Openness of this group + pending membership requests

I believe the private setting and the 19 pending requests are from years ago before the group recently started to get some activity again. @jonrichter I made you a coordinator. Anyone else want to be a coordinator? I think the main duty is approving requests to join the group.

And I'll start a proposal to make it open, that is a good question.

In Loomio there are frequently pending requestes for people who where invited and did not respond ...

I rarely say/write stuff like this, but I'd like to be an admin @lynnfoster . I have lots of related experience with public groups.

(And BTW I deeply prioritize freedom of expression and I support using flexible guidelines instead of rigid administrative rules.)

done

@gregorycassel If I may ask, what are sustainable admissions and participation standards for you, in few words?

I'll have a skim of the links you posted to Who is working now on Open Apps Ecosystem? to receive a first notion to an answer to that question. Above you asked for flexible guidelines, something similar to what @Silke started with

• Charter for Building a Data Commons for a Free, Fair and Sustainable Future

We could have some iterations on this one to condense it a little, PR the improvements, and then add the Open Apps specifics? If more initiatives subscribe to a seemingly similar codex, it may aid each in a mutual way.

I'll indicate some features of IMO sustainable admissions and participation standards, @jonrichter . I'll need to devote a time block to developing specific suggestions for this Loomio group. (I might be able to do that tomorrow.)

BTW, one of the docs ( Distributed Media Network Governance) I linked elsewhere directly relates to admissions and participation standards. However, that's a complex model for potentially massive networks. It'd probably be overkill for almost any Loomio discussion group. (Plus it's somewhat outdated.)

This is a complex subject, so please forgive the length of this comment. Here are my main personal concerns:

* each discussion group should have sustainable guidelines for resolving potential conflicts between participants (including the admins)
* admissions standards-- if any!-- should be directly related to those sustainable guidelines

Those variables depend greatly IMO on the potential size of the group, the number of admins, and how much time the admins are expected to give to the group.

For this group, of course, admin responsibilities have been practically nonexistent so far-- and that's good. But problems are possible, especially if we admit almost anyone & (ever) greatly expand the group. I'm quite intimately familiar with such problems.

Some background: for almost four years now, I've been one of the two most active admins for Bridge the Divide on facebook. That's a busy discussion group which has: (1) almost-entirely-open admissions (2) discusses extremely controversial subjects (3) practically never "disciplines" any participants (4) only does official admin actions by 100% consensus of the admins .

Bridge the Divide has specific group guidelines and admin policies and procedures. The latter document ends with a five point "Community Agreement". I've been using those documents consistently for years, but frankly I think they could use some updating-- especially the group guidelines, which are IMO kinda long and rambling. I'd modify my suggestions for any other discussion group, including this OAE group.

Thanks Jon for linking Charter for Building a Data Commons above! I think it's a great doc & I believe I've expressed that somewhere, somewhen. :) Some related perceptions:

• that charter does at least three things: (1) vision (2) participation priorities (3) technical guidelines
  
• the charter is about developing a commons-- an open network-- in contrast to defining a discussion group
• on a related note, it (understandably) doesn't address conflict resolution

My priorities are different for developing a commons than a specific discussion group, such as this one, using the very limited administrative tools which we have in Loomio (or would have anywhere else). The priorities do overlap greatly, however!

Anyway, these are probably my default priorities for this Open App Ecosystem discussion group:

• develop the vision statement/ purpose-- concisely, but perhaps reflecting that Data Commons Charter and any discussion in Open App Specifics
• develop sustainable guidelines including any necessary (hopefully few) administrative policies

Hope that makes sense?

Please bear in mind that despite all of my organizational priorities, I default towards avoiding formal rules as often as feasible.

develop sustainable guidelines including any necessary (hopefully few) administrative policies

I'm your man !

I'm your man !

If you want to work on guidelines, I'd personally appreciate if you read the Bridge the Divide group guidelines and administrative policy and procedures which I linked in my last comment above. I'd like to know what you think. I've used those documents in tons of real use cases for years, and I'll probably advocate using at least some of the same concepts.

I've used those documents in tons of real use cases for years

Did it work ? What was the pro and cons of this method ?

What is the objective of the document ?

it looks to me like it's purpose is pretty clear:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/bridge-the-divide-discussion-group/bridge-the-divide-discussion-group-community-code-of-conduct/763789280313297
it ensures:
"Your participation in the group assumes your agreement to these principles:"
and
"Guidelines for Initiating a Conversation"
as well as info on:
"Admissions"
and
"Moderation and disciplinary action "

We will need something like this at some point...

I've used those documents in tons of real use cases for years

Did it work ? What was the pro and cons of this method ?

I think that those two documents (BTD guidelines and policy) have generally worked quite well, yes. (BTW the policy doc is labelled as "Draft", but it has been the constant active policy for almost 2 1/2 years.)

Pros include consistency and sustainability of the limited role for administrators in the group.

The main con I perceive is that, as previously mentioned, the guidelines doc is kinda long and rambling. (I doubt many people bother to read it all at once, the first time they see it.) Also, there are some minor but potentially important problems of wording/terminology in the policy document.

As previously mentioned, I would update my current suggested documents for any specific group. (And plan to do so for OAE, hopefully soon. Crazy busy week.)

What is the objective of the document ?

Honestly I think that both docs are pretty self-explanatory, so I'd prefer for you to read them instead of asking me to explain them (and lengthen this conversation) here.

Brief description: one doc is a basic set of guidelines for participation in that online discussion group. The other doc is our entire set of official administrative policy and procedures.

Edit: I should've read @olisb 's comment before replying here. Relevant points.

It was more, why do you need this kind of document ?

@draft , communities need to have "immune systems", just as biological organisms (like you and I) need to have immune systems. Otherwise, toxic elements can enter and potentially kill.

Please feel free to follow up if you disagree, or if you think that that explanation is insufficient.

Edit: I should proactively add that this is not simply theory. Rather, I've been dealing often with community conflicts caused by specific toxic participants in Bridge the Divide since 2013. We barely ever kick anyone out of BTD, and in most cases it's the last resort... however, I've probably removed about a dozen people from the group. In some cases, that's been a long, complex and painful social ordeal. Why? Because humanity is complex, and it's deeply difficult to create and enforce consistent online social standards.

As mentioned previously, I would recommend different standards for any new group, and this OAE group has done fine without any specific administrative responsibilities so far-- but problems are possible, especially if this group admits almost anyone and grows much.

Thanks for your long message.

So if I understand the answer of my question which was "why do you need this kind of document" is : to make toxic elements stay out of the system so they can't potentially kill it ?

So if I understand the answer of my question which was "why do you need this kind of document" is : to make toxic elements stay out of the system so they can't potentially kill it ?

My wording there was for emphasis and hopeful clarity.

Guidelines aren't just to create safety though. They are meant to encourage desired activities/behaviors and to discourage harmful activities/behaviors. They help to define a group, beyond whatever is contained in a group's name and it's description or vision statement.

The policy and procedures document I linked is meant to indicate explicit rules which administrators use to perform specific admin functions, when necessary.

I'm trying to understand.

So, the answer of my question could be : to encourage desired activities/behaviors, to discourage harmful activities/behaviors and to give rules to administrators that they can use to perform specific admin functions, when necessary.

(As an Admin) I'm still getting requests to join the group - is that just because someone hit "invite", but it is actually open to new members now?

OK I see what is going on. I changed it to Open, but Open is "Anyone can find the group and ask to join. Only members can see who is in the group. All threads are public." So I guess there is no option where people can just comment without being part of the group, and logged in. Open is the most open option.

thanks @lynnfoster