Re-Launching the CTA - Proposal closes 19.08.17

The other point I would really like to see addressed is the proposed relationship with the Digital Life Collective, which, to my mind, shares several objectives, and, though I believe newer than the CTA, seems to have taken a head start in terms of organisation and funding. There may be other groupings I don't know about ... the vital point in my understanding is to have a strategy to avoid splintering and fruitless duplication — at least an expressed intention (if not a fully fledged method) for assimilation with other similar bodies with shared values and goals.

What I would personally see as tiresome would be a beauty contest where the one winner marginalises others. I would love to see collaborative mergers, not hostile takeovers, and the ability of participants to forego their ego trips for the sake of the common good. I can understand that as hard, so, as I say, maybe start with a clear intention, work up to strategies later.

If the CTA could configure itself to be offering a valued service to other similar initiatives, that would be great. The points made by Matt Wallis in the doc are pertinent.

It's so easy to slip into the dominant competitive mind-set, even when thinking about collaborative work. Could we instead work on formulating a more clearly collaborative mind set, right from the start, so that when two similar initiatives meet, they would naturally discuss until they had agreed to differentiate their functions, based on where the ability, energy and motivation are?

Anyone for helping to found an open, collaborative, collective agency for brokering this kind of organic differentiation (as befits a true ecosystem)? If anyone does, please count me in! We're thinking organisational DNA here, maybe 😉

Great post @asimong, I hope my english will be clear to share a similar experience we went through in a french ecosystem where more or less 15 organizations were interacting more and more together and found it important to try something out. We went through a (tedious) process of writing each of our "social codes" (@maiadereva interviewed each the actors, to write their purpose, ethics, objectives etc... ). It produced a real methodology and in the end we wanted to create the "social code" of the Ecosystem, but what came out of it, were great differences that finally cut the ecosystem in 2. As time passed, I realise that before this exercise we totaly managed to hope to work together, but it became difficult when things aren't what you think they are. I'm not quite sure it was worthwhile , and it might have created some misunderstanding amongst these organizations and maybe created uneccessary problems.
Anyway it wasn't a pleasant period, but made us dig into each of our own values. Today I wouldn't go so fare in wanting to know as much about an ecosystem. I think what I value most is the "importance of curiosity", of people and organizations wanting to join a movement and a group to work together for something bigger, smarter, stronger.
Since @asimong were taking aboiut DNA, I find it appropriate even though it's in french to share what came out of the experience, which is a document we called the "Open System" , sorry for the french, I hope the translators will do a good job
https://github.com/pixelhumain/buildingCommons/blob/master/codeSocialOpenSystem.md

Looks really interesting, Tibor @tiborkatelbach and the more so as I've met @maiadereva and respect her work as well. Looks like there is plenty for me to learn here, and I would love to look more closely into this. I have loads of questions, but is here the best place to ask them? Like, what were the differences; what two ecosystems emerged; would anything have actually worked if those differences had remained hidden; which problems were unnecessary; were the problems caused by unrealistic expectations that people would all be able to work together, or that people expected their values to be closer than they were? I'll try reading the French to see if I can find any answers.

I share greatly valuing the "importance of curiosity". Does curiosity about an organisation imply that a person fits into it?

That's a wonderful document, even in auto-translation. But lots of rules to live up to...

I had hoped that the words in the proposal, which I drew from the numerous CTA and OEA docs, would suffice as a starting point for a newly launched CTA. Through the process of this discussion it has become clear that there are many varied views, some which elicit emotional responses, on the words and hence I now propose that the vote is about nothing more than whether of not people think it is a good plan to launch the CTA, Yes or no? Want more detail...? It's in this thread... and the G doc, none of which is binding.

The G doc contains useful ideas and comments but I never intended we would lock down all the words in that doc, or through this discussion, that seems like a bigger task to me.

If the decision comes out as a Yes, then it seems to me we will need more detailed discussions about:

1. The exact (wordsmithing of the) shared purpose of the group
2. Agreement on the principles and values
3. And the overall governance of the CTA
4. Anything else?

...before we can "launch". i.e. have a public facing presence.

If you have better suggestions about what should / could happen after a Yes decision, please let us know!

@olisb I don't think you need to really worry about a yes or no decision from this group. No matter what the decision, you got valuable feedback. You and people who are interested can go ahead with your exploration, hopefully taking into account the feedback, you don't need permission. I abstained, but I'm happy to help review documents, ideas, etc., and see what develops.

Anyone for helping to found an open, collaborative, collective agency for brokering this kind of organic differentiation (as befits a true ecosystem)? If anyone does, please count me in! We're thinking organisational DNA here, maybe 😉

I like the idea, and would volunteer to help a little on the fringes, if it embodies the attitudes and non-competitive mind-set you are talking about. (Fringes because it seems there generally aren't enough devs, so that is a better place for me to put the bulk of my work. Divide and conquer!)

Matt Wallis asked (in the Gdoc), the follow 3 questions in relation to 'new groups who might be considering joining the CTA':

1. If you want us to join you, why don't you join us instead?

That is the whole point! ;) I'm not precious about the CTA, it's not "mine", it's not anyone's! It is, or could become "all of ours" - whereas DigLife, for example, is already locked into a very specific (UK) setup and funding plan which I know a lot of people here disagree with... so, to answer your very wise question as well as I can (if I have understood it correctly!): because 1. if you get in at the beginning i.e. now - until we lock down all the words - YOU can make and shape the CTA. 2. The CTA seeks to be a 'meta' project - combining all the great and the good projects which atm, seem to be working in silos... all the way from Diglife to https://www.progcode.org/ and http://opensupporter.org/ and all the other open tech projects in between. I'm not aware of any other org that is trying to do that - if you know of one please let us know and we'll all join!

1. What exactly is CTA offering? A network? A set of designs? Something else?

I thought this was largely explained in the doc, but let me try to be more precise here - the answer is mainly being part of "the meta network", certainly not a set of designs (not sure what gave you that idea!?). Mainly the CTA would be offering new groups:

A) The chance to put themselves on the map (initially figuratively and then hopefully very soon, practically on an interactive map!) of "Tech orgs working towards a better future" (or words to that effect.)
B) Visibility - so that other groups can easily find them, see what they are working on, which tech they are using etc - and to find out if they need help and to easily see if there is overlap between their, and other, projects.
C) The chance to participate in 'meta' discussions, across the orgs that make up the CTA, so that there is more unity, clarity and hopefully more cross-pollination and less duplication of work (the bigger point about the network effect, which I mentioned in the doc is very pertinent here too).
D) In the future... as pee Michel's comments and the original CTA goals, there could be loads of other things: conferences, funding, and the CTA Fellowship idea... etc etc tbd.

1. We've done loads of work already. How far advanced is your project? How many people are actively working on it?

Well done you :) please tell us all about it when you join, so that nobody duplicates all that "loads of work" you've done! (Maybe if you had joined the CTA sooner, you wouldn't have even needed to do it, because you would have found out there was already another group working on exactly the same thing somewhere else, and they could have helped you, or given you their code! ;) )The CTA is not doing any specific work itself, it aims to be an organisation which improves collaboration, part of which might be on the OAE, since the OAE is the main part of the vision of the CTA.

The CTA project is as advanced as the work and projects of its' members.
You can (will be able to) see an open list of members on the CTA website.

Matt said: As I say, I'm playing devil's advocate here, because I'm not sure the document answers these questions for the group B audience who is being called to action to "sign up".

Thanks Matt, your devil has dragged out the detail :)

I got your email @olisb. Thank you for instigating! I have been a lurker/instigator myself for quite a while :P I am part of OAE/CTA/DLC/NDS, Metamaps, Metacurrency, and a handful of initiatives hoping to help map our emerging meta-ecosystem.

I'll just write all my thoughts here, but this was inspired by reading everyone's messages in our 6-7 other spaces/apps.

I agree with @tiborkatelbach that "we lose a lot of energy around branding". I also think we lose a lot of energy because of how scattered our communications are across various apps/channels, and that we lose potential energy because we don't really enable low-bandwidth ways to engage with the ecosystem... You can either dive into these big, longstanding, often highly-technical threads... or not. And it's pretty intimidating.

So, do we "relaunch" CTA? Do we start an organization together? I think this should come later.

What I think should come next takes into account the losses of energy that I just mentioned, and also Conway's law. (Which I've found really useful, and was new to me when I learned about it somewhere around here... thanks to @bobhaugen I think)

If you're not familiar with Conway's law here is a summary:

"Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure."

If you replace "organization" in the quote with "ecosystem", then you can see how I think it applies to us. If we want our work together to produce things suited for an ecosystem, then our communication structure should reflect that we are an ecosystem, not just an organization.

My proposal has two parts:
1. We start a data commoning/mapping project where we simply name, and log to a shared space, the elements of the ecosystem that we see from our points of view. (Given the number of people here involved in semantic web/vocabulary/mapping, this project already lives in various forms... So we have many resources to draw from.)

1. We put together a lightweight coordination/communication layer that can help weave together all our existing communication spaces. The structure of this new layer would map to our ecosystem.

So, instead of immediately saying "come join our organization", or "come have all your conversations over here instead"... we say something like "bring your current organizations/projects/teams/etc and create a small space where they can live (be represented) within a shared communication system.... each having their own channel."

All existing conversations continue happening wherever they are happening. If more conversations want to start happening in this new space, that's fine... But I referred to it as "lightweight" because my hope is that we would be very thoughtful in this space about how we grab each other's attention, and we create dedicated project channels where the content is mostly about summarizing our progress and linking to other spaces... (Keeping this separate from the back-and-forth chat about details, so that people with less bandwidth can still engage on their terms)

I think a team-chat app is better suited for this new communication layer, rather than Loomio or Hylo. Something like Slack/Mattermost/Rocket.chat/etc... I would choose Mattermost, but won't dive into why right now. One bonus to hosting a tool like Mattermost as an ecosystem, instead of as an organization, is that: if a new team/project/collaboration wants to start up, even just to have a temporary space to test an idea (That likely doesn't warrant its own space just yet), they can just create a channel in our open space, and move to something else later if that makes sense. They won't have to worry about asking "does this belong in this space?", because it's an ecosystem space where everything belongs.

Having a mapping project, rather than the creation of an organization just yet, makes more sense to me right now... Because, instead of trying to come to consensus on our shared values/principles, or what licenses we prefer, or what standards/vocabularies we adopt... we instead start to map out and name distinct groupings of these things, and what configurations existing projects have chosen. (I know this is core to what the Digital Life Collective peeps want to be involved in. And I think we will want multiple "designations", instead of just one "seal")

I call this "data commoning", because such a mapping project seems too vast and daunting for any individual... but if we each articulate just the little bit of the ecosystem that we each see, and do this one small contribution at a time.... then it would be much more manageable.

One big perk here is that this would give us, OAE/CTA/DLC/NDS/et al, a shared project that absolutely everyone can participate in. Even newbs like me. (Just name an element of the ecosystem, and watch how that contribution evolves and gets sculpted by our community with other metadata/etc over the course of it's life) Also, the semantic web/vocabulary experts among us can use this project to demonstrate the power of their techniques to those in the ecosystem who aren't aware... and within the context of data that is meaningful to them. (Me included :P )

Who will "own" this data/project (branding etc.)? If this really takes off in some way, how will we give credit where credit is due? I don't know... And we can figure that out as we go, but I don't think we need to invent new economic infrastructure in parallel, or prior to, starting such a data commoning/mapping project... Even if the data resides in a google sheet for now, that's fine too... Because, if we can create maps to see ourselves better with, and to catalyze our ecosystem... then that provides value to us all. (map makers/ data commoners included)

Just by exploring our interest in each other's projects, and curating a bit of what we learn... we are collecting mappable data, and simultaneously building relationships within the ecosystem.

I've been composing this for quite a while now :P and maybe it belongs as its own proposal... But it started out as a response to this thread, so I'll just put it here. (What I've written is becoming more redundant every second that I wait it seems, as others are very active right now too I see)

Excited to see where this all goes, and happy to play a part :)

Robert @robertbest — hello, another person who I'd love a long conversation with! 😃

I particularly appreciate the idea about a mapping project, and calling it "data commoning" — well maybe "information commoning" 😉 Feels like a sound idea to me, and one in which I'd happy to participate.

To me, ownership as responsibility is even more important than ownership as credit.

Interest is perhaps the key starting point. Mutual interest to me is the real driver. When two (or more) parties are both ready to explore each other's ideas, and develop and move their own in response.

So I'm serious about the long 1-to-1 conversation sometime!

awesome - thanks @robertbest - I think much of what you have written is what I am trying to suggest too, in my own fumbling way... although I have gone for "organisation" and you have not... I still think a single org with a single seal is a good idea for building strength in an alliance. The Alliance needs to be united. The 'ecosystem' of apps does not - it's strength is in its diversity.

BTW: I love branding, it's (among other things) what I do! We don't have to waste time on it... a name is just a name. But a brand is a symbol, which can be imbued with and generate unity, cohesion and lots of other good things, which our (often woefully ineffective) movement lacks...

I like the mention of "light" comms channel, light is good.
I'd hope the CTA could reduce noise for people.

Like, what were the differences; what two ecosystems emerged; would anything have actually worked if those differences had remained hidden; which problems were unnecessary; were the problems caused by unrealistic expectations that people would all be able to work together, or that people expected their values to be closer than they were?

I'm not sure I have all the answers and not sure they are worth digging into. But I beleive that if we were supposed to work together, it would have happened anyway, which isn't the case, quite the opposite, so I guess the experience was right and the result make sense, but was it worth breaking an ecosystem ? maybe you're right, it just wasn't meant to be.

I’ll try reading the French to see if I can find any answers.

I share greatly valuing the “importance of curiosity”. Does curiosity about an organisation imply that a person fits into it?

good questions, hard to answer really, but by our small experience (4years), and based on the success of so many open source projects, The curiosity model mixed with a good technical model works.
People who popin through the window, either walk away because they don't find what they're after, either they just check'in to sniff around, but there's a small percentage that find something special they relate and connect with and a community they and participate in. So first comes curiosity, then comes pleasure, and when it gets passionate, we're all addicted to our community. That doesn't mean it last for ever eather.

I'm really interested in potential "fault lines", where differing values make it hard for people to work together productively. It is good to know about these, to avoid bringing in people to an organisation where they will cause grief.

"but there's a small percentage that find something special they relate and connect with and a community they and participate in. So first comes curiosity, then comes pleasure, and when it gets passionate, we're all addicted to our community. "

My guess — only a guess — is that the special thing might sometimes be a technical fit, but perhaps more likely to be a cultural fit ... where people feel "at home". As you say, where people interact with each other to their mutual satisfaction, pleasure and well-being.

And I think at least some of the factors leading to this are social and collaborative skills: some have them naturally, but they can also be learned, or picked up from dwelling in a culture. My interest here is all interwoven with the motive to help collaborative organisations work better. If we can help educate people in interacting well, in collaborating well, in caring about each other's well-being as well as their own, we have much more of a chance (I would say) of building that real big ecosystem.

And maybe this is something that CTA can pick up on?

Here's an idea for the kind of "structure" the CTA might opt for, based on the amazing Buckminster Fuller's work.

VSM: Stafford Beer, no? http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Viable_Systems_Model

lol - oooops, of course, you're right Lyn.
Getting my heroes mixed up... ;) maybe I have been looking at this computer for too long!? /me goes for a cup of tea.

Quick update on the idea of launching the CTA:

I spoke to @ishanshapiro (who worked with Edward and Connor on the original CTA, and designed the Seal) and he was very encouraging both in terms of clarifying that we are at liberty to Launch the CTA if we so wish (since nobody really has ownership of the project) and that, if we choose to do so, we don't even have to stick to the original CTA plans! He seemed happy that anyone would be up for pushing on with the CTA idea and it was great to hear our enthusiasm and the chat in this group had inspired him and @connorturland to think about developing the CTA again... :)

So, since the vote didn't get any Disagree or Block votes I plan to push on, pretty much explained in the Gdoc (and incorporating as much of the feedback as possible), by building a website as a home for the CTA.

Just for clarity, and to directly address @bobhaugen 's concerns (I hear you Bob!) I (now) don't think the CTA can / will / should claim to 'own' or 'manage' the development of the OAE in any way, but it might try to 'explain' the OAE (and the various groups working on it) to people, to encourage them to get involved with (any aspect of) helping to build it. I think from what I have heard here, everyone is cool with that, right!?

There are tonnes of other things the CTA could do in the future but I think little steps forward are best strategy right now.

So if you'd like to help / stay updated / for your org or project to be part of creating and launching the CTA let me know below and I will call on you / keep you updated as things develop.

Thanks to everyone for all your input and thoughts in this discussion, my thinking and understanding has evolved because of your valuable input :)

best

Oli

PS. I may not be able to keep up with every thread in the OAE group whilst I am working on this and may even turn off "all updates" but if you @mention me I will jump in and, if you would like, respond.

So if you'd like to help / stay updated / for your org or project to be part of creating and launching the CTA let me know below and I will call on you / keep you updated as things develop.

thanks @olisb I would like to be kept up to date with your progress for sure!

Thanks for the update @olisb . Like @lynnfoster , I'd definitely like to be kept up to date!

Me too. @olisb - maybe better late than never, but I have been thinking about this and am glad you are reviving the CTA. The reason is that I'd like to ask some devs from apps like gitlab if they want to join something where we can collaborate, and the CTA seems sorta harmless and somewhat neutral. OAE might be too much to ask in one gulp.

Hello All (specifically @gregorycassel @lynnfoster and @bobhaugen who asked to be kept update),
After much debate and discussions with various members of the original CTA crew I have tentatively produced the new CTA website as promised. You can find it at http://collaborative.tech/ but although it is on the public web we are still not publicly promoting it as it needs more founding members before it can stand on its own feet... so please don't go shouting about it in public yet, but feel free to have a look at what we've done and to take the pledge, if you like... It would be great to have some of the projects of people in this thread listed.
:)
All the best
Oli

Thanks @olisb and nice website! How "not shouting about in public" should we be? Is it OK to discuss in ValueFlows for example? Once you start giving people links, it can spread. 🙂

thanks @lynnfoster of course... i'd encourage any discussions within your groups in the hopes that might come on board... just not looking to publicize it any wider at this, tentative, stage.

The deal is that we think ValueFlows fits comfortably in that list, it's all about collaboration. But it is itself a collaboration, and we would not feel right about adding it without giving the other contributors a chance at least to object.

Would you guys please take a look at Global Messaging Token (GMT) which coexists with Etherium and can provide incentive for open app eco system interoperability. It gained 20 million USD in funding from Marc Cuban and recently had an ICO. GMT might be the enabler and financial reward for your efforts which are awesome and altruistic! Thankyou!

Thanks for the update @olisb ! I'll try to give it a close look soon.

Another quick update - Loomio have now taken the CTA pledge - YAY :)
As have Space Co-operative, Hylo, Metamaps, and Internet of Ownership
If any of you feel like adding your own projects and organisations that would be great, as would any feedback on the tentative plan... http://collaborative.tech/blog/tentative-plan
In collaboration,
Oli

The new http://collaborative.tech/ website looks pretty solid @olisb . It seems reasonably well-organized, and includes lots of important concepts with IMO proper priorities and emphases. Well-done.

A few minor concerns:

EDIT: I wrote #1 here before reading Oli's new comment about Loomio taking the pledge! #1 here is now obsolete and I'll probably delete it later.

1. (Obsolete point; see above) I'd hesitate frankly to list Loomio as a member (or formally related project) unless you've been recently in touch with one or more of the Loomio Cooperative co-owners regarding this subject. I guess that they'd be fine with the connection, either with or without taking time to thoroughly review the new website-- but, I think it's good practice to directly check with them, instead of relying on anything which Loomio co-owners may have stated in 2015--2016.

2. Also, I'm hesitant to literally "take the pledge" as its currently worded, with its mention of active collaboration and sharing updates. Certainly, I'll share updates on my work with CTA folks-- and the whole world, via public messages-- but that happens along a whole dimension of potential magnitude and frequency of messages. My official updates will probably be few, but t should be noted that much of my work is plainly visible as public works-in-progress with enabled commentary.
   
   -- I'm guessing that neither you nor anyone else will be unreasonable in your expectations of "active collaboration" and "sharing updates". I'm just very hesitant to create commitments (even loosely worded ones) which may create privilege for specific groups, unless those commitments are reasonably clear, fair and feasible.

(To be clear, I have no problem with committing to active collaboration and sharing updates with humanity in general-- and taking steps to ensure that such info is readily available via CTA.)

Thanks Greg :) your words mean a lot, as does your encouragement.

On your concerns:
1. I didn't add Loomio - Rich (from Loomio) did. There is NO WAY I, or anyone esle should be signing up other people or organisations. That's not the idea at all. The idea is that people look at the new CTA site and decide for themselves if they want to take the pledge.

2. any form of update is OK - and as mentioned on the Pledge page, the CTA will help Organisations publish updates (i.e. I / others will talk to them about what they are up to and publish blog posts on the most interesting developments). I don't think it is too onerous, and am not sure how else the CTA could do its job of keeping the public and CTA members updated without this..?

Best
Oli

I started to add ValueFlows to the projects but all the fields on the "take the pledge" form are for me as an individual to set up an account. How does a project sign up?

Hi Bob,
Projects sit "under" Individuals and Organisations - so when you add an Org or an Individual you can add Projects on the fly at the same time...
This functionality was built in at Edward's suggestion - and I think it does make sense as some Orgs have multiple projects... but it has caused a little confusion as some Orgs are a project... / some projects don't have an Organisation... so if it continues to complicate things we may look at redesigning the structure. But at the moment I still think it makes sense and could help the CTA map Orgs and Projects separately - which could be very useful as things develop...

Hi Oli. Thanks for the continued explanation, but I still don't understand how ValueFlows can sign up as a project (which does not have an organization...)

P.S. we did a very lazy consensus on this and have some agreements and no objections.

Sorry Bob, let me try to be more clear. A Project has to be owned by an Individual or an Organisations (i.e. it has to be added by a person who is an Individual, or a person representing the Organisation, largely so that all Projects have a contact person).

So, once you have taken the Pledge, to add a Project, first you will need to decide if that Project is owned by an Individual or a Group, then 'sign up' to the CTA an Individual or an Organisation accordingly, and when you adding yourself as an Individual or an Organisation, you will see the options to add a Project within the same form.

I hope that's clear - any Q's please shout!?

We might not fit. ValueFlows does not have an owner (except in the github org sense, and that was their choice, not ours). Mikorizal is sort-of an organization, but also does not own VF. VF has members who object to calling it an organization. Project seems ok, though.

And one more Q: if I sign up with e.g the Mikorizal email address, does the account setup allow me to specify whether it is an organization or an individual? And maybe add it to the Projects page as Mikorizal? Lynn and I could probably claim to be its owners...

Although I think VF fits better. It was started as a spinoff of the original OAE discussions.

And another question for @olisb - does your explanation mean that the only entity that should "take the pledge" is a person, not an organization or group?

Hi Bob
"does the account setup allow me to specify whether it is an organization or an individual? "
Short answer, No.
Taking the Pledge must be done by a person, who either wishes to represent themselves as an individual, or an Organisation. I think the workflow is pretty simple, others have not had any issues with it... but I do understand your point about Mikorizal not being an official organisation.

To me, it's just semantics. Mikorizal has people that work on the project, therefore I would define them as an organisation (since they must organise themselves somehow in order to do anything!) Nathan's organisation, Internet of Ownership, is a similar setup (a loose collection of people, not really an 'official' organisation) so he registered it on CTA as an Organisation and defined the "Organisational Structure" as "Collaborative group (no formal legal structure)" and then added the Project under that, which works fine imho.

Hope that helps?
Oli

Hi Lyn,

I hope I have not confused you. I really thought the site workflow was very simple...
But this is all good feedback!

"does your explanation mean that the only entity that should "take the pledge" is a person, not an organization or group?"

People have to take the pledge. I think that is pretty clear in the wording "I pledge a commitment to:"

Then they decide if they wish to list themselves as an Individual, or a person who is representing an Organisation, and add projects accordingly.

Is that clear?
best
Oli

we could build a OAE + CTA mapping with georeferencing on CO, now that it's open for all countries we'll have a visualisation of who we are not only a classic listing, members can be people, organisation or projects
does that sound like a better solution to you @bob ?

Hi Tibor - what is CO?
CTA is not just a 'classic listing' in that there are several taxonomies which will help reveal: 'offers' and 'wants' for project assistance, 'shared objectives' between groups people and projects, 'mutual tech choices' in the tech stack section etc - The site also features Geo mapping for Orgs etc... (just making sue people here realise the wider objectives)
best
Oli

Hi
what is CO?

communecter.org ( http://communecter.org )
CTA is not just a ‘classic listing’ in that there are several taxonomies which will help reveal: 'offers’ and 'wants’ for project assistance, 'shared objectives’ between groups people and projects, 'mutual tech choices’ in the tech stack section etc - The site also features Geo mapping for Orgs etc… (just making sue people here realise the wider objectives)

check it out it all their
offers and wants are soon to come
with places, ressources, needs , services and competences

Hi Tibor,
Thanks for the link to CO - I have seen that before, CO is a perfect fit for the CTA ;)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by:

"check it out it all their offers and wants are soon to come with places, ressources, needs , services and competences"

@olisb a suggestion to consider with the others involved: You talk of a person or organization "owning" a project in a couple places. I think we should get rid of that concept all together. Most of the organizations and projects I work with or know of that would be interested in the CTA would object strenuously to that concept. They tend to be flat P2P network structures that value contributing to the commons. Certainly there tends to be a core group in larger projects, but this can be very fluid, and there isn't anything that you could even make into an informal definition of ownership, much less a formal one.

Hi Lyn,
I hear you loud and clear about the 'ownership' concept. Perhaps I used the wrong term, since I seem to have caused confusion. I used it to mean that someone has to 'author' any node (Org or Project) on the CTA site. This is not 'ownership' in the legally binding sense of the word but it is ownership of the node on the CTA site and, as specified when a user creates an Organisation, they must be confident that: "By filling in this form you are confirming you are authorised to represent the Organisation."

This is the same as on other websites, as in Bob's example of GitHub, someone has to 'own' the project there, be the registered contact, have an email address etc. The set up on the CTA is no different to that.

So, just to super clear, the person who lists an Organisation, or any Project, does not necessarily 'own' the Org or the Project (and one would hope that they don't, since as you say most CTA projects will hopefully be "flat P2P network structures that value contributing to the commons"!) but they do represent it on the CTA website, and 'own' the nodes they create (so that others can not edit them!).

Phew - glad we cleared that up! ;)

PS. The CTA site doesn't talk about people 'owning' Orgs or Projects (so nothing to change there) I used that terminology above (unwisely) to try and explain the idea of users owning the nodes they create.

sorry I went a bit fast on that
we have a module soon to come out
with wants or needs and offers , places, ressources, services and competence
CO is an Open System, on which we build all sorts of modules that suits different communties requests
and we try to fully intergrate a maximum of existing Open source tools as you can see the Rocket Chat integration

glad you like it , you can create the OAE or the CTA organizations and we can all become members either as people, organizations, projects or simply points of interest

I committed to CTA and added the BYOID collaboration project (not as ab organization). I commented on the plan blog post.

I noticed there is no reference to the software being used or a privacy policy. It does not mention that the address you provide will be exposed publicly. People should be cautioned about giving out their home address.

I look forward to a mattermost integration to work with our social ledger and planned metamaps integration.

I set up a mattermost CTA team for those willing to collaborate. invite.

Please join and be part of the social ledger trial.

Where is the CTA rocketchat, perhaps we can set up a bridge channel.

I will propose DivvyDAO.org, DigLife.com and RChain.coop join the CTA.
Is OAE joining @draft or is that under hylo?

I suggest we set up a weekly zoom meeting and collaborative authoring space.

Hi Jim,
Thanks for your feedback above - really useful, I will fix those things now.
RE CTA rocketchat - not sure there is one!? And don't think there is a need for one right now...
As per the tentative plan, the idea is not to not do anything yet until we have more of a critical mass.
best
Oli

I signed up for mattermost. As I said there, will have more time tomorrow than today, but have been meaning to catch up with DigLife a bit.

Re OAE: it is not under Hylo or anything else. It is independent. Has to be.

@jimwhitescarver "I added the BYOID collaboration project"
I don't see any Projects of that name on the site ...?