Re: Feature ideas and Design

FYI @johngraham I've updated the context with the correct link: https://www.loomio.org/discussions/10389

An argument for keeping two groups could be - you want Feature Ideas to be public and comprehensible and conceptually clear - a place where a non-techy and non-designy people such as myself can say, "can you walk me through that like I'm a two-year-old?"

It might be more easier for the other group to just be able to forge ahead with geek-out jargon and not worry about being so 'inclusive'. Also, I don't want to join a group I don't have the time or inclination to really get to understand well enough to participate in all the discussions.

But perhaps your discussion-centric focus will make this concern redundant?

Good point @johngraham, but I think it would be better made if you posted it in the other thread! Haha this is highlighting why the groups should be merged :)

Ah, good point @richarddbartlett , but your thinking happens to be completely wrong! :D :D (just kidding)

I can't comment on that discussion without joining Design.

(I'll taking an approach here, you might call "design for controversy" - get pedantic on process when it doesn't matter, so you're ready for when it does. And yes I have experience of being hated for this! :D )

Let's look at the facts behind @rorytb 's assertion, "I imagine a lot if not all the members are in both groups" - perhaps we've been operating on an inaccurate mental model of who these sub-groups are:

Feature Ideas: 89 members
Design: 26 members.

(I was surprised by those numbers, btw. Others have made the same decision I have, apparently)

So, (again acting as if this is really serious), 63 of the "affected community" were not notified of the proposal, and can't participate without joining the group they've (passively or actively) chosen not to join.

So, if it were my party, I'd be saying, " hey @richarddbartlett , how about console-fuing that proposal to the other sub-group, or the main group. "

Oh and I realise another relevant piece of data is that the Design group has not seen traffic in a long time so...@richarddbartlett....nevermind! As you were! :D

@johngraham Thanks for the fact-check, seems I imagined wrong. I completely agree that it is ridiculous that a majority of those involved didn't get a vote.

I think this also makes clear the need to make propositions span groups. To my knowledge to do so currently I would have to make two propositions in both groups or put it to the generally community where people not involved in either sub-group could bias the votes? Or id have to rely on a techy to make the proposition for me?

Personally, i'd really like a @discussion feature so that propositions could be linked.

Hi @rorytb, nice feature-idea - and it would be nice to have confirmation of whether that feature is in the pipeline.

I agree with you that the majority not getting a vote is ridiculous the way I've framed the issue ... but is the way I've framed the issue really fair?

I want to throw Technique: "It's all about context!!"
All things considered, I'm fine with that small, low-volume 'sub-sub-group' making the decision, which mostly affects them..and I'm sure they'll take into consideration what's said here.

After all, so far, of this 'disenfranchised majority', only one person has so far spoken up...me!!! :D And all were notified when I started the thread.

So....

we shall see :)