Hi Emiliano! Thanks for the reply. On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 12:04 AM Emiliano Vavassori < syntaxerror...@libreoffice.org> wrote:
> It would have been a waste of efforts > to change the platform at this point and mostly unhelpful/unfruitful to > change it without a clear understanding of its shortcomings, with the > regards of our use cases; a knowledge we can achieve only having some > processes mapped in the platform. > Yes, it's good to start with something to gain the experience needed to make a good permanent choice, I agree. As long as we do actually take an evaluation step before committing long-term to this tool (rather than become victims of the sunk-cost fallacy <https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/>) that's a fine approach. > The Decidim community itself is using the same platform to discuss and > shape the framework redesigns: https://meta.decidim.org/ > Thanks for that. Decidim is something of a special case - knowing that community I would totally expect them to use Decidim to design Decidim! So I still think it would be worth asking around to see if there is another open source community using Decidim/Consul/LiquidFeedback in their governance who can share their experiences. I can do that if you want or there are others here who participate in the Open Source Foundations mailing list who could do so. If this holds true at the minimum, it will leave a very small space for > Trustees to be included in the working group, so we either: > 1) ask the Trustees, and have to manage in the end to choose who is > included or excluded and on which (more or less) arbitrary basis do this > choice (not the most fair/inclusive outcome, honestly), or > 2) ask directly to selected people to participate to the working > group, which is leaner than 1) but indeed arbitrary and not inclusive. > Right, I recognise the issues you describe. All the same it seems to me arbitrary inclusion is better than none at all! There are clearly some of us who are interested in donating effort but until the "members" list has been asked there's no way to know exactly how many. > I am more of the opinion that, once the working group has reached a > quasi-working setup, involving the community back is the right thing to > do, to run some simulations, possibly in parallel to the real BoD > decisions, to have some time to collect volunteers' and members' > feedback/improvements on the implemented processes, before the BoD > finally approves the use of the platform. > Widening the circle once the design consultation has been delivered seems smart, good proposal. The participative approach has its own potential problems so a diverse oversight group is important. I'd suggest focussing on involving Trustees in the actual deployment working group rather than just as test subjects, if the feeling that an insider group is in control of TDF is to be overcome. Again, thanks for your work here and I remain happy to help. Cheers! Simon -- *Simon Phipps* *TDF Trustee*
