Proposal for "Projects" Top category

I want to make a proposal for implementing the discourse top category: “Projects”

#Proposal:

  • Implement the top level category “Projects”
  • Implement the following sub categories under Projects
    • SSEDAS
    • CHEST
    • possibly 15mmm, as there is currently still little to do (that sub-category is of minor importance)

Reasoning:

As I just wanted to make a reference to SSEDAS, I think that SSEDAS overview is really important. At the same time I am also thinking, where it should live.

As the funding category seems not being the appropriate place for that overview.

As @alabaeye took the task (Taiga-Link) of developing a process for top category development,
(I just noticed, that I mis-understood. He actually took the task of developing the categories, not the process to do so)


The OwnCloud example

As initially all documents and data on those projects were stored in the owncloud folder "administration - funding - SSEDAS or CHEST, I found it difficult to navigate to data that is important for the workflow. As stable categories are important for links not to break, I proposed the “projects” category in onwcloud… with little response.

As I needed a good place for the documents to work with, I simply started the “projects” folder in onwcloud and find it very useful.


The same I think about the “projects” category in discourse, I think it will be a helpful ressource.

1 Like

I’m not so sure this is a good approach for various reasons.

  • The first is about the absolute number of top categories: we have 8 top categories already. More will decrease the clarity of the Discourse forum.
  • Using this frame of “projects” may/will bring us further away from the commoning process with projects evolving separately. Thus, having such category would encourage gathering all SSEDAS related discussions under this category and undermine the larger readibility of the commoning process by creating silos.
    I would rather have subs under other main categories when it makes sense: ie. multiple threads of discussion. For example, under “Communities” a SSEDAS sub may make sense as the rationale of a project like SSEDAS is to co-develop with an existing community a set of tools that is contributing to the TransforMap commons. I believe, the SSEDAS overview will fill very well under “Communities/SSEDAS”. The technical discussions should happen under Engineering, licensing under “Vocabularies and Data”, etc.

Generally, I think we should be really careful about the way we develop this forum. It isn’t just a forum, it’s the main information infrastructure of the TransforMap community. The way it is structured will impact strongly on the way people will collaborate (or not).

It was content and process. I still have to make a proposal about the process (coming back from 15 days handwork break) :smile:

Just for clarification, we have 7 public top categories, of which the first one is a simple welcome one, and the last, funding is a non-public one (I will send a proposal about that in a later post).

@species and me would find the projects-category with the respective sub-categories very helpful,

  • to open up SSEDAS and CHEST (as the top current projects, this will get some of the priorities of the overall development in the next months, so it should be well represented, to enable broad collaboration and public coordination)

  • to have clarity, that the discussions on that are no unspecific and theoretic, but towards concrete outcome.

  • to (potentially) get in the many partners, that will be involved in SSEDAS as well as in CHEST

  • (that would also be the place, where the 15mmm category, would have fit)

It should be an entrance point, to reference to discussions in the topic oriented categories.
We currently discuss topics in the non-public categories “finance - SSEDAS” and “finance - CHEST” topics,

  • that neither are of non-public content,
  • nor fit in the category of finance,
  • but should be easily understood to be about SSEDAS or CHEST.

Examples of other communities using discourse

Open Knowledge Foundation: https://discuss.okfn.org/
9 public Top Categories, of which one is “major projects”

Opentechschool: http://discourse.opentechschool.org/categories
13 top categories (much less sub-categories, but I think also much less complexity)

Mozilla: https://discourse.mozilla-community.org/
more than 20 categories

Following are some communities that use discourse as community management / support to an existing product, and less development oriented. Some of them have more top categories and less sub-categories (as they have less clear topics to expect and mostly want people to post whatever feedback they have to the product.).

Discourse itself https://meta.discourse.org/categories
Ubuntu http://discourse.ubuntu.com/
Fairphone: https://forum.fairphone.com/categories

In certain circumstances it could be lean enough just to rename the Funding category to Projects. It wouldn’t diminish its use and meaning, but would also help to move away from a certain terminology.

I appreciate your arguments and understand your point of view and not completely opposed to having a new top category. My concern is to avoid the risk of having those discussions completely disconnected to similar discussions in other top categories. For example, what would you see under CHEST that is not connected to finance? CHEST being one source of funding to support the wider development of TransforMap’s infrastructure, apart from management discussions I don’t see what should then belong there. Is that for the management?

Actually, one main point is to link to and interweave with other discussions. Many of the discussions going on in other categories, are currently a little bit out of context, as there would be some reference needed to SSEDAS or CHEST.

basically everything, that is not directly about finance. Just have a look in the current SSEDAS category in finance. At least half of the topics do not relate to € and their distribution, but about the whole setup of the project. Most discussions we currently have there are not financial, but technical.

In the respective CHEST subcategory, it was basically about the contracting so far, and no other topic, as there is no community on the other hand, that wants specific outputs. I think that will change, once we get more details, how reporting and other deliverable issues need to be handled.

About opening finance-topics, I would propose as follows:
What you think about making one sub-category in finance, that is called “public”?, We could put here the numbers, communications and decisions, that we want to make public?

I am also very happy do publicly discuss how we handle the SSEDAS and CHEST funds. Therefor I will prepare an online-spreadsheet with the prior understanding, of how the finances would be distributed, and from there, the people interested to do so, can develop a current understanding of how it is handled.

Taking the guidelines for decision making in sociocratic consent decision making, I would like to adress the area of "concern"

#About Objections and Concerns in consent decision making:
the following is a copy from here: http://sociocracy30.org/the-details/circles-and-decision-making/

#Objections

  • …are gifts
  • …contain emergent wisdom seeking expression into consciousness of a circle
  • …reveal opportunities or impediments
  • …emerge through individuals and belong to the whole circle
  • we love objections in sociocracy

Questions That Help to Validate Objections


  • Does the objection relate to this specific proposal or policy?

  • Does this objection reveal how a (proposed or existing) policy…

  • …jeopardizes the satisfaction of a driver?

  • …is in conflict with the organization’s values?

  • …hinders or diminishes someone’s contribution to satisfying a driver?

  • …can be improved significantly?

#Concerns

  • …are not objections

  • …don’t stop proposals becoming policy

  • …often contain wisdom

  • …can be recorded in the logbook…

  • …to further evolve policies

  • …to set evaluation criteria (including review date)

#Consent Decision Making

Harvesting Objections to Capture Emergent Wisdom

further details here:

I am really sorry for my editing error, that prevents me from editing the first post in a category.

@alabaeye
the first post should be replaced by this:

I want to make a proposal for implementing the discourse top category: “Projects”

#Proposal:

  • Implement the top level category “Projects”
  • Implement the following sub categories under Projects
  • SSEDAS
  • CHEST
  • possibly 15mmm, as there is currently still little to do (that sub-category is of minor importance)

#Timeframe for revision:

  • 2 months

Reasoning:

As I wanted to make a reference to the SSEDAS-project in another thematic area, I think that SSEDAS overview is really important. At the same time I am also thinking, where it should live, and where other Q&A, clarity on decisions, public documents and interaction with partners on that topic should live.

As argumented here, the funding category seems not being the appropriate place for that overview.

@alabaeye took the task of developing the top-categories as well as a process for top category development, discussions on that can be found here


The OwnCloud example

As initially all documents and data on those projects were stored in the owncloud folder "administration - funding - SSEDAS or CHEST, I found it difficult to navigate to data that is important for the workflow. As stable categories are important for links not to break, I proposed the “projects” category in onwcloud… with little response.

As I needed a good place for the documents to work with, I simply started the “projects” folder in onwcloud and find it very useful.


The same I think about the “projects” category in discourse, I think it will be a helpful ressource.

@almereyda

thx!