@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.

Hi Hi thanks for passing by. ❤️

When you say Groups, do you mean 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.

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.

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?

Modified this thread using the advice process template 😴

Updated this proposal with these slides

@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?

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 ...

@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!!!

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.

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

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)

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 – you usually have to cut back somewhere. We should at least open a new thread and make a check-list for alternatives 👾

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 :)

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:

• burning stories: https://forum.burning-stories.org/

• an interesting decision tree thread from blivande in sweden, a connected borderland art project: https://forum.blivande.com/t/fixing-the-laser-cutter-step-one/2701

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

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.

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)

I'm a fan of Discourse

I'd be happy to be involved also

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.

@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:

• burning stories: https://forum.burning-stories.org/

• an interesting decision tree thread from blivande in sweden, a connected borderland art project: https://forum.blivande.com/t/fixing-the-laser-cutter-step-one/2701

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

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 :-)

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?

wow! excellent! 👏

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?

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