talkgroup audit (2020)

[maiki]

I’m gonna start a cycle of processing each talkgroup, discussing it’s purpose, freshening up descriptions, that sorta thing.

I’m sure there are some that will go away, which means figuring out what to do with the data, something I call the “end gayme” for a talkgroup. Because we should gamify it, of course.

Anyhow, everything is gonna go slow, I am going to ping everyone who might care, and we’ll make it better.

---

Questions:

• Does the talkgroup description need updating?
• What happens to content?
• Choose the color (including keeping it the same)
• Changes to configuration?
  • Moderators
  • Permssions
  • Extras, like voting, wiki-by-default, auto-delete messages, etc.
• Should it be muted by default?

[tim]

I would strongly want to never delete content. I am 100% fine with dumping it all in one category of “failed groups”.

[maiki]

You saying I can’t delete posts in #maiki?

It depends on the data. I’m more into moving knowledge into place. talkgroup is an app, the data is on a journey.

[maiki]

It’s good to point out that part of this audit will be including instructions for each talkgroup on how it’s content is handled.

So, we probably have special clauses for #maiki and #tuna, for instance, that say we get to decide in our categories what happens; I’m presuming that makes sense, if not please point that out.

For each talkgroup we are gonna discuss it! And we’ll figure out what happens to everything.

There is a redirect index feature in Discourse; one can set a URL to redirect to a new URL. My plan is to merge, bump, edit, forget about, and re-audit one day, until a piece of content is ready to go live somewhere else.

In the case of #maiki, those will eventually move into a read-only archive, probably at maiki.interi.org, when I’m good and ready. For #logs I thought I might propose a 10-year archive policy: after ten years a post gets frozen and moved to a static archive on a sub-domain (archive.talkgroup.xyz?).

In the case of #changelog, a lot of those were of use to me years ago, but no longer, and many have no comments. Those that do, their comments are the important thing, and those ought to live elsewhere (unless they don’t, because we don’t need to archive, “Huh.”? )

This is what I mean by “it depends”. If a piece of content isn’t useful I ask if it can be edited to become useful, or if it can be safely tossed. And of course the applies to the “commons”, not any personal talkgroup which is it’s own thing.

Also, this should be clear for new talkgroups, and especially what I hope will develop: group talkgroups (either private or public), where it is made clear how the posts will be handled.

Aside: we could have #borrowers for tracking a library of items, and a new #buy-nothing for ephemeral posts that move goods and then auto-delete, as an example of how similar talkgroups can operate on different motives.

Okay, glad to get that out of my head!

[maiki]

@tim, an example of something I’d toss: WooCommerce 2.6.13 fix release notes

[tim]

That makes total sense to me! All of it.

[maiki]

The lowest hanging fruit: #changelog, because we already decided to delete it.

Discontinue Changelog, but not really

Summing this up, contrary to the second title of this thread, we are retiring #changelog. I like how I post the #gohugo changelogs, keeping minor updates in the same thread. #webcraft and #scitech will likely suffice for these types of threads. As for #changelog, I’ll eventually get around to moving those to other categories.

There are only 30 posts, so I’m going to move any commentary to a more appropriate talkgroup and will delete the links without commentary.

[maiki]

@maiki

There are only 30 posts

My net connection is really spotty most days. Using talkgroup is a chore, I just have super high latency.

Anyhow, rather than process all the message that only I posted in, I moved them in bulk to either Gaming, Science and Technology, or Webcraft. Now they can be deleted in those respective talkgroups.

[maiki]

@maiki

For folks just stopping by I don’t think other users introducing themselves is the kind of messages we want to show.

But maiki, isn’t that like, the exact stuff we want them to look at, other humans sharing details of themselves in a friendly, chatty environment? Well, yes and no. We like being social. But that isn’t social, that’s parenting-by-TV. I introduce people, send them invites to others’ intros, send PMs with groups of folks that ought to talk. I even text links all over the place, so folks find info that is useful to them.

I want to actively subvert the impulse to stream everything to anyone. I want to be intentional, even with how we present ourselves to folks that have already arrived. We are training them, just as every other interface they use. We can train to be intentional, slow, thoughtful, playful, social. That’s what I’m thinking.

[maiki]

@maiki

• A clear mission — why does this project exist? what is it setting out to achieve?
• An invitation to participate — do you have an unambiguous call to action?
• Easy onboarding — are there small, simple tasks/activities that new volunteers can begin with?
• A modular approach — do volunteers have to commit to helping with everything , or is there a way which they can use their knowledge, skills, and interests to contribute to part of the project?
• Strong leadership — do the people in control of the project embody the mission? do they have the respect of volunteers? have they got the capacity to make the project a success?
• Ways of working openly and transparently — does the project have secret areas, or is everything out in the open?
• Backchannels and watercoolers — are there ‘social’ spaces for members of the project to interact over and above those focused on project aims?
• Celebration of milestones — does the project recognise the efforts and input of volunteers?

OMG, I’m gonna use this for talkgroup audit (2020). But for talkgroups. I’m sure it will need tweaking, but it’s kinda what I’m going for, on reflection.

[maiki]

Okay, let’s see if any of these questions make sense for talkgroups, with the intent to invite participation.

@maiki

A clear mission — why does this project exist? what is it setting out to achieve?

This makes sense, and should be covered in a talkgroups description (personal talkgroups might get away with being more arcane; or perhaps each talkgroup chooses it’s own level of invitation to participate).

@maiki

An invitation to participate — do you have an unambiguous call to action?

Yes, this should be a point: if a talkgroup wants folks to do something, explain it and make it easy. I say this knowing I’ve written all these descriptions without calls to action.

@maiki

Easy onboarding — are there small, simple tasks/activities that new volunteers can begin with?

For talkgroups this means breaking the prior step into discrete actionable tasks.

@maiki

A modular approach — do volunteers have to commit to helping with everything , or is there a way which they can use their knowledge, skills, and interests to contribute to part of the project?

Not as applicable, as talkgroups are channels that support efforts (though some talkgroups are the sole expression of an effort). If it isn’t apparent which kinds of activities or skillsets happen in a talkgroup, it could be explained.

@maiki

Strong leadership — do the people in control of the project embody the mission? do they have the respect of volunteers? have they got the capacity to make the project a success?

Matters for some talkgroups, which will have either “ownership groups” or community moderators (and in many senses these will serve as the same function, being that talkgroup.xyz is essentially a friend-of-a-friend network it doesn’t come into play as often.

However, I’m the least qualified to comment on this. I don’t believe I provide strong leadership on any projects here, I’m just slow and smart, an incredibly frustrating boundary to participation.

Maybe talkgroups as channels means the effort is where strong leadership matters, not really the meta of a talkgroup.

@maiki

Ways of working openly and transparently — does the project have secret areas, or is everything out in the open?

I hope this is self-evident, but perhaps we can use a standard line reminding everyone everything is public conversation (and also when it isn’t!).

@maiki

Backchannels and watercoolers — are there ‘social’ spaces for members of the project to interact over and above those focused on project aims?

talkgroups can be these things. I like to link to other resources from the about topic. Other talkgroups (think of the overlap between Mediaclub and Gaming, or Webcraft, Science and Technology, and Digital Safety), jabber conferences, websites, federated media accounts, those sorta things.

@maiki

Celebration of milestones — does the project recognise the efforts and input of volunteers?

At first I’m like, aw, I so am not good at celebrating achievements. It’s part of “not a strong leader”. But then I thought: maybe just discussing topics as we close them, and our liberal use of fun badges fills in that spot. I mean, it’s entirely possible maiki started talkgroup as an augmented reality game, but is too lazy to commit…

[maiki]

@tim

I am 100% fine with dumping it all in one category of “failed groups”.

I was answering your point, so at the time I didn’t mention: damn dawg, that’s cold! (But only maybe because I have made most of them, historically; maybe someone else will reign supreme at “failed groups”!)

[maiki]

Quick link for oldest topics: http://archive.v1.talkgroup.xyz/latest?ascending=true&order=activity