Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #10724 > unrolled thread

Sounding board for Debian forums?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Sounding board for Debian forums? Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-07-08 07:50 +0200
    Re: Sounding board for Debian forums? Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2019-07-09 01:40 +0200
      Re: Sounding board for Debian forums? Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2019-07-09 21:20 +0200
        Re: Sounding board for Debian forums? Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-07-15 09:00 +0200
          Re: Sounding board for Debian forums? Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-07-15 12:40 +0200
        Re: Sounding board for Debian forums? Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2019-07-15 10:00 +0200
    Re: Sounding board for Debian forums? Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2019-07-15 10:20 +0200

#10724 — Sounding board for Debian forums?

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi all,

Would it be reasonable to create some kind of sounding board to facilitate
long or complex discussions?

The format used in email lists (and social media in general) does not seem
well-suited for long or complex discussions.  It often leads to
fragmentation (ie. repeating opinions across multiple subthreads), and I
believe it encourages a bias toward commenting on things that people feel
strongly about (usually in disagreement).

I think a more structured and disciplined format could really help improve
the quality of discussions, as well as reduce negative feelings toward
people and email in general.  I think redirecting a discussion to a
different forum would also be more successful than simply trying to make it
stop.

Is there some kind of software that could help people break down their
claims into fundamental parts, then get feedback on the parts individually,
maybe even refining their viewpoint as the discussion evolves?

-- 
Eldon

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10730

Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> writes:

> Is there some kind of software that could help people break down their
> claims into fundamental parts, then get feedback on the parts
> individually, maybe even refining their viewpoint as the discussion
> evolves?

Prior to considering technical solutions: Have you got any examples of
real dispersed communities that are able to avoid the problems you you
described?

Regardless of technology, I'm not aware of any forums that achieve the
kind of formal structure you're talking about, because humans who need
to have representative participation tend to be discouraged by greater
formal or technical barriers.

So what real-world examples would you point to as a counter to that
tendency, and how do you think technology helps achieve that improvement
in those real-world cases?

-- 
 \          “Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without |
  `\      having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it |
_o__)                                             too?” —Douglas Adams |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10732

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> writes:

> Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Is there some kind of software that could help people break down their
>> claims into fundamental parts, then get feedback on the parts
>> individually, maybe even refining their viewpoint as the discussion
>> evolves?
>
> Prior to considering technical solutions: Have you got any examples of
> real dispersed communities that are able to avoid the problems you you
> described?
>
> Regardless of technology, I'm not aware of any forums that achieve the
> kind of formal structure you're talking about, because humans who need
> to have representative participation tend to be discouraged by greater
> formal or technical barriers.
>
> So what real-world examples would you point to as a counter to that
> tendency, and how do you think technology helps achieve that improvement
> in those real-world cases?

I'm not sure this addresses your concern directly, as I've no idea if it
has specifically been used by whatever you define as a "dispersed
community", but Minister Audrey Tang mentioned in her talk at DC18 that
they had used an interesting approach to sorting out the Uber vs. Taxi
vs. users situation in Taiwan, which you can see from something like the
13th minute onwards, here:

  https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/135-q-a-session-with-minister-tang/

She gets onto the technical solution used in the 17th minute, which is
pol.is, which appears to be an open-core system, with the Free version
being here:

  https://github.com/pol-is/polisServer

(Note the existence of a contributor agreement)

The thing that impressed me about this (as described in the video) is
the way that it seems to amplify the constructive aspects of the
conversation.

I can of course think of problems with using such a thing in Debian, the
main one being that unlike with government, one cannot just issue orders
to our volunteers, so it is entirely possible that everyone _not_ doing
some job in Debian are agreed on how it should be done, but not willing
to do it, while the people actually doing the job have another idea.

However, if one is trying to reach a wide consensus, and the people
involved are willing to engage with such a system in order to try to
find out what people think, and interested to do whatever looks like the
consensus, and assuming we can ensure that we don't get invaded by
trolls, but equally are able to get non-debian people with legitimate
interests in whatever question to join in, it might be worth a look.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10754

Hi All,

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:12 PM Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> wrote:
>
> Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Is there some kind of software that could help people break down their
> >> claims into fundamental parts, then get feedback on the parts
> >> individually, maybe even refining their viewpoint as the discussion
> >> evolves?
> >
> > Prior to considering technical solutions: Have you got any examples of
> > real dispersed communities that are able to avoid the problems you you
> > described?

Yes, there are examples.  Typically, they use forums that allow for
moderation after-the-fact.  There are even groups on Reddit that are
quite civi (r/legaladvice is an example)l.  All it takes is a devoted
moderator and the ability to hide or remove posts that break the rules
of the forum.


> > Regardless of technology, I'm not aware of any forums that achieve the
> > kind of formal structure you're talking about, because humans who need
> > to have representative participation tend to be discouraged by greater
> > formal or technical barriers.

Although that may be true in general, the average Debian user tends to
be a lot more technical than the average human being.  I also submit
that the current forum comes with some pretty serious barriers (the
worst of which is that supportive comments are generally avoided to
reduce noise, which increases the perceived negativity of the forum
and also leads to strong disagreements and/or a feeling of posting
into a vacuum).


> > So what real-world examples would you point to as a counter to that
> > tendency, and how do you think technology helps achieve that improvement
> > in those real-world cases?

I don't think a lack of a real-world example is a reason not to try
something.  I don't think Debian would exist if that were a
requirement at the project's inception.


> I'm not sure this addresses your concern directly, as I've no idea if it
> has specifically been used by whatever you define as a "dispersed
> community", but Minister Audrey Tang mentioned in her talk at DC18 that
> they had used an interesting approach to sorting out the Uber vs. Taxi
> vs. users situation in Taiwan, which you can see from something like the
> 13th minute onwards, here:
>
>   https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/135-q-a-session-with-minister-tang/
>
> She gets onto the technical solution used in the 17th minute, which is
> pol.is, which appears to be an open-core system, with the Free version
> being here:
>
>   https://github.com/pol-is/polisServer
>
> (Note the existence of a contributor agreement)
>
> The thing that impressed me about this (as described in the video) is
> the way that it seems to amplify the constructive aspects of the
> conversation.
>
> I can of course think of problems with using such a thing in Debian, the
> main one being that unlike with government, one cannot just issue orders
> to our volunteers, so it is entirely possible that everyone _not_ doing
> some job in Debian are agreed on how it should be done, but not willing
> to do it, while the people actually doing the job have another idea.

I think the main value would be finding the common ground when
disagreements arise, not making binding decisions.


> However, if one is trying to reach a wide consensus, and the people
> involved are willing to engage with such a system in order to try to
> find out what people think, and interested to do whatever looks like the
> consensus, and assuming we can ensure that we don't get invaded by
> trolls, but equally are able to get non-debian people with legitimate
> interests in whatever question to join in, it might be worth a look.
>
> Cheers, Phil.
> --
> |)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
> |-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
> |(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Thanks Phil, that is the kind of thing I was looking for.

I have also seen kialo[1] (which is proprietary) as an attempt to help
people break down the discussion into individual ideas.  I think their
platform has a lot of shortcomings, but I like the idea of breaking
arguments down into fundamental points and having a tool to help
discuss each point in more depth without detracting from the main
discussion.  I also like that people can revise their statements.

A permanent archive of every mistake you make in a discussion is quite
daunting, and not really useful when your original statement is not
understood as you intended.

[1] https://kialo.com

-- 
Eldon Koyle

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:12 PM Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> wrote:
>
> Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Is there some kind of software that could help people break down their
> >> claims into fundamental parts, then get feedback on the parts
> >> individually, maybe even refining their viewpoint as the discussion
> >> evolves?
> >
> > Prior to considering technical solutions: Have you got any examples of
> > real dispersed communities that are able to avoid the problems you you
> > described?
> >
> > Regardless of technology, I'm not aware of any forums that achieve the
> > kind of formal structure you're talking about, because humans who need
> > to have representative participation tend to be discouraged by greater
> > formal or technical barriers.
> >
> > So what real-world examples would you point to as a counter to that
> > tendency, and how do you think technology helps achieve that improvement
> > in those real-world cases?
>
> I'm not sure this addresses your concern directly, as I've no idea if it
> has specifically been used by whatever you define as a "dispersed
> community", but Minister Audrey Tang mentioned in her talk at DC18 that
> they had used an interesting approach to sorting out the Uber vs. Taxi
> vs. users situation in Taiwan, which you can see from something like the
> 13th minute onwards, here:
>
>   https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/135-q-a-session-with-minister-tang/
>
> She gets onto the technical solution used in the 17th minute, which is
> pol.is, which appears to be an open-core system, with the Free version
> being here:
>
>   https://github.com/pol-is/polisServer
>
> (Note the existence of a contributor agreement)
>
> The thing that impressed me about this (as described in the video) is
> the way that it seems to amplify the constructive aspects of the
> conversation.
>
> I can of course think of problems with using such a thing in Debian, the
> main one being that unlike with government, one cannot just issue orders
> to our volunteers, so it is entirely possible that everyone _not_ doing
> some job in Debian are agreed on how it should be done, but not willing
> to do it, while the people actually doing the job have another idea.
>
> However, if one is trying to reach a wide consensus, and the people
> involved are willing to engage with such a system in order to try to
> find out what people think, and interested to do whatever looks like the
> consensus, and assuming we can ensure that we don't get invaded by
> trolls, but equally are able to get non-debian people with legitimate
> interests in whatever question to join in, it might be worth a look.
>
> Cheers, Phil.
> --
> |)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
> |-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
> |(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY



-- 
Eldon Koyle

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10757

Neil has been talking about how much the Gnome community has gotten out
of discourse.
His experience has been positive enough that as an individual developer
I'd be interested in using a pilot.

I want to stress that I'm not volunteering to do the work of setting up
such a pilot.

I could imagine such a thing starting out being entire disconnected in
phase 0.
And trying it out and getting some people to give feedback.

If that were sufficiently positive, then working on a pilot where one
list were moved to discourse to see how it works.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10755

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Philip,

>   https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/135-q-a-session-with-minister-tang/
> 
> She gets onto the technical solution used in the 17th minute,
> which is pol.is, which appears to be an open-core system, with
> the Free version being here:
> 
>   https://github.com/pol-is/polisServer

It turns out that there's a pol.is integration for decidim.org,
«a participatory democracy framework, originally developed for
the Barcelona City government online and offline participation
website»:

https://github.com/decidim/decidim

Cheers,
Alex

--
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org>
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   Debian Developer 🍥 log.alexm.org
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10756

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Eldon,

> Is there some kind of software that could help people break
> down their claims into fundamental parts, then get feedback
> on the parts individually, maybe even refining their viewpoint
> as the discussion evolves?

«Loomio is a collaborative decision-making tool that makes it
easy for anyone to participate in decisions which affect them»:

https://github.com/loomio/loomio
https://www.loomio.org/

I'm not sure it's good at the refining process you're mentioning,
though. I haven't tried it, but it seems to have a big community
according to project metrics.

On the other hand, there's this smaller project that could make
a good match, though it would probably need some work to adapt
(the slides are in Spanish):

https://sobtec.sandcats.io/shared/f3HQwuDbklmFMWL5aGEpQo4LZJaUZnE1QogNVf5l1BC/u/franchi/m/nabu-project/
https://github.com/sabtvg/nabu
http://nabu.pt/

Hope this helps,
Alex

--
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org>
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   Debian Developer 🍥 log.alexm.org
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web