I think you forgot about existing proposals, e.g., in #todo <-- this is a link.
Working in transparency does not mean that you canât talk in private. Otherwise youâll never get people involved here that are not comfortable with talking publicly constantly.
Iâm afraid that weâll just keep on waiting for more months if we donât try to work differentlyâŚ
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 thereâs no response after a month and 3 likes on the proposals, we integrate them. Itâs 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 â as you should have within the past 6 months â 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 whatâs already there? And, more importantly, why donât you want to use whatâs 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 itâs everybody working on everything Iâll always have my priorities elsewhere.
Iâll 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.
Itâs not as if these groups are exclusive either. If someone has an opinion about the topic, thereâs no reason they canât 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. Theyâre divided into smaller groups because theyâre 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 WGâs 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 âin privateâ (quotes because itâs not really private as anyone can join at any point) is also preferable because the participants donât 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 doesnât work so something needs to change.
Would you mind laying out your opposition in its entirety? What you donât 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.
For now, yes, thatâs the only thing to do, finalizing the CPP and moving on.
Here, you come with a charter for this WG youâre 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 whatâs available to finalize the CPP and make it happen.
@agnez, youâre trying to remove collective decision, I see no reason why âa decision making processâ 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 hasnât yielded results for six months. As someone once said, âinsanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.â If something obviously doesnât work, why would you attempt to force it?
Iâm 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 thereâs 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 donât you just do things?
You keep avoiding responding to my questions. The first one was âansweredâ 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 letâs 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. Iâve 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 wonât be involved with Librehosters or recommend it to others when you are operating with such behaviour and it goes unchallenged.
Iâve had enough of your ad-hominem attacks and filthy lies. Iâm out.
Can you clarifie what you call âthisâ is it disagreeing with your proposition of making a group, or is there something else?