[Freedombox-discuss] Relationship driven privacy

[Sébastien Lerique]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/07/11 15:36, ya knygar wrote:
>> I only mean to say that I have some doubts
>> about the efficacy of on-list conversation, because I do not see much
>> participation from members of the TAC.
> 
> That's, i think, the consequences of using mail-lists (among other).
> What i'm trying
> to explain in "Discussion system for FreedomBox Foundation" topic,
> now we have two mailing lists, one half-ERP and half-Wiki instead of
> one open and user-friendly
> ERP and one user-friendly discussion/proposition system around (or, as
> a coupled part),
> that leads to the obvious mess.
> 
>> I would be happy to be told that I'm wrong on this one, and that a
>> quorum is indeed present. Just thought I would see if anyone else if
>> having similar feelings. What is the organisational structure here?
>> What does it mean? Who are we? Is this a worthwhile question?
> 
> FreedomBox isn't the typical W3C/IETF/GNU-distributive "working group"
> As i understand - it has a much broader scope and auditory, much more
> dependent on "out-side" view and participation.
> By that - usual tools don't suit without re-tailoring or complete re-factoring.
> I believe that conclusion of TAC separation is coming from these - two lists,
> 5 systems separation view (2 types of lists, wiki, release control system+ERP),
> not from actual difference in intentions and positions.
> 

That's interesting. I believe the two-group problem comes from having so
many people contributing (which is in fact a good point), difficulty in
setting a clear direction, no breaking down into "actionnable parts" yet
(as you say below), and little communication from legitimate leadership
(or what I consider the only groups that could have immediate legitimacy
to set a direction. Namely TAC / Foundation.)

>> <snip> [harm reduction approach]
>> <snip> [anonymity part of authentication spectrum]
> 
>> I'll just put it
>> this way: it sucks not knowing if big decisions are being made in a
>> room somewhere.
> 
> That the situation you could see widely in organizations(many kinds)
> that wasn't able to introduce a user-friendly and open to broad
> view(in this case) ERP for the whole organizational needs.
> 
> We've just got to divide the
> problem up into little actionable parts,
> that's what is hardly done in non-efficient community systems.
> You could have a man that separate it all but if you could have a
> people who, collaboratively one by one - separate and polish the view
> and path of organization, the difference is amazing.
> 

Indeed, and in that "dividing into actionable parts" the problem is
consensus: consensus that we need to break it down into parts, consensus
on what parts, consensus on who defined the parts. To me this is
independent from mailing-list / other communication. IMO it should come
from TAC / Foundation, but if doesn't the only way I see to make
progress is to suggest a collection of parts, amend it with other
suggestions, and convince people it's the way to go. Once we've got
that, I agree that we could use tools such as Etherpad to work more
efficiently, in groups coordinated in time (time zone problem pointed
out by someone else).

I'm not clear as to how that fits with your vision?

>> This needs to be done early and often, with input from real,
>> non-technical users as an integral part of the design process. I'm
>> happy to test on my family!
> 
> I'm a UI-UX designer for life and - the proposed separation but
> openness is what - often helps the designers to make their best and
> still - didn't learn all the near-by professions, thankfully, i have a
> big management experience, also, so - with my designer work i'm able
> to figure out - how the entire system work to make the best graphical
> design choices, however - it's the corner-stone of usual web-design
> problems, in result - you often see (at least it was popular, in the
> past) that programmers became to designers and otherwise that,
> obviously(i can show many examples) lead to "these" systems - half
> here and half there, that's the specific problem of Open-Source,
> particularly, as many PM's think that they could easily manage it all
> "on the go" and without ERP, however, other team members often need a
> more declared separation (on pair with openness and clear
> understanding of what is going around - maybe not the full detailed
> specification as it's involving all the learning around, but - clear
> view on the path and ways of the project). So - separation of
> activities could bring the good result, only, if combined with tide
> and dynamic encyclopaedia of project's knowledge and decisions, i
> think.
> 

Ok, I think we may be agreeing here. If I get you right, it means 0)
break into parts, 1) have an overview mechanism that allows newcomers
and specialized participants to understand what's going on as a whole,
and 3) have specialized groups document their progress in a wiki-like
space (and report synthesis of progress in a common space for all
participants).

I still think a wiki is the best tool for that overview and
documentation of progress (my humble opinion), but with Etherpad used to
work in the groups. I don't see Etherpad as a means to provide a clear
overview of how the project is divided into parts, but rather as a
developing tool. But I have used that tool very little, so maybe I am
mistaken?

On another level: would you be interested in being part of an eventual
UX group? I understand we have difficulties finding people in that area.

- -- 
Sébastien Lerique
seblerique at wanadoo.fr | @wehlutyk on twitter/identi.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk4coyIACgkQgkn/UaLvmGcUpACg2tUxJQGdha5FaT0oJgLLmoEG
WDoAnA+sB3oskgi+zJlZIZWs8Ot10nj6
=2SH+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----