Loomio

Burn the Hub Proposal

S Sam Public Seen by 364

Portland Assembly is already moving in the direction of using Loomio as a means to develop ideas and collaborate. Hum hub is dead and other web spaces have been abandoned, or have become a series of disjointed networks hard for newcomers to navigate or join. This is a simple ask that Loomio be set standard for NACs and subcommittees. And that hum hub is removed from the PA website and replaced with these forums and already established email contacts.

C

Chase Thu 20 Jul 2017 6:12AM

So humhub actually provides a couple things that loomio does not, namely document editing, storage, and task assignment. I think its a great idea to move to loomio as a decision making and discussion site, and a point of entry for folks to get involved (after the website). I also agree that humhub is not used as often as initially envisioned (and at some level thats ok). It needs to be cleaned up and simplified and its intended uses need to be defined and articulated.

The folks who made loomio suggested using three different platforms (i know its kind of a lot): one for chat (signal or riot), one for decisions (loomio), and one for doc storage (in our case, the hub).

This was part of the discussion at the web meeting tonight so it will be good to get connected and start improving these systems.

S

Sam Thu 20 Jul 2017 6:27AM

The idea isn't to completely get rid of these other means of communication, but that we have a set standard and point of entry to negate any future confusion. Basically getting people tapped in as quickly and easily as possible. Whether that's getting new members, or getting more people on subcommittees to divide up the work.

JO

Jonathan Ogden Thu 20 Jul 2017 3:29PM

That was the exact discussion with @rigel last night.

Pretty much the idea is going to be that we'll have a "welcome" splash page on the site that starts off with a brief description of getting involved and then a quiz if you want to be placed that way (but also a bare bones contact form), then after a little "gigs" section where members/groups/orgs can post microtasks they need done that they don't mind having a stranger do, then below either an visual representation of the org and process flows for folks who want to drill into it, or just moving the NAC map to that page and adding GIS layers for resources being mapped.

I think a lot of folks have similar sentiments, but we're starting to define our tools well. I'll upload the slide we had from the presentation that talked about the tools, we can even take it to a vote through this platform.

J

joshua Thu 20 Jul 2017 4:24PM

Sounds like good work at the web group. I look forward to being able to plug in, in the future!

JO

Jonathan Ogden Thu 20 Jul 2017 4:57PM

I made a proposal regarding standardizing on software tools and their purpose per our discussions (last night and over the past few months), check it out and see if it makes sense to you.

I also realized I didn't address email in that, but that's going to be the "fundamental" interaction level for folks (especially since Loomio interacts with email well, i.e. you can respond via email and it posts to the forum).

C

Chase Thu 20 Jul 2017 8:54PM

Is your proposal running through your NAC?

JO

Jonathan Ogden Thu 20 Jul 2017 10:36PM

Nope, just in the Workshop at the moment, but I can take it through Montavilla NAC.

Seeing as it's a proposal for structuring proposal submissions on Loomio, it may be a bit wonky to its own process (but can be done anyway).

C

Chase Thu 20 Jul 2017 7:53PM

So to clarify, is this a proposal that got passed by the NE NAC?

J

joshua Thu 20 Jul 2017 8:21PM

Yes, but i am suggesting that we withdraw the proposal because clearly the web group has vision on this and the other standardization proposal covers these bases.

S

Sam Thu 20 Jul 2017 8:23PM

Yes, this proposal passed NE NAC. However it is redundant to have both this proposal and the one Jonathan posted. But there are concerns I expressed, which I believe NE NAC would agree with as we discussed these issues quite a lot. So I'll discuss redacting this proposal and amendments to the standardized proposal with NE. Let me know if there is a deadline for this

S

Sam Thu 20 Jul 2017 11:15PM

Well, since the standardized proposal mirrors this NE proposal, we were planning on withdrawing ours.

My concerns were heard with ensuring simplification of web interface on the web's proposal. Some NE members still might feel strongly about killing the hub or for it to not be represented on the PA website. If so, that amendment will come. But! I'll withdraw Burn the Hub and say the Standardized Proposal officially has the support of NE. I just want to see this on the agenda for next spokes, so if NAC support is needed, it is officially announced. (I'll allow sometime for this to be reviewed before deleting the entire post).

JO

Jonathan Ogden Thu 20 Jul 2017 11:25PM

Just let things live on for posterity, no need to delete at the moment.

Also for clarity around the proposed method we're discussing here (how to submit proposals via Loomio), your individual proposal may be the same exact wording as the NAC proposal, but could possibly die at the Spokescouncil at that time (as voted on by your NAC at that time), but live on here until it's been developed further, wherein you could either re-propose to your NAC with the community input and appends or take it to the NAC Coordinator to be brought through Infrastructure as a proposal to the Spokes.

C

Chase Fri 21 Jul 2017 4:39AM

If you are open to friendly amendment @sam102 @shuajoshua then my sense is that the new information could be folded into this proposal. I will include this in the proposals that I send out to folks if that is agreeable. Just as an aside, is there a more accurate name that I could use for this proposal to represent its intent when emailing it out?

C

Chase Fri 21 Jul 2017 4:43AM

The reason I say that is because we have been asking proposals to be approved by NACs. Unless I am mistaken Jon's proposal did not go through his NAC. However if the ideas behind it does get approved by a NAC as a friendly amendment, it could be incorporated into your proposal and voted on by the spokescouncil. Does that make sense?

JO

Jonathan Ogden Fri 21 Jul 2017 5:36AM

I did not bring it through the NAC yet, but we have the benefit of bringing proposals to the spokescouncil as Infrastructure, so I was going to bring it there first (which we all pretty much discussed already, but it will need to be formalized).

That has been the key "kick start" to previous spokescouncils since folks weren't necessarily ready to bring their own.

S

Sam Sat 22 Jul 2017 4:15AM

Again, this proposal has been withdrawn for sake of redundancy. NE NAC fully supports and approves the Standardized Proposal from web subcommittee, whether it is needed or not to help get them on the agenda (possible future amendments to come... although the two members in NE, most interested and concerned about the execution, plan on working within the web subcommittee, and figure these proposals are just to get everyone on the same page. Truly shaping the finer details come from putting in the work... so probably no amendment..?). And this, because you know what?! ... https://youtu.be/uWd6XgBVIcg

JO

Jonathan Ogden Fri 21 Jul 2017 5:38AM

x-posting cuz relevant

B

Ben Fri 21 Jul 2017 7:29AM

I don't see the need to regulate what NACS use for internal discussion, but for inter-NAC and spokes discussion I agree.

JO

Jonathan Ogden Fri 21 Jul 2017 2:57PM

I think it's more to suggest best known platforms in that sense. NACs by definition can use whatever they want since they make their own decisions, but that black box has to plugin to the network to have that information start moving. So all that has been proposed from my understanding was standardizing on that, which it seems like everyone agrees about.

DU

[deactivated account] Sat 22 Jul 2017 4:57PM

Feeling the need to mention that I think tinkering with proposals past the 3-week-out date is, by my estimation, too much info for our members not on Loomio to follow via ongoing emails and Loomio forwards from me (as point-person). For example, 3 of our 5 members were at the July Spokescouncil and are of the understanding that proposals will be cut off 3 weeks from the next Spokescouncil. I believe at around 3 weeks out from this Aug Spokes we had 1 or 2 proposals. Since then it has grown to 4, so I have subsequently forwarded both the Loomio discussions and the Mail Chimp email summarizing the proposals. Now we have another change in the works (is Burn the Hub being removed or amended? I'm still unsure), and I don't how to convey the information leading up to that change other than forwarding this Loomio discussion and hoping members read thru and understand it. I am worried about overwhelming our members who are working 2-3 jobs and can't keep up. To be honest, I have a hard time keeping up and I currently don't even work. It's a lot. I am afraid of burnout. Is there any teeth to the notion that we will have official proposals 3 weeks out to give us time to do the learning, thinking, meeting, discussing, and voting? That way NACs can have 1 meeting rather than examining them in pieces for weeks leading up to the Spokes and having to vote multiple times leading right up to the Spokescouncil? Is there any teeth to the notion that official proposals not brought forth by the cutoff will simply be brought forth for the subsequent Spokescouncil (like Sept)?

JO

Jonathan Ogden Wed 26 Jul 2017 4:24PM

This is partially why I think we should have an "official" space that is only the the items that will be reviewed at the spokes, since that's a lower-limit they can be turned into that space ahead of time and officially discussed there until it's received a full vote (voting period on Loomio can be dynamic I think).

Definitely need a method to highlight what's important info or not, this space should be a "general area" wherein the "successful" proposals from here are moved to a more official location. Also each NAC should have their own Loomio group imo, that way the NAC members can discuss only their information primarily.

I'll bring up the workflow proposal at the Spokes (it wasn't ready in time) since maybe everyone can discuss it there after business is handled.

C

Chase Mon 24 Jul 2017 5:05AM

So the proposals that were sent out over the email were Burn the Hub, Winter proposal, Subcommittee restructuring, and strategic proposals proposal. I agree that it is difficult to keep track of changing proposals at times. I sent out the proposal @sam102 entered into loomio because it had been approved by your spokescouncil. Is is alright to just consider that proposal on august 6?

DU

[deactivated account] Wed 26 Jul 2017 4:45PM

Thanks Jonathan!

K

Kay Sun 6 Aug 2017 6:11AM

Loomio has no functional space to store documents. Hub could still be removed from the website and only used as practical work spaces for NACs. Facebook is not secure. New people can better integrated when we establish a regular meeting schedule and calendar other recurring activities so that new people can come by without being in the loop.