Board Public

It made me think of We The People (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/). In Taiwan we have a similar citizen public policy discussion platform https://join.gov.tw (Chinese).

For community participating it seems to be a good idea.

It is good to listen to 'all voices'. When it comes to actively involve in discussions, I believe in the distinct position of actual members of our TDF community. This will have influence on what tooling we use/how we use it.

Mailing lists are accessible for everyone, can be easily integrated into individual workflows, and have full transparency- even for people who are not subscribed [1]. Typically people dislike a) high-traffic (for obvious reasons) and b) low-traffic, meaning the information is irrelevant or boring. Both are (at least in the past few month) not the fact in case of BoD-discuss.

[1] https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/

Heiko Tietze wrote:

Mailing lists are accessible for everyone, can be easily integrated into individual workflows, and have full transparency- even for people who are not subscribed [1]. Typically people dislike a) high-traffic (for obvious reasons) and b) low-traffic, meaning the information is irrelevant or boring. Both are (at least in the past few month) not the fact in case of BoD-discuss.

[1] https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/

What is needed, from my POV, is a tool/platform that allows to integrate people who, for example, prefer forums or a social network type approach and those who prefer classical way. To allow greater participation by providing a space where everyone feels at ease without forcing them to leave their individual comfort space.

Cor Nouws wrote:

It is good to listen to 'all voices'. When it comes to actively involve in discussions, I believe in the distinct position of actual members of our TDF community. This will have influence on what tooling we use/how we use it.

Of course, and anyone should continue using the same tooling. That's the whole point, allow each and everyone to participate in their preferred way.

Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:

What is needed, from my POV, is a tool/platform that allows to integrate people who, for example, prefer forums or a social network type approach and those who prefer classical way. To allow greater participation by providing a space where everyone feels at ease without forcing them to leave their individual comfort space.

The listed tools are for decision making. This uber-democracy has always failed in the past due to missing contribution. At least this happened with the political party The Pirates who tried this approach.

The mailing list has a forum-like archive. But anyway, I can handle a message board like phpBB that pings me on new content. It just turns around the communication. And I like Thorsten's approach to get rid of (at least) one tool if we introduce a new one.

Heiko Tietze wrote:

Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:

What is needed, from my POV, is a tool/platform that allows to integrate people who, for example, prefer forums or a social network type approach and those who prefer classical way. To allow greater participation by providing a space where everyone feels at ease without forcing them to leave their individual comfort space.

The listed tools are for decision making. This uber-democracy has always failed in the past due to missing contribution. At least this happened with the political party The Pirates who tried this approach.

The mailing list has a forum-like archive. But anyway, I can handle a message board like phpBB that pings me on new content. It just turns around the communication. And I like Thorsten's approach to get rid of (at least) one tool if we introduce a new one.

Any of the alternatives proposed here so far have no comparison against anything we currently have, so I'm in doubt if we could shut anything down.
However, in the website list it has been commented that there's an evaluation ongoing to replace ask with a forum like software.

Main idea here is to have a channel geared towards a very specific purpose, which is get feedback to TDF governance in a much broader way.

So I was part of DemocracyOS (France) for 3 years (see the team on this page https://democracyos.eu/apropos/ :-).
Those tools are done to help on decisions making by public and transparent processes. You set a number of topics where people contribute. Contributions can be done by comments or vote on comments. it's a great help to allow a huge number of people to express themselves. The fact that you can vote on other comments help also to get in those who are not fluent with writing in English or too shy to do it.
You can also have private consultations, where only invited persons are able to participate, comment and/or vote.

It could be completely private, or visible to all but with only some people able to comment (for example the whole community would see the comments but only TDF members would be able to participate). Each participation is signed with a SHA256 footprint. There is a count down for decisions which make the process clear and transparent for every one.

We dissolved the French association because the code of DemocracyOS was too old to make the product evolved as we would have like it and there were some dissensions in the international community. From there members of the FR association moved to Decidim, which has a large community of contributors and is more used in France.
For instance, it's currently used for the FR gov. for public consultation on education (https://etats-generaux-du-numerique.education.gouv.fr/)

Those tools are usually not easy to deploy, lot of settings are available, but once done, it's very easy to set new consultations, voting system and so on. You have the ability to receive e-mails per comment on topics, but you must go on the tool to comment. It's possible to follow the whole debate without being logged, but you need to be logged to contribute.

It is possible that Limesurvey could be shut down, if this sort of tool is deployed.

Beluga Beluga wrote:

It is possible that Limesurvey could be shut down, if this sort of tool is deployed.

IMO we need to deploy the platform, get people on board and confront functionalities to see if everyone is happy.

Discussion items from 2020-07-31 board meeting (Daniel):

• first testing with small (hispanic) group
• asking for VPS on TDF infra to evaluate, will then come back with proposal

• how are tests running? See last discussion about Open letter MC with the issue to have a better tooling for members involvement in discussions and decisions

Decidim is installed at http://vm162.documentfoundation.org/, but I encountered problems related to sending mail from the platform. So far I have not been able to make further progress because my availability has changed.

Can you e-mail details of the problem to hostmaster, so they can have a
look?

Well, finally got some spare and made a clean install. However mail issue stands and now in touch with decidim community trying to get it fixed.

Thanks to Guilhem's work, there's a fully working Decidim instance at https://vm162.documentfoundation.org/

Is this attached to TDFs SSO or must anyone create a new Account? (It wants a mail address for log in)

Uwe Altmann wrote:

Is this attached to TDFs SSO

It isn't.

I'd like to work with the decidim instance but how can I do that? I found no way to interact with it, create a new project or even contribute to the existing one. Seems there are no components assigned to the process "Do you think this tool can improve TDF participatory process?" ?
And how can I create my own process?

Uwe Altmann wrote in #note-24:

I'd like to work with the decidim instance but how can I do that? I found no way to interact with it, create a new project or even contribute to the existing one. Seems there are no components assigned to the process "Do you think this tool can improve TDF participatory process?" ?
And how can I create my own process?

There are several admins already, anyone can give you the rights to create processes.

However, you should have received the invitation link by now.

Uwe Altmann wrote in #note-26:

maybe they're not installed properly?

A visit to the .svg URL show they are installed properly, and I guess the browser console indicates that they're not rendered because of CSP violation. I can reproduce that with Firefox 78ESR but not Chromium 89. Firefox doesn't seem to treat <svg><use href="…"/></svg> by the img-src directive, and AFAIK there is no way to solve that other than undermining the CSP.

Thanks, Guilhem. Of course we want to keep CSP.
I get some errors at the firefox browser console, but none of them is a CSP violation. The only ones which may be related to that issue are

InvalidStateError: JSWindowActorChild.contentWindow getter: Cannot access property 'contentWindow' after actor 'PictureInPictureToggle' has been destroyed 
    handleEvent resource://gre/actors/PictureInPictureChild.jsm:301

AbortError: Actor 'Conduits' destroyed before query 'RuntimeMessage' was resolved
    _raceResponses resource://gre/modules/ConduitsParent.jsm:297

Shall we file a bug report for decidim?
btw: we should move this discussion to Task #3253 __ .