Propose new functionalities for Decidim software
#DecidimRoadmap Designing Decidim together
Latest update: we're test-driving Matrix using Element.io. There's a community with two rooms setup here: https://matrix.to/#/+decidim:matrix.org.
Waiting on response from the association committee to move forward with more rooms and migrate in practice.
I've updated the title of the proposal to reflect where it's currently at.
-------------------------
(This not a feature proposal - posting it here as it seems to be the best option at this point. It's definitely meta, at least)
So, I propose migrating community communications now done on Telegram and Gitter over to a new Decidim Slack.
I believe this would greatly improve support to users and developers, better enable water cooler conversations and brainstorming, where a lot of good ideas come from, and increase overall governance transparency. It'd strengthen community integration.
Though I like the intention of Gitter and the fact it's now on Matrix, it's still very clunky and it'lll be a long while until it's on par with Slack. The Telegram groups are hard to find (a lot of people posting on Gitter, Meta and Github don't know they exist) and don't allow for separating topics into channels that can be easily browsed.
With Slack we can have channels like 'new-to-decidim' or 'getting-started', 'core', 'deployment', as well as 'product' and 'general' (for announcements, participatory ecosystem news, etc). Also, specific topics like 'e-voting' or 'participatory-budgeting', and even locale or region-specific channels.
We can have automated notification channels tracking Github activity (commits, issues, PRs, etc), and even Metadecidim proposals. Integration for the latter would need to be developed, but it could come handy to Decidim instance communities as well.
It wouldn't need to be persistent (the conversations are meant to be ephemeral and can be thrown away), so it doesn't need to be paid.
For some context, this idea is something I discussed privately with @andres a couple of months ago, and briefly mentioned to @carol as well. We agreed it was better to wait a little bit before starting this discussion until after the holidays, with the association in place and with the election for the coordination committee over.
@carol also said there might be alternative proposals floating around - so perhaps this can start a conversation on the different options and relative benefits.
Rocket.Chat might be one, or even Matrix itself. I've never used them myself and so can't really vouch for them. I know OSP uses Rocket on their daily work, perhaps they might chime in with their experience with it here. I suspect Matrix is hard to use, but I could be wrong. Another option is Discourse, but then we wouldn't have the quick, real-time chatter that Slack offers.
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
You can check the rest of the comments here.
Conversation with Oliver Azevedo Barnes
This is an important conversation to be had. What do you (and @carol, @arnau, @andres and the rest of the committee) expect the role of the community to be regarding governance, and if the community is to participate in it at all, where would the appropriate place be?
My understanding of the governance structure being put in place is fuzzy at best. So far I'm assuming we can debate as a community, make proposals etc, and the elected committee has the last word.
When I suggest a public chat tool could improve transparency of governance, I don't mean final decisions and votes done there. Just open and informal conversation and debate, including the ones being had between committee members. Avoiding closed door, top-down decisions etc. Same for the Product team
I understand what Pau is questioning is who and where should take the decision of what tool to use, apart from the use of the tool itself. It's probably OK to move this conversation to another place, but I guess the voices of the "users" (developers materializing Decidim's code, regardless of the funds origins) should definetely be heard as making their work more productive, accesible and transparent is something that Decidim should pursue no matter what.
I fully agree with what has been said :). My concern isn't that the community cannot participate, but that the flow of action passes more through relationships between devs than the actual community that exists behind the Decidim' "installations" (organizations, municipalities, cooperatives).
It's hard for me to admit that we're really asking the "community" if they want these channels. That is why I believe that the association (where everyone is invited to participate: = D!) has to open those spaces and try to engage all the ecosystem. so then, anyone can add their proposal :)
But I don't think this is the process or the open "chat" we need to raise these questions. This does not mean that I love your proposal and that I am in favor of it :) And yes, maybe this is more of a political position rather something technical about your proposal. But as you say, sometimes it is difficult to know how to deal with these issues. A big hug to all and thanks for the answers :)
I have understood it that way too @oliverbarnes , in the same way that we have started other discussions. I think it's good to have these kinds of conversations with the wider community, and not just with members.
As you also said @paarals @furilo , perhaps it's better to open a separate space for this kind of debates.
Speaking to @paarals in private, I better understand his concern about end users (participants in Decidim instances) having a say in the communication channels they'd like to use. I follow this wholeheartedly, but I also think it's a chicken-egg situation. We don't have the channel to ask this yet :)
I believe a public, multi-channel chat will be more inclusive of end-users too, and this space should be visibly linked to in Decidim instances. That could go hand in hand with a more structured governance space, a MetaDecidim dedicated for that purpose, or simply a process in the existing MetaDecidim instance. Once more end-users are involved in the conversation, and if there's clear demand for a different channel of comms, we can migrate again.
And thanks @furilo :) Personally I'd add that on top of being more productive and having my work more accessible and transparent, I want to have closer interaction with end users (both instance managers and participants), get better insight into and participate in the overall vision and future of Decidim. I don't just "materialize code" based on somebody else's vision ;)
I do get the tension between economic interests and the long-term, macro vision the association is going to govern. It's a classic open source issue. I think the answer to that is more inclusive channels of open dialog and debate.
Loading comments ...