is a great opportunity to research or to revisit stuff I read, but it isn't a balanced peer debate and it doesn't make me aware of blind spots. I do have our DPO at work as mentor, but we meet roughly every 2-3 months or less, and I think I can't make it a more regular thing, as he's very busy. I try to make it to conferences 1-2x a year, but that's also mostly listening to presentations or panels without really getting a back and forth going. The social aspect there is more about networking, status signaling, or passive learning than intellectual sparring. I try to read articles, blog posts and papers that challenge me, but it's not enough as I can't discuss them with anybody. My understanding of things is not getting pressure-tested, I want to need to research more and formulate arguments in conversation.
I thought about how I could address this need, and brainstormed about a digital roundtable every other week where the group discusses a DPA decision, court case, new guidance, articles, news, question etc. each time for 60-90 minutes.
What would be important is that
- not just one person supplies the discussion material, but everyone takes turns or signs up to do the next meeting when they find something worthwhile.
- an explicit expectation that it's okay to disagree.
- Chatham House Rule, no recordings.
- diversity in backgrounds (and identity) - laypeople, professionals, field, (gender and location) etc., because even just all being focused on the legal perspective or the activist lens can get pretty monotonous, and professionals don't just wanna lecture laypeople; it gets more interesting when you have people from software engineering, platform governance, cybersecurity, social sciences etc. in it too that all bring a different part to the table, especially technical angles.
- can't actually be that big, because the more people are there, the less people can actually speak, and many will then just silently attend. There needs to be enough room for everyone to speak if they want to, and not just 2-4 people going at it as everyone else listens.
- people shouldn't just be there because I'm there.
I am not completely sold on the idea because of scheduling friction, recording concerns and people's general aversion to digital meetings especially without camera, but asynchronous means wouldn't scratch the itch either. I need the conversational intensity and immediacy, and I crave people who are opinionated enough to argue, but not status-defensive and comfortable to change their mind.
I'll let that one marinate for a bit still. :)
Reply via email
Published