talk.kiezburn.org
Tue 8 Dec 2020 10:48AM

(Decision)Talk Site Map - Organizing Talk聽

VRS Veroca R. Sala Public Seen by 82

Proposer

@Veroca R. Sala

Proposer's Role

Board Member - Volunteer Coordinator

The advice process

Information gathered before posting

not much information gathered, I'm opening this process because I see the need.

  • So far I have navigated the whole Talk space to have an idea of what could be done to improve it.

  • I have some idea of how Tak works ( privacy settings etc) but i am aware I got much more to learn about it, plan is to learn on the go.

  • I have read this thread about Talk Moderation that contains some interesting links to Loomio, guidelines etc, although there is a LOT more to read.

People/roles most affected by this proposal

  • I guess all Admins of relevant Talk groups. Threads would be moved

  • Communicorns:@Erin Jeavons-Fellows @Hanna-Maija (Animal) @Saskia (The Fuzzy Facilitator)

  • Dreams team - not existing yet. current admins: @Waldo and Saskia

  • Talk Moderation team - not existing yet

People/roles with the most knowledge and experience

I'm not sure!

The Proposal

Background

I navigate Talk, getting lost every time. I propose reorganizing the space for easier navigation of this platform.

This proposal includes two different but related topics Talk Moderation & Talk mapping. They would be serving each other. However, I don't intend to dive much deep into the moderator's role, guidelines, and its implementation or way of working simply because I don have much knowledge or good ideas on how to properly moderate Talk in the long run. I am at this moment more interested in reorganizing the content/threads that are already there, and maybe this structure is the first step to move forward with Talk Moderation.

  • This will help us find threads and properly link people to the right places.

  • It will also serve future moderators, hopefully.

I have no experience whatsoever.

The idea is to create subgroups within groups mainly as it was done last year in the Kiez Burn planning group 2020. Simple principle hard to implement...

How would the proposal be implemented? 聽

Talk moderation:

  • I suggest grouping threads based on topics

  • categorize threads

  • use labeling

  • All groups should be open.聽

  • All the threads will still appear in order of last activity first as usual.


So far what I see in 2019 and 2020 we have roughly these categories:

  • Educational - tutorials, instructions,

  • Callouts - initiatives

  • Announcements - meetings, deadlines, information

  • Discussions - collaborative threads --> towards advice process (or not)

  • Requests

  • Conversations, - uncategorized

  • SUPER Random (there re some very very random threads)


Talk Map - Organizing what is already there

Groups and Subgroups Descriptions:

  • Straight forward descriptions on the Groups and subgroups answering the questions "Why did I land here? What is this group for? How can I use this group? without so many misleading links.

  • Perhaps a "footer" in each description linking to the rest of the Talk site (like borderland)

Here see these Slides that might help envision my ideas a bit better

PROPOSAL TALK ORG - SLIDES - Work in progress


Who would implement this proposal?

I volunteer to allocate threads and create groups and subgroups to build the structure. I'm not volunteering for the role of Moderation although I'll be happy to support

When would be this proposal implemented?

Whenever we have this proposal polished (?) and consensually decide to move forward with it.

What would be the cost (time, Money, effort etc.) of this proposal

No money involved, but probably quite a bit of time (?) not sure.

Advantages of this proposal

  • Easier to find threads, while for instance searching for a specific Dreams-related thread from the past, instead of having to go to all archive groups of Dreams, the thread could be found in the Dreams Archive group I proposed. Currently, we seem to be going towards having a Dreams archive for every year where threads are put all together in a pool. Very hard to pick up.

  • We could better link newcomers to the information they need to see. While joining the group, they would see the list of threads,plus they will also see the subgroups on the left to find what they are looking for or threads related to topics they might be interested in.

  • Having a more carefully cared archive would help us pick up threads in the future

  • I believe the longer we postpone this the more complicated it will get in the future.

  • Having a sort of order established, (although not perfect) might lead to some order too, whereas if no order, we might just keep opening threads and sending bulks of threads to archive.

    What are the disadvantages?

    • Unfortunately, how Talk works, doesn't perfectly fit with the logic of organizing the threads in Groups and Subgroups as if we were organizing files/folders. This means people will have to JOIN the groups themselves in order to see the threads. We cant add them ourselves BUT only invite them. it can be a bit spammy to do so.

      We found a way around this disadvantage by keeping members of the group but moving the threads to archive instead.

      I don't see this as a major problem since these changes could be announced in a newsletter and/or specified in the description of the groups encouraging ppl to actually join all groups.

    • There might be more disadvantages I'm not seeing, hit the comments, I have no idea what I am doing馃槅

Note: This proposal is somewhat tied up to the role of moderators proposed in this thread



EJ

Erin Jeavons-Fellows Thu 10 Dec 2020 9:04PM

@Veroca R. Sala Hi Vero! Thanks for kicking it off!
Yes, we definitely can do better. If we do it well, there is the potential to make the entire website just the Talk group much like The Borderland. Not proposing that, just stating its a possibility :)

When you say Groups, do you mean these groups?

I was a Talk moderator and the whole thing was a real challenge trying to navigate or figure out where to put things so a structure could be great. I feel this is super valuable and would support what we're doing with the website also.

From a users perspective, how do we educate users coming in (not via website) and knowing where to go?

@waldo was doing alot of moderating and sorting, so I'm sure he has some ideas.

Maybe its also useful to have a look at the kinds of threads were created in previous years and see what groups would be useful. it gets super hard to manage especially in the few weeks prior to the event when everything comes to the crunch.

VRS

Veroca R. Sala Fri 11 Dec 2020 6:25PM

Hi Hi thanks for passing by. 鉂わ笍

When you say Groups, do you mean聽these groups?

Yes @Erin Jeavons-Fellows

From a users perspective, how do we educate users coming in (not via website) and knowing where to go?

  • Proper straight forward descriptions on the Groups and subgroups answering the questions "Why did I land here? What is this group for? How can I use this group? without so many misleading links. Perhaps a "footer" in each description linking to the rest of the site (like borderland)

  • Maybe the "How we work together" group will have a bit of a longer description as it explains realities, talk, and Dreams.

Maybe its also useful to have a look at the kinds of threads were created in previous years and see what groups would be useful. it gets super hard to manage especially in the few weeks prior to the event when everything comes to the crunch.

yes I did, it was a nightmare!!! haha. In 2020 we seemed to be walking more in the right direction, but of course, 2019 looks quite messy, at the same time, 2019 is so far the most valuable archive we have, with many learnings, and discussions that are hard to find.

So far what I see in 2019 and 2020 we have roughly these categories:

  • Educational - tutorials, instructions,

  • Callouts - initiatives

  • Announcements - meetings, deadlines, information

  • Discussions - collaborative threads --> towards advice process (or not)

  • Requests

  • Conversations, - uncategorized

  • SUPER Random (there re some very very random threads)

IDEA:

However, Moderators could use these "labels" not using the categories mentioned above, but just labeling them with the name of the group or subgroup where they belong, this would be to notice:

  • That thread has been checked out

  • That thread has been either re-allocated in a new group/subgroup (or not) and labeled accordingly.

  • Other moderators will notice the label, if the thread is not easy to identify, they will not be moving the thread around here and there, since another moderator has made the decision already by labeling it up. If more controversies, these moderators will have to get in touch and align ideas before misleading the discussion of the thread itself or moving the thread again and again.

IDEA II:

Moderators could also use two labels, one for categories another for group/subgroup assigned

NOTE: Here I state a difference between a "category" label and a "location" label whereas the first is a way to classify the threads amongst the whole Talk space and the second one is only to serve moderators work together. If they think it serves.


Archives:

Because of decentralization is that we find many threads around the same topic, like Dreams Finances/Money/tokens leftovers etc, I see this especially in Dreams cause it involves so many aspects of the whole.

  • I find it more convenient to subgroup the threads from Dreams Archive by topic ( Money, Dreamers, Dream guides and dreams Platform AND by year ALL int he same Dreams Archive mega-group)

Otherwise, we have to dive into the whole Dreams 2019 archive group, and the whole archive dreams 2020, to find those threads we need.

  • The same sorting should be working for the current year, so then they can go to the archive already organized.

    NOTE: Archiving would mean: to move the subgroups to the big Dreams Archive, not just rename the Group itself as "archive".


Communicorns

Comms could sound like an easy space to categorize and sort out but we run into some threads with no family

Hard to classify threads in Comms Group

  1. like this one : Dream Tokens - Getting ppl to vote

  2. or this one Sustainability resource for Kieze and free campers!

  • These threads make me feel we might need a window (Subgroup) for "Initiatives" where threads like this could fall in. In the comms group but also in other groups


This is a really big project, and i hope we can get some more input and hands in it. However if that doesn't happen, I'm still up to go forward with SOME structure in 2021.

Last year waldo has incorporated the subgroups in the Planning, and it was already looking nicer... it will not be perfect, but better.

W

walto Fri 15 Jan 2021 4:41PM

heya, the only thing I would want to suggest in this context that is maybe not fully covered yet, is to consistently move all proposals to something like the advice processes group: https://talk.kiezburn.org/advice-processes/ + have some people that are willing to coach people into using the advice process format.

Allowing for these proposals to take up the needed space in working groups, derailed a lot of the planning last year.

It is also last year I finally understood why Borderland has the advice processes in a separate group. It is something that you also see in real-life meetings or working groups. Big proposals need separate meetings or separate presentations and shouldn't/cannot be integrated within one working group. Instead, they require the input and collaboration of the wider group.

Independent of the fact if you want to continue using the format of "advice processes" or not - moving the bigger proposals and big-picture discussions to a dedicated group, will allow for more focus within the working groups themselves.

VRS

Veroca R. Sala Thu 21 Jan 2021 8:50AM

Sounds good to me. This proposal is far from perfect. I only thought of opening the discussion to find solutions together. It totally makes sense to take it to the advice process ( i thought on it). However, only a few people are part of this group and I wonder how much interaction will we have here. I guess my strategy was to have some people involved first, before going to the advice process (?) and adjusting it to an advice process proposal (template)

  • I will add a link to this thread on the "Talk Moderation" thread that is in the Communicorns group.

Note: I wonder if it would be better/easier to read if the proposed mapping is presented in another format like an excel sheet or drive doc that enables comments and suggestions in the document itself ( linking the doc onto this thread ). Or would that make things messier?

VRS

Veroca R. Sala Thu 21 Jan 2021 10:28AM

Modified this thread using the advice process template 馃槾

VRS

Veroca R. Sala Mon 1 Mar 2021 6:22PM

Updated this proposal with these slides

W

walto Wed 7 Jul 2021 3:29PM

@Veroca R. Sala it seems several advice processes are taking place in the "how we work together" group, to be considered within the scope of this proposal, but not sure who is moderating?

VRS

Veroca R. Sala Tue 31 Aug 2021 8:45PM

I wonder if someone has anything to say here?, should I move forward?

Any input about the slides that i have made with so much love? lol

Shall i schedule a meeting to go through it? is my proposal unclear?

would I just close this thread?

im a bit confused on what to do when the advice process doesnt create engagement and there aren't any real experts ...

VRS

Veroca R. Sala Wed 1 Sep 2021 1:24PM

@Purzel and @Kate I'd soo much love to gather with you two so I can walk you through my proposal and hear how you guys see it and how could we make it better.

In my head it would be great to have it done before the retrospective meeting ( 13th november) so we can "formally" present the changes to those that were highly involved (realizers and so on) and have a lill of Q&A. We shouldn't take much time there though.

Soo I will be writing you two (probbly in a telegram group lol) and try to coordinate a date. We have time.

Thank you!!!

VRS

Veroca R. Sala Wed 6 Oct 2021 12:08PM

update: we ( purzel, kate & I ) will meet next Friday 8th October to discuss this, polish the proposal and see how can we move forward.

In addition, id like to add to the agenda besides all these potential changes, how can we have vague moderation guidelines until a moderation team steps up, basics like, to gain the right to remove inappropriate threads for example...

We will post updates here after the meeting.

VRS

Veroca R. Sala Sat 9 Oct 2021 11:02AM

Purzel, Kate and I gathered yesterday and agreed on setting a deadline that to move forward wit this proposal. As there hasn't been much participation or objections.

The deadline will be 16th of October 2021

Note: I have updated the proposal, have crossed a disadvantage since we We found a way it by keeping members of the group but moving the threads to archive instead.

Unfortunately, how Talk works, doesn't perfectly fit with the logic of organizing the threads in Groups and Subgroups as if we were organizing files/folders. This means people will have to JOIN the groups themselves in order to see the threads. We cant add them ourselves BUT only invite them. it can be a bit spammy to do so.

I also linked this thread to this proposal to define Unacceptable behavior on talk and define the role description of Talk moderators

K

Kris Sat 9 Oct 2021 4:24PM

My 20 cents not having read this whole thread* is that we should replace Loomio, and have a structured discussion on what to replace it with. I see a lot of "if we use <tool> then we can <thing>" when the question should be what is the thing we want, and then we find the tool.

In addition to moderators (who deal with abuse) there should be guides in the serious groups that can help clarify and guide the conversation to a goal - like the people who lead meetings and make sure everyone gets heard. There's a lot of misunderstanding and cross-talk on these boards (and similar burner boards) that derail and sap the energy from people.

(*this is part of the problem with Loomio)

K

Kaliope Thu 2 Sep 2021 8:26AM

Thanks for connecting us on Telegram (haha), @Veroca R. Sala! Already looking forward to go deep down the Talk rabbit hole...

@Professor Kaos @walto Would it make sense to bring Robot Ministry on board right away? They're meeting tonight, so I can at least bring that up. Perhaps they will have their own perspective on the matter or suggest a few options. One of the big problems we would face with a change of the discussion platform would be documentation & archives:

  • What content do we want to save for the future?

  • How do we migrate it? Copy & paste or automated?

  • How much work is that and do we have the capacity?

If we move to a new platform, it would be good to test that with a big lead time first. Really good non-commercial open source platforms exist very few, if at all 鈥 you usually have to cut back somewhere. We should at least open a new thread and make a check-list for alternatives 馃懢

My own thoughts about Talk are quite ambiguous... for sure a chat/mobile function would be super convenient. The "upvoting" (as far as I understand it) could maybe be solved by better moderation, collecting the "important" thoughts in the thread descriptions above? The popularity and UX could be improved by trainings and a better overview/sitemap... but I trust your judgment, you hang around here longer :)

W

walto Wed 1 Sep 2021 11:16PM

a little bit controversial: but do we want to stick with Talk?

I am involved in some crypto discussions, and the forum format "discourse" is used there. It feels like a substantially better "talk", for an example, see here: https://forum.piedao.org/t/piedao-roadmap-2021-q2/816

For more info: https://www.discourse.org/features

non-profit example: https://edgeryders.eu/

==> there, you can also check out on the top right "communities" (what could this be for kiez burn?) and in there you find:

btw, pretty fun as well, is the profiles, e.g.: https://edgeryders.eu/u/hugi/summary

Item removed

Item removed

AK

Alex Kaos Thu 2 Sep 2021 8:06AM

I am definitely in favor of exploring alternatives to Talk. Talk has worked well, but we now know some of the features that are missing (chat, mobile, and upvoting being the major 3 that pop to mind).

I'm sure the technology of other platforms has also improved since our last search 2 years ago.

Alex Hermann's Dream machine platform is also in Beta testing. It seems nice to use a Platform designed by a burner, for burners. Even if it's not yet as polished as the more established open-source options.

AK

Alex Kaos Thu 2 Sep 2021 8:08AM

It looks great Vero, I think you've touched on a whole alternative framing of Talk that would be an improvement.

I am still thinking that we are missing some features that make me want to consider alternative platforms (see below). But I don't see why we still can't integrate or develop your proposal into those platforms.

Other than adding chats (like Telegram), Mobile function, and upvoting, everything else in a new platform would remain the same (and so your proposal is still active and valid and I would like to help)

CY

CJ Yetman Thu 2 Sep 2021 9:51AM

I'm a fan of Discourse

CY

CJ Yetman Thu 2 Sep 2021 9:52AM

I'd be happy to be involved also

W

walto Sat 4 Sep 2021 8:18PM

If there is a serious request to move to a different platform/solution, my suggestion would be to tackle this in three steps: (this is kinda how we set up Dreams the first time with Henrik)

  1. explore & define the requirements & vision (must-haves + nice-to-haves)

  2. explore tools that could match this

  3. test & implement the tools for the requirements&vision expressed in step

As a first step, what can be great, is an (evening) workshop with a smaller dedicated & knowledgeable group, where we map our dreams & wishes, problems & opportunities for a new eco-system (afterall, whatever we choose should interact/co-exist well with website, Realities (or similar responsibility tracking tool), diverse spreadsheets, facebook,...) + the tools we use shape our culture & how we work together.

This set of requirements & hopes, will be a great basis of requirements for looking at tools that could be used next year. We can then sit together with the robot ministry & others such as the Dream Machine, to see how we can best build the right communication & action eco-system.

Then again, this might be too much classic "product management" for building software, and maybe we should think more "unconference" style... I do think tho that the above 3 steps offer a more inclusive path towards building the future.

W

walto Sat 4 Sep 2021 8:21PM

@Professor Kaos @Kate tnx for flagging that the link was broken, here is the example I wanted to share: https://forum.piedao.org/t/piedao-roadmap-2021-q2/816

non-profit example: https://edgeryders.eu/

==> there, you can also check out on the top right "communities" (what could this be for kiez burn?) and in there you find:


btw, pretty fun as well, is the profiles, e.g.:聽https://edgeryders.eu/u/hugi/summary

W

walto Tue 31 Aug 2021 10:16PM

I think you are best placed to make a decision and implement it @Veroca R. Sala. You have given sufficient opportunity for people to give feedback. It is now up to you to decide if you still want to move forward or close the thread.

Controversial topics generate more engagement, which doesn't mean that the less controversial ones arent equally important :-)

VRS

Veroca R. Sala Sun 10 Oct 2021 8:11AM

hey, thanks for passing by this boring thread. I agree, I guess it would be useful to run a sort of survey (not Talk), so as to find out why some people use Facebook to share their opinion but never click on our Talk links posted on Facebook... What is that they struggle with?, (if they have even tried to participate in Talk) in addition, the input of UX designers could bring more light to it.

Im not particularly interested in investing time to find a platform to accommodate "lazy" Facebook users you know ... if it is a matter of laziness then im okay if they dont want to join the discussions... getting involved implies some time investment IMO, that is why I suggest the survey, to measure that.

In regards to moderators: I agree, the role is not about shutting down a conflict. As the role of moderators is very "delicate", having people guiding discussions to reach decisions would be wonderful.

I am aware It deserves a whole lot more thought than what I have put into it here, I guess my intention here is to at least start shaping the role, after that, the guidelines and new input could be added. I couldn't find moderators this year so far, and I thought the problem was, there wasn't a clear description of what these people should do, to provide that, I probably need to sit down and write the guidelines and propose them myself, so... I chose to start with the idea of consensually decide what is "unacceptable behavior" AND providing a structure on Talk, so moderators can have something to grab onto, then I trust we could move forward from there.

But maybe Im wrong and the problem is somewhere else or a combination of factors.

Moving back to the talk site map discussion, and whether we stay here or we move to some other platform, I am willing to make the changes proposed in this thread, meanwhile, I support a potential change and I am open to new possibilities, but In case we get nowhere, at least we tried a change on Talk, no?

C

Cris Wed 3 Mar 2021 12:47PM

wow! excellent! 馃憦

K

Kaliope Wed 1 Sep 2021 10:43AM

Dear @Veroca R. Sala, I'm new in this thread but would love to learn more about the depths of Talk! You're the expert, so if you need any help with restructuring or some more ideas please get in touch. Maybe we can develop an extended sitemap with link structure for each group and subgroup and develop the how-to further?

P

Purzel Wed 1 Sep 2021 12:23PM

Depending on when you want to start with this task, I'd like to volunteer, to make talk more organised and transparent 馃槉