Call to form a working group (all members welcome, new and old)

Well, make those tasks clear, and be accountable to all.

Then, I come back to my first question:

To which you, @agnez, replied with a long list of exemples, the first of which is

(Which is decision making)
So, please, don’t tell me I’m making things difficult.

This work group should (of course) not decide how decisions should be made within the network. But prepare a proposal that can then be accepted or get feedback for improvement.

What do you propose to achieve our decision making procedure?

1 Like

I think you forgot about existing proposals, e.g., in #todo <-- this is a link.

Working in transparency does not mean that you can’t talk in private. Otherwise you’ll never get people involved here that are not comfortable with talking publicly constantly.

I’m afraid that we’ll just keep on waiting for more months if we don’t try to work differently…

I have no influence on your private talks, so you can have them as you wish. I just do not accept that a private group has any validity when there are ongoing discussions with the whole network that are not taken into account.

If you want to do things fast, we can apply the Directory MR process: if there’s no response after a month and 3 likes on the proposals, we integrate them. It’s been more than six months already, and nobody contested any of the proposals, so we could as well accept them and be done with it. But, we decided to add another deadline to the next meeting. I see no reason why a private group should be formed to reply to public topics. If you have any objections, you can use – as you should have within the past 6 months – the existing topics.

Validation does not happen within the groups (at least if the network does not decide on a decision process that says otherwize)

Why do you think a work group would not take into account what is said in the network? That would indeed be a lousy work group. Where do you get these negative ideas from?

Well, from the fact nobody participated in the #todo topics for more than six months.

Why do you think a WG would be more effective than just using what’s already there? And, more importantly, why don’t you want to use what’s already there?

I can just talk for my own implications and energy/time management.
If I take the responsibility together with a fellow or group on a task you can count on the implication I promise to give on that. If it’s everybody working on everything I’ll always have my priorities elsewhere.

I’ll not take the responsibility for a task alone because it demands for more energy than being with a pair. That might not be the case for everyone, each person has their way of doing things. There is space for different ways of functioning and characters in this network I believe.

It’s not as if these groups are exclusive either. If someone has an opinion about the topic, there’s no reason they can’t join. If the whole network ends up wanting to participate in a given working group, go right ahead. In my personal experience, however, the smaller the group, the more focused it is and the more work gets done. In school (even university), students are never told to work together as a whole class. They’re divided into smaller groups because they’re more effective. The larger the group, the longer decision-making process is.

In this instance, that small group is made of people who care about a topic and want to have a say in it very early on. The group will brainstorm and come up with ideas. Some of them may be completely stupid. Some of them may be fantastic. The group will pick the good ideas, polish them, then present them to the group at large for comments, criticism, and eventually consensus, whether the WG’s idea is completely scrapped, kept as-is, or some combination of the two.

TL;DR in my opinon, small groups are much more effective at getting things done. Doing it “in private” (quotes because it’s not really private as anyone can join at any point) is also preferable because the participants don’t feel the pressure of the discussion being entirely public. They can be more comfortable and speak freely.

I do not think you understand the situation: the work has been done. Did you check those links I keep giving you? Do you realize that the amount of work needed to complete the tasks is much less than the time spent on this topic alone?

Yes I do. However, this is about defining an effective process that we can adhere to long-term regardless of the task and I believe that small groups are the way to go. At the moment, nothing is getting done; our current way of doing things obviously doesn’t work so something needs to change.

Would you mind laying out your opposition in its entirety? What you don’t like about the idea, why you think it should be different, how is this a worse option than the current structure, etc. I think clearly defining each stance will make this discussion continue more smoothly.

you think the list under #todo is all there is to do?

1 Like

For now, yes, that’s the only thing to do, finalizing the CPP and moving on.

Here, you come with a charter for this WG you’re talking about. There is no way you embark on a pre-defined system while the basic things are not done.

I cannot fathom why three people who could not spend one minute within 6 months to proceed with collectively decided tasks, can come up with a working system that will apply to all tasks.

Hashtag #bikeshedding

Agreeing on a decision making process comes first for me. (before agreeing on the entire CPP I mean)

1 Like

This is what was collectively decided. Please stick to it. That means: no " defining an effective process that we can adhere to long-term regardless of the task". That means: use what’s available to finalize the CPP and make it happen.

@agnez, you’re trying to remove collective decision, I see no reason why “a decision making process” would come before the CPP, since the CPP actually defines what the network has to say about decision making.

I cannot understand, since only a couple of lines are to be agreed upon before making it the final version of CPP, why there should be an encompassing decision process that would precede our founding document.

Working groups would not hinder this in the least. As has been said multiple times, anyone would be free to join at any point.

This is an incredibly limited way of thinking. Our current way of doing things hasn’t yielded results for six months. As someone once said, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” If something obviously doesn’t work, why would you attempt to force it?

I’m not going to die on this hill. You have formed your opinion and there is no convincing you of a more effective way.

Well, the people who said there’s an issue did not follow-up, and all who participated in this topic so far did not follow up either. So before doing things differently, why don’t you just do things?

You keep avoiding responding to my questions. The first one was “answered” involuntarily because I insisted there was a problem.

I have said everything there is to say in this topic. So go ahead, do your thing, and let’s see how you fare with regard to what was written and shared before. But I cannot say there is consensus at all when I veto the process. See you by next meeting, as scheduled.

For the record: I have been and continue to be interested in the process of getting things done. I have let pass two deadlines in order to leave more time for people to chime in. I am not interested in participating in a subgroup that has no charter, no stated goal, and no will to participate in the collective process openly.

It is incredibly frustrating to see you write that. I’ve been committed to pushing forward the acceptance of our common documents. The proof is in CPP: Commitments, Policies and Processes and the fact I travelled late notice to Brussels for an entire weekend of tough debate.

Indeed, FTR, I would like to say that ironically, you as someone who was involved in forming this network, have become an obstacle to its progression. First your aggressive comments against the FENEAS people (de facto reason why we try to publish a code of conduct) and now this. I won’t be involved with Librehosters or recommend it to others when you are operating with such behaviour and it goes unchallenged.

I’ve had enough of your ad-hominem attacks and filthy lies. I’m out.

Can you clarifie what you call “this” is it disagreeing with your proposition of making a group, or is there something else?